The Wall Street Journal - yes, another Murdoch owned disinformation outlet - has editorialised excitedly that Hilary Clinton has to be condemned by history for starting the "Trump-Russia collusion" narrative.
Philip Bump explains at length why this is ahistorical nonsense. But millions of wingnuts will feel vindicated.
Story old as time - at least if you define "time" as about 20 years - there's a large slab of conservatives (and even libertarians) who can't support the Liberals anymore because they hitched their wagon to a giant conspiracy theory about the greatest environmental/economic issue facing the world (with the support of a mere handful of scientific contrarians) and they have an inability to recognise, or admit, that they chose wrong. Hence we get post-election comments like this:
Cassie of Sydney says:
I have just written this on DB’s forum…
For over fifty years ordinary people across the West have stood back and allowed the Marxists to steadily infiltrate our institutions, academia, church, entertainment, education, MSM and social media and so on, even the monarchy is now a Marxist mouthpiece. And over the last two decades we’ve seen how this infiltration has ramped because of the scam known as climate change. This scam called climate change has been a perfect vehicle for the Marxists to fully indoctrinate our young and our impressionable. They’ve succeeded beyond their wildest dreams because most ordinary people have stood back and allowed it to happen, even politicians and parties on the centre and the right across the West have refused to engage in pushback, fightback, rebuttal or discussion about the science of climate change, more often than not they’ve naively, gullibly and stupidly just accepted the far-left false narratives. A few years ago, at a conservative function, I asked a Liberal politician in attendance whether the Liberal party would do with gas what they’ve done with coal. In other words, will the Liberal party just sit back and allow the demonisation of gas the same way they sat back and allowed the demonisation of the the one fuel that has lifted more people across the globe out of poverty in the last two hundred years than in previous human history. Whilst he agreed with me, his response was to just shrug his shoulders…..and you see, ladies and gentlemen, therein lies the rub. Why should I vote for supposedly centre-right, right-wing parties and politicians that just shrug their shoulders and refuse to fight and refuse to stand up about anything, and not just about fossil fuels, but about this insidious transgender nonsense, about free speech, about fiscal responsibility, about religious freedom and so on? Why? All the Liberal party has done is swallow this Marxism, it makes most of the so called Liberals we elect no different to those in Labor.
There is no arguing with this - and the Liberals have finally paid the price for not telling this significant slab of their "normal" support base that they are simply wrong and have to face up to it.
That comment, by the way, appeared at Currency Lad's blog, where he has (of course) posted that the problem for the Liberals is that they are not conservative enough. All of the old Catallaxy crew are applauding him, leading my reader Homer to make the following astute comment:
Not Trampis says:
oh dear reality bites.
If CL was right then the UAP vote would have gone gangbusters. Sorry only the morons voted for it.
If the Liberals cannot win back the teal seats then they will never win government. If you think Dutton can do that I have some Harbour bridge shares to sell to you.
I have never thought any party should have more then two terms. The Liberals have a problem. Unlike the ALP they have little talent. just look as who has been proposed as leader.
In terms of the ALP losing we can throw some scenarios out. They won’t become a divisive rabble like last time if only because the NSW right neither have any ‘strategic geniuses’ like last time and after the Keneally fiasco little credibility.
It is unlikely like Abbott Albo is not up to the job as his record as a minster is okay BUT even if you disagree his cabinet will will chockful of talent.
If you are thinking we are entering conditions to the early 70s then both Treasury and his ministerial team ham have the experience to learn from that.We will need a change of government two elections from now and if the Liberals think being more ‘conservative’ ( a true conservative would support a federal ICAC as it wouls make instituions more open and transparent as they should be.) they are living on another planet.
Not sure that I agree that you ideally have a change of government every 3rd term - but otherwise, a sensible comment.
Here's James Allen, in the Spectator (Australian edition, which has always been trash), complaining about the weekend election:
The only way to show your displeasure with your own side of politics – because you can’t even stay home when there’s also compulsory voting – is to preference the other side. I did that this past Saturday, practising what I preached.
As a law professor (and one who appears to unfortunately decided to call Australia his permanent home), I would have thought he would be more careful to explain that, yes, you have to "vote", but you can always "vote" for no one. Or cop the fine of (I believe) $20 and stay in bed all day.
