Folau’s feat of Clay

CHIEF Fairfax sports writer, Andrew Webster, has lashed out today over Rugby Australia’s humiliating capitulation to Israel Folau. Webster is not merely livid about the multi-million dollar compensation payment and apology. He’s also mystified as to why Raelene Castle – a contender with Peter Beattie for the title of worst administrator in the recent history of Australian sport – didn’t continue the war against Folau and his family. It seems obvious: RA was advised by its lawyers that what they did to the star playmaker was unlawful and they didn’t have a prosthetic leg to stand on. It was a grovelling admission of moral defeat. Webster comes awfully close to saying Folau was uppity to fight back and takes an ugly swipe at father and son for wanting to earn a quid. Left-wing orthodoxy insists black men are all too often exploited by the white sporting establishment. When they’re devout Christians, however, they’re greedy:

Spurred on by the likes of broadcaster Alan Jones and emboldened by a chorus of supporters on social media, he started to feel more popular than Jesus and the Beatles — and acted accordingly.

After he was sacked following his infamous post on April 10 in which he warned homosexuals they would go to Hell if they didn’t repent, he had the audacity to ask the public to fund his looming legal stoush with RA.

I’ve been writing stories about Folau since he was a teenager, when he was a spring-heeled centre for the Melbourne Storm.

From his move to the Broncos, to the GWS Giants, then to rugby, he and his father have been motivated by one thing: money.

These were exactly the kind of things said against Cassius Clay in the 1960s after he changed his name and made a number of unpopular statements of religious principle.  Eventually, boxing in the United States also surrendered to legal and moral reality. A difference in contemporary Australia is that haters have fought even harder to keep a champion out of work and out of the ring. “People can be bigots if they want,” says Webster. Sure they can but in the Folau case, it just cost them several million dollars.

Posted in Australian Story, Hypocrisy of progressives | Tagged | 196 Comments

Impeachment theatre

I keep reading about how the impeachment investigation is going badly for the Democrats, but that’s only how we look at it. ‘It did nothing’: White House blasts Judiciary Committee hearing as ‘desperate charade’.

The White House called the first day of impeachment testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee a “bad day” for Democrats as they attempt to impeach President Trump.

“Today was a good day for President Trump, and a bad day for the Democrats,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a Wednesday statement. “The only thing the three liberal professors established at Chairman Nadler’s hearing was their political bias against the President. It did nothing to change the fact that, despite weeks of hearings in this sham process, the President did nothing wrong.”

“Congress should get back to working for the American people. The United States–Mexico–Canada trade agreement, infrastructure, and drug pricing all await action from Speaker Pelosi. Instead, House Democrats continue to ignore their constituents by focusing on this pathetic and desperate charade,” she added.

Great. Rational, civil, sensible, sane. That, however, is not what we are dealing with on the other side. These people are plain loco. They bulldoze power stations. They try to open their borders to anyone who wants to come. They want to believe that if we don’t do something about climate, the world will end in twelve years. They want to end the market economy. They have not a policy to their name that will solve a single problem, nor do they seem to care or even want one. Self-destructive and deluded, and have no idea what they want. And this far out, you cannot even begin to say with any certainty that one of their candidates will not become president eleven months from now.

I picked up these posts on the first page of just now, but you could find just the same any time of night and day. The level of derangement is beyond comprehension. You cannot talk to these people. They want magic solutions to all problems.

