An email which I sent to 2UE’s Mike Jeffreys a little bit after 1am
Good morning Mike,
I’ve been following the US debt talks with some interest and have found Obama’s fearmongering and unwillingness to do anything useful quite frustrating.
I forget the exact figures, but as I understand it, if the debt limit is not raised and the US government has to rely on incoming funds from taxes etc, then they would not have to default as they would have enough funds to keep up their debt repayments, pay the social security and Medicare bills, plus the military payroll, and might have a couple spare cents left over.
Obama (and his colleagues, the detestable Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader in particular) has been going on and on about how if the debt limit isn’t raised, the social security and Medicare bills won’t be paid, which is a blatant lie and pure fearmongering.
He has also been trotting out the familiar line about millionaires not paying enough tax which is even sillier because even if the US government was to seize the entire income of millionaires, they would still have a massive budgetary imbalance.
The problem is overzealous spending by the government. The Republicans passed a “cut, cap and balance” plan in the House of Representatives which would have cut wasteful spending programs, capped the government’s spending at a percentage of GDP and would also have required a vote on a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to have a balanced budget like the majority of state and local governments, and would have raised the debt limit to give the government time to implement the plan. Not surprisingly, the Democrats blocked it in the Senate because they’re addicted to big government and spending.
I’m hopeful that something similar to cut, cap and balance does get passed as merely raising the debt limit will just push the problem further down the road when it’s harder to fix, and raising taxes will just further slow any economic recovery.
Have a wonderful day Mike.
Regards,
Samuel Gordon-Stewart
From the fortified bunker of work, Canberra
Then public transport costs wouldn’t go up, and would probably go down.
COMMUTERS could be hit with public transport fare increases of up to $150 a year when the carbon tax kicks in, confidential state government figures show.
[..]
the NSW Treasury estimated that the potential fare rises for all modes of public transport in NSW alone – due to increased electricity costs for trains and fuel costs for buses and ferries – could be expected at an average 3.4 per cent.
[..]
[NSW Premier Barry] O’Farrell said yesterday it was “crazy” that public transport would be hit by the tax when petrol for cars would be exempt: “This will create more pollution and defeat the whole purpose of a carbon tax.
“The federal government is crazy if it thinks this tax is going to reduce carbon emissions when it will lead to higher public transport fares and create an incentive for people to use their cars.”
Precisely Barry. We get told that car drivers are evil and public transport users are saints, and yet it’s those “saints” who pay a bigger share of the tax, which will be more likely to encourage them to drive than to stay on the trains and the buses and the ferries.
I keep saying it. This tax has less to do with climate change and more to do with social change, even economic change.
A $23 per tonne price on carbon dioxide emissions which will raise less money than the government is promising to spend in compensation for the price increases which this tax will cause (which leaves less than nothing to spend on the stated aim of “fixing the climate”). In fact, over four years, the compensation will cost the government $4.3 billion more than what the tax will raise. The last giant scheme which cost more than what it raised was the solar feed-in scheme where people were paid more than the retail price of electricity for the power which they generated from their solar panels. Not surprisingly, that plan had to eventually cut costs, and the compensation was where the cut was made…the same thing will happen here. Do not believe that you will be better off under the carbon dioxide tax. 20 cents per week will be reduced, and you will be worse off in the long run.
Industries will pass the cost of the carbon tax on to you. Even if the government compensates you for this, this will cause inflation. If the tax’s compensation then rises to meet this cost, then either the carbon tax has to go up to cover this cost which causes prices to go up which causes more inflation, and we enter a deadly cycle which will destroy our economy, or some other tax has to go up resulting is less money for consumers to spend which will result in less sales, less jobs, and even more economic turmoil.
And if you believe that you will be better off under this tax, consider this. Julia Gillard has admitted that a dual income household earning $120,000 per year (that’s an average of $60k each, it’s a fairly typical household) with a teenage child (read: receiving some extra benefits from the government) will be $375 per year worse off, or $7.20 per week. Just think how much more worse off they would be without the government benefits for the child, a situation which is fairly common among young couples. Perhaps one of them will work less so that they get more carbon tax compensation.
This is a convoluted version of socialism. Socialism denies people the opportunity to make something of themselves by disincentivising success and incentivising reliance on the government by taking from people who earn a living and giving to people who don’t. It fails everywhere it is tried because people learn that there is no need for them to do any work if the government will provide for them, and then eventually not enough people are producing for the needs of the population, and the scheme collapses.
The big question for me is, if, by the government’s own admission, this tax will not affect the climate, why bother having it at all? One can’t help but believe that this has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with social change.
Without being melodramatic, this tax will ruin this country. We must fight it. We must make all members of parliament aware that we will not support them if they support this tax. We must cause the repeal of this hideous and destructive assault on our country.
While I’m pleased that this despicable man who was largely responsible for the Bali bombings has been sent to jail, I’m not pleased with the sentence. 15 years, as far as I’m concerned, is too lenient, and just another sign of the apparent lack of consistency in Indonesia’s legal system.
AN Indonesian court has jailed radical Islamist cleric Abu Bakar Bashir for 15 years for funding a terrorist group that was planning attacks against Westerners and political leaders.
The 72-year-old preacher showed little emotion as judge Herri Swantoro read out the guilty verdict and sentence at the end of a four-month trial in the South Jakarta district court.
Bashir was found guilty of using violence or the threat of violence to incite terrorism, despite the prosecution weeks ago having conceded that they would not be able to prove all elements of that charge.
