Gee, on Insiders this morning, John Howard (there to talk about about Malcolm Fraser) was looking very healthy, and sounding articulate, generous and pretty reasonable.
At least, of course, until it came to the his "loyal to the party" line that Tony Abbott has great political skills and will make a recovery in the polls. (He's also been sucked into climate change skepticism; but I still suspect that he is persuadable out of the Dark Side on that issue in a way about 50% of Coalition parliamentarians are not.)
The thing is, hearing Howard talk just reminds us how pathetic Abbott is in comparison when it comes to sounding genuine and reasonable.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Malcolm Fraser
I think even hardened Laborites felt some sympathy for Malcolm Fraser when he broke up in his election concession speech in 1983. His continued active role in the matters of human rights and justice then rehabilitated him well and truly from the Left's point of view.
As for how he acquired the top job - if the Whitlam government was happening now, I would certainly be attuned to the way the Murdoch press was campaigning against him (I was only a teenager at the time!); but despite that, nothing has come out since then to challenge the view that it was (even when viewed from the Cabinet room) a genuinely shambolic government.
While I understand why the Left was so upset with the Dismissal and Kerr's role, I still find it hard to feel that the nation was badly done by, given that it quickly got to express its views at an election. As far as I can tell, there is little to suggest that the government could have righted itself, given just a bit more time. And while no one wants to see Governor-General's dismissing governments as a matter of routine, once or twice a century, provided an election is promptly held, is not a great problem for democracy. It's one of those cases where practicalities trump principles; sorry.
I know that Fraser's period in government is seen by some as a lost opportunity for economic reform and advancement, but really, my impression is that the whole world was in a confused post Vietnam War/oil shock funk. Criticisms about Fraser based on economic grounds just seem to be made with too much benefit of hindsight.
And I was thinking that yesterday before Fred Chaney turned up on Lateline and, after praising Fraser for all the humanitarian aspects of his leadership and post political career, he said more or less the same thing:
As for how he acquired the top job - if the Whitlam government was happening now, I would certainly be attuned to the way the Murdoch press was campaigning against him (I was only a teenager at the time!); but despite that, nothing has come out since then to challenge the view that it was (even when viewed from the Cabinet room) a genuinely shambolic government.
While I understand why the Left was so upset with the Dismissal and Kerr's role, I still find it hard to feel that the nation was badly done by, given that it quickly got to express its views at an election. As far as I can tell, there is little to suggest that the government could have righted itself, given just a bit more time. And while no one wants to see Governor-General's dismissing governments as a matter of routine, once or twice a century, provided an election is promptly held, is not a great problem for democracy. It's one of those cases where practicalities trump principles; sorry.
I know that Fraser's period in government is seen by some as a lost opportunity for economic reform and advancement, but really, my impression is that the whole world was in a confused post Vietnam War/oil shock funk. Criticisms about Fraser based on economic grounds just seem to be made with too much benefit of hindsight.
And I was thinking that yesterday before Fred Chaney turned up on Lateline and, after praising Fraser for all the humanitarian aspects of his leadership and post political career, he said more or less the same thing:
But, can I say something, Emma, about the economic thing, which is the great criticism that's levelled against Malcolm: he didn't undertake economic reform quickly enough. It seems to me that Malcolm governed at the most difficult time, a time of change between the Federation settlement that ran from 1910, from the time of Deakin, right through to the 1970s when we'd had high protection, we'd had centralised wage fixing, we'd had a sort of certain pillars - what have been described very well by people like Paul Kelly as the standard pillars of Federation up to that point. Malcolm was there when the big debate was on: did we need an entirely different approach to economic management? There was a huge debate in the Liberal Party under Malcolm's leadership. That debate between the wets and the dries was quite a bitterly-contested one, but by the end of Malcolm's prime ministership, the soul of the Liberal Party had moved to a more open economy, the heart and the mind of the Liberal Party had moved. And part of the success of the - the great success of the subsequent government, the Hawke Government - the Hawks and Keating Government, was that we as an opposition understood that we had to have a more open economy in Australia. So, I would say that Malcolm was there at that most awkward of periods, the period of change, he was on the cusp, and I think that his government and the party that he led at that time was an honourable part of moving into that new space.Another bit of praise for Fraser, this time from a rather unusual source (about whom I will post more soon) is at Michael Smith's blog.