Are Democrats Tired Of Winning?
Their Abortion Extremism Suggests Yes
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:32:25 AM Post Reply
President Donald Trump likes to say he’s going to win so much, you’ll get tired of winning. Maybe Democrats have taken the president too literally. The Democratic Attorneys General Association is leading the charge to excise all abortion moderates from the good graces of the party. It announced it will not endorse or assist any candidates who do not support unfettered abortion access. While state AGs may not seem incredibly relevant, they are an important stepping stone toward governors’ mansions in many states. So, considering the Democrats’ weak bench for plausible candidates in red states, the decision not to compete for attorney general is significant.
Israel Equals Jewish ‘Supremacy’:
Linda Sarsour Again Stoops To Antisemitism
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:30:58 AM Post Reply
Former Women’s March leader and current Bernie Sanders campaign surrogate Linda Sarsour attempted to explain controversial comments she made at the 12th Annual Conference for Palestine, which took place in Chicago this past weekend. True to her noxious brand, the Palestinian-American activist compared Jewish self-determination to white supremacy in a full-throated speech that only a hateful artist of her caliber could manage. “Ask them this: How can you be against white supremacy in the United States of America and the idea of living in a supremacist state based on race and class but then you support a state like Israel that is built on supremacy
Male Transjacking Will
Ultimately End Women’s Sports
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:29:29 AM Post Reply
This Friday, the top four NCAA Division III women’s soccer teams face off in the national semifinals. One of the final four teams’ goalkeepers, Isa Berardo, is a male transgender playing as a female for Pomona-Pitzer Colleges. Not surprisingly, the male goalie has dominated the field against opposing female players, giving his own a chance to win the national championship thanks to his physical advantages in a key position. This is increasingly happening throughout women’s sports, at all levels from elementary school through professional competitions. It’s creating not equality, but inequality.
Broken Partisan Professors Make
‘Constitutional’ Case to Impeach Trump
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:26:42 AM Post Reply
Yesterday, the House Judiciary led by Democrat ball of impeachment fury Jerry Nadler and his booster seat, presented a panel of highly-credentialed white people to quack about how Trump should be impeached from a constitutional perspective. When I say “highly-credentialed” I refer to their NeverTrump credentials because these three clowns have been howling against Trump for years. No rational watcher, and I doubt there were any rational watchers just political junkies/employees, would find this performance art in any way credible or persuasive. The event was a straight up PR exercise. The GOP did get one witness, lawyer Jonathan Turley who is also not a Trump supporter but is a reasonable
Leninism: The Highest
Stage of Progressivism
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:23:48 AM Post Reply
Everyone knows the universities are on the political Left. Political science is part of that problem, though it isn’t nearly as corrupt as some other disciplines. While many professors hold their partisan biases close, those inclinations all too often appear in curricula and scholarship and inevitably reach the classroom. A contrary example both of the theory and practice of politics, because its focus is on advancing the principles of the Declaration of Independence, are the panels and scholarship sponsored by the Claremont Institute—recently honored at the White House with the National Humanities Medal.
Melania derangement syndrome?
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:22:02 AM Post Reply
As far as I can remember, the late Dr. Charles Krauthammer, author of the line “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” never added an amendment about First Lady Laura. Well, Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well and it’s Melania’s turn to hear from the critics. Check this one from Robin Rivhan, Fashion Critic, of the Washington Post: First lady Melania Trump unveiled this year’s White House Christmas decorations in a gauzy video in which she strolls through the public rooms marveling at their holiday luster. She gingerly adjusts a single red rose in a lush floral swag draped over a mantelpiece
Matt Gaetz Nukes Democrat Witnesses
at Impeachment Inquiry Hearing
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:17:44 AM Post Reply
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) nuked Democrat witnesses during the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment inquiry hearing on Wednesday in a fiery round of questioning that exposed their bias against President Trump and Republicans. Gaetz also got the witnesses, all constitutional law professors, to admit they donated thousands of dollars to Democrats. Gaetz first asked Michael Gerhardt, professor at University of North Carolina, if he donated money to Barack Obama. Gerhardt responded, “My family did, yes.” Gaetz asked, “Four times?” Gerhardt responded, “That sounds about right, yes.”
Democrats Disturbed by the White
2020 Candidates Left in Field
Posted by M2 — 12/5/2019 6:13:11 AM Post Reply
Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) dramatic exit from the 2020 Democrat presidential primary race has many on the left lamenting the current lineup for the upcoming debate, which currently has six candidates qualifying, all of whom are white. Harris exited the race on Tuesday as one of the seven Democrat candidates who met the fundraising and polling thresholds required to qualify for the December 19 debate in Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University. In order to qualify, a candidate must report at least 200,000 contributions and reach four percent in four Democratic

“Democrats disturbed” seems right, but how do you fix that?