The prosecution had been seeking a life sentence in relation to charges of funding terrorism, stemming from the discovery last year of a paramilitary camp in Aceh.
[..]
The former spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah (JI), the group responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings, denied the charges.
(h/t The staff at The Australian who reworked AAP and AP copy)
I go one step further than the prosecution, I wanted the death penalty. I would have settled for life, but considering that this bloke won’t even take responsibility for his actions, I don’t see how he could ever be fit to be a part of society ever again. I’m also not convinced that 15 years is actually 15 years.
Over in Indonesia they have this bizarre practice where the President knocks time off the sentences of prisoners as part of a national day of celebration. It’s crazy, but it’s what they do. Schapelle Corby (who was sentenced to 20 years for a crime of drug importation which was surely a less serious crime than Abu Bakar Bashir’s deeds, and I think her sentence was about right, so Bashir’s sentence should be much harsher) has received almost a year and a half off her sentence in the six years that she has been in jail, and she will probably receive more. Bashir will probably get a similar treatment.
This means that, at the latest, Bashir will get out when he is 87-years-old, and will likely get out a few years earlier assuming that he lives that long. If he ever gets out, he will want revenge and he will be more powerful and influential in terrorist circles than ever before. Surely the judges know this. The whole legal system over in Indonesia seems to be an inconsistent shambles and bizarrely lenient decisions like this one do it no favours. They do, however, make me understand where Malcolm T. Elliott was coming from back in 2005 when he referred to the judges at Schapelle Corby’s trial as “three wise monkeys“:
And then we get this joke of a trial, and it’s nothing more than a joke. An absolute joke the way they sit there. And they do look like the three wise monkeys, I’ll say it. They don’t speak English, they read books, they don’t listen to her. They show us absolutely no respect those judges.
And he is right, bizarre and inconsistent decisions like the one we saw today prove that the Indonesian judges have zero respect for Australia, and western countries in general. A man who wants to destroy the western world gets off lightly for a heinous crime which amounted to the murder of many many people including a substantial number of Indonesians…I guess they were acceptable losses in the slaughter of Australians by the logic of Indonesian judges.
It’s a clear thumbing of their nose at Australia. Abu Bakar Bashir should not get out, ever, period!
A while back I was quite annoyed at the introduction of point-to-point speed cameras along two roads which I often use during my random drives for the sake of driving, namely the Federal Highway between Goulburn and Collector, and the Monaro Highway between Bredbo and Cooma.
I was annoyed, not because of the speed cameras as such, but because these things cover quite a large distance, and the only way for me to be absolutely confident that I won’t accidentally exceed the speed limit over that area is to make use of cruise control, which I don’t like doing because I find it to be a very boring experience which makes it harder to remain focussed, unlike being in full control of the vehicle which I find to be thoroughly engaging and interesting. Put simply, I don’t feel as safe when I’m using cruise control.
So yesterday, on my way back from Sutton Forest, I was taken aback slightly by a variable electronic message board which was indicating in abbreviated and broken English that the point-to-point cameras were only targeting heavy vehicles, something which is not indicated on the signs near these cameras. When I later had a chance to research this, I discovered that the variable message boards were right; cars are not subject to the cameras and these cameras are merely an extension of the existing “heavy vehicle speed and fatigue” camera network.
This means that I can once again enjoy those trips without the extended period of trying to remain engaged while waiting for the end of the point-to-point camera zone.
Given the lack of clarity on the signage surrounding these cameras, I’m sure that I’m not the only one who thought that they were tracking all vehicles, so hopefully this information helps to relieve someone else of the burden of spending an extended period of time either tediously watching their speedo rather than the road, or trying to remain engaged while cruise control increases their boredom level.
It turns out that the good old-fashioned petrol car isn’t that evil after all…or that it is evil, and the electric car isn’t the saintly solution that it was supposed to be…or something like that. I’ll let Yid with Lid explain.
Global Warming Moonbats believe that electric cars are one of the major solutions to the problem of man-made global warming which is causing the snow caps to melt, animals to die and your public library to run out of the book you have been waiting to read. According to a new study, electric cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than gas equivalents.
According to the study, an electric car owner would have to drive at least 80,000 miles before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 90 miles on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 100,000 would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.
a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.
Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.
Darn, and there I was feeling all warm and fuzzy because my not-overly-efficient petrol guzzling car and my penchant for going on long drives for little reason (I’ve averaged 139 km per day over the last nine months, not including the kilometers travelled in the few weeks that I had a hire car) was helping to boost the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and feeding all of the plants, when all along I would apparently have produced more carbon dioxide in an electric car.
Then again, given that I can travel further before needing to refuel in my car than I would be able to do in an electric car, I probably am coming out ahead on the carbon dioxide count, but if I ever do become one of those “I only ever drive to work and the corner shop” people, then I’ll change to an electric car to keep that carbon dioxide count up.
(h/t to: Yid With Lid for the linked and quoted blog post, Mark Levin for bringing the blog post to my attention, and Ben Webster of The Times in London for the article which was reprinted in The Australian.)
I don’t know if I can adequately explain how pleased I was when I heard the news, a little over an hour ago, that Michele Bachmann has entered the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. My pleasure was joined by mild amusement that the announcement came during a debate on CNN. The rusted-on viewers (not the casual ones) of CNN must have been mortified.
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said Monday night during a debate of declared and potential Republican presidential contenders that she had filed the paperwork needed to enter the race.
Bachmann, a favorite of the the Tea Party movement, said she intended to make a formal announcement of her candidacy soon.
