My new favourite news site

Thanks to the great Tim Blair I have now become aware of what must be the best news site on the planet.

Certainly, if you asked the North Koreans then they'd agree.

That's because it's the new English language version of North Korea's official paper, The Rodong Sinmun.

The articles are completely hilarious. My current favourite is an editorial Full Play to Advantage of Socialist Economic Management System.

The DPRK and its people are now greeting the 50th anniversary of the Taean Work System created by President Kim Il Sung.

The President created the Taean System, model of the socialist economic management, in the early 1960s when the socialist system was established and the overall technical modernization of the national economy was progressing in the DPRK.

This system is the advantageous Korean-style socialist economic management that embodies the Juche idea and the revolutionary mass line based on it.

It helps conduct all the business activities under the collective guidance of party committees and rouse the popular masses to the implementation of economic tasks by giving priority to political affairs. The system also makes it possible for the superior to help the lower in a responsible manner and to closely combine the science and technology with production and turn the economic lever into good account in order to ensure the production in a rational way.

It is the people-centered economic management system, whereby the popular masses manage and run the economy in a scientific and rational way as the true masters of its management, and the socialist economic management system that embodies the collective principle of "One for all and all for one!" This is essential character of the Taean Work System and herein lies the source of its inexhaustible might.

The past five decades after establishment of the system are a glorious and immortal history in which the socialist economy of the DPRK hewed out the original path of its development under the leadership of the great leader and the great party and the Korean people have wrought epoch-making miracles in the economic construction while overcoming all sorts of trials and challenges.

It is important to solve any problem arising in the economic activities in a Korean way suited to intrinsic nature of socialist society, with clear awareness that the victory of socialism is just victory of the revolutionary principle.

All the people should give full play to the advantage of the Juche-oriented socialist economic management system under the leadership of Kim Jong Il.

If anyone can tell me what that means then feel free to provide feedback!

My favourite bit is that "One for all and all for one!" is now a collective principle in North Korea. I'm sure that The Three Musketeers is banned there, as it might give people funny ideas about rising up against the oppressors, so the ruling party is probably pretty safe from being discovered.

Japan's nuclear non-story

On 11 March a once in a lifetime magnitude 9.1 earthquake sent a wall of water hurtling towards Japan that would destroys hundreds of thousands of homes and take tens of thousands of lives.

By any definition, it's a calamity.

What has also been a calamity has been the reporting. From the time it was announced that the nuclear power plant at Fukushima had been damaged the focus of the media turned from the massive human tragedy to overblown hysteria about the possibility of a nuclear meltdown and radiation throughout the world.

Even the normally reliable The Australian newspaper has fallen for the anti-nuclear agitprop:



People are in dire need and yet this is the sort of drivel we get.

To be clear: there is zero, zip, zilch, nada, nil, none, no problem for anyone living anywhere in the world outside of the perimeter of the compound itself. None.

I happened to have dinner with a scientist who is expert on these matters and helps oversee nuclear safety in Australia a week or so after the tsunami in Japan and he was even more apoplectic than I was (which I didn't think was possible) about the media's reporting.

Even my old mum asked me about what was going to happen when I was driving her home one day. She was genuinely surprised that I said it was all hooey and no problem for anyone other than the plant operators and, politically, the government.

Such is the media hype and scaremongering that even the most senior Japanese politicians have to be seen to be on top of the nuclear plant issue and 'doing something' to protect the citizens. To 'do nothing', even though nothing needs to be done, is to commit political harakiri.

The tragedy is twofold.

Firstly, the Japanese government's attention is taken away, even for a short time, from the real task at hand and that is helping the people affected by the tsunami.

Secondly, those people who need help most from all over the world are not getting it due to the blanket media coverage of the nuclear non-event.

I agree with those who reckon that Fukushima will put back the nuclear debate in Australia by 10 years, such is the public's lack of understanding of the reality of nuclear power.

However, what a fantastic example of the true safety of nuclear power we have seen. Faced with an earthquake of much higher magnitude than engineers ever anticipated and a tsunami nearly twice as high (10m vs 5.5m or so) as what the plant was designed for the thing still shut down in an orderly manner, minimising the possibility of a large problem. Certainly, there have been problems that have needed dealing with. Given the scale of the problem that hit them it's hardly surprising.

But does the media tell us how remarkable a story this is of nuclear safety? No. Instead we get hysteria that radiation levels are 100,000 times normal while at the same time ignoring the fact that it's still many orders of magnitude below the level needed to cause a problem.

It's yet another example of how deeply the left's messages and propaganda have seeped into society that normally rational people would be so concerned by what is only a serious local issue.

(Nothing Follows)

Thomas Friedman writes one of the great speeches

Thomas Friedman is the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde of US political commentators. He takes an almost European approach to domestic matters while being a traditional Kennedy Liberal on international affairs.

To read Friedman on domestic affairs is almost as cringeworthy as reading Maureen Dowd; he is in lock step with the Democrat left on health care, global warming, social security and taxes. His articles lack depth, intellectual rigour and, most disturbingly, the support of hard evidence, relying more on emotion than logic.

Once he's taken his medicine, however, and turns his attention to matters beyond the US mainland then he becomes a serious, deep and impressive thinker. I might disagree with him on some of his foreign policy solutions but I can't fault him on his thought process.

Every man and his dog has had a crack at the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for not only making an ass of itself for awarding the prize to President Obama but also for diminishing the meaning of the award, yet again, so that it is now even more meaningless than it was after being given to Al Gore.

