Jew hating journalist quits rather than apologize

Few articles on the Gaza conflict could be as deliberately misleading as the one, by veteran leftist shill and apologist, Mike Carlton who launched into a quixotic diatribe under the cartoon (below, and since removed), which can only be distinguished from Nazi propaganda from the 30s and 40s by virtue of the remote control, which was not available back then.

The Sydney morning Herald has apologized for the cartoon after a week of criticism and complaints, however Carlton has engaged in a vulgar diatribe against readers who have complained.  Some have been told to f**k off, been called pathetic f***wits, likudnicks, and a variety of other abusive terms by him.

The ABC has referred to this as “strident debate with his readers.” 

After numerous complaints about this SMH apologized on his behalf, then decided to demand that he do so and accept a suspension.  Being too arrogant and self-righteous to accept this he has quit his position.  Good bye and good riddance.

Australian media coverage of the Gaza conflict has largely followed the type seen internationally with most of the journalists embedded with Hamas and reporting on the war from the terrorist side of the border.  Reportage therefore is one sided and gives a false impression of aggression by the Israelis against relatively helpless Palestinians.

Most Palestinians are helpless, but are ruled by the terrorist group Hamas which sees advantage in launching rockets into Israel from among the civilian population, who cop the consequences.

Among Carlton’s more hyperbolic rating is:

 … Yes, Hamas is also trying to kill Israeli civilians, with a barrage of rockets and guerilla border attacks. It, too, is guilty of terror and grave war crimes. But Israeli citizens and their homes and towns have been effectively shielded by the nation's Iron Dome defence system, and so far only three of its civilians have died in this latest conflict. The Israeli response has been out of all proportion, a monstrous distortion of the much-vaunted right of self defence. 

It is a breathtaking irony that these atrocities can be committed by a people with a proud liberal tradition of scholarship and culture, who hold the Warsaw Ghetto and the six million dead of the Holocaust at the centre of their race memory. …

Carlton neglects to mention the tunnels through which Hamas launched attacks into Israel, which along with rocket attacks were the primary source of the necessity to invade.

His defense of Hamas appears to be based on the argument that their barrage was largely ineffective, owing to Iron Dome, which intercepted many of their rockets, more than 300 of which were reportedly defective to the point where they fell on their own population.  Incompetence in offensive actions does not make those actions excusable, nor insulate them from consequences.

There will probably still be a position available for him at the public broadcaster, The ABC, which has no worries about offending subscribers as the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Jonathan Green blaming libertarians for Abbott screwups

Cartoon; By Bill Leak 

The ABC’s election guru, Antony Green has had a real problem with minor parties and libertarians since the 2013 federal election.  While tending to be a bit confused as to what libertarian actually means, he is still a man who knows what he hates, and hates libertarians with a venom.

There is no truth however, to the rumour that the ABC had to employ a new staffer to dry Antony’s eyes after the election of Liberal Democrat, David Leyonhjelm in New South Wales.
But the ABC doesn't stop with the irrationality of Antony, They have a right little nest of Greens, all lefties, and all batshit crazy about the right.  The best known of the others is Tony who is best known for Q&A, a sort of circle jerk of Jonathan Holmes groupies in which a rightie is matched up against three or four lefties, Tony himself, and the studio audience. He doubles up on Lateline.
Then we have Jonathan, from ABC Radio National with a background of Fairfax, Crikey, public radio,  and editor of The Drum, which basically says it all.  He shares the values of the others, to the point where he makes the excuse for Abbott of, 'libertarians made him do it.'

In ruing the influence of libertarians/classical liberals (if only) he begins by lauding his ideas of the Howard government’s virtues of:

(1)          Being big spending centrists;

(2)          Flexibility of principle, and;

(3)          Putting political expedience ahead of rationality;

Here are some examples:

… If John Howard was anything, he was a conservative pragmatist; or perhaps even a pragmatic conservative. He was nothing if not flexible. A man with a gift for acting in line with conservative ideology, but also populism: matching the pursuit of small(ish) government and market theory with the interests and aspirations of a politically expedient notion of the ordinary Australian. 

