Explaining the problems with socialised healthcare to your nitwit friends

The healthcare debate currently raging in the United States has produced some terrific comments not least of which was when one wag asked why President Obama was trying to slam healthcare reform through Congress in 3 weeks when he took 6 months to choose a dog for his kids.

On one side of the argument are those who understand that the US provides the highest level of healthcare in the world but accept there are issues that need to be addressed.

On the other are those who think that the moral high ground is achieved through a government provided scheme, which requires tearing down the existing structure and starting again.

Organisations such as the United Nations and The Economist don't help the argument by coming up with world rankings on healthcare that show the US a long way down the list.

How can this be when it's the US that all world leaders choose to fly to when they're ill? The country that has John Hopkins, Mayo Clinic etc etc?

The answer is that these rankings heavily weight whether the healthcare is 'free', insofar as anything is when provided by the government. When health outcomes are analysed, how long people live when diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc the US far exceeds the rest of the world.

Quality

Time and again we are asked by proponents of Obamacare, and its predecessors, whether it is fair that only the wealthy can afford the best healthcare.

For some reason, the questioners fail to appreciate the truism that wealth means health. One only needs to compare the outcomes in Africa to any halfway advanced country to find the proof.

Here's another question. Is it fair that only the wealthy can buy $100,000 Mercedes?

If the government provided cars to everyone then do you think everyone would get a Mercedes or, perhaps, something of much, much lower quality?

If there were no wealthy people then there would be no $100,000 Mercedes.

Equally, no wealthy people means no high cost medical procedures.

The fact is that the advancement in the quality of healthcare that has come about due to the remarkable achievements of the pharmaceutical companies in the US - which are responsible for two-thirds of the world's medicines - can only occur because of the free market system that allows them to spend billions of dollars developing a single drug and getting it to market. Even the large European drug companies can only develop the solutions they do because of the sales they achieve in the US.

Make no mistake about it. Without US drug companies the world will have lower quality medical solutions going foward.

Comparisons with the rest of the world fail to take into account that the rest of the world is sponging off the US health dollar by being able to buy treatments that it couldn't afford to produce itself.

Do proponents of the government plan think that these drugs will still be developed when it's the government deciding how much will be spent?

Rationing lowers quality. It increases the length of time to receive treatment including for serious conditions.

Is it fair that people die who otherwise wouldn't simply because they can afford better healthcare but can't get access to it?

If the public option was so great then Congress wouldn't exempt itself from it.

Public kills Private

Most non-Americans don't understand how the US health insurance system works.

Here in Australia we take out insurance with our preferred insurer and to the level we desire/can afford, pay the premiums for the rest of our lives and receive an OK level of service. With our low population and large area it's not possible to make a proper comparison with other countries, as we have issue unique to Australia, as do all countries.

Most insurance in the US is provided by a person's employer. You can look up the history of how that came about but it dates back to World War II and companies' attempts to attract workers in a low unemployment environment in which salaries were fixed by the government due to the war effort.

A major issue in the US is that when someone leaves a job then they have no health insurance until they start their new job. These people who are between jobs need to take out temporary insurance until they start their new job. Bizarrely, the ten or so million of them are included in the statistics that add up to the "47 million Americans without healthcare", as do more than that many illegals. The question asked in the health insurance survey is 'Have you at any time through the year been without health insurance?' Obviously, if you've left your job and haven't taken out temporary cover, or can't afford to, then the answer is yes in spite of the fact that it might only be for a week or two.

After taking into account the fact that young people choose not to take out health insurance when they can afford to - preferring to spend their money on clothes, a car or a now upside down home mortgage - there are only 15 or so million who are in genuine need.

Better tear down the system to address the 5% of the population with a problem, then.

So how does the public option kill private health insurance?

Let's leave aside the fact that Congress has a bottomless pit of money to play with and is not going to be inclined to see it fail thus guaranteeing even further increases in spending into the future.

Consider two companies:

Acme Corporation has 1000 employees involved in the production of a very popular widget. It's a publicly listed company that turns over $150 million and makes an after tax profit of $3 million.

Acme's major competitor is Blue Sky Enterprises that, coincidentally, has 1000 employees, makes a competing product to the Acme widget, turns over $150 million and produces a profit of $3 million.

Both companies provide the same health insurance cover to their employees, sourced from the same insurance company. The insurance costs them $5,000 per person.

Now, let's say that Obamacare enters the market offering $3,000 health cover. It's not quite the same level as the $5,000 cover but people think it'll generally be OK unless you get really sick.

The management team at Acme decide to shift all of their employees from the private option to the public option. Blue Sky chooses not to.

So what happens?

After one year with this new health insurance in place, Acme has turned over the same $150 million but due to lower insurance cost has increased its profit to $5 million from $3 million (1000 employees x $2000 saving = $2 million).