Friedman weighs in with the speech that the president should give at the acceptance ceremony. It is one of the great pieces of (speech)writing of modern times.

“Let me begin by thanking the Nobel committee for awarding me this prize, the highest award to which any statesman can aspire. As I said on the day it was announced, ‘I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.’ Therefore, upon reflection, I cannot accept this award on my behalf at all.

“But I will accept it on behalf of the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century — the men and women of the U.S. Army,Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, to liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi fascism. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers and sailors who fought on the high seas and forlorn islands in the Pacific to free East Asia from Japanese tyranny in the Second World War.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American airmen who in June 1948 broke the Soviet blockade of Berlin with an airlift of food and fuel so that West Berliners could continue to live free. I will accept this award on behalf of the tens of thousands of American soldiers who protected Europe from Communist dictatorship throughout the 50 years of the cold war.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who stand guard today at outposts in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan to give that country, and particularly its women and girls, a chance to live a decent life free from the Taliban’s religious totalitarianism.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American men and women who are still on patrol today in Iraq, helping to protect Baghdad’s fledgling government as it tries to organize the rarest of things in that country and that region — another free and fair election.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the thousands of American soldiers who today help protect a free and Democratic South Korea from an unfree and Communist North Korea.

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the American men and women soldiers who have gone on repeated humanitarian rescue missions after earthquakes and floods from the mountains of Pakistan to the coasts of Indonesia. I will accept this award on behalf of American soldiers who serve in the peacekeeping force in the Sinai desert that has kept relations between Egypt and Israel stable ever since the Camp David treaty was signed.

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the American airmen and sailors today who keep the sea lanes open and free in the Pacific and Atlantic so world trade can flow unhindered between nations.

“Finally, I will accept this award on behalf of my grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who arrived at Normandy six weeks after D-Day, and on behalf of my great-uncle, Charlie Payne, who was among those soldiers who liberated part of the Nazi concentration camp of Buchenwald.

“Members of the Nobel committee, I accept this award on behalf of all these American men and women soldiers, past and present, because I know — and I want you to know — that there is no peace without peacekeepers.

“Until the words of Isaiah are made true and lasting — and nations never again lift up swords against nations and never learn war anymore — we will need peacekeepers. Lord knows, ours are not perfect, and I have already moved to remedy inexcusable excesses we’ve perpetrated in the war on terrorism.

“But have no doubt, those are the exception. If you want to see the true essence of America, visit any U.S. military outpost in Iraq or Afghanistan. You will meet young men and women of every race and religion who work together as one, far from their families, motivated chiefly by their mission to keep the peace and expand the borders of freedom.

“So for all these reasons — and so you understand that I will never hesitate to call on American soldiers where necessary to take the field against the enemies of peace, tolerance and liberty — I accept this peace prize on behalf of the men and women of the U.S. military: the world’s most important peacekeepers.”

Give the man his credit. That is one terrific piece of writing. It is even suited to the president's style of speech.

There has been no greater force for peace than the US military. If you disagree then you need to name what group has done more to achieve peace, not talk about it or simply wish it were so.

I hope that by December President Obama has made the tough decisions he needs to in order to succeed in Afghanistan, which would then make giving this speech even more effective.

(Nothing Follows)

Time Magazine 1980 - Is Capitalism Working?

How's the saying go?

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Something like that, anyway.

Thanks for the most part to Jimmy Carter's inept presidency, America's economy was in dire strait some 29 years ago.

Naturally, instead of blaming Keynesian economic policies, unsound monetary policy or reckless fiscal policy, Time magazine chose to question that one thing that the talking heads in the media always give a kicking to when things are down - capitalism.

Sound familiar?

Check out the cover of Time's April 21, 1980, edition:



The article itself is somewhat less bearish than the attention grabbing cover.

Capitalism: Is It Working...? Of Course, but...

In an age of economic anxiety, real and rising concerns about whether free enterprise can surmount the problems of inflation, energy and productivity.

The relentless daily pounding of dismal news drives deeper the public's conviction that the economy is in a profound and morose crisis. Feverish inflation, previously a rare malady limited primarily to wartime, has become chronic. Price spurts once associated with profligate banana republics are now common to North America and Western Europe and threaten the foundations of democratic societies. With every sign showing that prices in the U.S. will continue soaring even as the nation begins slumping into recession, President Carter, his re-election jeopardized by the economy more than by anything else, is stuck in an economic morass.

The litany of U.S. economic woes at times seems endless. Week after week, interest rates crack new records; home owners face 17% mortgages, and companies confront 20% business loans. Energy, the oxygen of industrial life, has become so costly and politically controlled that the U.S. can no longer be certain of enough fuel to keep its factories running and homes heated. The output of goods per hour worked has stagnated. From 1948 to 1973, the productivity of American employees increased 2.9% annually, thus permitting steadily higher real wages and higher standards of living. Last year productivity dropped .9%. The real median income of American families jumped 64% from 1950 to 1970, but has crawled up by less than 1% a year in the past decade. Weekly real take-home pay has been declining for two years. That gauge of American economic health, the stock market, has been sharply depressed.

Amid all this, the Carter Administration has appeared paralyzed and unable to cope with problems that it does not fully understand. Quips Alfred Kahn, the hapless presidential anti-inflation adviser: "Anybody who isn't schizophrenic these days just isn't thinking clearly."