Sort of a big-spending, albeit Tory, centralist. He was certainly not a politician who put ideology before political strategy, which increasingly seems to be a hallmark of the Abbott administration. … 

… Remember, of course, that it was Howard who went to the 2007 election promising a carbon trading scheme ... a piece of pragmatic politics that may well have conflicted with personal instinct and belief. 

And that sort of decision, that capacity to bend ideology to accommodate political reality, is what seems to be eluding the Abbott Government. Which might be tricky for them: it was the gift that kept Howard in power for a decade. …

He then wades into an attack on classical liberals and libertarian thought, which he blames for the current budget machinations:

… Howard, of course, had the great benefit of governing before the recent fashion for bright young Windsor-knotted think-tankers who style themselves "classical liberals", and plead a no-prisoners libertarianism that insists that government should work with an almost anorexic enthusiasm for the reduction of, well, government, as the sworn enemy of individual effort, and the devil take the hindmost. To the concerned bystander, the tendency is to create confusion with more time-worn and gentler expressions of the Liberal brand. 

And that's Tony Abbott's problem, to be governing in a time of fervour and impatience, a time when many in conservative politics are sniffing long-unresolved opportunity while taking in their inherited world with the steely glint of the one-eyed ideologue. … 

… Abbott won his one-vote victory over Malcolm Turnbull on a "climate change is crap" ticket, rallying MPs ideologically disposed to accept blogging over research, and who read the political responses to climate change as a crushing of individual rights under the weight of the eco-socialist collective. …

It is a little difficult to see where Green is coming from, although it is reasonably simple to see where he is going.  In the old irrational style of the left, he is using the term ‘ libertarian’ as an acceptable alternative to the adjectival use of the f*** word in polite society, although it is difficult to understand why he feels the need to do that on an ABC forum like The Drum.

On the climate change issue, libertarians in the main accept that the climate is changing; it has been doing that for millions of years.  Most accept that there is a possibility that some of it may be caused by human emissions.   What they don’t accept though, is the contention of Green and his fellow authoritarian shills that government has the competency to change the climate, especially for the better, and are really skeptical of the suggestion that it can be achieved by a new tax.

While libertarians are comfortable with expenditure cuts, there seem to be little rationality in the ones that are being mooted by Abbott and his crew.  If libertarian thought were involved, all departments that duplicate state ones would be abolished, or be reduced to a mere coordination role.

The Abbott proposals nibble around the edges of excessive expenditure, while instituting new, or increased taxes in a futile attempt to claw something back in what appears to be a Rudd/ Gillard class warfare style budget based on the hoary old ‘soak the rich’ concept.  The proposed wealth tax is the second bite of the cherry for Abbott, as he already intends to levy a surcharge on the most productive companies in the land in order to fund his misbegotten parental leave scheme.

To suggest that by calling an increase a temporary levy or a surcharge makes it something other than a tax increase is nothing more than an exercise in semantics.  As for the temporary part, it is worth remembering the words of Milton Friedman; “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”

Worse still; the wealth tax will only claw back a couple of billion of a forty + billion deficit, which expends his political capital in an exercise in futility.  His dad really screwed up in failing to tell to young Tony about pissing into the wind.

There is so much wrong with the Abbott proposals from a libertarian or classical liberal perspective that even Jonathan’s rather jaundiced view on libertarianism must be indicating that Tony is a dedicated statist and they are both on the same side.

If not, then the question has to be asked, just what part of, “We would never vote for an increase in taxes, and would never vote for a reduction in liberty,” doesn’t he understand.

ABC; keeping it classy

Several months ago, the public broadcaster and left wing shill, the ABC demonstrated both its class and its idea of how to deal with critics with the photo shopped image of News Ltd commentator, Chris Kenny (Right)

Kenny’s complaint was handled by the ABC’s Audience & Consumer Affairs division, which unsurprisingly came up with the following dismissal:

“A&CA’s assessment is that the skit was likely to offend but the segment was justified by the editorial context.  While strong in nature it was consistent with the Chaser style — one very familiar to its target audience.”

The ABC managing director Mark Scott has been dragged kicking and screaming into an apology after Kenny was granted the right to sue for defamation.

For the benefit of overseas readers, the ABC’s Q&A program is our equivalent of ‘The View’ except it has a varying panel consisting of one rightie up against four lefties and the leftist moderator. When they wish to be really cynical, they have Malcolm Turnbull as the rightie.