She and other Republican White House hopefuls criticized President Obama’s handling of the economy from the opening moments of the two-hour debate and pledged emphatically to repeal the administration’s year-old health care law.
[..]
Bachmann, a third-term congresswoman and the first female contender to enter the 2012 race, has been leaning heavily toward a run over the past few months, visiting early primary states, raising money and railing against Obama.
“Our country needs a leader who understands the hardships that people across America have been facing over the past few years, and who will do what it takes to renew the American dream. We must become a strong and proud America again, and I see clearly a better path to a brighter future,” Bachmann said in a statement issued through her new campaign.
She brings high energy, charisma and proven fundraising ability to the Republican race to nominate a challenger to Obama. She also is known for unyielding stances, biting commentary and high-profile gaffes.
[..]
Bachmann, 55, spent the bulk of her political career in Minnesota and Washington as a minority party member, reveling in her role as a fierce voice of the opposition. She didn’t let up when Republicans gained control of the U.S. House last fall, enhancing her standing through public breaks with party leaders after she was denied a place in caucus leadership.
The camera-friendly congresswoman has irked some party leaders by grabbing at the spotlight, such as the alternate televised response she delivered to Obama’s State of the Union speech this winter.
Her willingness to speak her mind — she once accused Obama of running a “gangster government” — has brought her both loyal fans and plenty of critics.
Since first hinting at a presidential campaign ahead of an Iowa speech in January, she has made sustained trips there and to New Hampshire and South Carolina, all places with an outsized voice in the nominating process. She previously told reporters she would announce her intentions this month in her birthplace of Waterloo, Iowa.
Other full-fledged candidates include former Govs. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and businessman Herman Cain.
Now that Michele is in the race, I think it is highly unlikely that Sarah Palin will run as they would probably fight over their main loyal audience (most of whom support both) effectively weakening both of them in the battle for the hearts and minds of other voters.
I like Michele about as much as Sarah Palin, and I have absolutely no reservations about supporting her. I’m very glad that she is running because I think she is precisely the type of person that the US needs right now in the place of the ongoing Obama disaster.
At this stage, my thoughts on the rest of the field are that there are a couple people that I can support, but I do so with increasing reservations as I move down the list. Rick Santorum is my second choice, with minimal reservations, and Herman Cain third with a few reservations about his knowledge of foreign affairs; domestically he is solid though.
The rest, well I’m having trouble separating them.
So, Michele 2012. I’m hoping it happens. It’s just a shame that, being a non-US citizen I am not able to financially support her, and as I have respect for campaign finance laws, I’m not willing to flout the law. Still, she has my editorial support.
Padders over at The Right Aussie, noting an article about anti-nuclear power protests in Japan, makes a few very poignant points about nuclear power.
1. Nuclear reactors did not cause the tsunami on March 11, nor any other tsunami for that matter.
Nor did global warming, but it didn’t stop people from claiming it.
2. Think the March 11 earthquake and tsunami were catastrophic? Well, if all nuclear power plants were immediately shut down, you would need to re-define ‘catastrophic’.
Indeed, however it is the aim of the radical types who are driving this agenda to have us use less power, perhaps even no power, thus sending us back to the stone age. What those of us who are sensible would see as catastrophic, the radical left would see as “good”. This is the battle which we face.
4. More people have been killed from an E. coli outbreak at an organic sprout farm in Germany than from the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.
And despite this, nobody on the left has called for the banning of organic sprout farms. Hmmm, funny that.
Read more, including the point that I omitted because it relates exclusively to an article to which I am not linking, over at The Right Aussie.
There are plenty of good people who could seek the Republican Presidential nomination, some of them are already in the race, some are not, but of all of them there is one person who, if she were to run, would have my full support and would be my preferred choice above all others. It should come as no surprise to most of you reading this that the person of which I speak is Sarah Palin.
Sarah presented herself very well over the weekend on Fox News Sunday:
I will have to respectfully disagree with Sarah on Mitt Romney. Mitt’s legislative history makes me very nervous about what he would do as President, my biggest concern being that I don’t think he would repeal Obamacare. That said, I can understand why Sarah is not making a big deal of this. Sarah knows that any pot shots she takes at Mitt Romney will be the only thing in the news cycle for days, and will be twisted against her many times. I suppose it’s a good thing in many ways that Sarah has learnt the valuable lesson of when not to say things which can easily be used against her.
As for the rest of the field, there are a few people who interest me, but that list is still a work-in-progress so I’m not ready to go through it publicly just yet.
One thing which has amused me about Obama’s war in Libya is the lack of the usual suspects jumping up and down complaining about the war being illegal. Sure, there’s a couple of them, but the vast majority of people who complained endlessly about George W. Bush taking us in to Iraq, claiming that it was an illegal war among other things, seem to be silent about Barrack Obama taking us in to Libya. This is quite odd considering that the US action in Libya is illegal, and one would expect these people to be upset if they really cared about illegal wars.
While I’m sure that there are some genuine anti-war protestors (they’d be the ones who protested against the Iraq war and are also protesting about this war…not many people, but they’re out there), it’s clear that the motive for most of the people who protested against the Iraq war was not anger with the war, but anger with Bush. This is even clearer when you consider that the claims about the Iraq war being illegal are in fact false.
UN Resolution 678 authorized force to be used against Iraq for not complying with the Gulf War cease fire. This was never altered, repealed, or replaced by subsequent resolutions. In fact, it was upheld by each.