Meanwhile, Blue Sky has also had a solid year, posting $150 million in sales and at the expected profit of $3 million.

See the problem?

No?

If you're an investor then which company are you going to invest in?

Obviously, Acme Corporation.

Therefore, Blue Sky Enterprises is forced to take up the public option, as well. Otherwise its competitor gains a huge advantage.

While this is all happening, private insurance companies are having to raise costs to maintain the same health cover level or reduce the level of cover to compete with the government option.

Thus, private health insurance slowly withers on the vine as more and more companies are forced into the government plan.

Who wins?

Not anybody who gets sick, that's for sure.

Medicare and Medicaid

No pro-Obamacare proponent has yet explained how the public option will not end up the financial black hole that is Medicare and Medicaid.

The following graph highlights the coming crisis, and when I use the term crisis I use it accurately:



Simple improvements are there for the taking

All Congress needs to do to make a huge improvement is the following:

• Allow healthcare to be portable between health companies and across state lines. This also deals with the situation in which people develop a condition that would inhibit their ability to obtain health insurance if they changed jobs.
• Implement tort reform. This is the biggest single cost in the medical system. Loser pays will stop people bringing frivilous lawsuits. Trial lawyers are the Democrat Party's second largest donor behind labour unions so don't look for this any time soon.

These two steps would allow many more Americans to afford health insurance cover.

President Obama

From President Obama the other day:

"We've got some work to do. I don't mind, by the way, being responsible. I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I'm the president," Obama said. "But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.

"I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking," Obama said.

I wonder whether the President also includes the architects of the current financial crisis - Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summer and Ben Bernanke - in the list of those who should shut up and get out of the way?

(Nothing Follows)

Do not vote for the Coalition while they support an ETS

It is complete insanity for the Coalition to be contemplating an emissions trading scheme or doing deals with Labor on what it is seeking to implement.

MALCOLM Turnbull has sought to regain the initiative in the political tussle over emissions trading, presenting the Rudd government with a "log of claims" for immediate negotiations on the controversial Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

After a week of damaging internal dissent on whether and when the Coalition would negotiate with the government over the scheme setting up a market in carbon emissions, Mr Turnbull held a telephone hook-up of his front bench yesterday and secured agreement to nine conditions.

If accepted by the government, the conditions would offer extra compensation to coalminers, electricity generators and possibly other heavy industries such as steel, aluminium and cement. And farmers would pay nothing but possibly make money from their emission reduction efforts.

But Climate Change Minister Penny Wong dismissed the Opposition Leader's "shopping list" last night and said he should get back to her with detailed amendments that were supported by his deeply divided partyroom.

The Coalition demands include agreement that: "An Australian emissions trading scheme should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than an American ETS."

"To that end there must be an effective mechanism, such as a regular review by the Productivity Commission or a similar expert independent body, to ensure that the Australian ETS does not materially disadvantage Australian industries and workers relative to American industries and workers," the Coalition statement says.

Mr Turnbull said he was "putting the ball back into Kevin Rudd's court".

"We will negotiate with him at any time, but if he presents the bill in its current form we will vote against it," Mr Turnbull told The Weekend Australian.

"This is our log of claims, to put it in trade union language. The question now is whether Kevin Rudd wants to engage with us or whether he wants to play politics."

Mr Turnbull -- who has long sought to persuade his party that a negotiated emissions trading settlement was in its policy and political interests -- said if the government accepted the "principles" he would seek, and was "confident of obtaining", the support of his partyroom for the bill. Several of the "principles" support the stance of industries such as coal and power generation in crucial negotiations over the scheme, which remain unresolved despite the fact that it is due to be voted on in the Senate on August 13.

The Business Council of Australia welcomed the Opposition Leader's statement as the "basis for a bipartisan approach" and the Minerals Council of Australia said it "provided a solid basis for negotiations".

But Senator Wong said: "Mr Turnbull must now turn his shopping list into real amendments to the government's climate change legislation -- amendments that are backed by his partyroom."

Nobody trusts a green conservative and it shows how 'wet' Turnbull is that he would seek to either gain political mileage or minimise damage by embracing an economy wrecking ETS.

The science is eventually going to catch up with public opinion as the claims of AGW proponents fall by the wayside and are replaced with much stronger scientific hypotheses, which will leave the Coalition on the wrong side of history along with Labor, the Greens and environmental groups. Senator Steve Fielding has worked out the correct strategy - get the government to explain why CO2 is not driving temperatures up as predicted by the 20+ climate models relied upon by the IPCC.

The Coalition cannot win this game.

The public understands that the Coalition is simply putting forward conditions that the government will never agree to in a pathetic attempt to build its green credentials.