Posted in American politics, Politics of the Left | 25 Comments

She came, she soared, she conked out

TO understand how seriously Kamala Harris was taken in some quarters as a presidential candidate, look no further than the effusive day-in-the-life feature by Elizabeth Weil published in The Atlantic in May. “No other matchup would be as riveting—or as revealing—as Harris versus Trump.” That part was actually true. Had she somehow become the one, it’s not clear how Donald Trump would have put Harris through the wringer the way he has so many other squished foes. Now that the former two-term Attorney-General of California has quit the Democratic primaries, we’ll have to die wondering. Yes, it would have been something.

Harris was touted (inevitably) as a female Obama but the former President – whether you like or loathe him – had an interesting back-story. Not two biographies’ worth maybe but there was an arc there. He also had Michelle and two children. As important for a Democrat, he was seen as a radical whose time had come. Harris had … Willie Brown. Worse still: she was a prosecutor. Turning that to your advantage as a Democrat is a sisyphean boulder to roll. It’s never propitious for a campaign when it’s most discussed moment is the candidate being crushed in a debate. Everything afterwards seems like work-shopped recuperation – because that’s what it is. Tulsi Gabbard’s attack in July was that moment. Harris had jailed marijuana users and kept people in prison “beyond their sentences,” she charged. Party stalwarts deplored the brutality but only because it was the FOX-curious Tulsi meting it out. Harris had no ‘story’ and they knew it.

The only thing interesting about Harris’s fall is how unlamented it is. The Democrats have become so extreme that neither her race nor gender made any difference without an accepted corpus of hard-core statist and social transformation rhetoric. The party is now like an aboriginal tribe; colour is less important than whether or not you’re accepted as one of them. The remaining frontrunners are white unapologetically because they’re all socialists verifiably. The most serious – and Wall Street-backed – African-American is out and it doesn’t matter as much as it would have in 2008. An unusual shift, it’s difficult to classify as either leftward or rightward. It’s just more cult-like. Harris blames billionaires for her failure. She should blame herself for not grasping why she didn’t belong. Even Joe Biden is trying to be more radical – having given up on his first instinct which was to be granddad driver in a micro-bus full of drunken delinquents.

This just in: Joe Biden would consider Kamala Harris as his Vice President pick.

Less noticed as scratchings – and as candidates in the first place – were Montana governor Steve Bullock and former Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak. Both withdrew from the contest late last week. Their failure to inspire any broad support whatsoever is also illustrative. Bullock ran on the importance of recognising and bolstering rural America. Former Navy three star vice-admiral Sestak’s focus was the rights and wellbeing of military veterans. As Jim Geraghty points out at National Review, to these agendas “Democratic primary voters by and large said, ‘nah’.” Sestak was especially marginal, according to Geraghty: “a figure like that just doesn’t fit in today’s Democratic party.” The argument is not that either man is remotely right-of-centre (although the terror Sestak aroused in the Obama administration during the 2010 primaries was remarkable). For example, both hold coveted 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America – an indispensable green card for all Democrats. But they didn’t campaign on the approved list of contemporary left-wing fetishes. In 1960, the Navy record of a Democrat hopeful was considered electoral gold. Now it’s a liability.

Posted in American politics | 39 Comments

David Bidstrup: Get out the summer woollies.

1 December 2019 was the equal second coldest December 1 in Adelaide in 130 years of records, beaten only by 1966 at 15.6 C and tying with 1987 at 17.7 C. The hottest 1 January was in 1913 when it reached a maximum of 42.4 C.

We are about to enter the peak propaganda period where we will be told that records have been “smashed” and that we are doomed unless we somehow magically stop “emitting carbon” and bring the “climate” back under our control.

During the summer months I will gather the daily weather summary from the paper and do some comparisons with both the historical record and with the previous year to see whether the claims made are true.

Comparing December 1 for 2018 and 2019, the maximum temperature yesterday was 17.7 C and in 2018 it was 33.2 C, which is 15.5 C hotter than this year. The minimum yesterday was 11.3 compared to 17.3 in 2018, so it was 6 degrees hotter last year.