UN Resolution 1441 upheld the provisions of Resolution 678, and offered Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Iraq failed to do so. As a result, a US led coalition (larger than the first Gulf War) launched an invasion after Saddam refused to step down. The invasion started in March 2003.
In October of 2002 (5 months prior to the invasion) the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
To recap, President Bush had international authorization to use force (even though it was unnecessary), and he had full approval from Congress. Congress also continued to approve US efforts in Iraq on an annual basis in spite of rhetoric from Democrats.
Libya:
UN Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of force by member nations. Just as UN Resolution 678 did with Iraq.
Unlike Iraq, however, Obama never sought the approval of Congress to attack Libya. This is a violation of his own political rhetoric, but it is NOT illegal.
That is, until May 20, 2011.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President of the United States to use military force abroad for 60 days without seeking the approval of Congress. Obama missed that deadline. As a result, he is factually in violation of US law.
Earlier I mentioned that UN approval to use force against Iraq was unnecessary, and it was. As it would be for the US to act against Libya, so long as Congress approved. Moving against the will of the United Nations is not a violation of international law, it is a violation of an international agreement. US law is the higher authority in our legal system, and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Neither President Bush or Obama have violated any international treaty.
President Obama is now in violation of US law. President Bush was never in violation of US law. President Clinton was not in violation of US law, or international treaty when he authorized Operation Desert Fox.
Had Obama gone to Congress and asked for their approval to engage in military operations against Libya, and they approved, everything would be legal with regard to Libya. You may disapprove of it for some moral reason, but it would still be legal. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Obama is, in fact, breaking the law by continuing to use the US military against Libya. His supporters are continuing to show their hypocrisy by supporting him instead of protesting him as they did Bush. And yes, this is a justifiable impeachable offense.
It really doesn’t get much clearer than that. Bush, and Clinton for that matter, went about running their wars in a legal manner, whereas Obama is breaking the law. The sooner he is held to account for it, the better.
PARLIAMENTARIANS from Julia Gillard down appear ready to give the cold shoulder to Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an outspoken climate change sceptic, when he visits Australia next month.
Mr Klaus, a critic of the theory of human-caused global warming, will attend a series of seminars organised by the Institute of Public Affairs think tank.
[..]
Tour organisers have contacted a range of political leaders offering to arrange meetings with Mr Klaus while he is in Australia. A spokesman for Ms Gillard said yesterday: “The Prime Minister’s diary has not been finalised.”
But the organisers said her office had already declined an invitation to meet Mr Klaus, as had Victoria’s Liberal Premier Ted Baillieu and his Western Australian counterpart Colin Barnett.
They are yet to hear from Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and NSW’s Barry O’Farrell.
“It’s extraordinary that Australia’s political leaders are willing to risk our relationship with one of Europe’s most dynamic and open economies simply because their representative is a climate sceptic,” IPA executive director John Roskam said.
(h/t Christian Kerr, The Australian)
Julia is the Prime Minister, and as such has a duty to at least say hello to a visiting leader of another country, unless she really is busy with an important task, in which case I’d accept that the Deputy Prime Minister could meet the visiting leader in her place…although if I was a foreign visitor to this land, I’d much rather meet Julia than Wayne. The Foreign Minister doesn’t cut it as far as I’m concerned. It might be appropriate for the Foreign Minister to be present at a meeting, but not for them to be the person actually meeting the foreign dignitary.
The Premiers I’m not so fussed about. They aren’t the leader of the country, so if they can make it, that’s nice, but I wouldn’t hold them to it.
Personally, I’m waiting for the Institute of Public Affairs to announce a date for Mr. Klaus to visit Canberra. Hopefully I will be able to get to that event. Sydney and Perth dates have already been announced.
GORDON Stammers says his 14-year-old dog Wally is lucky to be alive after an enraged man kicked the old pooch nearly two metres in the air at Jan Juc.
The timid fox terrier-jack russell cross is still struggling to walk after Saturday’s vicious encounter with the muscle-bound man on a path between the Bird Rock lookout and Steps carpark.
Police have confirmed they are looking for the man and local laws officers have also been notified over fears he could seriously hurt other animals or their owners.
Mr Stammers said his dog was off its lead when he was walking along the path about 10am and he heard someone approaching from behind.
He said when Wally growled at the man’s long-haired german shepherd, its owner erupted.
“He got right up in my face and yelled, ‘why haven’t you got your bloody dog on a lead? You’re supposed to have it on a lead,’ and he was very aggressive towards me,” Mr Stammers said.
Related Coverage
Mr Stammers, who has lived in Jan Juc for 25 years and walks Wally in the area every day, said he didn’t realise it was an on-leash area and he asked the man where he lived.
“With that, he went back with his leg and kicked my dog so hard that he lifted him six feet in the air and on to the other side of the path. By that stage he’s walked off and my dog was screaming literally in absolute agony, he couldn’t walk and he was on his side.”
Mr Stammers, 57, shouted out to the man to come back but he continued walking. “I’ve never seen anybody so violently explode. He was very big, he obviously works out in the gym every day, he was like Mike Tyson, that’s how big he was,” he said.
He described the man as at least 180 centimetres tall, with short blond hair, wearing a red T-shirt and shorts.
Senior Constable Justine Woods urged anyone with information to contact Torquay police.
Poor little Wally. I can almost understand the large man being in an already enraged mood and Wally growling at his dog tipping him over the edge, but I can’t understand kicking the poor little dog so hard that he ended up six metres in the air, or even worse, the complete lack of instant remorse for the awful act. If I was in as bad a mood as that, I might kick a wall or a bin or some other inanimate object, but kicking a dog isn’t something I would ever do unless I was being attacked by the dog.