While these travails are felt most acutely in the U.S., the situation is common to nearly all Western nations. Since the mid-1970s, industrial economies have grown about as well as wheat in a drought, while inflation has expanded dangerously. Even countries that have adapted best to recent economic problems, notably West Germany and Japan, suffer inflation or slow growth. The world money system that functioned like a Swiss watch for a quarter-century has been sending off alarms. Gold, the barbarous relic that Shakespeare called the "common whore of mankind," has become the refuge for a world fearful of returning to an economic jungle.

As industrialized and developing nations meet the challenges of the new economic era, they must choose between two essentially different economic systems: the market economy and the command economy. Neither exists in pure form. They overlap, and there are myriad variations within each model. But the difference between them is basic. In market economies the principal business decisions are taken by individuals, who freely exchange their goods or services. In the command economy, the state makes the fundamental business decisions.

Capitalism, the system that relies on the maximum use of free markets and the minimum of government controls, is today being challenged as at no time since the Great Depression. On all sides the haunting questions arise: Is capitalism working well enough? Can the system suffer and survive these problems? Can it be repaired or is it fatally flawed?

One might be tempted to say: What else is new? The free enterprise system has been constantly questioned and condemned ever since that absent-minded Scots professor Adam Smith, another revolutionary of 1776, enunciated its basic philosophy. But today's doubts are deeper and the assaults more virulent. They come not only from capitalism's old critics but from its longtime champions. Leftist Economist Robert Lekachman of the City University of New York declares: "The central economic fact of our day is the declining vitality and élan of capitalism and capitalists." And Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca also says: "Free enterprise has gone to hell."

Read the rest here.

Capitalism's resilience has been remarkable in spite of serious assaults by government bureaucracies around the world.

How many standards boards are there?

In a free market you wouldn't need any.

How would you know a butcher serves clean meat? Because people still shop there. If he didn't then the market would know that and he'd go out of business.

How many regulations are there? Tax rules? Taxes?

And yet, despite massive inefficiency in government spending programs, capitalism has been able to keep free economies alive.

Viva La Capitalism!

Long may it continue to lift people out of poverty the world over.

(Nothing Follows)

Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is a cry baby

Apparently, Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is wetting his bed over the thought that his fellow Australians might think somewhat less of him for so enthusiastically promoting the idea of an Internet filter.

Is Conroy a youngest child?

You know the type - the ones that used to go crying to their mother because their older siblings did what older siblings have done for time immemorial - held him down and farted on his head.

Senator Conroy reflects on the extra methane he breathed in as a kid

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

The Federal Government will begin trawling blog sites as part of a new media monitoring strategy, with official documents singling out a website critical of the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy.

Tender documents issued by the Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy reveal it is looking for a "monitoring service for print and electronic media". The department later attached a clarification confirming this included "blogs such as Whirlpool".

Whirlpool has strongly criticised Senator Conroy's plan to filter internet content and his handling of the Government's $15 billion national broadband network. It is a community-run forum devoted to discussing broadband internet access.

Senator Conroy's spokesman said: "Whirlpool … covers a wide range of topics across the telecommunications sector. It and other web sites provide valuable insight into the industries in which we work."

Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin claimed it was "extreme" to expand media monitoring activities to blogs.

"Blogs such as Whirlpool provide an open forum … and do play an important role in our democracy. Moves to monitor this space seem an unacceptable use of taxpayers' money," he said.

Not only are we going to suffer slower Internet speed due to the government's filter that is supposed to block child pornography, bomb making sites and the like but we now get a huge does of Big Brotherism as the government targets its politic opponents.

Folks, this is Australia.

We're meant to have a free society.

Why is it always the left that uses the power of the state to impinge upon free speech?

(Nothing Follows)

John Stewart spots Obama's similarity to George W Bush

You know, I don't care that John Stewart is a lefty, that he spent eight years making fun of the way George W Bush speaks (and badly, I always thought) or that he asks a dopey question the other day about why Israel can't be criticised in the media (proving that he doesn't actually read the media; but that's another story).

He is a funny guy and The Daily Show is generally great viewing.

He also has at least a modicum of honesty, which he displays here in a very funny and biting look at Obama's inauguration speech.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Obama's first official call was to terrorist Fatah leader Abbas.

He then signed an order to close Gitmo but is going to take his time doing it. What odds can I get that it's still open in a year?

Surely, that's going to give John Stewart more material to work with, as will the massive Porkathon disguised as a stimulus package.

Let's hope he continues to skewer those things that deserve skewering.

(Nothing Follows)

Proof that media bias is as prevalent as ever

When I discuss media bias with my left wing friends and, unfortunately, family members they look at me and ask what the heck I'm talking about and then generally carry on about media bias being yet another right wing conspiracy theory.

Because these people agree with what the papers write and, critically, do not understand where the political middle is, they come to the false conclusion that newspapers present a fair and balanced view of the world.

Frontpagemag's John Perazzo tells us what is obvious to anyone with even the most basic analytical skills.

During the 2008 presidential election, even center-left observers have noted the unmistakable bias of the prestige news media toward Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party in general. As we shall reveal, the bias of the media is pervasive, ideologically motivated, and quantifiable: that is, it has been admitted, measured, and analyzed in statistical terms. Those results reveal a media doggedly out-of-touch with the political center and tilted decidedly leftward.

One of the most striking aspects of the current presidential campaign is the news media’s assault on Sarah Palin. The Republican vice presidential candidate has been portrayed as a ditzy know-nothing; a Christian fanatic who uses her office to vengefully carry out personal vendettas and who may even have faked her motherhood of her son Trig. From the media coverage of Palin, readers and viewers would never know that she effectively ran an important state, or that she had the highest voter-approval ratings of any governor in the U.S.