The emissions trading scheme is anti-jobs.

It is anti-standard of living.

It is anti-science. I doubt anyone in parliament other than Dennis Jensen, who the Liberals have disracefully replaced as Member for Tangey, have even read the full IPCC Fourth Assessment Report or the Summary for Policymakers let alone have the wit to understand how far from scientific reality its predictions really are.

It is anti-reason. In the one in a billion scenario where the science turns out to be correct the policy response is still way over the top.

It is pro-big government.

It is anti-Australia.

It is antithetical to everything the Coalition purports to stand for.

And there is not one vote in it for them.

We currently have the least competent, biggest spending government since the disaster presided over by Gough Whitlam.

When the Coalition can't even manage to be seen as a credible opposition given that fact then it really does seem to be a race to the bottom.

I will never, ever vote for the Coalition while Malcolm Turnbull, or any of his supporters, lead the party or if they continue to endorse an emissions trading scheme.

I suggest you withdraw your support for the party, as well, while they take such an unprincipled position on Australia's future wellbeing.

(Nothing Follows)

US economy to suffer further decline

Many commentators on the state of the US economy are telling us that the recession is basically over and that while there are still a few jobs to be lost it's all going to turn out alright shortly, the so-called green shoots are taking bloom so just wait and see.

These are the same economic commentators who didn't see the mess coming in the first place and they're going to be shown to be wrong again.

How does Uncle Jack know this?

Because he seems to have a better understanding of what makes up a strong economy than these supposed experts.

How does an economy grow?

People and companies make investments in new opportunities. Some of them succeed and some fail.

In order to make investments people and companies must have savings or earnings.

So how are companies' earnings going?

From Chart of the day:

Today, several companies (i.e. Ford, eBay and AT&T) reported better than expected earnings and as a result the stock market rallied on the news. While some companies have reported better than expected earnings for Q2 2009, others have struggled. Today's chart provides some perspective on the current earnings environment by focusing on 12-month, as reported S&P 500 earnings. Today's chart illustrates how earnings are expected (38% of S&P 500 companies have reported for Q2 2009) to have declined over 98% since peaking in Q3 2007, making this by far the largest decline on record (the data goes back to 1936). In fact, real earnings have dropped to a record low and if current estimates hold, Q3 2009 will see the first 12-month period during which S&P 500 earnings are negative.

Can someone please explain to me how the economy is going to pick up in 2010 when earnings have plummeted to their lowest level ever?

People are pointing to the improvement in housing approvals as proof the economy has turned.

All that is happening is that the bubble is being reinflated and the next time it pops it's going to be even worse than the first time around.

People are taking advantage of fantastically low interest rates and a heap of stimulus-injected cash washing around in the financial system.

Does anyone remember that the housing market is massively over supplied?

That's one of the reasons things collapsed in the first place.

When commercial real estate loans reset there's going to be another major market collapse. This is already locked in and can't be avoided.

Far from being a recovery, 2010 will be even worse than what has gone before.

(Nothing Follows)

Best news story ever?

This has to be close to my favourite news story ever.

A DRIVER has been clocked speeding at 200km/h while using his mobile phone - but that's not all he did.

For those who still live in the 20th century 200km/h is 120mph. And what else could he have done? Mooned the speed camera? Given the cops the two finger salute? Sung Nessun Dorma off key? The possibilities are endless...

When the police caught up with the Queensland driver, they found that none of his four passengers was wearing a seat belt.

That is mind boggling. No seatbelts? If you're going to punt down the road at high speed and you happen to have an accident then the wearing of seatbelts might be somewhat academic but if it were me then I'd be buckled up just to have a fighting chance.

So what manner of vehicle did the police pull over? There were four passengers so it was probably some kind of high powered sedan. Right?

A NSW police highway patrol first spotted the 28-year-old’s minivan swerve across the southbound carriageway of the Hume Highway, north west of Canberra.

Minivan?

I'm surprised they could get it up to such a speed. What sort of minivan was it?

A Kia Carnival, apparently.



Seems just the vehicle to be hooning around in. Got to be a chick magnet. Must have some redeeming feature, then, such as quality?

In the 2007 reliability report published by TÜV, 1st generation (1999-2005) of Kia Carnival placed 113th out of 113 in the 2 to 3-year-old cars category, with a defect rate of 25.1%.In the 2008 TÜV report, 1st generation (1999-2005) of Kia Carnival placed 116th out of 116 in the same category, with a defect rate of 19.70%, and also placed 111th out of 111 in the 4 to 5-year-old cars category, with a defect rate of 27.60%.

Oh. Read on.

The driver was initially clocked at 179km/h by a stationary speed gun but accelerated when the police gave chase.

