Archive for January, 2009

>Australian Prime Minister Rudd reaches back to the 1920s for economic inspiration

January 31, 2009 3 comments

>I tell you who is sleeping more soundly tonight and that’s former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.


Well, Whitlam’s government was a shambles that wrought chaos upon Australia’s economy that took many years to overcome.

Whitlam himself has long been viewed as the worst PM we’ve ever had (for the Seppos – think of him as an Aussie Jimmy Carter) and for good reason.

But with the current Labor PM Kevin Rudd’s 8,000+ word socialist screed published in the leftist The Monthly this week Whitlam can let out as big a sigh of relief as his 92 year old body will allow now that the mantle of Australia’s worst ever PM has been lifted from him by Rudd’s unbelievable incompetence.

Andrew Bolt pointed out that when Kevin Rudd was wooing the Australian public in the run up to the federal election of 2007 he described himself as an ‘economic conservative’.

So how’s this for economic conservatism?

KEVIN RUDD has denounced the unfettered capitalism of the past three decades and called for a new era of “social capitalism” in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.

In an essay to be published next week, the Prime Minister is scathing of the neo-liberals who began refashioning the market system in the 1970s, and ultimately brought about the global financial crisis.

“The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed, that the emperor has no clothes,” he writes of those who placed their faith in the corrective powers of the market.

“Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself.”

Mr Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day “social democrats” such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again. But he argues that “minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do” and advocates a new system that reaches beyond the 70-year-old interventionist principles of John Maynard Keynes.

“A system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate,” he writes.

“Social Capitalism in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily”… well that’s something to look forward to. Imagine being so clueless as to refer to FDR as the man who rebuilt capitalism after the Great Depression? That beggars belief.

Rudd has hardly covered himself in glory by sacrificing $10 billion of taxpayers’ money on the altar of Keynsian economics less than a couple of months ago in order to ensure the Australian economy didn’t follow the rest of the world into recession.

The result?

Australia is headed for an unavoidable recession and Rudd’s $10 billion giveaway has been destroyed. That’s what consumption does to money.

Good work, Kev.

If Kevin Rudd wants to go back just a few years before Keynes then there was a fellow who was lionized around the world for his success in balancing the public and government need, for intervening in the economy in just the right way so as to create national prosperity that hadn’t been seen before and for creating a ‘model society’.

Who was this man, this giant who Churchill dubbed ‘the world’s greatest living lawgiver’, who was lauded by Freud and Einstein, and who earned the praise of leading Fabian Socialists of the time such as H.G. Wells?

In 1927 the Literary Digest conducted an editorial survey posing the question: “Is there a dearth of great men?”

The person who topped the list, ahead of Lenin, Edison, Marconi, Orville Wright, Henry Ford and George Bernard Shaw was…

…Benito Mussolini.

I wonder whether Kevin Rudd would appreciate, intellectually, the comparison?

The way that he struts the world stage like a peacock on heat would suggest that rising to the level of ‘great man’ is one of his aspirations.

It was only after Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and alliance with Hitler that Mussolini’s name lost its lustre.

Is Kevin Rudd a fascist?

Obviously not…or not yet.

However, fascism can only ever be implemented by the left and for two major reasons.

Firstly, fascism is simply another form of socialism.

Secondly, only the left believes that more government is the answer to society’s problems.

Every time a new law is enacted citizens lose a little bit of liberty. The left has government expansion and enacting of laws built into its DNA, which it justifies on the grounds of fairness and equality of outcome. On the other hand the right values small government, individual liberty and equality of opportunity. It’s a bit hard to end up with a fascist state if those are one’s principles.

It’s easy to see why Keynesian economics has not withered on the vine of historical failure. Keynes’ remedy to a slowing economy is government spending and if there’s one thing that left wing governments don’t need any encouragement to do it’s increasing spending.

When the real remedy is to give tax cuts, reduce government and then wait for the market to correct itself it’s easy to see why populist leaders reach for the Gospel According to Keynes when the economy slows.