But the double standards of the media in their election coverage are as striking as their bias. Scant attention has been paid to the litany of idiocies that have flowed from the tongue of Palin’s vice-presidential opponent, Joe Biden. Some lowlights include the following:

• Biden exhorted a wheelchair-bound state senator at a Missouri campaign rally to stand up and take a bow;
  
• He told interviewer Katie Couric that in times of crisis, it was incumbent upon the U.S president “to demonstrate that he or she knows what they are talking about,” in the tradition of President FDR, whom he said “got on the television” to allay Americans’ fears “when the stock market crashed” in 1929. Of course, Herbert Hoover was president at the time (FDR would not take office until early 1933), and TV would not be introduced to the public until 1939;
  
• At a pair of October fundraisers, Biden advised supporters to “gird your loins” because, within six months after Barack Obama’s inauguration, an adversary somewhere in the world would undoubtedly manufacture a “crisis” in order to “test” the young president “like they did John Kennedy”;
  
• During his debate with Sarah Palin, Biden stated authoritatively: “Vice President Cheney…doesn’t realize that Article One of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the executive – he works in the executive branch. He should understand that.” But in fact, Article One of the Constitution defines the role of the legislative branch of government, not the executive branch; and
  
• At a recent campaign appearance, Biden said that John McCain’s “last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-1 job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack [Obama] says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S.”
  

None of these gaffes are important. But neither is Gov. Palin’s wardrobe. And unlike her new clothes, Biden’s slips – like the reporting of his infamous plagiarism of a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock in his abortive 1988 presidential run, a plagiarism so thorough that it resembled identity theft – received little mention in the mainstream media.

As they say, read the whole thing, as it really does put the media bias argument to rest.

(Nothing Follows)

EU wants to ban 'sexist' advertising

EU regulators must have too much time on their hands to be considering a ban on so called sexist advertisements...

MEPs want TV regulators in the EU to set guidelines which would see the end of anything deemed to portray women as sex objects or reinforce gender stereotypes.

This could potentially mean an end to attractive women advertising perfume, housewives in the kitchen or men doing DIY.

Such classic adverts as the Diet Coke commercial featuring the bare-chested builder, or Wonderbra's "Hello Boys" featuring model Eva Herzigova would have been banned.

The new rules come in a report by the EU's women's rights committee.

Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson urged Britain and other members to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She wants regulatory bodies set up to monitor ads and introduce a "zero-tolerance" policy against "sexist insults or degrading images".

Ms Svensson said: "Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes."

She added: "Gender stereotyping in advertising is one of several factors that have a big influence in efforts to make society more gender equal.

"When women and men are portrayed in a stereotypical way the consequence may be that it becomes difficult in other contexts to see women and men's resources and abilities."

The Advertising Standards Authority however had said there are already checks in place to prevent "discriminatory or harmful" material.

A spokesman said: "Although the ASA supports the overall objectives of the report... the approach suggested is inflexible and impractical."

What sort of ads could actually be shown if such a ridiculous idea was implemented?

Would PETA want animal ads banned? Ads for meat and milk banned?

Would the Climate Faithful want ads for motor cars banned? Air travel? Tourism?

The totalitarian instinct of the left is on clear display for all to see.

After half a century of living under the protection of the United States' military Europe seems to have bred people who have no idea of what's important.

(Nothing Follows)

A serious case of Wikipedia tampering is exposed

My friend let me know that Australian television personality Sonia Kruger's Wikipedia page has been tampered with.






I can't see where, myself.

Perhaps someone can point it out to me.

By the way, Sonia is certainly a good looking 43 year old...!

(Nothing Follows)

The fate of carbon trading in Australia rests with the centre left

The ABC is Australia's government owned broadcasting service. It is similar to the BBC and PBS and, like those two organisations, takes a leftist position on matters political, social and environmental.

Thus, it was something of a surprise to see the ABC's chief political correspondent Chris Uhlmann give his candid view of global warming on Insiders (which, by the way, is the best political talk show in Australia by a country mile).

Here's the segment from the show. Watch from the 3 minute mark: "As a former seminarian..."



The release of the Garnaut Report last Friday, with its clear statement that Australia must slash its greenhouse gas emissions by introducing a carbon trading system in 2010, got all sides of politics worked up.

The loopy left and Big Green, salivating at the prospect of inflicting socialist policies leading to serious economic damage on a 'capitalist' nation, cried that 2010 was too far away.

The conservative side of politics has hardened its resolve that a trading scheme that operates locally while developing nations such as China, Brazil and India are allowed to continue apace is economic suicide given Australia's reliance on energy export markets and brown coal for power.

Interestingly, the climate change battle is going to be waged in the 'sane centre' of the left and the fight will be against their Marxist shipmates.

Leading up to the election those people who could be described as belonging to the centre-left (such as Chris Uhlmann and Barrie Cassidy) used the former government's inaction on climate change as something to beat them over the head with.

Now that Labor is in power it's not the Coalition that these people are worried about; it's those who are prepared to inflict serious damage to Australia's economy in the name of environmental symbolism.

Perhaps, shortly after the election, these people would not have thought that the new government would undertake irresponsible, symbolic courses of action.

However there are now too many examples - from the Sorry to FuelWatch to an attack on plastic shopping bags to Japanese whaling - that those in the centre left must surely be nervous that, in fact, the government may well add another symbolic gesture notch to its political belt.