Tim Blair informs us that tonight we are in for a real treat with obscure, but foul mouthed playwright Van Badham on the panel:

THE ABC has defended the decision by its Q & A chat program to invite little-known playwright and anarchist Van Badham on to Monday night’s show. 

The ABC will also pay for her flights and accommodation. 

Badham’s Twitter account features obscene attacks on various politicians, including Prime Minister Tony Abbott (‘‘a lying sexist c ...”), former PM Kevin Rudd (“the c ... that caused all these f ... ing problems”), Environment Minister Greg Hunt (“an insult to the word c ...”) and the entire 2013 Labor caucus (“let me into that caucus room to kick the mother...ing sh.. out of the dumb c ... rags in there”). 

Q & A producer Peter McEvoy said his show “aims to provide a platform for as wide a variety of views as possible’’. 

“The point ... is to generate an informed, civil discussion ... By necessity this means some guests will have views others might object to,” he said.

In Douglas Adams book, Life, the Universe and Everything, there is mention of The Rory Award, which is given for category: "The Most Gratuitous Use Of The Word 'Fuck' in A Serious Screenplay".

He possibly came up with the idea for this while watching the ABC.

Palmer, libertarianism, you’ve got to be kidding

Cartoon: By Pope 

It would be difficult to come up with a word that causes more confusion as to its meaning than libertarian.  To actual libertarians it’s relatively simple; a belief in fiscal conservatism, social tolerance, individual freedom, and limited government.

Among outsiders it varies from a reasonable understanding of the above, to right wing fanatics, hopeless utopians, selfish pricks, right through to the left wing journalistic interpretation; a suitable alternative to the adjectival use of the F word in polite society.

Peter Van Onselen of The Australian though, appears particularly confused on the issue when referring to the politics of Clive Palmer: 

… Equally, Tony Abbott must contend with the newly formed PUP, which primarily challenges the conservative side of politics. 

Clive Palmer is an odd mix of conservatism, libertarianism, social liberalism (witness his advocacy for onshore asylum-seeker processing) and self-interest. 

Nevertheless, there should be little doubt that his supporters hail more from the Right than the Left, and with that Palmer becomes Abbott’s problem, not Bill Shorten’s. PUP picked up a senator last weekend, which takes its Senate total to three, four if you include the deal done with motoring enthusiast Ricky Muir. …

There isn’t much to be confused about in Clive’s positions if you consider his origins and history.

Clive is an old-fashioned rump National Party dropout conservative and crony capitalist, who has created a populist party based on telling every audience what it wants to hear.  There is nothing whatsoever that is libertarian in Clive.

PUP lists five policies on it’s website: 

(1)          That his party officials may not be lobbyists;

(2)          Abolishing the carbon tax.  Libertarians would give this one a tick;

(3)          A nebulous statement on refugees that says nothing substantive;

(4)          A bizarre statement on ‘creating mineral wealth’, and;

(5)          A feel-good statement on wealth flowing back to where it’s created.

In the case of (4) and (5) he reveals his statist, big government agenda.

In the case of ‘creating mineral wealth’, he wants to utilise the minerals of Qld and WA, but wants to send them to the southern states, far from their origins and process them there. Apart from increasing transport costs to get them there, typically, he then expects incentives from big government to do it,

Libertarians tended to support the Lang Hancock concept of a privately funded railway from WA to Central Queensland, with processing plants and ports on either end, with Qld coal going west and WA minerals going east.

In the case of created wealth, a libertarian would favour not taking it out in the first place, rather than Palmer’s idea of taking it to Canberra, churning it through the bureaucracy, then sending what is left back to where it came from.

For the patient with time on their hands, PUP also has a huge quantity of press releases from the party for perusal.  It’s actually fun to go through and find out how many are contradictory.  This is probably the result of a knee-jerk desire to get something, anything, out there in relation to any piece of information in the hope of sounding good, or at least concerned in relation to it without really thinking it right through.

Van Onselen is probably a little justified in being confused; Palmer does that to people.  There is however, no excuse for observing an odd position or two that may gain the approval of some libertarians and assuming that this qualifies as part of that philosophy.  A broken clock gets the time right twice a day.