With the world heading into deeply troubled waters that most of the population have never experienced, the call for governments to ‘do something’ is going to become a deafening roar as unemployment and inflation head towards, or above, 10%.

Who among Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd has the backbone to do what is right rather than what is popular?

None of them, as far as I can see.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Australia, Politics

>Gitmo detainees. What would Che do?

January 30, 2009 1 comment

>The left has been bleating on for years about the ‘shocking’ treatment and ‘illegal’ detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

Never mind that Alain Grignard, deputy head of Brussels’ federal police anti-terrorism unit, said “At the level of the detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”

There is a reason that terrorists enter looking like they’ve caught a serious dose of anorexia and leave looking like the Michelin Man.

Now that Obama is president and has order the closure of Guantanamo within 12 months the question is what should be done with them?

The left wants to give the terrorists the same rights as US citizens and moving them to the US mainland.

Leaving aside that extraordinary position, what is a very possible outcome of doing so?

Let’s imagine for a moment that one of the masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is moved to somewhere like Fort Leavenworth.

Let’s suppose that his lawyer appeals that his client has been denied fair justice because he wasn’t read his Miranda rights.

Then let’s suppose that the court upholds the appeal and orders KSM released into the community. You’d think there’d be a heap of Americans who’d want to do him some physical damage and perhaps continue his waterboarded simulated drowning except this time without the board and without the simulation. No doubt there’d be hundreds of liberal organisations who would be prepared to protect him. Columbia University would be a good place to try if the United Nations turned him away.

Naturally, KSM would fear for his life if he were returned to his homeland.

So what does he do?

He claims political asylum…

Farfetched? Maybe, but it just goes to show that people haven’t thought this whole issue through very hard.

But back to the main question.

Given that the left wants to shut down Gitmo then what should be done with the prisoners.

Is there someone who has shown the way previously on what to do to prisoners?

Someone who the left looks to for inspiration?

Someone lionized by Hollywood?

Of course there is…

…Ernesto Che Guevara.

What would Che do?

Oh, yeah.

He’d have them shot.

And then want to make sure they were dead.

Which just goes to show how leftwing positions tend to clash with themselves.

Mind you, it’s worth remembering that under the Geneva Conventions the US had every right to execute them rather than send them to Gitmo.

How would China or Russia have treated them?

Or even France or Germany?

Not anywhere near as well as the United States has, that’s for sure.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Culture, Politics

>Climate Faithful made from 100% pure hypocrite

January 29, 2009 Leave a comment

>Has there ever been a crowd more in the do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do camp than the pack of hypocrites known as the Climate Faithful?

Seriously, Al Gore is somehow hailed as an oracle while at the same time consuming more energy than most outback towns.

Leaders all around the world preach abstinence while practising indulgence and yet are not called on it by a mainstream media apparently completely in the tank with the idea of socialising Western economies.

How, then, does one recognise a Climate Hypocrite, someone who is not prepared to lead by example by reducing their own ‘carbon footprint’?

Here are some signs:

  • They partake of carbonated drinks – soda pop, soft drinks, beer – all release CO2 into the atmosphere.
  • They drive a car instead of walking, riding a bike or taking public transport when they can. Cars are big, gassy things and even Climate Bling like the Prius still have a negative impact on the environment.
  • They travel on aircraft while whining on that we must all cut back on our overseas trips.
  • They eat imported food. Oh, dear, how could they? How could they buy food that has needed large
  • amounts of oil to transport it from a faraway place?
  • They turn on the heater or air-conditioner. I don’t care how hot or cold it is; if you’re going to be true to your climate beliefs heating and air-conditioning is out.
  • They use plastic shopping bags.

Remember, these are the same type of people for whom Chickenhawk became the insult du jour to refer to anyone who agreed with the war in Iraq but hadn’t joined the military.

So what term do we apply to this lot?

Weather hawk?

Climate rat?