What sort of person, driving a Korean POS with four passengers, accelerates when a police car chases him? That is completely lunatic. What was he thinking?

“Police immediately began to follow the car along the highway,” a police statement said.

“A further speed check showed the car reached 198km/h.

And the coup de grace...

“As they followed the car the driver swerved between lanes while talking on a mobile phone.”

Classic stuff. How many drugs had he taken?

The driver, from Urangan, in Queensland's South Burnett region, will appear at Gundagai court on September 7 charged with speeding and other driving offences.

Gundagai is famous for its dog on the tuckerbox...



...the driver should probably visit the tourist attraction before heading to court. He might not be able to see it for quite a few months afterwards.

(Nothing Follows)

George Carlin - the planet is fine...but the people...?

Comedian George Carlin was never one to toe the politically correct line, which he demonstrates in spades in this terrific piece in which he takes aim at the type of people who take themselves oh so seriously because they drive a Prius, wash infrequently to save water and, basically, 'care' so much about the planet that they curl up into the foetal position and cry themselves to sleep every night because of the horror and devestation of planetary destruction.

The reality is that they simply imagine this to be the case and react to their imagination rather than dealing with the facts.

Either that or they're with Al Gore, who is trying to convince the world to introduce emissions trading schemes so that he can increase the profits of his carbon offsets company.

Here's Carlin. There's some biting stuff in there.



(Nothing Follows)

No minimum wage change. The last gift from Work Choices.

Not that they'd admit it but the government got a huge gift from the Fair Pay Commission with its decision to maintain the minimum wage rate at $544 per week.

The Australian Fair Pay Commission has decided not to raise the minimum wage rate above its current level of just under $544 a week, citing the need to halt further job losses.

Around 1.3 million workers are affected by the commission's decision, which has disappointed unions who had been pushing for a $21 a week rise.

The wage freeze, which leaves the hourly rate at $14.31 has also not pleased the Federal Government.

Announcing the decision in Melbourne today, commission chair Professor Ian Harper said it was one of the most difficult the commission had to make.

But he said the move against any wage increase was taken to stem the tide of further job losses, with forecasts showing that unemployment will hit 8.5 per cent next year.

"In the current environment, the ability of employers to offer sufficient work has been curtailed and there is a heightened risk that an increase in minimum wages would further reduce employment and working hours," he said.

"This year's wage setting decision is primarily intended to protect jobs, and importantly, support a stronger recovery in employment as the economy picks up."

Increasing the effective minimum wage (the real cost of hiring someone and paying the minimum rate including on costs), which the union's $21 per week claim would have done, can have no other consequence than to reduce employment.

At a time when unemployment is increasing - the ANZ bank's jobs index is down 50% in just 6 months - and the effects of the government's ridiculous cash handout wear off it would be completely irresponsible to grant a minimum wage increase.

As Shawn Ritenour wrote for mises.org in 2004:

We have already seen that every effective minimum wage will lead to some amount of unemployment. It should surprise no one that helping to usher the lowest skilled workers out of a job does not make them more wealthy. The effect is just the opposite of what apologists for the minimum wage assert. People who are poor because they have few employment options are not made better off by reducing what options they have. As you remove employment possibilities for those harmed the most by raises in the minimum wage, their incomes fall, and they will tend to become more poor, not less.

The bad news does not stop here, however. Those who are either laid-off or not hired to begin with are not shunned by employers because they are chock full of employable characteristics. They are left without work, precisely because they do not have the skills that allow them to contribute more to the firm and thereby earn a higher wage.

Not only does the minimum wage harm the poorest of the working poor immediately, but it also sets them on a lower income trajectory over their lifetime. Many of the skills making them attractive to employers in the future are those disciplines learned on the job. If the minimum wage is set above the market wage, it will take the lowest skilled workers longer to find employment initially. This does not help them in the least. They are hurt by the minimum wage and that hurt takes awhile to go away. Because it takes longer for them to land their first job, they are delayed in developing the work ethic and job skills that make them more attractive to present and future employers. The poor get poorer, not because the minimum wage is too low, but because it is above their market wage.

The deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard, followed the company line:

Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard has described the decision as disappointing.

"In our submissions we asked the Australian Fair Pay Commission to award a considered pay rise to low-income Australians who rely on a federal minimum wage, we did say we didn't want to see real wages for those low-income Australians cut," she said.

"Obviously the Fair Pay Commission has determined a different path and we do view that as disappointing."

The Fair Pay Commission was a part of the previous Howard government's Work Choices program that aimed to increase flexibility and productivity in the market. In its last act before being replaced by the Labor government's new commission it has gifted the government a lower unemployment rate in 6 months than would have otherwise been the case. Given that there's a lot of talk about an early election it was important for the government to ensure no rise in the minimum wage rate and, consequently, unemployment.