Libertarianism is a consistent philosophy of liberty and as result all policy positions are consistent with that condition.  If this is not the case, then the person or party is not libertarian.

Australia at #28 in press freedom

There has been some commentary in the libertarian and right wing blogosphere over the US falling to #46 in press freedom rankings in the latest assessment from Reporters Without Borders.

While the US Constitution has a guarantee of freedom of the press in its First Amendment, the reality is that over the Bush and Obama Administrations, there has been a considerable drop in rankings.  The depredations of the NSA and Obama’s ‘war on Fox’ are glaring examples.

Australia cannot feel too comfortable though.  While press freedom lacks a constitutional guarantee here and we are considerably ahead of the States, we are well down the rankings at #28: 

In Australia, the lack of adequate legislative protection for the confidentiality of journalists’ sources continues to expose them to the threat of imprisonment for contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources. No fewer than seven requests for disclosure of sources were submitted to the courts in 2013 alone. …

This is not really much of an improvement on our #30 ranking during 2012 while Conroy and Gillard were pushing media controls including licensing journalists and a ‘fit and proper’ person test for media owners and a ‘super regulator to oversee the industry including bloggers.  It is also a decline from last year’s #26.

New Zealand currently sits at #9 and there is little reason why as a fellow liberal democracy with a similar geographic position and much in common, why we shouldn’t have a similar standard of freedom.

Global warming induced asteroid fly-bys

One of the great things about the end of the year is the tendency of the media to do their nostalgia pieces on the year that was. While most of them are rubbish, there are some gems among them, especially the ones that deal with the sillier parts, and in particular, the more absurd claims of global warming frantics.

Even better and more idiotic than that, are the efforts of the liberal media ‘sophisticates’ who are ever anxious to show off their belief in the new trendy GW religion, with claims that everything bad is GW related.

Deborah Feyerick makes the effort here with a question of the ‘weather guy’ Bill Nye, about an asteroid fly by and whether it might be induced by climate change:

 This is somewhat like some of the movie scenes where the piss is taken from media anchors, except you just can’t make this stuff up. Note the deliciously threatening ‘only fifteen minutes from disaster’ statement from Nye.

 Warnings of near earth fly bys gives NASA a reason to feel relevant and scientists a source of government money to ‘study’ this phenomenon with an eye to finding a defense mechanism. This in turn gives the government a chance to appear to be doing something about it.

 The best chance we have at present seems to be Bruce Willis in his role in ‘Armageddon’ where he destroyed one, however thirty years in the drilling industry has made me a little skeptical of that possibility.

 The most you can hope for otherwise is that the good people of NASA will either not find an earth destroying asteroid, or if they do, will be able to issue you with a warning in time to give you the opportunity to kiss your arse goodbye.

Piers Morgan to get his head smashed, and its legal

Image: Mitchell Johnson bowling.

Non-liberal Americans should be in for a treat if they tune in to the Fourth Test of the Ashes series against the Poms in Melbourne, played from Boxing Day through to the 30^th of December.  After criticizing the English batsmen during the Adelaide test, serial blowhard Piers Morgan has accepted a challenge to face retired fast bowler, Brett Lee in the nets during the game.

The initial challenge was for him to face frontline quick, Mitchell Johnson, however Brett Lee who was a 100 MPH bowler in his day has issued a challenge which has been accepted: 

 England's batsmen have had all sorts of drama facing Mitchell Johnson but one of their cocky countrymen reckons he'd be up to the task. Piers Morgan, the former Fleet Street editor who is now a CNN talkshow host, may have bitten off more than he can chew by boasting about his ability to front up to express bowling. 

Morgan, a cricket tragic, said on Twitter on Sunday he would love to face Johnson and ''wouldn't back away'', imploring England's batsmen to ''grow a pair''. 

He won't have to face the frightening Australian left-armer but his social media skiting is set to lob him in the nets facing Brett Lee [Right]. The former Test quick challenged Morgan to front up against him at the MCG and Morgan has accepted. 

''Absolutely no way will Piers Morgan get in the nets,'' a sceptical Shane Warne said. ''He hasn't got the courage. He's all talk.'' 

Morgan, however, is not backing down. ''Oh, I've got the courage all right,'' he tweeted to Warne. ''Get down the nets in Melbourne yourself, and I'll hammer you, too. I've faced 90mph regularly in my net from a bowling machine. Never backed away. ...