This is the work of a very sick person, and I can only hope that, one day, he makes a similar move towards his German Sheppard, and the German Sheppard defends itself by biting a large hole in the man’s leg. Of course I would also like to see the justice system give the man a criminal record for this despicable act, but the job of punishing him won’t be complete until the animals get their comeuppance.
And for poor little Wally, I can’t imagine how traumatising this must have been. It gives me shivers up my spine when Nattie hurts herself on something (usually involving static electricity or a nail clinging to a flooring surface) and lets out one of those awful doggy squeals…her’s have always been for minor things, so I just can’t imagine how much worse this must have been for Wally and Mr. Stammers.
I do hope that Wally makes a full recovery. I’m sure that Mr. Stammers will look after his mate Wally as best he can, and that this will help Wally to feel safe and secure in the world again.
Good Sunday Morning. Plenty to get through this morning, so we’ll dive straight in.
A little while after I posted many details on the fact that the US economy is in serious trouble, more evidence of this came to light.
The US government’s jobs report showed hiring by US companies slowed markedly in May, while the unemployment rate kept rising.
Non-farm payrolls rose by 54,000 last month as the private sector posted the smallest job gain in nearly a year, according to the Labour Department. The jobless rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, unexpectedly rose to 9.1 per cent in May.
[..]
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 97.29 points, or 0.8 per cent, to 12151.26, led lower by Alcoa, which dropped US28 cents (1.7 per cent) to $US15.92. The blue-chip index has dropped 5.1 per cent during its five-week losing skid and closed today at its lowest level since March 23.
(h/t Steven Russolillo, Dow Jones Newswires, via The Australian)
The fact is, the US economy was never in recovery despite what the Obama administration would have you believe. It had a decent period of stability on the back of over-the-top government spending, but it never entered a recovery, and as was always going to happen, the government’s crippling debt is now an even bigger problem than the original economic woes were. If there ever was any doubt (I’d say that there wasn’t, but it’s an arguable point), it’s gone now, Obama owns this recession and seemingly has very little idea of how to fix it.
THE World Bank has revealed the global market for trading in carbon permits has stalled, just weeks out from the federal government’s release of its detailed plans to shift to an emissions trading scheme.
[..]
The value of the primary Clean Development Mechanism market fell by double digits for the third year in a row, ending lower than it was in 2005.
(h/t Graham Lloyd and Siobhain Ryan from The Australian)
Even the bankers can’t work out how to make a quid out of this crazy scheme. It seems that trading in fresh air just isn’t lucrative, so what makes Ms. Gillard and friends think that taxing the air will be any more successful?
CHILDREN as young as 12 would be allowed to drive under a radical road-safety training proposal to be put to the State Government this week.
That opening line sounds crazy, but if we dig a little deeper, we find that it’s misleading.
Under the CAMS plan, schoolchildren would be given up to four practical lessons each year from age 12. CAMS will explore the idea of using dirt tracks or paddocks for lessons, which would include driving along a skid pan.
CAMS president Andrew Papadopoulos – who taught his own children to drive at age 12 – said the existing school driving courses needed to include a much greater practical component.
He said waiting until students were 17 or 18 to teach them driving skills was too late, because many young people had already developed attitudes towards driving by that age.
“This is about instilling the right attitude to driving in kids early,” he said.
(h/t Linda Silmalis, The Sunday Telegraph)
If, as the opening line suggest, this idea was about letting twelve-year-olds loose on the roads, then I’d agree that it’s “radical” and alarming, but the actual idea is an incredibly good idea. Our current system puts kids (they’re under 18, they’re kids, even if the ACT government disagrees and thinks 12-17 is “young person” and not “child”) in a position where driving is a novelty to them, and generally a fun thing rather than a serious thing. The problems tend to be attitudinal ones more than capability ones.
This idea would change the attitudes of kids before they are old enough to drive on the open road by taking them through practical sessions which would imprint the fact that driving is a serious activity.
If it were up to me, I’d be implementing this idea immediately. I also have ideas to overhaul the driver’s licence system in a way which would make the process of getting a licence similar to the current arrangements for motorbike licences, with an emphasis on solo learning under limited demerit points. People who could successfully graduate from such a system would then go straight on to a full licence, while people who fail either by racking up too many demerit points or by failing assessments would be forced through a logbook system for basic skills before they could graduate back to the solo-learning system.
I believe that one of the great flaws of our current system is that it teaches reliance on a passenger rather than on one’s own judgement, and considering that the vast majority of driving is done on one’s own, it is important for people to learn on their own…and people who are incapable of that simply shouldn’t be on the road. Of course another thing I would do is get rid of the crazy system which is in place in New South Wales where artificial speed limits are imposed on L and P platers which prevent people from learning to overtake, prevent them from learning to handle a vehicle at highway speeds, and provide a slow-moving hazard for the rest of us.
Anyway, my plan could probably be legitimately considered “radical”. The plan from CAMS on the other hand should not be considered radical, and should be implemented immediately, and it’s good to see the O’Farrell government taking it seriously.
***
Also in New South Wales, and the sideshow this week has been centred around filibusters, not that I can work out why this has caused so much excitement.