But he also bemoans this:
Many may not like that fact, but it’s already happened in Canada, Britain, and America. Our voting system merely slowed it down here. The truth is that the well-off rich (and I generalise of course) now vote solidly Left – maybe because they can afford to and like to virtue-signal? They vote more like Canberra public servants than anything else.
He may like to consider other possibilities: such as "the rich" having an education level high enough to see through the culture war/conspiracy denial of reality, not to mention authoritarian and wannabe be fascist bent of current American brand of conservatism, and reject it.
Look, I pointed out back in 2019 that to Allen, evidence is optional. He encapsulates what has gone completely wrong with the Right.
Barnaby Joyce quoted in the AFR today:
Barnaby Joyce has put the next Liberal leader on notice that he will “bargain hard” for extra National Party shadow positions after the junior Coalition partner withstood an outgoing political tide by retaining all its seats and gaining one senator.
Chiding some inside the Liberal Party for their failure to manage the fight against independents, Mr Joyce also blasted the teal independents movement for doing “an exceptional job of decapitating the moderates out of the Liberals”.
“I’m hoping they’re happy with their work,” Mr Joyce told The Australian Financial Review on Sunday. “They’ve managed to get rid of three gay guys, one Aboriginal and one Asian. Was that their game plan?”
The Nationals are on track to retain every one of their 16 lower house seats and will pick up a NSW Senate spot, taking their total to 22. By contrast the Liberals look set to lose more than 20 Senate and lower house seats, dramatically decreasing the relative weight of the senior partner.
Saturday’s Liberal Party devastation was concentrated in southern states, turning Queensland into the Coalition’s bulwark. One analyst said the Queensland LNP was set to provide as much as 40 per cent of the Coalition’s national total. If Peter Dutton survives in his seat, there’s every chance Queensland also supplies the Coalition’s leader.
Well, if there's one way to ensure a resurgence of support for the LNP in the big cities where it crashed, it's to have the climate change denying (or at the very least, downplaying) Nationals, led by a guy who faced an internal investigation into drunken misbehaviour with a woman, get more influence in the Opposition ranks! [Sarcasm, of course.]
I see in the SMH that Barnaby had been making brave predictions about the result on the election day:
Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce started the night in a bullish mood, telling Channel 7 shortly after voting closed that the polls published during the campaign had missed a groundswell of support for the conservative side of politics.
“I think you’re going to be in for a big surprise. I think that the pollsters have got it wrong again,” Mr Joyce said.
“I think there were two different elections on here, the regional Australia election and urban Australia election and urban Australia election. I think in regional Australia there is a sense of anger.”
And now the question on every reader's mind: does the election result mean I still see a need for a Reverse Pol Pot policy to de-populate the rural areas, as the only hope to actually crush stupid Right wing ideas? Well, yeah, but sorry: if the people of New England can't see their way to vote out Barnaby, I don't see much alternative...
Update: a tweet summary of a Bernard Keane article at Crikey:
%20Home%20_%20Twitter.png)
From the article itself:
Even a moment’s glance at the election results shows that Antic, Canavan, Credlin and Bolt are either incapable of simple maths or deliberately misrepresenting the outcome.
Australia shifted towards climate action, integrity and respect for women, dramatically. The Liberals lost seats to the teals, to Labor, to the Greens. Labor lost seats to the Greens, too. On the results so far, no one, anywhere, lost a seat to a more right-wing candidate. But there are plenty of ex-Liberals who lost seats to a more progressive one.
There was no shift to the right. Credlin’s claim that “one-time Coalition supporters … moved in droves to splinter parties on the right” is simply wrong. One Nation lost votes compared to 2019, despite fielding candidates in far more seats, and Hanson may lose her Senate spot. The main beneficiary of the fall in the LNP vote in Queensland was the Greens, who will take Ryan.
This Australian version of the Big Lie is the first stage of a war for the future of the federal Liberal Party, with the far-right unable to resist the opportunity to exploit the removal of so many more moderate MPs to drive the federal party away from climate action and towards culture wars, division and attacks on women and minorities.
At the centre of it will be the foreign political party News Corp. Despite its irrelevance to mainstream Australia being demonstrated by the election result, the Murdochs will continue to wield significant influence within a purged Coalition, and the company will seize on its status as an opposition party. From yesterday, the Murdoch campaign of regime change in Australia began — it’s just that the campaign extends to the Coalition as well as a Labor government.