Thus, the fate of Australia rests in the hands of the sane centre left to recognise the threat to the country and act responsibly by not implementing a carbon trading system in advance of China and India.

Best of luck to them.

(Nothing Follows)

Man in black doesn't understand half black man

The perennially black-clad Phillip Adams represents all that is wrong with today's Left. Full of hatred; enablers of racism; eisablers of solutions for Aborigines; and ignorant of history, which means they lack wisdom.

And truly Morally Incompetent.

In his latest column in The Australian Adams shows that he's certainly a light of other days...

I'm grateful to a reader for giving me a great gizmo. It's a credit-card-sized clock that flashes, to the tenth of a second, the time that Bush has left in the White House.

One has to admit that it's a pretty funny gizmo to have if you're a Bush hater.

As I tap out these words Bush has 214 days, six hours, 14 minutes and 31.6 seconds left, and I'm willing the microchip to move things along; 214 days, six hours, 14 minutes and 29 seconds is still too many days, hours, seconds and tenths - more than enough time for the lame duck to remember that the presidential seal features a Roman-style eagle and behave like a headless chook. Urged on by the neo-cons and theo-cons, the worst president in history could wreak even more national and international havoc.

George W Bush will not only not be rated the worst president in history but will annoy the heck out of the left by being very highly regarded for being one of the few Western leaders who had the moral courage to take on the worst form of extremism.

So it’s better to focus on the fact that the presidential election that will replace Bush takes place in early November, two-and-a-half months before inauguration day. To stay with the avian, should Donald Duck win office as a third-party candidate the world could feel like the cat that ate the canary. Even John McCain would be a considerable improvement – despite the fact he’s abandoned all the principles that made him a “maverick”. He was for the reform of campaign funding, and pro-choice on abortion; he was against torture and took a progressive stand on illegal immigrants. These ideas, he told us, represented his core values. And he’s dumped them all in the interests of getting elected. Every other day, another 180-degree turn. Oh McCain, you’ve done it again.

If Adams would like to look up what the McCain-Feingold bill is then perhaps he wouldn't make such an ignorant statement. Further, if he looked at Obama's record on the issue he'll see more flipping and flopping than a fish out of water. McCain is still against torture and he still has a 'progressive' stand on illegal immigrants so I don't know where Adams gets the idea that McCain is anything other than solid in his beliefs.

I’ve been barracking for Barack since he made his debut on the national stage with a splendid speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. So I’m hoping he’ll storm home. But as I wrote months ago, Obama faces the immense risk of assassination. During the 82 days of Bobby Kennedy’s primary campaigning it was widely believed he’d be killed. Nixon thought it highly likely, and the FBI’s Clyde Tolson thought it highly desirable (he was clearly echoing the hopes of his boyfriend, J. Edgar Hoover). Right-wing shock jocks and columnists called upon patriotic Americans to blow Bobby’s brains out – and the candidate himself, when asked what stood between him and the White House, said: “Men with guns.”

Adams 'wrote months ago' that Obama faces the 'immense risk of assassination' and compares him to Bobby Kennedy. He then goes on to talk about right-wing shock jocks while completely failing to tell us that Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, ostensibly over Kennedy's support for Israel. His brother, JFK, was killed by a communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Martin Luther King Jr was killed by James Earl Ray, a man with a criminal record including burglary, armed robbery and mail fraud. Hardly a rogue's gallery of right wing death beasts, is it? Perhaps it's Adams' own understanding of the violent instincts of the Left that lead him to fear for Obama's safety?

Otherwise Obama risks the death of a thousand cuts, the wearing down of the candidate, employing the many weapons of bigotry. Apart from the rabid, racist right who’ll call a spade a spade, much of it, most of it, will be in code. And it will appeal to the national subconscious.

It is pure projection that the right is racist. The right is perfectly happy to vote for a black man or woman for president as long as they agree with their values. That's why Michael Steele is chairman of GOPAC, for example. Who has included more African-Americans or Hispanics in senior roles than George W Bush? Certainly not any Democratic president hitherto...

It’s one thing to vote for Obama in a primary. That’s no risk. Voters can enjoy the pleasures of being progressive, of expressing the belief in a “post-racial America”. But they’re not actually sending Obama to the White House by choosing him over Clinton. They’re identifying with the movement of history – or, to use a word I detest, the zeitgeist. They can focus on all the reasons it’s time to support an African-American heavyweight in something other than rock music or boxing. It’s a feelgood thing to do.

If there's something that the Left excels at it's doing the feelgood thing. No doubt about it. Horrible outcomes but, gee, I feel good about myself for having tried.

It’s quite another thing to vote for Obama in the presidential elections. From now until election day millions of voters will be looking for reasons not to vote for him. And the Karl Rovelutionaries in the Republican camp will be doing everything they can to help.

I suppose they would. That's their job.

McCain promises a clean campaign but the opportunism he displayed in changing positions on the very issues that enabled and ennobled his career will come into play. At best he’ll claim a disapproving distance from the hate-speak and innuendo while happily accepting any electoral advantage. It’s the oldest trick in the book. And we saw in McCain’s embrace of the looniest of evangelical preachers that he’ll gratefully accept an endorsement from anyone.

Adams shows his intellectual laziness with this comment. John Hagee is no parallel to Reverend Wright and not even close. If any reasonable person was to listen to what Hagee said regarding Catholics and the Holocaust in context then it would be clear what he was talking about and that he is far from loopy.