The basic story is that the O’Farrell government introduced a bill which would give the Premier the ability to set wages for public servants, something which sounds like a sensible idea for a boss to be able to do. The Greens and Labor, predictably, didn’t like the idea and so tried to block it with a filibuster and a deluge of amendments. Nothing out of the ordinary here, this is a regular tactic in politics and is permitted under the rules of parliament, even if it’s not a regular occurrence in Australian governments. Then, after a few days of this, the Liberal/National coalition used their majority to, as is allowed under the rules of parliament, break the filibuster and restrict debate on the deluge of amendments.
The bill passed the lower house yesterday, and will pass the upper house soon.
Yet, incredibly, this has all sparked outrage from both sides of politics. On the right, there was outrage about the Greens babbling on and on for hours and hours and hours, with individual members setting new records for the amount of time a person has spoken in the New South Wales parliament, and now on the left there is outrage over the government using their massive majority to break the filibuster and pass the bill. Both sets of outrage are ill-considered. It could just be that, due to the rarity of these events in Australian parliaments, people think there is something wrong with the events, but it’s more likely that people are just using the opportunity to make their points on the bill rather than the actual events which have occurred in the parliament.
Either way, I think the simple solution here is to say “move along, nothing to see here” as the political machine just moves through its regular processes.
***
Of course there was also a sideshow in federal politics this week involving cat noises. While it was dumb of Senator David Bushby to meow at Senator Penny Wong, at least he had the grace to apologise for it afterwards. We’re still waiting for the apologies from Ms. Wong’s colleagues for the similarly sexist comments which are shouted at Julie Bishop during every session of parliament.
FOUR overstretched and stressed-out State MPs will quit their second jobs as mayors, declaring they can’t cope with the workload of both positions.
But the most prominent double-dipping MP – Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore – refuses to concede there is a problem despite missing every day of parliament last week while on a mayoral junket to Brazil and New York City.
In fact, while parliament was open for business yesterday continuing its marathon session about public sector pay, Ms Moore was tweeting from New York City, where she was checking out bike lanes.
Ms Moore, who has missed 25 per cent of parliamentary sittings since Barry O’Farrell took office, is tightly holding her grip as the Lord Mayor and the MP for Sydney despite politician mayors from all sides of politics admitting it can’t be done.
[..]
Ms Moore, who pulls two six-figure salaries, has three offices and two distinct sets of advisers and staff for each position despite insisting there is overlap in the positions.
(h/t Linda Silmalis, The Sunday Telegraph)
It should be illegal to hold political office in multiple governments. It’s illegal to be a public servant and hold a political office, and the conflicts of interest there are similar to the conflicts of interest in holding multiple political offices.
In Clover’s case, it’s beyond me why she needs to inspect bicycle lanes in New York City when she has already plastered the darn things all over Sydney. And the climate change summit in Brazil…catch a plane to that one did we Clover? Wouldn’t a teleconference have been less carbon dioxide intensive? And how exactly are you being an effective member of the New South Wales Parliament if you’re absent a quarter of the time?
Beyond Clover, we’ve seen similar issues with politicians missing votes in the federal parliament. Here’s a thought, perhaps the rule should be that in order to get paid, the politicians have to turn up to the parliament. If you don’t turn up, your pay is docked…just like it would be in the private sector.
***
In business news, AAMI Insurance is set to close all of its branches, moving all of its customer service to the phone and online.
Spokesman Reuben Aitchison says the branches these days contribute just two per cent to the business and transactions of the Suncorp-owned company, while there has been a significant growth in business through the Internet.
He says the insurer will now concentrate on providing telephone and online services, and hopes to employ half of about 100 affected staff in call centres.
(h/t Australian Associated Press via The Herald Sun)
Personally, I don’t have a problem with this. If the branches, which are retail outlets anyway and not really able to manage insurance claims, are costing more to run than they are bringing in, then effectively my premiums are subsidising the branches, and I would much rather see AAMI’s running costs reduced than to see my premiums go up. I have no problem with their telephone and online customer service, in fact I have nothing but praise for it. If people really want to sit across a desk from an employee of their insurer, then they can go and pay some other insurance agency the extra money to make it happen.
(Image: AAMI’s Fyshwick building at a tad after 5am yesterday morning).
***
As a general rule, I find that most reasonable people like to help other people. A decent proportion of people are nice enough to want to go out of their way to help people that they don’t know, and are often willing to pay more for a product if they think it will provide a better deal for the person who produced the product. Unfortunately, as a result, these people tend to open themselves up to charlatans who have no qualms with pretending that an expensive product is helping someone, when in fact it isn’t.
For a very long time I have suspected that the “Fair Trade Coffee” market was a scam which was, at best, not helping farmers, and at worst, making their lives worse. Until recently, this was just a suspicion which lacked proof. Now though, proof exists.
That fair-trade cup of coffee we savour may not only fail to ease the lot of poor farmers, it may actually help to impoverish them, according to a study out recently from Germany’s University of Hohenheim.
The study, which followed hundreds of Nicaraguan coffee farmers over a decade, concluded that farmers producing for the fair-trade market “are more often found below the absolute poverty line than conventional producers.
“Over a period of 10 years, our analysis shows that organic and organic-fair trade farmers have become poorer relative to conventional producers.”
(h/t Lawrence Solomon, National Post, and additional h/t to Casey Hendrickson who alerted me to the story some time back)
Have a read of the article. Lawrence, its author, is very well versed in the coffee trade and goes in to some detail about how much of a scam the whole fair trade coffee thing is, and how it discriminates against the poorest of farmers. The highlight of which, for me at least, is:
It discriminates against the very poorest of the world’s coffee farmers, most of whom are African, by requiring them to pay high certification fees. These fees -one of the factors that the German study cites as contributing to the farmers’ impoverishment -are especially perverse, given that the majority of Third World farmers are not only too poor to pay the certification fees, they’re also too poor to pay for the fertilizers and the pesticides that would disqualify coffee as certified organic.