Oh, that’s right, plain old hypocrite will do just fine.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>Australian culture blamed for African’s killing of Asian man

January 28, 2009 3 comments

>I have been giving the UK a decent bollocking over the last few months because of its cultural capitulation to the violent, racist, misogynist terrorism supporters and perpetrators in its midst known as the Muslim community.

However, here in Australia we have our own problems, as exhibited by the following ridiculous story

An African migrant who viciously bashed a father to death with a full bottle of wine in a random attack has been jailed for eight years.

Leong Lim, 45, was walking home from a pokies venue when he was attacked in a Springvale park and repeatedly hit over the head with a bottle of Passion Pop on March 3 2007.

A Victorian Supreme Court judge said on Wednesday that Australian culture was partly to blame for the attack.

The court was told the 16-year-old attacker, identified only as AO, had been drinking in the park with his friends in the lead-up to the bashing.

Mr Lim, a Malaysian father-of-four who was in Australia to make money to send to his family, died of a severe head injury.

AO also stole Mr Lim’s wallet and mobile phone.

He was originally charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery.

On Wednesday, he was ordered to serve a minimum of four years in prison.

The court was told AO came to Australia from Ethiopia at the age of 12 to flee violence between troops from his homeland and Somalia.

He witnessed people being killed and his family lived in extreme poverty, the court was told.

But Victorian Supreme Court Justice Paul Coghlan said it was a culture of drinking alcohol AO learnt after he arrived in Australia that led to him being in the park that night.

“Drinking of this kind is more a product of our culture than the culture and background from which you come,” Justice Coghlan said.

“It is imperative that our community take a stand.

“It needs to become clear to our young men and women that enjoyment of life and position in society is not to be measured or driven by ever-increasing consumption of alcohol.”

Justice Coghlan described the attack on Mr Lim as “vicious and sustained”.

He said AO bent over Mr Lim’s body and shook it.

But Justice Coghlan said AO, who was tried as a child in the Supreme Court, had shown some remorse.

The court was told AO was convicted and fined last year in the Children’s Court over a similar attack in which he seriously injured his victim. That attack happened just six days after Mr Lim’s killing.

Although he ordered AO to serve a minimum of four years in prison, he will be eligible to serve the sentence in a Youth Justice Centre.

It’s terrific that the piece of human excrement showed ‘some’ remorse, isn’t it?

What has happened to society when a clearly violent individual is able to get away with murder by receiving such as short sentence?

How is it that someone who had supposedly fled violence and death should take advantage of the free society he now finds himself in to commit murder?

Why is it that when an African kills an Asian a Victorian Supreme Court Justice can still find a way to blame the attack on Australian culture?

That says far more about the culture of the court than of Australia.

The Somali and Ethiopian communities have made quite a name for themselves in Victoria for the level of violence attributed to their members, a fact that has been scandalously covered up by the Victoria Police but has come to light due to the good work of a few journalists.

And talking of communities, the fact is that these groups stick together like glue and hardly interact outside their group (apart from driving cabs, as they seem to have taken most of those jobs).

So how does it come about that in just 4 years an Ethiopian lad can be so corrupted by the Australian culture of enjoying a drink?

Where are his parents in all of this?

Why am I and my fellow law abiding, decent Australians having our names dragged through the mud for the actions of one piece of murderous crap like AO?

AO needs to be put away for the rest of his life and Justice Paul Coghlan needs a good kick in the arse.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Australia, Crime, Culture

>How can there even be climate change skeptics?

January 27, 2009 30 comments

>There’s been a mild kerfuffle in the climate change interested blogosphere due to retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon’s statements on serial Climate Fraudster James Hansen and NASA’s climate models.

NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,”

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,”

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

etc etc

Now, if you are one of those promoting the whole climate change scam then the onus is on you to definitively prove your position.

“Assertions without proof can be dismissed without proof” – Christopher Hitchens.

With each passing day the climate change scam is being revealed for all to see and, critically, the so called evidence is crumbling faster than the Larsen Ice Shelf isn’t.