EMMA ALBERICI: And yet, Malcolm Fraser was more inclined to allow the budget to - the deficit to blow out, whereas his Treasurer was a much more fiscal conservative-style Liberal, wouldn't you say?
FRED CHANEY: Well I think we see this battle in every government. I went through the papers that were released for the 1978 government, a government that I - I only became a minister at the end of that year, so they were new to me, and all the arguments about debt and how you would deal with the debt, all the arguments about immigration, refugees, are rehearsed in those documents so long ago. These are almost perpetual problems for government. I think that, as you'll see, any government is always having to moderate the pure economic arguments in favour of what the public are prepared to stand. I think that the Fraser Government could have moved the economic changes along more quickly, but that's the wisdom of hindsight. What I can recall is that in 1983, after we'd lost government, I remember reading in The Australian that Malcolm Fraser had been too tough on the unions. History gets rewritten all the time and I think that there was more movement and economic movement at the time of Fraser than is currently being admitted.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Philosophical humour
'Kant Is a Moron': Vandals Mark Philosopher's Former Home Near Kaliningrad — The Atlantic
There is fun to be had in the comments (which suggest the writer got his anti-Kantian philosopher wrong, too.)
There is fun to be had in the comments (which suggest the writer got his anti-Kantian philosopher wrong, too.)
Further topic suggestions for Senator Leyonhjelm
The Senator continued his needy, "look at me!" Parliamentary tactics yesterday by suggesting that Australian native animals be kept as pets. (Unfortunately, he seems to have overlooked the fact that most Australian marsupials have rather small brains and/or quite selective taste buds that go with their cute, furry bodies. Hasn't he ever heard the makers of Skippy talking about what it was like trying to work with a 'roo?)
He's probably going to run out of libertarian themed topics soon, so I think I'll have to make some suggestions:
a. Introducing the LeyonBit. A novel private currency David mints in his basement, featuring 6 different breads of moggies on the back side, and available for paying for IPA membership and lectures, as well as catnip.
b. Come visit Free Leydonia - created by lashing together a few left over oil platforms from Bass Strait, relocated to Sydney Harbour. A grand new basis for innovative society, unleashing the power of freedom and ammunition from government regulation and clothes (see next point.)
c. Relax the nudism laws - seriously, do you know how much wealthier both the poor and rich could be if we could be free from the tyranny of buying pants - or underpants for that matter. Wearing cats can keep you warm, anyway. And if you're offended by wrinkly old testicles on public display, that's your problem, not David's. There's far too much of this offence taking these days anyway.
I'm working on others...
He's probably going to run out of libertarian themed topics soon, so I think I'll have to make some suggestions:
a. Introducing the LeyonBit. A novel private currency David mints in his basement, featuring 6 different breads of moggies on the back side, and available for paying for IPA membership and lectures, as well as catnip.
b. Come visit Free Leydonia - created by lashing together a few left over oil platforms from Bass Strait, relocated to Sydney Harbour. A grand new basis for innovative society, unleashing the power of freedom and ammunition from government regulation and clothes (see next point.)
c. Relax the nudism laws - seriously, do you know how much wealthier both the poor and rich could be if we could be free from the tyranny of buying pants - or underpants for that matter. Wearing cats can keep you warm, anyway. And if you're offended by wrinkly old testicles on public display, that's your problem, not David's. There's far too much of this offence taking these days anyway.
I'm working on others...
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
What about Kansas?
It was disappointing to hear Fran Kelly on Radio National yesterday having a jolly interview with Art Laffer in which she did not raise the matter of Kansas and its disastrous, on going, tax cutting experiment.
Unemployment in Kansas - lagging badly.
Lost revenue in Kansas - credit rating lowered, roads and school funding cut.
Art Laffer - still defending it.
Unemployment in Kansas - lagging badly.
Lost revenue in Kansas - credit rating lowered, roads and school funding cut.
Art Laffer - still defending it.
No warning first?
BBC News - Judges sacked for watching porn
I can understand the public service, and private companies for that matter, having policies against use of work internet access to distribute pornography in any fashion, or the watching of any that is illegal, or in circumstances where any other staff could possibly see or know that a person was watching or using it. And a blanket approach certainly avoid any issues of trying to categorise less or more acceptable breaches of the rule.