Here's the link.
and:
the sprawling Queensland electorate Maranoa is the country's most conservative, according to Vote Compass.
It is the fourth consecutive election where Maranoa — which covers 42 per cent of Queensland and takes in Charleville, Cunnamulla, Dalby, Roma, Kingaroy, Stanthorpe, Winton and Warwick — has been named Australia's most right-leaning seat.
It is held by Liberal-National Party MP David Littleproud on a margin of more than 25 per cent.
If I were retired and playing in the shed, I would have a large map spread out with the aerial bombing targets worked out.
Update: Hmm. The task is going to take a lot more munitions that I realised. I think this is a colour coded map for how the electorates looked after the 2019 election:
I grew up on the north side of Brisbane, and in 1967 the big local news was the opening of Toombul Shopping Centre, one of the very first large scale suburban shopping malls in Brisbane. (I thought Westfield Indooroopilly may have opened first, but now that I check, it followed a few years after.)
A few things I remember about Toombul when it opened:
* the big T out the front:
* And in the smallish outside play area there was a metal cage rocket ship with (I think) 3 levels to climb up. This is apparently it:
I recall a milkbar making very nice thickshakes, too. And donuts - I would say that I probably ate my first cinnamon and sugar fried donut, made by an automated machine, from there.
My Mum was very fond of the place, and quickly abandoned the old (what the English would call) "high street" supermarket at Nundah and drove the short distance further for the convenience of "all under one roof" shopping. She went there almost daily - a shopping habit from a time of smaller refrigerators and larger families requiring constant re-stocking.
I haven't been inside it for many, many years (in fact, I'm not sure I have ever been back since I returned to live in Brisbane in 1995, settling on a different side of the city.) But looking at the internet, I see that over the years, it had cinemas added, and the sort of mid range eating areas you get around mall cinemas these days. Although high end retailer David Jones had left years ago, I presume it was still the central shopping district for the surrounding suburbs. (Westfield Chermside is bigger, and more up market, but it's still quite a drive away.) Not sure when this photo was taken, but it gives an idea of its not inconsiderable size:
But, this is what it looked like a couple of months ago:
I hadn't even realised that this had happened and that it's been closed since then! I mean, it always used to be prone to having a "lower car park" beside the canal flood, but I don't think that in 2011, when Brisbane had more extensive river flooding than this year, the waters made it into the shopping centre at all.
This has only come to my attention because of the news yesterday that Mirvac, the current owner of the centre, has decided to not re-open it. They say the damage is too extensive, and they are considering what to do with the site. All leases have been terminated (about 140, I think I heard.)
This is pretty extensive and remarkable damage, and I would presume that something grander will arise from the flood plain. But it just goes to show the extent of urban damage that is going to be caused by increased flooding under climate change.
Elon Musk is in the news, promoting a Trumpist wingnut meme that Biden is so mentally deficient, he doesn't know what he's doing:
Musk, who said he has voted "overwhelmingly for Democrats," slammed the Democratic Party and Biden in particular. He suggested that Biden is something of an empty suit.
"The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter," the Tesla CEO said. "The path to power is the path to the teleprompter."
"I do feel like if somebody were to accidentally lean on the teleprompter, it's going to be like Anchorman," the CEO added, referencing the 2004 film in which Ron Burgundy reads whatever is written on the teleprompter, even if it would ruin his career.
"This administration doesn't seem to get a lot done," Musk said. "The Trump administration, leaving Trump aside, there were a lot of people in the administration who were effective at getting things done."
As with his naive view that "more free speech on Twitter will cure misinformation and propaganda" line, this just shows he is an intellectual lightweight of the dangerous rich libertarian kind. (Ultimately, only interested in his own pet projects, and willing to aid the return of dangerously authoritarian political leadership if it will indulge him.)
Update: About Musk and his honesty, a post at Hot Air discusses the Twitter purchase (and notes that Musk has announced he is voting for the party that's infected with Trumpist authoritarianism and denial of reality) -
Ed wrote earlier about Musk’s latest complaint, that Twitter supposedly hasn’t been forthcoming about the number of spam bots on the site. Bloomberg’s Matt Levine makes a compelling case that that’s the purest of BS, beginning with the fact that one of the reasons Musk gave when he announced his offer for Twitter was that the site supposedly needed new leadership to … clean up all the spam bots. Levine thinks he’s trying to welsh on the deal. His offer price of $54.20 per share seems too high now that various tech stocks, including Twitter and Tesla, have tanked over the past month. Musk’s alleged concern about bots reeks of a nonfinancial excuse to walk away now that he’s overextended. And there are no good remedies for Twitter if he does, Levine writes.