Labor can blame the instrument of the previous government while the unions can do the same. It's a perfect situation for them.

Naturally, there are nitwits in the media who don't understand the real impact of minimum wages on employment, as evidenced by this heart-wrenching article by Catherine Best in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Loy Kong is a typical low-income earner.

She works full time at a Melbourne blinds factory for $14.31 an hour.

By the time she pays the mortgage, bills and costs associated with raising two teenagers there is not much left.

"Because we work hard, we should get more money, good money ... because it's getting very hard."

Ms Kong is one of 1.3 million Australians who learned on Tuesday their pay packets will not be any thicker this year.

She will be remain on a weekly income of $543.78 until at least January, when Fair Work Australia reviews the minimum wage.

"It's very bad news for us and our life's going to be very hard because we have a mortgage to pay and children to send to school," she said.

Ms Kong has worked for the factory at Bayswater, in Melbourne's southeast, for seven years.

She has had no luck finding a higher paid job and cannot quit because the mortgage has to be paid.

Ms Kong did not have the skills over the last 7 years - despite the strongest employment market in Australia's history - to gain a better paying job.

Is that due to 1) minimum wage rates being too high, 2) minimum wage being too low, or 3) her lack of skills that would ensure her a better job?

Does she understand that an increase in the minimum wage may actually see her out of a job because her skills can no longer be supported at that wage level?

The reality is that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are the tertiary wage earner in a household. i.e. their parents earn more than they do.

Within just one year nearly everyone who started on the minimum wage will be earning more than it.

When I was teenager and at university I worked for minimum wage. My parents both worked and I was the tertiary wage earner in the house.

Most of you people reading this were in similar situations.

How many of you still earn minimum wage?

About none.

The statist view that unions and others put forward about the effect of minimum wage on families is not borne out by reality.

It's good rhetoric, though, and it works politically, which is why immigrant and youth unemployment is so high in all countries that have a minimum wage system.

(Nothing Follows)

Honduras situation in a nutshell

The amount of drivel being propagated by those opposed to freedom and democracy in the world about what has happened in Honduras should astonish me but given the Western mainstream media's genuflecting to every anti-US, anti-freedom, tinpot dictator/autocrat it doesn't.

Here's the situation in a nutshell courtesy of Mary Anastasia O'Grady and her interview with Dennis Prager.

• Honduras suffered under a military dictatorship for two decades before a return to democracy and, thus, their constitution has a strict one term limit for its Presidents.
• Manuel Zelaya was in the last year of his 4 year term and wanted to amend the constitution to allow him to stand again via a referendum.
• The President does not have the power under the constitution to call a referendum, only Congress can do that.
• Zelaya called a referendum, which the Honduras Supreme Court then declared illegal.
• Zelaya said he didn't care for the Court's opinion and told the head of the military to oversee the referendum by helping to pass out ballots and make sure people voted.
• The head of the military had advice from the Supreme Court that the referendum was illegal and therefore told Zelaya he wouldn't help.
• Zelaya then fired the head of the military.
• The Supreme Court instructed Zelaya to reinstate the head of the military, which he refused to do.
• Zelaya proceeded with the referendum and organised for a violent mob of supporters to storm the military base where the ballots were being held. The ballots had been printed in, and shipped in from, Venezuela.
• On Thursday evening Zelaya supporters started distributing the ballots and on Sunday the referendum went ahead.
• The Supreme Court then order the military to arrest Zelaya, which they did and then put him on a plane to Costa Rica.

Manuel Zelaya is a wannabe Latin American autocrat in the style of Morales and Chavez. He was immensely unpopular in Honduras and all sides of poltics - including his own party, which was very vocal in its opposition to his plan - wanted him removed.

Even the prominent Honduran Cardinal, Oscar Andres Rodriguez, once considered a strong contender for Pope following the death of John Paul II, lined up against Zelaya and told him not to come back.

The Honduran cardinal and main leader of the Honduran Catholic church, Oscar Andres Rodriguez, Saturday urged ousted President Manuel Zelaya not to come back to Honduras. In a televised speech, Rodriguez warned that the return of Zelaya could lead to a blood bath. "I know you love and respect life, at this moment only a Honduran citizen has died, please meditate your decision, because later it could be too late," he said. He also urged the Organization of American States (OAS) to investigate all the "illegal deeds" that happened during the rule of Zelaya.

Given that the Catholic Church in Latin America is somewhere to the left of Joe Stalin and regularly supports its undemocratic leaders it shows exactly how unpopular Zelaya had become. The OAS has just suspended Honduras and allowed Cuba to take the first steps back to readmission, which just goes to show how corrupt it is.