But surely, everyone recognises there is a scale of seriousness in which such a blanket rule could be breached?
And it's not as if the access costs to the internet are likely to raise the issue of these judges wasting public money by (say) watching 5 minutes of vanilla porn when everyone else in the office has gone home, as against downloading some recent case law.
So one would imagine a detected breach should result in at least a warning first, and not an instant dismissal.
I can understand the public service, and private companies for that matter, having policies against use of work internet access to distribute pornography in any fashion, or the watching of any that is illegal, or in circumstances where any other staff could possibly see or know that a person was watching or using it. And a blanket approach certainly avoid any issues of trying to categorise less or more acceptable breaches of the rule.
But surely, everyone recognises there is a scale of seriousness in which such a blanket rule could be breached?
And it's not as if the access costs to the internet are likely to raise the issue of these judges wasting public money by (say) watching 5 minutes of vanilla porn when everyone else in the office has gone home, as against downloading some recent case law.
So one would imagine a detected breach should result in at least a warning first, and not an instant dismissal.
Ice plume explanation for Ceres?
Bright spots on Ceres could be active ice : Nature News & Comment
“What is amazing is that you can see the feature while the rim is still in the line of sight,” said Andreas Nathues, a planetary scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany. Nathues, who leads the team for one of the Dawn cameras, showedAn asteroid made of 1/4 ice? Might be a good place for settlement then, except for the fact there is next to no gravity, I suppose.
the images on 17 March at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas.
At dawn on Ceres, feature number 5 appears bright. By dusk, it seems to fade. That could
mean sunlight plays an important role — for instance, by heating up ice just beneath the surface and causing it blast off in some kind of plume r other feature.
Ceres is believed to be made of at least one-quarter ice, more so than most asteroids. Dawn’s goals to figure out where that ice resides and what role it plays in shaping the asteroid’s surface. One idea is that the ice is blanketed by a very thin layer of soil. The ice may occasionally squirt up in towering ‘cryovolcanoes’, thanks to internal pressures within the asteroid.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Taking nutters seriously?
EPA debunks 'chemtrails,' further fueling conspiracy theories ( video) - CSMonitor.com
I suppose it's better, on balance, that a government agency actually addresses conspiracy nutters; but it's a shame in a way that they are being treated as worthy of even addressing.
Perhaps the EPA's statement should have been more "calling a spade a spade"; something like "if you genuinely believe this global conspiracy, there's a good chance you need psychiatric help."
I suppose it's better, on balance, that a government agency actually addresses conspiracy nutters; but it's a shame in a way that they are being treated as worthy of even addressing.
Perhaps the EPA's statement should have been more "calling a spade a spade"; something like "if you genuinely believe this global conspiracy, there's a good chance you need psychiatric help."
Have to agree
Joe Hockey outclassed on Q&A, by an economist
Mind you, it's not hard for Joe to be "outclassed". He's just a windbag who shows no consistency in painting an economic picture. A poor ministerial performer out of a government full of them.
Update: Ha! Judith Sloan thinks Peter Martin is an idiot for saying Daley was more credible than Hockey, in a ranty, shouty, straw man and nonsense filled post at Catallaxy. (Why is she never this ranty on TV? Why won't she repeat some of her more ludicrous claims there, but adopt a pretence at being more moderate than she really is?)
Her argument that abolishing negative gearing would be "double taxation" is particularly hard to follow, and I had to search the internet to remind myself how she even comes up with it. In this takedown of her arguments, we get this explanation from JS:
In other of the collection of her "Greatest Hits of Nonsense": she won't read The Economist because it is "deeply Green, deeply Keynesian". (Belief in climate change as a serious issue is an automatic disqualifier for 'seriousness' for dear Judith.) And let's not forget, Australia's compulsory superannuation "is a tax". (Again, a completely individual use of terminology, as far as I can tell.)
Mind you, it's not hard for Joe to be "outclassed". He's just a windbag who shows no consistency in painting an economic picture. A poor ministerial performer out of a government full of them.
Update: Ha! Judith Sloan thinks Peter Martin is an idiot for saying Daley was more credible than Hockey, in a ranty, shouty, straw man and nonsense filled post at Catallaxy. (Why is she never this ranty on TV? Why won't she repeat some of her more ludicrous claims there, but adopt a pretence at being more moderate than she really is?)