For climate change to be something worth spending trillions of dollars of the world’s formerly strong economy on three conditions must be proven (not theorised):

1) temperatures are rising;
2) the rise is caused primarily by man made CO2 emissions; and
3) the consequences for the planet will be catastrophic.

Nearly everyone accepts 1) but 2) and 3) are far from proven. Luckily for Climate Astrologers at NASA and elsewhere else that the Democrats have porked up the non-stimulus bill with hundreds of millions of dollars for climate models so they can be back-fitted and tweaked into proving exactly what politicians, envirofascists and financial industry players who’ll make millions from trading carbon credits want to see.

But that’s not the point of this post.

The point is this.

How can John Theon, a well regarded atmospheric scientist, not believe in global warming?

How is it that highly, highly qualified scientists (with higher academic qualifications than most of the Hokey Stick team, for example) do not believe in catastrophic global warming?

How is it that Roy Spencer is a skeptic?

Or Bob Carter?

Or Tim Ball?

Or John Christy?

If ‘the science is settled’ and the proof is so definitive then how does it come about that people such as Christy who have been involved in the collection of climate data via satellites do not believe that there’s a problems?

If a spokesman for the Climate Industry would like to let me know how that’s possible then I’d be most appreciative.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>Is George W Bush’s speechwriter working for Obama?

January 26, 2009 3 comments

>While George W Bush was a disappointment to some of his supporters, especially for the increase in spending on his watch, I’m prepared to bet that Obama will be an even greater disappointment to those on the left.

He’s already made a number of appointments that have sent the kooks who comment at DailyKos and HuffPo nuts with Robert Gates’ extension as Defence Secretary being the most obvious; though he has appointed a few true nutjobs such as Susan Rice to the UN so the left still has some hope.

And if you think he’s really different from any other president then click on the following and check out how many times past presidents used the words hope and change in an inaugural address…

Since the inauguration there has been nothing but fawning praise for what he’s been saying.

But is it any different to what we’ve heard before?

I suspect it’s the way he says it and not what he’s saying.

Andrew Bolt has a list to compare…

Obama: Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.

Bush: Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists.

Obama: We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence…

Bush: We will work with our friends and allies across the world to defend our way of life.

Obama: . . . the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free…

Bush: Freedom is a universal gift of almighty God.

Obama: America must play its role in ushering a new era of peace…

Bush: We can usher in a new era of enhanced prosperity and peace.

Obama: We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers …As the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself…

Bush: America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is practised and protected here, because we are one country.

And, most crucially:

Obama: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more…

Bush: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression . . . When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Obama: To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist…

Bush: The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know to serve your people, you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

In the end, all presidents lose popularity and it’s just the degree that counts, as shown in the following graph:

You can see why the comparison to Truman is so apt. Going on popularity Truman would be ranked way down there, along with Nixon, but what he did has been shown to have been very wise and he is now ranked highly among US presidents.

What’s also interesting is how high Eisenhowser was for all of his term and the Clinton became more popular (off a low starting point) as his presidency progressed in spite of telling porky pies about Monica Lewinsky.

(Nothing Follows)
Categories: Politics, United States

>Sunday night rock ‘n’ roll covers

January 24, 2009 Leave a comment

>“Mad World” is a song by the British band Tears for Fears. Written by Roland Orzabal and sung by bassist Curt Smith, it was the band’s third single release and first chart hit, reaching #3 on the UK Singles Chart in November 1982. Both “Mad World” and its b-side, “Ideas As Opiates”, would turn up on the band’s debut LP The Hurting the following year. The song would eventually become Tears for Fears’ first international success, reaching the Top 40 in several countries between 1982 and 1983.

Two decades later, the song made a popular resurgence when it was covered by composers Michael Andrews and Gary Jules for the soundtrack to the movie Donnie Darko. This version reached no.1 in the UK in December 2003.

Tears For Fears were really a very good band. Songs like Mad World, Shout and Change set them apart from other artists in the 1980s – rock music’s ‘lost decade’.

The Original – Tears For Fears

The Cover – Gary Jules

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Music