Zelaya was operating under the 'Chavesmo' model of entrenching oneself in the leadership position in Latin America, namely: stand on a populist platform in order to get elected and then use the rule of law and mob violence to intimidate your rivals, and the population, into submission. It was strongly felt by the Supreme Court and Congress that to arrest Zelaya and place him in jail would cause a great deal of violence in the streets as his supporters, backed by Hugo Chavez, would create trouble. Therefore the decision was taken to exile him.

Costa Rica accepted Zelaya and its president allowed him to be interviewed on TV so he could whine about being the democratically elected president and having been overthrown in a military coup et blah.

In terms of simply impeaching Zelaya, the constitution does not have a provision for impeachment unless the president has been found guily of committing a crime. That would require arrest, trial and punishment, which would have the same violent result mentioned previously, but for longer.

Here's Manuel Zelaya with two of his good friends, Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez.



And here's President Obama being extra friendly with Hugo Chavez.



Perhaps that's why the United States has managed to get itself on the wrong side of freedom by siding with Castro, Chavez, Morales et al and calling on the return of Zelaya.

Zelaya tried, dramatically, to fly back into Honduras but unfortunately for him protestors flocked the airport and the military placed vehicles on the runway to stop him from landing.

So who was on the plane with Zelaya?

Two journalists from Venezuela's Telesur network and, get this, U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, a leftist Nicaraguan priest and former foreign minister.

If that doesn't show how deeply involved in destabilising Honduras Hugo Chavez is and what a corrupt, feckless organisation the U.N. is then nothing will.

If you want to check out how loopy the left is these days then check out the comments on the article at HuffPo. Free Tibet. Damn Honduras.

We are all Hondurans now.

Support freedom.

Support Honduras.

(Nothing Follows)

Three blind IAEA watchdogs

Not content with appointing the unbelievably incompetent Hans Blix to head the IAEA and then following up with his even less competent but equally feckless successor Mohamed ElBaradei they've done it again and appointed Japan's Yukiya Amano, a man whose first statement is that there's no sign that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

The world's top nuclear watchdog chose Japan's Yukiya Amano as its next head on Thursday -- and he touched on the devastation U.S. atom bombs wreaked on his country in pledging to do his utmost to prevent the spread of nuclear arms.

The decision by the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency board ended a tug of war on who should succeed Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, who saw his agency vaulted into prominence during a high-profile 12-year tenure.

North Korea left the nonproliferation fold to develop a nuclear weapons program on ElBaradei's watch and his agency later launched inconclusive probes on suspicions that those to nations were interested in developing nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei's activist approach to his job often rankled with Washington -- and it had a strong preference for Amano, seen by the U.S. as a technocrat amenable to pursuing a hard line on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

So how has that worked out for the US?

The incoming head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence that Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear weapons.

"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's nuclear program since his election, when asked whether he believed Iran was seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

There really must be something in the water at the UN. How is Ahmadinejad going to uphold his promise to wipe Israel off the map without nuclear weapons?

Current IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei told the BBC last month it was his "gut feeling" that Iran was seeking the ability to produce nuclear arms, if it desired, as an "insurance policy" against perceived threats from neighboring countries or the United States.

What a piece of crap ElBaradei really is.

He knows full well that Iran's intentions are not to provide insurance against attack but to allow it to expand its influence in the region.

We seem to be living in an age where unserious people are calling the shots.

(Nothing Follows)

Green shoots precede black economic hole

Ben Bernanke's so-called 'green shoots' are little more than the temporary result of a massive injection of money into the market that can only have the effect of ensuring that the economy of the United States contracts quickly and painfully in the near term and remains moribund for at least a decade after that.

Markets always find their mark and the US government's and Fed's interference are disrupting this natural process.

US employers are voting with their chequebooks with the consequence that unemployment is up significantly more than economists expected in June. Parenthentically, economists' predictions over the last 12-18 months have been about as accurate as James Hansen's or Tim Flannery's climate predictions.

From Chart of the Day:

Today, the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payrolls (jobs) decreased by 467,000 in June. The stock market declined sharply on the news. Today's chart puts that decline into perspective by comparing job losses during the current economic recession (solid red line) to that of the last recession (dashed gold line) and the average recession from 1954-2006 (dashed blue line). As today's chart illustrates, the current job market has suffered losses that are nearly three times as much as the average. In fact, if this were an average recession/job loss cycle, the number of jobs would have begun to increase three months ago

Based on just this information would you take a guess that the green shoots are working or not having any effect?

Does this data give any credibility to President Obama's statement that the stimulus package is designed to 'save or create' jobs?