The “hottest” December 1 in the 2000’s was in 2002 at 29.1 C but there were 32 years that beat it. The next in the 2000’s is 2007 at 28.3C with 37 years greater.

More as it happens.

Posted in Guest Post | 21 Comments

John Comnenus : Regulatrage

Arbitrage is: “the simultaneous buying and selling of securities, currency, or commodities in different markets or in derivative forms in order to take advantage of differing prices for the same asset.”

Arbitrage is tactical as it generates a short term profit based on pricing anomalies for the same assets in different markets.

Government Regulations shape much of our modern economies and playing the different costs structure in different regulatory environments is a strategic activity that can create long term value for a company.

Regulatrage is taking advantage of different regulatory arrangements to gain a long term strategic competitive benefit. Companies increasingly look for regulatrage opportunities through interstate and international tax and regulation breaks.

Governments deliberately generate regulatrage opportunities to grow their economies for favoured client groups. Let me posit a concept of three types of regulatrage.

Type 1 regulatrage – the government wants to grow a favoured industry participant at the expense of other participants in the same market. For example, the regulatory benefits to increase solar energy at the expense of coal power in the power market. This transfers benefits from existing companies at the expense of other companies operating in the same market. The costs are borne by the customers of the disfavoured company.

Type 2 regulatrage – the government wants to develop an industry at the expense of the rest of the economy. For example, local content requirements in the Defence Industry sector. The costs of this regulatrage are borne by tax payers generally.

Type 2 regulatrage can lead to trickle down regulatrage where State governments seek regulatrage advantage over other States to attract the National regulatrage beneficiary to their jurisdiction.  For example, the Federal Government gives regulatrage opportunities to armoured vehicle manufacturers through local content and industry involvement criteria. State governments then provide payroll tax benefits or gift land to the beneficiary of type 2 regulatrage.

Type 3 regulatrage is where regulations are slashed to create a more competitive economy. This type of regulatrage creates a more attractive business environment compared to more highly regulated competitors. This type of regulatrage is usually good. Examples of this regulatrage is the way Trump slashed tax rates and regulations in the the USA And the way Ireland or Singapore create favourable environments for business. The costs of this type of regulatrage are borne by the competitors to the country introducing Type 3 regulatrage and the benefits accrue customers of Type 3 regulatrage beneficiaries and the country introducing Type 3 regulatrage opportunities.

Companies will seek regulatrage opportunities to create long term growth. The question for us, as the people who inevitably pay for Type 1 and Type 2 regulatrage, is the purpose of the regulatrage good. Generally we should be asking why don’t we implement more Type 3 regulatrage opportunities to take advantage of other over regulated first world economies.

Posted in Guest Post | 6 Comments

A shortcut on the road to serfdom

With Australia’s and global interest rates at absolute record lows, conversation have not surprisingly focused on negative interest rates.

One question often asked is why would anyone invest at negative interest rates. Why? Because they are made to by governments.

Because of the “brilliant” way banks are regulated, they are forced to buy government bonds – for capital adequacy reasons where sovereign bonds receive preferential risk weightings under Basel rules.  There are also, at least in Australia, pension fund mandates that require cash and “risk free” holdings (ie government bonds), but at least they aren’t mandated by law – beyond the requirement for Australians to have compulsory superannuation that is.

But a more fundamental question. Why keep cutting interest rates, including into the negative range? Well, the generally given response is stimulate activity to keep within some inflation target (this despite the broken Phillips Curve link between inflation and employment). It maybe one thing to have an upper band on inflation, but why have a lower band on inflation? Why is it believed that nil inflation or deflation is bad?

In the first place, TAFKAS does not believe that Australia’s inflation rate is as low as suggested. You can’t, in the same breath, say that there are cost of living pressures and also that inflation is too low.

The most likely reality is that inflation numbers are being manipulated to give the impression of low inflation – hedonic adjustments anyone. TAFKAS is not ascribing malice to the statisticians but rather cognitive bias. Everyone says that inflation is low so they seek out and find the data to prove it so.  If that fails, they change the method of calculations to take things out, add things in, to massage, for quality and substitution of course.