Their coffee is organic by default, but because the farmers can’t provide the fees that certification agencies demand to fly down and check on their operations, the farmers lose out on the premium prices that can be fetched by certified coffee.
To add to the perversity, it’s an open secret that the certification process is lax and almost impossible to police, making it little more than a high-priced honour system. Although the certification associations have done their best to tighten flaws in the system, farmers and middlemen who want to get around the system inevitably do, bagging unearned profits. Those who remain scrupulous and follow the onerous and costly regulations -another source of inefficiency the German study notes in its analysis -lose out.
I won’t repeat the whole thing here, although I do implore you to read it. Lawrence Solomon’s work here is exemplary.
***
In domestic media news, Derryn Hinch continues to fight his decades-long battle for the right to name sex offenders who prey on children, despite the fact that it could very easily see him spend his final days in a jail cell.
3AW drive time host Derryn Hinch has been found guilty this afternoon of breaching suppression orders relating to the naming of two sex offenders.
AAP reports that the journalist is facing the possibility of up to five years in prison, after Magistrate Charles Rozencwajg ruled he had breached suppression orders four times on his website and at a public rally. A fifth charge was dismissed.
[..]
Hinch remains defiant over his decision to name those guilty of sexual offences towards children.
“I still feel the same way I always have… people have a right to know,” he said outside the court.
“I know what I have done. I am not sorry for what I have done. It is a good cause and the law is a bad law.
“I don’t like getting convictions. There are always risks in doing the sort of work that I do and you pay for it.”
(h/t “Big Dan”, Mediaspy)
I happen to agree with Derryn on this one. I am of the belief that people who commit sexual offences against children are sick, vile people who are beyond help. I think they should rot in jail for life or face the death penalty, however in lieu of such laws, we should have the right to know exactly who these people are. The existing laws are wrong.
I hope that Derryn doesn’t have to spend his final days in prison, although if he does, then I have to admire his courage and his convictions (moral, that is, not legal).
***
To sport, and you may have noticed that I gave up on the footy tipping again. Truth is, I’m pretty hopeless at it, and I’ll gladly accept it and move on. I just can’t see the point in continually tipping with less than 50% accuracy.
That said, I am still a fervent fan of the Bulldogs in both the NRL and AFL. Alas that means this weekend has been a pretty poor one.
Watching David Smorgon’s (AFL Bulldogs’ President) body language yesterday, I got the distinct impression that he had a heavy heart from a difficult decision, and as such, I believe that Rodney Eade’s days as coach are very limited and he will not see out the season. This is a shame, because I think Rodney is doing a good job, and it’s the players which are letting him down. Just watching Rodney’s pure frustration in the box each week makes that obvious to me.
As far as I can see, the Dogs had a great chance at winning the Grand Final last year with a team which could not physically last beyond the year. The chance was squandered by the powers that be when they sacked Jason Akermanis. Jason provided the team with the extra option on the field that they needed, and were never able to fill once he left. Rodney Eade tried to work around the loss, but it simply wasn’t possible.
This year, be it through injury or an aging lineup, the situation is worse.
I strongly believe that Rodney could build up a great team within a few years if given the chance with some new talent in the side, and that this is our best shot at a flag in the coming years. A rebuilding phase is needed, but sacking Rodney is a bad idea at this time. I do hope that I misread David Smorgon yesterday.
In the rugby league’s version of the Bulldogs, it is reported today that coach Kevin Moore has lost the support of the board. I can’t say that I’m surprised. I’ve never been a big fan of Kevin Moore as a coach, and I don’t credit him with much of the success the club had in 2009 as I see a lot of that as being the result of board decisions and good players rather the coaching decisions. Kevin is one coach who I won’t miss should he happen to leave.
***
Some audio for you this morning which will touch the hearts of animal lovers everywhere.
Mark Levin, a great radio host and constitutional lawyer in America (we’ve discussed his work here previously), is a dog lover. Sadly his best friend, the lovely dog Pepsi passed away a couple weeks ago. Mark took a week off to mourn the loss and spend the time with his devastated family. I was very saddened when I heard about the loss (Mark mentioned it on Facebook before disappearing for a week) and sent a card to Mark which apparently arrived on Friday. Many thanks to the nice people in Landmark Legal Foundation’s Virginia office for passing the card on to Mark.
When Mark returned to work on Tuesday, he devoted some of his show to explaining what had happened, and just how much Pepsi meant to him. I cried when I heard it, and I gave Nattie a really big hug when I got home. The audio moved me so much that I have to share it with you, with thanks to Citadel Radio for the audio.
[audio:https://samuelgordonstewart.com/wp-content/MarkLevinPepsi20110531.mp3] Download MP3
Mark, whose two other dogs Sprite and Griffen were shelter dogs whom he and his family rescued, is very passionate about rescuing dogs which have been abandoned. To that end, he and his family have set up a special fund, “Pepsi, Griffen & Sprite’s Legacy Gift” to help dogs who have been abandoned for one reason or another. All proceeds of the fund go to the Lost Dog & Cat Rescue Foundation who provide dental services, surgery, heartworm treatments, diagnostic testing and more for dogs who would otherwise be overlooked in crowded shelters. I know that Mark contributes greatly to the fund, so I simply ask that if you are at all interested in helping out and can spare a few dollars, please consider donating. I know that you will make a dog somewhere very happy if you do.