I reckon (just as many people say in the comments following) that this idea has a distinct air of "too good to be true" about its claimed cost and efficiency, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless:
One thing I am curious about:it is very reliant on components being surrounded by argon. How rare is argon? [Answer - not very - "Argon is the third-most abundant gas in the Earth's atmosphere, at 0.934% (9340 ppmv)"] I assume it's relatively cheap, then.
But what happens if the argon gas escapes and you get normal O2 around the super hot elements of this plant? At least there's no radioactivity involved, even if there is some kind of explosion.
By far the best article I have read about the "manifesto" of the Buffalo shooter is by Jeff Sharlet at Vanity Fair:
The Terrifying Familiarity of the Buffalo Shooting Suspect's Extremist Creed
Worth clearing your cookies to read it, if you have to.
Update: worth reading the Slate article on the Tucker Carlson attempt at deflection from blame for his promulgating the same racist theory that inspired the shooter (even allowing that the shooting never cites Carlson or Fox News as a source or inspiration):
Since taking over Bill O’Reilly’s old primetime slot in 2017, Carlson has come to embrace “Trumpism without Trump,” as the Times put it. That ideology, in Carlson’s interpretation, means a steady diet of paranoid nativism modulated by seething contempt for anyone who is not a paranoid nativist. In the world of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the terms “racist” and “racism” are almost only ever bestowed in bad faith by leftists hoping to chill public discourse and cow conservatives out of expressing and/or acting on their beliefs. And so it was both depressing and predictable that during Monday night’s show—his first show since the shootings in Buffalo—Carlson heaped scorn on those pundits and observers who had dared to suggest that the mass murderer who openly announced his own racism was, first and foremost, a racist.
In his monologue, Carlson argued that the top-line takeaway about Gendron should not be that he was racist, but that he was insane—and, implicitly, that the unsung villains of the Buffalo attack were the liberal pundits who had had the gall to connect two very obvious and proximate dots. “The truth about Payton Gendron does tell you a lot about the ruthlessness and dishonesty of our political leadership,” said Carlson. “Within minutes of Saturday’s shooting, before all of the bodies of those 10 murdered Americans had even been identified by their loved ones, professional Democrats had begun a coordinated campaign to blame those murders on their political opponents. ‘They did it!’ they said, immediately. ‘Payton Gendron was the heir to Donald Trump,’ they told us.”
A quick Google search for the term “Payton Gendron was the heir to Donald Trump” indicates that no one other than Tucker Carlson himself is actually saying those specific words or anything particularly like it. Likewise, no one credible is saying that anyone other than Gendron is directly responsible for the attack. Carlson surely knows this, just as he surely knows that his viewers do not particularly care whether or not the things he says are fair, accurate, or logical. What his viewers want is to be made to feel like they are the true victims of every real or imaginary outrage that makes the news.
On Fox News, and especially on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the scariest attacks are always those being systemically waged by liberals on conservative values. Even in the immediate wake of a definitional racist massacre, committed by a person whose stated ideology was not entirely dissimilar from ideas that are routinely voiced on its own airwaves, Carlson could not help implying that the real victims here are, perhaps, the conservatives whose speech might be trammeled by liberals hoping to capitalize on the shooting for their own political end
“So, what is hate speech? Well, it’s speech that our leaders hate,” Carlson said on Monday night. “So because a mentally ill teenager murdered strangers, you cannot be allowed to express your political views out loud. That’s what they’re telling you. That’s what they’ve wanted to tell you for a long time.” Implicit in this response is the argument that while Gendron’s views and Carlson’s views share a lot of overlap, it would be unfair to criticize Carlson for holding and professing those viewpoints, because, in this construction, the racist opinions and the racist violence are not directly linked. (This sidestep ignores that white supremacist ideology is inherently violent.) While the host, in part, was deflecting, the deflection was also a force of habit. The meta stories that Fox News has always liked to tell when the actual news is inconvenient or unpleasant for the right have, over time, become virtually the only stories that the network is able to tell in an era when the Republican Party is at its moral nadir.