Many voters believing themselves above and beyond racism will yield to it, in its various guises and disguises. Obama’s youth? His inexperience? His overenthusiastic pastors? His wife’s comparative radicalism? All will be used to eat away at the feeling of hope and safety that he was, in the beginning, able to provide. Barack was a walking, talking comfort zone. But the Sidney Poitier of US politics will be muddied somehow, anyhow, with the stickiest mud they can find or invent. And people will find excuses not to vote for him. Oh, it’s nothing to do with his colour! What a suggestion! God forbid! I’m all for a black president. But not this one. Not now.

The irony is that Adams is talking about Democratic Party supporters not voting for Obama because he's black! Republicans would vote for a black person whose values they agreed with in a heartbeat, which is why they were clamouring so much for Colin Powell to run.

To their eternal discredit the Clintons rehearsed some of the Republicans’ dog-whistling campaign – and in a few states it worked all too well. So Obama will be prepared. And while his dream of a campaign that transcended race is a delusion, his colour is also his greatest advantage. We’re seeing unprecedented numbers of black voters registering and kids of all colours rushing to Obama’s. But dark forces within the American psyche, somewhat repressed of late, are about to be released. Remember One Nation in tolerant Australia?

One Nation didn't beat the Labor Party, Phil, so I don't know what the comparison means.

If you talk to any young person at university and particularly those studying in the Arts faculties then they all sound like little versions of Phillip Adams. Like Adams their knowledge of history is abominable and, like Adams, they use pejorative terms against their opponents in place of the arguments that they haven't bothered to learn. Like Adams they think that being smart creates wisdom.

Obama is odds on favourite to be the next US president but not for any of the reasons Adams puts forward.

(Nothing Follows)

Medical scientists lied, Africans died

Remember the AIDS epidemic scare?


Life Magazine - 1985

"AIDS does not discriminate," we were all told.


Time Magazine - 1985

Heterosexuals are just as likely to get AIDS as homosexuals and intravenous drug users.


Time Magazine - 1992

Ignorance and indifference kill.



Michael Fumento was pilloried by the medical profession for his 1990 best seller The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS...



...it turns out that Fumento was right and that the AIDS Faithful were hopelessly wrong, which has now been acknowledged by the WHO:

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Obtaining funds for AIDS research was a top priority back in the 80s and 90s. 'Bending' the truth was considered OK by medical researchers in the field in order to get that funding.

Lying in the name of doing good always has unintended consequences. Not focusing on the really big problem - AIDS in Africa - has caused a human catastrophe there.

There has not been a major scare in my lifetime that has come to pass. That hasn't stopped the media from promoting the hysteria du jour with all its might. No doubt, we'll be looking back at the global warming scare in twenty years with the same disdain as we do the heterosexual AIDS scare.

(Nothing Follows)

Ninemsn continues to allow manipulation of its online polls

As reported yesterday, Camden Council did not give approval to a Muslim group for an Islamic school to be built in the area.

The decision was reported as being entirely due to racism with the official reason, based on planning grounds, was dismissed. TV reports showed the same woman wearing an Akubra hat with Australian flag telling reporters that "we don't want them here" or words to that effect.

Ninemsn carried a poll on its website asking the question "Is the Islamic school ban a victory for racism?"

Through to mid-afternoon yesterday the results were as follow:

Yes: 3338 No: 5820 Ratio: 0.574


Yes: 9955 No: 16833 Ratio: 0.591


Yes: 13467 No: 22495 Ratio: 0.598


When I had a look last night the ratio was about the same with Nos in the 40,000s.

I've pointed out a number of times that these polls tend to get stacked by those mostly pushing the left wing line, generally overnight, as follows:

Do you find Santa's Ho Ho Ho offensive?
Should Australian police use Taser guns?
Should gay couples get equal rights under the law?
Would you vote for the Coalition under Peter Costello?
Should the government give Dr Haneef his visa back?
Should school corporal punishment be reintroduced?
Do you believe Australia is one of the worst countries for workers?

The corporal punishment in schools and Peter Costello polls were the only ones that are not definitively leftist though Labor was pretty keen at the time for Costello to take over from Howard for the upcoming election.

I did send an email to Ninemsn some time back and they responded that they would look into it but clearly they're still happy to have any credibility their online polls do have to be trashed because this is what we woke up to this morning:

Yes: 125959 No: 48357 Ratio: 2.605


I can understand why the left needs to manipulate public polls. Redefining history is a necessary requirement for them to escape the negative effects that their policies have had on society but I don't understand why Ninemsn continues to allow these people to hurt their brand.

(Nothing Follows)

What happened to a balanced media?

The New York Post's Ralph Peters calls his media colleagues on their blatant political bias using Iraq as an example.

It's interesting that the only real balance comes from conservative media outlets be it the Wall Street Journal, US talk radio and even Fox News. These organisations invite guests from all sides of the political spectrum and treat them with a level of respect rarely found in the leftist mainstream media.

DO we still have troops in Iraq? Is there still a conflict over there?

If you rely on the so-called mainstream media, you may have difficulty answering those questions these days. As Iraqi and Coalition forces pile up one success after another, Iraq has magically vanished from the headlines.

Want a real "inconvenient truth?" Progress in Iraq is powerful and accelerating.

But that fact isn't helpful to elite media commissars and cadres determined to decide the presidential race over our heads. How dare our troops win? Even worse, Iraqi troops are winning. Daily.

You won't see that above the fold in The New York Times. And forget the Obama-intoxicated news networks - they've adopted his story line that the clock stopped back in 2003.