***
And that’s it for this week’s rather large Sunday Bits (3,500 words or thereabouts). I visited the Captains Flat weather radar during the week, so you can look forward to some photos from that trip soon.
When it’s a sum of money that big, it’s almost always a government that lost it. So, which government lost $14 billion? Obama’s government of course.
The White House said Wednesday that taxpayers could lose roughly $14 billion of the money spent on auto industry bailouts, despite the industry’s recent recovery.
The White House cites the potential losses in a report, “The Resurgence of the American Automotive Industry,” released ahead of President Barack Obama’s trip Friday to a Chrysler Group LLC facility in Toledo, Ohio.
The report said that of the $80 billion in bailout money supplied to the auto industry, less than 20%, or $16 billion, ultimately may be lost. That’s down from the 60% loss projected two years ago, the report said. The White House’s top auto and manufacturing adviser, Ron Bloom, later specified the loss at closer to $14 billion.
So the figures are rubbery anyway. The report says 16, Mr. Bloom says 14…well, what’s two billion dollars between friends? Still a massive amount of money…but anyway, somewhere in the range of $14 million – $16 million. If someone lost that much of my money, I’d want an apology, even if it was a qualified “I’m sorry, but we did this for a good reason” apology, and I’d hope that the person/people/group responsible would have the common decency to apologise. So, does Mr. Bloom or Mr. Obama want to offer an apology? Errr, no. In fact, they arrogantly refuse to apologise.
“So while we are obviously extremely conscious of our obligation to get every penny we can for the taxpayer, we’re also not going to apologize for the fact that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans who are working today” because of the bailouts, he said.
Really? Even if it is true that the auto industry is helping to keep people in a job, at what cost? A quick skim of the headlines shows: 422,000 new unemployment claims were filed last week, 428,000 the week before, with the overall number of people on unemployment benefits sitting at 7.68 million (this number does not include the number of under-employed people and unemployed people who are not receiving unemployment benefits)
And, underpinning all of that, the US Government’s credit rating is teetering on the edge due to its astounding level of debt.
So effectively what we can see is that one industry might be doing OK, but at the cost of an amazing amount of government debt and a worsening crisis in the rest of the economy.
General Motors should have been allowed to fail. It should have gone through the bankruptcy process without government assistance, from which it would have come out the other side as a more robust business. The government interference in this process (for this and other companies, and done by both Bush and Obama) may have caused some short term benefits, but is causing major long-term problems, the most pressing of which at the moment is the massive government debt which is causing all sorts of economic problems and will continue to do so.
Returning to the original article, and it gets stranger.
“The president has made clear that he does not believe that is the proper role of government in the long term to be an owner of a private corporation,” Mr. Bloom said. “And so we do not view ourselves as kind of market timer looking for the absolute best opportunity to sell.”
Obama is right that it is not the government’s role to own private corporations, however the government also has a responsibility to the people, and having gotten in to this silly situation, they now have a responsibility to get as much money back as possible, and to say that they’ll just sell it with no consideration for how much money they will get out of it is insane. If hanging on to the stock for a bit longer means that they will get more money for it, then this is what they should do, especially given the current debt problems.
All of this goes to show that what the US needs now is a fiscal conservative who understands that money has a value, and that the way to keep a country running successfully is not through endless government interference. One can only hope that the Republican Primaries result in such a person opposing Obama in the 2012 Presidential election.
(h/t for the quoted article: Josh Mitchell, Wall Street Journal. For other paraphrased articles, Wall Street Journal and FOX Business Network).
Germany’s Angela Merkel, normally a reasonable and clever woman, disappointed me the other day by doing something downright stupid. She’s getting rid of nuclear power, not for the usual strange reasons trotted out by the Greens, but because of an earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
The Fukushima situation, while concerning, was nowhere near as bad as much of the media breathlessly reported (nice long list of the many many many exaggerations and mistakes or Andrew Bolt has a decent quick summary), and to be clear, it is to be expected that any type of electrical machinery will have problems if you expose it to a massive earthquake and then a tidal wave. It’s just the way it works…
And let me ask you this: how many times did you hear the media report on the fact that a large number of the refugees who fled the quake and tsunami zones were being housed temporarily in other nuclear power plants? Not as many times as you heard the lie of “Japanese radiation disaster”, I’ll bet.
So Germany, a country with no history of bad earthquakes, and virtually landlocked, with a relatively sheltered bit of coastline, so highly unlikely to be hit by a tsunami, makes a knee-jerk reaction to a problem which will never happen in Germany, effectively crippling Germany’s position as a world leader in the move away from coal. Instead, Germany wants to move to so-called “sustainable energy”…great, except that you can’t get baseload power from the so-called renewables. It’s either coal or nuclear.
Well, fine, at least our coal industry will have a country which wants to buy more and more coal.
Then again, perhaps this is a clever move. Nuclear power won’t be phased out for another 12 years in Germany. Watch this space, they’ve already turned off some of the (obviously superfluous to requirements) older nuclear plants, so give them a year or two and I expect the see Angela Merkel come out and say “you know what, we investigated it, and this renewable stuff costs much more and can’t provide what we need, so the nuclear power stays”. She will have successfully headed off an uneducated panic this year from her public, and have kept her country’s position as a world leader in the long run.