It ends:
In a humane and functional polity, our top political leaders and opinion-makers would want to promote a responsible, fact-based discourse; would see nothing controversial in acknowledging hard truths about American history and in condemning racism in the past, present, and future; and would generally try to avoid voicing and normalizing the sorts of spurious cultural grievances that might ever motivate some crackpot to go shoot up a supermarket. This is not the polity we have today. Instead, we’ve got one where spurious cultural grievances are the only grievances worth nurturing, a world where the only people worth directly condemning are those who dare to call racism by its name. The dead, like the truth, are merely collateral damage.
Oh, it seems as a subscriber to the Washington Post, I can "gift" 10 articles a month, including by linking. I should do that more.
Here's a column about the rise of "Christian Nationalism" in Pennsylvania, and the GOP generally. An extract:
With his motto “Free indeed!” — an excerpt from scripture that says freedom from sin is found in Jesus — Mastriano is a hero to some in this swing state who say they are fed up with church leaders as well as political parties they perceive as weak-willed, and with debates about religious liberty and the advantages of a diverse democracy. Fueled by a generation of religious leaders arguing that Christianity is persecuted in America, the new movement wants to see a more explicit, constitutionally approved dominance of “Christianity” — which to them means conservative politically, theologically and socially. They see themselves in a spiritual battle with Satan.
“The forces of darkness are hitting us really hard right now,” Mastriano told a few hundred people last month at a church parking lot rally in Pennsburg. “We’re going to bring the state back to righteousness, this is our day, our hour to take our state back and renew the blessings of America.”
His wife, Rebbie, then told the crowd that her husband’s opponents are not just challenging another candidate but God. “When you’re against God’s plan, there is nothing that will stop it, and they are very worried right now that there is nothing that’s going to stop this.”
Other speakers emphasized to the crowd, which included a man in a Minuteman costume holding a flag, that this Christian vision is what the Founders intended. “The Constitution prevents the government from imposing on the church. It doesn’t say anything about religion imposing itself on the state,” Rick Crump, a Christian branding expert and community organizer, told the rally.
This ethos is very different from earlier iterations of the Religious Right who were looking to engage with — even win at — mainstream politics, some experts say.
I think called it "Christian Nationalism" is too soft - calling it Christofascism gives a more accurate name.
Yes, I'm enjoying the threat being made that if people "punish" the LNP for never dealing with its climate change denying, culture warring, "conservative" wing (which I would still guess accounts for about 30% of the government - a large enough slab that is impossible to ignore), it will only cause the Party to go further in that direction.
That would be a good thing, according to gormless Mitchell:
By the way, do you have to be at least 70 to write opinion at that paper?
The threat summarised in this one:
I wonder if Barnaby is still smiling about this:
It's been a long time since I ate at Grill'd, but I'm pretty sure they used to sell the Beyond Burger as their imitation burger.
On the weekend, I was there again, and see they now sell the Impossible burger, which I have never tried before. (I see from Googling that this is a relatively recent change.)
So I tried it in the basic burger version, and it was very, very good. They've really nailed that texture element, which I used to say was the main thing that you could tell was different from real beef. And the taste seemed indistinguishable to me.
I got home and told my fake meat skeptic son that, along with my "reverse Pol Pot" plan (de-populate regional areas so to stop the spread of Right wing ideas), my next law as Benevolent Dictator would have to be to ban beef burgers. There simply is no need for them any more.
Chicken nuggets will probably be next in the firing line, since I've seen a few videos of people tasting plant based ones which they say are indistinguishable.
Gee, its hard not to interpret this as s sign that the internal polling (and focus groups) must be looking disastrous for Morrison and the LNP:
But the Prime Minister has changed his tune as he enters the final week of the campaign, trailing in the polls and momentum swinging behind Labor.
"I know (that) Australians know I can be a bit of a bulldozer when it comes to issues," he conceded.
"As we go into this next period on the other side of the pandemic, I know things that are going to have to change with the way I do things."
A promise to change, if given the chance, "because we're moving into a different time, a time of opportunity."
In campaign terms, it is a tectonic shift.
%20Home%20_%20Twitter.png)
%20_%20Twitter.png)