To be fair to the quit-Iraq-and-save-the-terrorists media, they have covered a few recent stories from Iraq:

* When a rogue US soldier used a Koran for target practice, journalists pulled out all the stops to turn it into "Abu Ghraib, The Sequel."

Unforgivably, the Army handled the situation well. The "atrocity" didn't get the traction the whorespondents hoped for.

* When a battered, bleeding al Qaeda managed to set off a few bombs targeting Sunni Arabs who'd turned against terror, that, too, received delighted media play.

* As long as Baghdad-based journalists could hope that the joint US-Iraqi move into Sadr City would end disastrously, we were treated to a brief flurry of headlines.

* A few weeks back, we heard about another Iraqi company - 100 or so men - who declined to fight. The story was just delicious, as far as the media were concerned.

Then tragedy struck: As in Basra the month before, absent-without-leave (and hiding in Iran) Muqtada al Sadr quit under pressure from Iraqi and US troops. The missile and mortar attacks on the Green Zone stopped. There's peace in the streets.

Today, Iraqi soldiers, not militia thugs, patrol the lanes of Sadr City, where waste has replaced roadside bombs as the greatest danger to careless footsteps. US advisers and troops support the effort, but Iraq's government has taken another giant step forward in establishing law and order.

My fellow Americans, have you read or seen a single interview with any of the millions of Iraqis in Sadr City or Basra who are thrilled that the gangster militias are gone from their neighborhoods?

(Nothing Follows)

Four Corners demonstrates ABC's double standard

While watching ABC's Four Corners last night I was struck by the obvious double standard that was on clear display.

Voices of Dissent, presented by Liz Jackson, took a look at the issue of dissent in China in light of its human rights record and the upcoming Olympic Games.

The program focused on the stories of a small number of people, and their apparently quite brave lawyers, who have spoken out against the Chinese regime and now languish in prison serving 3-5 year sentences.

One particularly confronting aspect of how the Chinese treat these people was shown when one hooded dissident was led from the courtroom to the paddy wagon to be taken off to prison and wasn't allowed to see or talk to his family and say goodbye. China allows few, if any, visitors for them while in prison so they won't see their families for the length of their term.

In summary, the ABC was showing that China's government stifled dissent and 'takes care' of those who speak out against it.

So where's the double standard?

The ABC is an organisation that sits firmly on the left to far left of the political spectrum. Very few of its journalists could be described as being centre-left, though they might see themselves that was but that's because they don't know where the political middle is in Australia, as I've pointed out previously.

Cuba has a far worse human rights record than China. Why does the ABC not only not expose this fact but supports the place by not shining a light on it and printing such puff pieces as this and this and this.

Where are the programs exposing the overwhelming leftist bias in our universities, particularly in the liberal arts and so-called 'studies' faculties, and their unwillingness to allow other views to be heard?

Where are the programs exposing Kevin Rudd's stifling of the media? The left has always thrown this one at the right when it's been in power and, while governments will always attempt to manipulate the media, this new government has taken things to a whole new level.

Where's the program on the 2020 Summit and the remarkably one-sided stacking of political thought?

Recall the ABC's showing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the hysterical response of its senior journalists. The show was followed by a panel discussion in which anyone who did not support the 'consensus' position were ridiculed and dismissed as being in the pocket of some lobby group or other. Mr '100m sea level rise' Robin Williams even went so far as to point out that when he met up with Professor Tim Ball (I think it was him) he was smoking, which is an attempt to liken dissenters with the pro-smoking lobby. I wondered at the time whether Williams didn't smoke some other, less legal substance to come up with that one. Host Tony Jones interviewed TGGWS's Martin Durkin and was extremely aggressive in one of the most one-sided, unbalanced interviews I've ever seen.

Dissent. Not at the ABC, please.

It's a shame for Australia that its major publicly funded television station displays such a political bias though we're not alone, as both the BBC and PBS suffer the same issue. One-sided thought may be OK in a think tank or lobby group but it's not OK at the ABC, our universities or other media - regardless of which side of politics it represents.

(Nothing Follows)

John McCain on Letterman plus those 3AM ads

John McCain appeared on Letterman on April 1 and had a pretty funny interchange at the opening of the show. Obviously, it was all scripted but McCain carried it off well.



McCain was then quite impressive in his interview later in the show. The Democrats really do need to focus on anything but the war, as McCain has it all over them in terms of credibility.



People in the US will probably be heartily sick of all of the '3AM' ads. It seems that they'll be an eternal part of election campaigns into the future.

The big question for me is whether these guys get any royalties at all.



(Nothing Follows)

Who wants to be a dumb non-millionaire?

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire has been a phenomenal world wide success since its debut in 1998. In that time around a hundred people in a few dozen countries have earned the top prize.

However, with every high there are a bunch of lows. Here are some of the worst of the worst.

The $100 question - Homeowners buy surge protectors to protect their possessions from unexpected surges of what?



$200 question - What punctuation mark is used to introduce a list of items?



From France, a classic. He goes to the audience for help with the question. What is going on in their schools? The question that stumped France's best and brightest?

What rotates around the Earth?
A. The Moon B. The Sun C. Mars D. Venus



Another non-hundred dollaraire - Which of these phrases is a common way of saying "I can't take it anymore"?



(Nothing Follows)

Why muck around with these ninemsn polls?

In a long series of poll fixing at the increasingly unreliable ninemsn come the following two. I didn't keep a large number of screen shots, as the topics didn't seem to be worthy of manipulation even if there is a left wing position to push.