It is to be hoped that Morgan stays true to form and bad-mouths Lee prior to the event, which should improve Lee’s speed and accuracy.  Watch for Morgan’s head and body being peppered.

Interestingly, cricket commentators had to explain to audiences who Morgan was as he is virtually unknown here.  A few who followed the Levinson Inquiry into phone hacking know him as the guy who was accused of unreliable testimony there, and Top Gear fans recognize him as the person who was punched out by Jeremy Clarkson.

Praise for the Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm

In the wake of the election of David Leyonhjelm to the senate from New South Wales, the media were left scrambling for something to say.  Many commentators have called for reform of the voting system to ensure that minor parties cannot get elected in the future.

The Spectator has in the midst of this; interviewed David and come up with a remarkably positive take on him and the party as well.  I love the cover image with a brilliant caricature of David.  The artist must have known a bit about us as his belt buckle sports the Gadsden Flag image:

The item though could only have been written by a real libertarian: 

… Electoral defeat of a disintegrating and duplicitous Labor government was a glorious event. But for Australians whose souls burn with the flame of liberty, that day delivered an additional and more important victory: the election of David Leyonhjelm to the senate. … 

… The only Liberal Democrat policy repeatedly referenced by the media — always out of context — was the party’s support of the right of citizens to own firearms for self-defence. This has long been dismissed by most Australian pundits as some loopy idea imported from the US by home-grown ‘gun nuts’. But when America’s Founding Fathers drafted the second amendment to the US constitution — unlike most of today’s commentariat — they were not operating in an historical nor an intellectual vacuum. The Founders were aware that the right to keep and bear arms was an ancient one, long established in British common law, and finally codified in England’s 1689 Bill of Rights. ...

… What struck me when I spoke to senator-elect Leyonhjelm this week was that like America’s Founders, he too was not living in a vacuum. His political philosophy had taken decades of thought — and decades of real world experience — to form. In youth, his nascent distaste for authority was further informed by the Vietnam era draft. Imbued with the bright-eyed socialistic leanings shared by many young men and women, he’d travelled behind the Iron Curtain and to communist countries in Africa. Witnessing the hideous realities of collectivism soon cured him of leftist delusions. Later in life, the works of free-market economist Milton Friedman helped cement his philosophical move to classical liberalism. … 

… They are the only party upholding the ideals of classical liberalism. They support your right to smoke what you want, marry who you want, gamble when you want, own what you want, trade with whom you want, run your business the way you want, defend yourself when threatened and pay as little tax as possible (so don’t worry Libs, Leyonhjelm won’t oppose the scrapping of carbon, mining, or any other taxes). The party’s website outlines an extensive platform, informed by a powerful philosophy: folks should be free to live unhindered by senseless and despotic government regulations. 

If you believe in liberty, you can’t pick and choose rights. You can’t just support those individual rights that complement your temperament and taste, but spit on those that don’t. Denying the freedom of others makes you a tyrant. This applies even in a democracy. Even if you are in the majority, if you disagree with a certain right and your vote helps outlaw it, that doesn’t make you justified, it just means you belong to the tyranny of the majority. Shame on you if you do. More so if you pay lip-service to the ideals of liberalism. … 

… Just as the once solitary figure of Ron Paul paved the way for what is now the only alternative in American politics, David Leyonhjelm may well spark a libertarian renaissance here. This is the real significance of his election to the senate. As George Washington once recognised, ‘Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.’

The full article can be read here.  Make sure you check it out as there will be a test next week. 

The Liberal Democrats get their day in the sun

It is highly unusual for a minor party to get much in the way of publicity these days, especially during elections when their voices tend to be drowned out by the clamour from the majors, even if they were published in the first place.  Most of the media tend to pretend that they don’t exist, or think they are not interesting enough to warrant space.

Small parties rarely receive any electoral funding as opposed to the tens of millions awarded to Labor, the Coalition, and the Greens, therefore they have little chance of coming up with an advertising budget.