Australian economist Gerard Jackson on the situation:

The Institute for Supply Management reports that May was the "16th consecutive month of contraction in the manufacturing sector". Even though the contraction appears to be slowing the demand for capital goods continues to drop with no sign of a reversal in sight as of yet. Of course, this fall in demand has hit the producers of capital goods. In the meantime unemployment continues to rise with some commentators expecting it to reach 11 per cent before the year is out and maybe even climb to 12 per cent next year. Therefore the current signs suggest the US could be sliding into an actual depression, if it isn't there already.

It seems that Obama's borrow, spend and inflate policy is proving to be a complete failure. The idea that government borrowing is counter to recession was always a myth. The notion that transferring purchasing power from individuals to bureaucrats and politicians would expand aggregate demand is so stupid that — as George Orwell said with respect to another matter — only the intelligentsia could "believe a thing like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool". And Keynes was no fool. When he spoke of deficits and borrowing it was always with reference to monetary expansion. It's his disciples who keep getting it wrong.

Regardless of your political affiliation do you think that:

A deepening economic crisis

plus cap and trade

plus socialised health care

will help the economy, harm the economy or have no effect on the economy?

The answer can only be one of the three.

(Nothing Follows)

Obama - slow to support real democracy, quick to support autocracy

President Obama is the most popular man in the world.

Elected on a platform of hope and change that included 'listening' to the rest of the world and ending America's 'bullying' tactics of George W Bush he carries a special power to help oppressed people all around the world.

Thus, his tardiness in speaking up for real democracy in Iran rather than continuing to support the old men of Iran's misogynist theocracy is deeply troubling.

More troubling, however, is how quickly he joined the worst of Latin America's left wing autocrats in denouncing the removal from power of Manuel Zelaya in what has been termed a 'coup'.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.

Isn't it remarkable that the person who was meant to re-establish America's moral authority in the world would throw his hat in with Chavez, Castro, Morales et al?

So who are they supporting?

In Honduras they have a one term limit for the position of president. The limit was introduced to ensure that the country did not go down the path of other Latin American countries that historically have seen democratically elected leaders usurp power for themselves in the same way that Chavez has in Venezuela.

Zelaya was trying to circumvent the Constitution by ensuring he could get elected for further terms.

It must be understood that Zelaya is a nutjob in the Chavez and Allende category.

His own party took action against him after the country's highest court had ordered him to stand down. They asked the army to intervene, which they did, and the parliament then replaced Zelaya with a member of his own party.

In fact, what has happened in Honduras is not only not a coup but also not illegal.

So why is Obama supporting anti-democratic forces in South America?

One reason could be pure political pragmatism. He takes the same position as China by not caring who is in power as long as the US can deal with them to advantage.

The other is that he has more sympathy for left wing dictatorships and autocrats than he does for those seeking liberty and freedom.

Whatever the case, history will not be kind to a president that did not stand up for democracy when he had both the moral authority and obligation to do so.

(Nothing Follows)

Steve Fielding doesn't believe in man made climate change

Steve Fielding is exactly the sort of fellow who drives the left mad.

A strong believer in god, Fielding does not believe in man made global warming which at first blush seems contradictary, as they are both religious positions but makes sense if you compare it to his believing in Christianity but not Islam.

Family First senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on climate change - the world is not warming now, and humans aren't changing the climate.

The government and the country's top scientists have tried to convince Senator Fielding, who holds a crucial vote in the upper house, that global warming is real.

But he's released a document setting out his position.

"Global temperature isn't rising," it says.

On emissions trading, Senator Fielding said he wouldn't risk job losses on "unconvincing green science".

The document says it is a "fact" that the evidence does not support the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

Senator Fielding later sought to clarify his position, saying he believed in global warming, but he did not think the world was warming now and did not think humans were causing global warming.

"Over the last 15 years, global temperatures haven't been going up and, therefore, there hasn't been in the last 15 years a period of global warming," Senator Fielding told AAP.

"I think that global warming is real, and climate change is real, but on average global temperatures have stayed steady while carbon emissions have increased over the last 15 years.

"Man-made carbon emissions don't appear to be causing it."

Because of the numbers in the upper house, Senator Fielding's verdict means the government will have to rely on the opposition to get its emissions trading scheme (ETS) legislation passed.

I was with Steve Fielding a couple of months ago and politely asked him to defeat the emissions trading scheme, which would allow Australia to avoid having its economy ruined for no good reason.

He responded that he didn't think he had the power.

Perhaps he sought advice from a higher power and has been rewarded?

Whatever the case may be if the emissions trading scheme is nobbled then Australia will have dodged a bullet.

(Nothing Follows)

Sarkozy is right to abhor the burqa

Good on Sarkozy for having the balls to say what too many of today's multi-culti cowards will not.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the Muslim burqa is a sign of subservience for women that undermines their dignity.