But more to the point, is deflation bad? TAFKAS expects he will be assaulted in saying this, but where is the evidence that deflation is bad? Consumers are constantly seeking out lower prices. Businesses are constantly striving to deliver lower prices? It’s governments who love and prefer higher prices. Why is this so?

Governments love inflation because it increases tax revenues within the need to increase tax rates. Wage price inflation generates additional income tax and payroll tax. Asset price inflation generates additional capital gains tax and land tax. Consumer price inflation generates additional goods and services tax and excise taxes (alcohol, tobacco, petrol etc).  A system of silent tax increases.

And every tax “cut” TAFKAS has witnessed in the last 20 years, they have been about returning some, but never all, inflation driven tax increases rather than actual tax cuts.

Governments also love inflation because it deflates the value of borrowings. It means they can borrow more and more and more and spend more and more and more. Not just governments. Borrowers, but governments are huge borrowers.

So who wins from inflation? Tax authorities and borrowers. Who wins from deflation? Citizens, consumers and savers.

Governments LOVE inflation. But only Goldilocks inflations. Not too high but not too low. Just right. In the 1-3% range.  Enough to quietly collect additional tax but not too obvious that citizens notice.

Consider the below chart of historical price changes and think about which products/services you are most pleased with and which not. And then overlay that with which ones are most influenced or regulated by government.

But much like sedating the nation, Governments have implemented policies to make sure that as many citizens as possible, and hence voters, are leveraged upto their eyeballs. Why again? Because these people too want inflation and not deflation, because they too will be adversely impacted by deflation.

All aboard in on the shortcut to serfdom.

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

1 week or 2?

The Australian has reported that:

Scott Morrison has announced a dramatic shake-up of the public service that will see five department heads axed and the number of government departments reduced from 18 to 14.

TAFKAS expects the leaks to start very soon.  Leaks to damage the elected government that is.

Apparently, PM Morrison said:

“We don’t expect the public service to run the government. That’s what we were elected to do,”

No doubt much of the Canberra citizenry don’t agree and will do their utmost to “re-educate” him.

Posted in Uncategorized | 34 Comments

Tony Abbott condemned by Louise Milligan’s nana

Latest …


Posted in Liberty Clip, Media | 30 Comments

Censorship is not a form of free speech

Should a carrier of information be allowed to do this: ’60 Minutes:’ More Than 300 Ads by Trump Campaign Taken Down by Google and YouTube. That is, should a carrier of the views of individuals who have signed up in good faith to discuss issues with their friends and with anyone else who would like to join in, be censored by the platform on which their views are expressed?

More than 300 of President Donald Trump’s political ads have taken down by Google and its video platform YouTube, mostly over the summer, according to a report by 60 minutes.

The CBS reporters were unable to find specific reasons for the mass takedowns of Trump ads, a common problem with social media companies, which are often reluctant to explain precisely why a ban or other act of censorship has happened. “We found very little transparency in the transparency report,” concluded 60 Minutes.

And not only are they publishers, they are also censors. Why is this allowed? Let me also draw on yesterday’s editorial in The Australian: Tech titans Google and Facebook want to rule your world, wherein we find:

In July, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission issued a report on the devastating impact of digital platforms. It was the deepest dive yet by a regulator into the predatory business models of Google, Facebook and Twitter, exposing monopoly powers, cavalier approaches to user privacy, pathological secrecy and parasitical freeloading on businesses such as News Corp Australia, our parent.

No doubt News Limited has its own interests at stake, but more importantly so do the rest of us. Moreover, Australia is being looked at as a test case:

The question is: can these giants be brought under control, their dominance checked for the common good? Authorities around the world are watching what happens here. The government’s move will have a profound effect on the future of news media and the lives of all Australians.

This is the reverse of a free speech issue in the usual sense. People didn’t sign up to twitter, facebook and youtube expecting the contents of their posts to be heavily censored on behalf of massive corporate entities whose politics is embedded on the left. We would be mad to let them get away with it, and in the long-run would pay dearly for allowing these censors to pretend they are on the side of free speech.


She gets to pick.

Posted in Platform Economy, Politics of the Left | 87 Comments

Sovereign Immunity

Posted in Uncategorized | 38 Comments