It was therefore gratifying to get some space allocated to us in an article in the Australian, slamming the incredible wastage of taxpayer money and its damage to the economy at large and the debt being handed down to future generations: 

... The government's formal intergenerational reports, undertaken by the Treasury, paint a depressing enough picture of the government's structural budget position out to 2050, but they naively assume future politicians do not impose new spending commitments. Carling shows that across the decade to 2010-11, government spending grew 4 per cent a year in real terms, three-quarters of which was a result of the addition of new spending programs, not the expansion of existing programs. 

Not many political parties have the courage to promise to cut spending or agencies before an election, although the fledgling Liberal Democratic Party is one exception. 

Its treasurer, David Leyonhjelm, who will stand for a NSW senate seat, tells The Australian his party's platform is to limit the federal government to defence, immigration, basic public services (such as passport services, regulation of hazardous materials, air and sea transport regulation), and assistance to the least well off. 

"The big parties just argue about how to spend our taxes, not whether to collect and spend them in the first place," he says. 

Certainly, too many Australians are quick to complain about big government and the regulatory burden but recoil when programs or bodies are suggested for the chop. 

Apologists for the government cite Australia's AAA credit rating and the projected return to a surplus of $4bn in 2017. Ratings agencies have been widely discredited and most European countries and the US were rated AAA before the global financial crisis, along with the mortgage-backed securities that were in reality a ticking time-bomb under the financial system. ...

It also has to be mentioned that the ratings agencies who give us a AAA rating are the same ones which gave the same rating to the mortgage backed securities at the root of the GFC.

Swamping the media with taxpayer funded Labor ads

Cartoon: By Zeg

You know that an election is coming on in Australia when you begin to see government departments spending millions of taxpayer dollars advertising their plans, wares, programs, aspirations, inspirations, obfuscations, and lots of free stuff, that you can find out more about by visiting www.australia.gov.au/…. (whateveryoudesire)  You are left in no doubt that the things being pushed are due to the largesse of the current government.

You can also ring 1800 CORNUCOPIA.

All governments do this despite railing against it in opposition.  Kevin Rudd in opposition claimed, “I believe this is a sick cancer within our system. It's a cancer on democracy.”  It appears that in view of that he intends to spend $65 million in government advertising in the lead up to the election: 

TAXPAYERS will fork out $65 million in a three-month government advertising blitz as Labor dips into the public purse to promote its asylum seeker and other pre-election reforms. 

In spending levels not seen since John Howard's controversial WorkChoices' campaign, $25 million was outlaid on television, radio and newspaper advertisements in June - four times the amount spent by Commonwealth agencies earlier this year. 

Kevin Rudd - who labelled government advertising a "cancer on democracy'' when he was campaigning in 2007 - is now using taxpayer funds for a domestic advertising blitz to promote his asylum seeker deal. 

But the controversial move has triggered calls for the Auditor-General to investigate whether the weekend's advertisements - which ran nationally - breached guidelines which Mr Rudd himself put in place following the 2007 election. 

Advertising industry figures show Commonwealth agencies spent $80 million for the six months to June 30 - and this level will rise in the election lead-up. ...

Currently there are ads running on the NBN, education reforms, household assistance, disability care, a ‘plan for Australian jobs’, and the already unraveling PNG solution.

Note to Dr Hook; you’re in the wrong game

Well Doc, you have been singing about your problem for a long time now:

 Change your act and you won't have that old situation where everybodys making it big but you:

Gillard most productive PM?

Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it 
got out of its way. – Henry David Thoreau

The fact that the article in the Guardian, “Was Julia Gillard the most productive prime minister in Australia's history?” was written at all is something of an indictment of the attitudes of the press, or at least some of it.  Productivity and government are mutually exclusive, as those nations that have adopted state control of their enterprises have found out to their dismay.

The Guardian not only argues that there is such a thing as a ‘productive government, but doubles down on a stupid idea by suggesting that it can be measured by the amount of legislative acts passed per day in office.  Given that such acts tend to be regressive to productive enterprises, or increase the cost of doing business, the conclusions reached are the complete opposite of what is desirable: 

How do we measure the effectiveness of a government? There are polls, both of opinion and at the ballot box, but these don't really offer us any measure of effectiveness. You can look at the economy and measure the health of the populace - and these are both good indicators - but are not wholly under the influence of the government of the day. 

One way might be to look at the ability of a government to pass legislation. Admittedly this is a quantity over quality approach, but it does offer us a quantitative measure of a government, political party or prime minister. Someone that gets a lot of legislation passed might be considered to be good at getting things done. 