Her argument that abolishing negative gearing would be "double taxation" is particularly hard to follow, and I had to search the internet to remind myself how she even comes up with it. In this takedown of her arguments, we get this explanation from JS:
To eliminate negative gearing would be to introduce double taxation. The flip side of an investor taking a loan to buy an asset is a lender providing the loan. And that lender pays taxation on the associated profit.As the article notes:
Sloan’s argument that “the flip side of an investor taking a loan to buy an asset is a lender providing the loan” and that to disallow the cost of borrowing by investors would amount to “double taxation” is ridiculous.
Using this logic, the private health insurance rebate is not really a cost to the budget, since it is income in the hands of health funds that in turn pay tax to the government. Using the same logic, childcare should be made tax deductible, since childcare centres would earn higher profits, part of which would also be remitted back to the government via company tax (not to mention the extra income taxes paid by childcare workers). To do otherwise would amount to double-taxation, according to Sloan’s twisted logic.It is plainly nonsense, involving Sloan creating what amounts to her special meaning for the phrase "double taxation".
In other of the collection of her "Greatest Hits of Nonsense": she won't read The Economist because it is "deeply Green, deeply Keynesian". (Belief in climate change as a serious issue is an automatic disqualifier for 'seriousness' for dear Judith.) And let's not forget, Australia's compulsory superannuation "is a tax". (Again, a completely individual use of terminology, as far as I can tell.)
Monday, March 16, 2015
Douthat on the poor
For Poorer and Richer - NYTimes.com
Ross Douthat makes a brief contribution to the debate about whether the "social crisis" amongst the American poor is a problem of economics or culture.
He seems to think both sides have some valid points, although (not to my surprise, given his constant Catholic angst about the sexual revolution) he leads more to blaming culture change.
He does make one point which, I think, has some validity, and it's one that has surfaced from time to time in the threads of the Catallaxy blog, before their permanent decline into name calling tedium and obsession:
Ross Douthat makes a brief contribution to the debate about whether the "social crisis" amongst the American poor is a problem of economics or culture.
He seems to think both sides have some valid points, although (not to my surprise, given his constant Catholic angst about the sexual revolution) he leads more to blaming culture change.
He does make one point which, I think, has some validity, and it's one that has surfaced from time to time in the threads of the Catallaxy blog, before their permanent decline into name calling tedium and obsession:
But recognizing that culture shapes behavior and that moral frameworks matter doesn’t require thundering denunciations of the moral choices of the poor. Instead, our upper class should be judged first — for being too solipsistic to recognize that its present ideal of “safe” permissiveness works (sort of) only for the privileged, and for failing to take any moral responsibility (in the schools it runs, the mass entertainments it produces, the social agenda it favors) for the effects of permissiveness on the less-savvy, the less protected, the kids who don’t have helicopter parents turning off the television or firewalling the porn.It's a worry, my giving quasi-support to the uber Catholics of Catallaxy who think the world started all going wrong in about 1960; but Catholicism and economic libertarianism were always philosophically incompatible. Bigger fool the Catholics for staying in that marriage of convenience, just because they think a mutual hatred of a third party should keep them happy together.
Hello, Thomas
Edison Worked on a Spirit Phone to Record Voices of the Dead | Mysterious Universe
I think I've heard about this before, but I didn't recall that he had been happy to explain all about it in the first edition of his memoir.
I think I've heard about this before, but I didn't recall that he had been happy to explain all about it in the first edition of his memoir.
Probably a good sign that the policy is OK
Rupert Murdoch blasts Malcolm Turnbull over media reform
But, seeing I have trouble keeping fresh in mind the arcane world of media ownership and broadcast rights in Australia, maybe I'm wrong...
But, seeing I have trouble keeping fresh in mind the arcane world of media ownership and broadcast rights in Australia, maybe I'm wrong...
Unintentionally amusing comment
'Horsewoman of the Apocalypse': Liberals defend Peta Credlin against text attack
Julie Bishop commenting on this story:
Julie Bishop commenting on this story:
"It's very colourful language," Ms Bishop told Sky News.
"It's deeply unfortunate it has been said and been made public.
"The less the internal workings of the Liberal Party are made public, the better off for everybody."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)