The first came about due to Santas being told not to use the phrase 'ho ho ho' and to use 'ha ha ha' instead. One of the reasons given is that the phrase might be offensive to women (especially black ones). Someone is kidding.

Anyway, the vote was going along at a rate of about 50-60:1 to the No vote and it was leading 20,000+ to 400 before, whammo, a heap of votes came in for the Yes vote.



Bizarre.

Next up, in response to police being a bit over the top using Tasers the question was asked about whether Australia should have them. The vote was going along 2:1 in favour over more than 15,000 votes (i.e. 10,000 - 5,000) before the usual overnight fixing.



Leaving aside whether these questions are at all relevant they do indicate that ninemsn has not yet implemented poll fixing software to combat the issue.

By not doing so ninemsn damages the credibility of its brand, especially when they quote their own online poll results in stories on their website from time to time.

(Nothing Follows)

Now even Harvard proves leftist mainstream media bias

The following article resulting from a recent study undertaken by that bastion of liberal politics - Harvard.

Conservatives understand that the media is biased but the other side seems to be completely unaware, which I put down to the fact that the left does not know where the political middle is.

Survey after survey have shown that journalists overwhelmingly vote for left wing parties yet seem to believe that they are able to present a balanced, fair minded view of the issues. Unfortunately, reality does not support their position.

A new study finding the media give far more favorable coverage to Democrats than Republicans could have settled once and for all the debate over whether the news we get has a liberal bias.

After all, it was done by the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy.

But given the study's reception in the mainstream media, it's doubtful the issue has been put to rest. Like similar studies in the past, Harvard's went largely uncovered. A Nexis search found 20 news mentions of the report, with only a handful highlighting the revelation of extreme bias.

This, of course, backs the presumption of many news consumers that bias plays a key role in what media put out and hold back. In this case, a bias in favor of their own industry resulted in the burying of a study that places the industry in a bad light.

But one of the study's main findings — that political coverage is colored with a distinctly liberal bias — has been documented for years, if not decades. As such, the Harvard findings aren't nearly as surprising as the source.



Perhaps it's time, then, to stop debating whether the press is biased and move on to greater questions of how the bias is manifested and what effect it might be having on public discourse and opinion. In this series, IBD will examine these issues.

The Harvard study — conducted with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press — examined 1,742 presidential campaign stories appearing from January through May in 48 print, online, network TV, cable and radio news outlets.

Among many findings, it determined that Democrats got more coverage than Republicans (49% of the stories vs. 31%). It also found the "tone" of the coverage was more positive for Democrats (35% to 26% for Republicans).

"In other words," the authors say, "not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking."

Those "genres" include the most mainstream of media — newspapers and TV. Fully 59% of front-page stories about Democrats in 11 newspapers had a "clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone."

For "top-tier" candidates, the difference was even more apparent: Barack Obama's coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Hillary Clinton's was 61% positive and 13% negative.

By contrast, 40% of the stories on Republican candidates were negative and 26% positive.

On TV, evening network newscasts gave 49% of their campaign coverage to the Democrats and 28% to Republicans. As for tone, 39.5% of the Democratic coverage was positive vs. 17.1%, while 18.6% of the Republican coverage was positive and 37.2% negative.

These findings are in line with a number of other studies that date back to the early 1970s:

• In 1972, "The News Twisters" by Edith Efron analyzed every prime-time network news show before the 1968 election and found coverage tilted 8 to 1 against Nixon on ABC, 10 to 1 on NBC and 16 to 1 on CBS.

• In 1984, Public Opinion magazine found that Reagan got 7,230 seconds of negative coverage and just 730 seconds of positive; Mondale's positive press totaled 1,330 seconds, vs. 1,050 negative.

• In 1986, "The Media Elite" surveyed 240 journalists at virtually every major media outlet and found that in presidential elections from 1964 to 1976, 86% of top journalists voted Democratic. A 2001 update found 76% voted for Dukakis in 1988 and 91% went for Clinton in 1992.

• A 1992 Freedom Forum poll showed 89% of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs voting for Clinton in '92 and only 7% for George H.W. Bush.

• A 2003 Pew survey found 34% of national journalists called themselves liberal and 7% conservative. By 7 to 1, they also felt they weren't critical enough of President Bush.

• In 2005, a study of bias by professors at UCLA, Stanford and the University of Chicago determined that only one media outlet — Fox News Special Report — could be tagged "right of center."

Ninemsn still allows leftist poll fixing

In recent times Australia's Nine network has made like a Klingon Warbird and decloaked as an obvious supporter of leftist positions including the Kevin07 campaign and global warming. Listening to Ray Martin these days or watching 60 Minutes is an exercise is leftist political immersion.

I have a number of posts showing that Ninemsn polls have been fixed previously and every one has been to the position 'owned' by the left. I communicated with Ninemsn and received a response that my email had been forwarded to the correct department. I never expected a response but did hope that they would implement anti-stuffing technology so that their polls could develop a reputation for reliability.

The fact that they have not dealt with the matter and more actively promote leftist positions can only lead one to think that they're happy with the polls being fixed in this manner.

The current example is in response to the question: "Should gay couples get equal rights under the law?"

Here are the screen shots:

1728 - Yes 19384, No 20740


2013 - Yes 38992, No 46997


2250 - Yes 43500, No 60902


And now to this morning's update:

0741 - Yes 202619, No 79707


I often wonder whether a leftist organisation such as GetUp is behind the poll manipulation across the various media outlets.

Regardless of the source, Ninemsn has a duty to ensure that polls fairly reflect reality.