I took all of the Commonwealth of Australia Numbered Acts and assigned them to a prime minister, political party, and parliament based on the date of assent of the act. This isn't entirely exact, as some legislation may be introduced under one PM and passed under another, though I believe it is a good proxy. 

From this dataset, I counted the total acts for each PM, party, and parliament. Then, I determined the number of days in office for each PM, and the number of days each parliament and party governed. Using these figures you can calculate a rate of acts per day, which accounts for different lengths of prime ministers' or governments' terms. 

The results? 

Julia Gillard had the highest rate of passing legislation with a rate of 0.495, followed by Bob Hawke at 0.491: ...

This is fairly indicative of the overly cozy relationship between the media and big government and the way in which the former has become the cheerleaders for the latter. 

These creatures of the state not only fail to understand the stifling effect of massive regulation on the economy, business, and the liberty of the people at large but actually mistake legislative over-reach for productivity, except when done by governments whose politics they disagree with.

Bring back George Reid and give him a hung parliament to make legislation more difficult than that which allowed him to pass a bill every 40th day. 

Muslim incensed at Australian stamp

Image: the offending stamp. (This appears to be the action at Tel el Saba, a Kiwi action.) Courtesy News .com.au 

The latest in Australian stamps that has been distributed jointly with Israel has incensed a Palestinian activist who is having conniptions over it being a ‘disgraceful insult’ to whoever.  The problem she is frantic about is that they feature the Battle of Beersheba.

The charge of the Light Horse at Beersheba is one of the iconic battles in Australian history.  The 4^th Light Horse was ordered to take the town by dark after the British XX Corps had attached the town for most of the day, making little headway against stiff resistance. 

The 4^th and 12^th Regiments were ordered to attack the Turkish trenches in a cavalry charge rather than the traditional tactic of dismounting and attacking on foot.  The town was secured within the hour. 

There only seems to be one complaint so far, but it has apparently been a slow news day: 

Australia Post's noble envelope-carrying mission is embroiled in controversy today - with the company accused of making a "disgraceful" insult to the Palestinian people in a range of 60c and $2.60 postage stamps. 

"Just the other day I needed a postage stamp," Australian Palestinian activist Sonja Karkar wrote on her blog, "I duly handed over my 60 cents at an Australia Post outlet and received far more than I bargained for - nothing less, would you believe, than a dollop of Israeli propaganda." 

The issue? The stamps feature World War I near the town of Beersheba where Australian soldiers fought the Turkish.  But Ms Karkar says the stamp is tied to Israel when Beersheba was a Palestinian town in 1917. Israel did not exist until 1948. … 

… An Australia Post spokeswoman said it received its information from sources including the Australian War Memorial. And the stamps were fact-checked by war historian Peter Stanley.

It is difficult to understand why this has been given publicity, given that the ‘outrage’ described consists of one blog post by a Palestinian radical who wishes to censor the history of this nation.  We can though, now expect plenty of bleating and bitching to follow from the usual sources.

Giving these idiots oxygen is only likely to result in more demands in the name of political correctness and the avoidance of offense to Muslims.  There is already far too much appeasement of these people who seem to find nearly everything ‘offensive’.

Probably one of the most ludicrous examples was a report by Veterans Affairs fretting over whether ANZAC day was likely to upset their delicate sensibilities: 

The Government squandered $370,000 so that Veteran’s Affairs Bureaucrats could finance a number of ‘Focus Groups’ to develop still more political correctness and tell us that ANZAC Day commemorations were “unpopular with younger people” and offend recent Islamic immigrants.   Someone forgot to tell the focus groups about the increasing numbers of young people that are attending dawn services and other ANZAC Day commemorations around Australia, at Gallipoli and other memorial sites on the battlefields of WWI and recent immigrants are offended by everything Australian. 

The Government then spent another $105,000 to measure the impact of ANZAC Day on recently arrived Islamic migrants and to tone down the commemorations by not mentioning the current and recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as Muslims may be offended.  What consideration was give to the offence that will cause the survivors and/or families of those Australian servicemen killed or maimed in those conflicts? …

About the only offensive thing about this stamp is the cost of posting a letter.