For clarity. This is a burqa:

And for the nitwits who think a hijab and a burqa are basically the same thing here's the difference:

Mr Sarkozy made the comments during a historic address in a special sitting of both houses of the French Parliament at the Palace of Versailles.

For more than a century, French presidents have been banned from speaking directly to Senators and MPs.

The argument has always been that parliament should preserve its independence from the president but Mr Sarkozy changed the rules.

That was controversial enough, but perhaps not as controversial as what he used the address for: stating that the burqa was an affront to women.

"The burqa is not a sign of religion. It is a sign of enslavement. It is a sign of subservience," he said.

Exactly correct. There are few greater symbols of oppression than the burqa. It's up there with the swastika, the hammer and sickle and the KKK insignia.

The French leader spoke in favour of a recent call by 65 French MPs to create a parliamentary commission to study a small but growing trend of wearing the full body religious garment in France.

"I want to say officially, it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," he said.

"We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind netting; cut off from any social life, deprived of any identity.

"This is not the idea the French republic has of a woman's dignity."

Some parliamentarians boycotted Mr Sarkozy's historic speech, dismissing the President's address as nothing more than a public relations stunt.

But Mr Sarkozy struck a chord among the French population, who voted overwhelmingly in favour of his centre right UMP party in the recent European elections.

The head of European research at the Global Policy Institute at the London Metropolitan University, Jacques Reland, is a keen observer of French politics.

"I think a lot of people in France feel really ill at ease with the burqa," he said.

I went to the local shopping mall on the weekend and there was a woman dressed in a burqa. It is a confronting sight. How it can be defended as a personal choice when it's clearly not is yet another sign of the cognitive dissonance of the left.

"I am pretty sure that a lot of French people are saying yes, [what Mr Sarkozy said] is the way it should be."

Sarah Joseph is the editor of Britain's only Muslim lifestyle magazine, emel.

She says many Muslim women use the burqa as an expression of their faith and are not forced to wear it by anyone else.

"I mean, I colour my hair. I don't wear [some forms of Islamic dress] myself but I will defend someone's right to do so or not to do so," she said.

"If you deny a woman's right to choose, that is denying them dignity and denying them their freedom, and it won't create a society of more integrated French citizens, it will create a division in France which will be very unfortunate and deny women their right to participate fully in French society."

Cognitive dissonance on full display in all its glory...

Mr Sarkozy says he is just defending a secular state.

France is home to an estimated five million Muslims. In 2004, the country passed a law forbidding any conspicuous religious symbols from state schools, including veils, which were also banned in government offices.

Charles Johnson at LGF used a very appropriate quote from Christopher Hitchens the other day, "The secular state is the guarantee of religious pluralism. This apparent paradox, again, is the simplest and most elegant of political truths."

The burqa is a symbol of a backward, unenlightened society.

If we in the modern world accept such a symbol of oppression then do we advance our society, do nothing to our society or diminish or society and values?

Paradoxically, those on the left think that accepting the burqa is an example of our advancement.

Clear thinking people have a different view.

(Nothing Follows)

Of course they should be sacked

Do civil libertarians do anything other than undermine standards and decency?

Civil libertarians have criticised a proposal to sack police officers if they are convicted of drink-driving.

Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson is expected to release a new policy this week following a number of drink-driving offences by off-duty police.

Eight officers have been caught driving over the limit this year.

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman said dismissing police convicted of drink-driving was harsh and amounted to "double punishment".

"Drink-driving disqualification periods generally are onerous and in some cases have a harsh flow-on effect on employment and family financial stability if a person as a result of losing a licence can't work," he said.

"This is as true for police as it is for the general community."

Mr O'Gorman said police convicted of drink-driving already faced being taken off the road and given desk jobs, often resulting in less pay.

Officers could also miss out on promotion, he said.

So, officers who are convicted of drink driving could earn less pay and miss out on promotion?

How sad for them.

What about if they use racist language and are convicted?

Or shoplift a Snickers Bar?

Police officers who drink drive have no place in the police force, as they obviously have disdain for the law.

They should be sacked let alone lose pay and promotion.

(Nothing Follows)

Barbara "dumb as a box of hammers" Boxer vs Dr Evil

Compare Barbara Boxer's ridiculous request to a General, for fricksake, with Austin Powers' Dr Evil to the United Nations (at the 0:43 mark of 2nd clip):

(Nothing Follows)

Tax the rich

Here's a great video from the Cato Institute giving just 5 reasons why taxing the rich is a crap idea.



The video uses an argument I've employed against my left wing, economically illiterate (I know, I know, it's tautologous) mates. They want to use taxation to reduce a person's consumption of alcohol or cigarettes but then aren't able to make the connection that taxing productivity will have exactly the same effect - there's less of it.

The economy destroying emissions trading scheme currently being debated in Australia works on the same principle. Use the tax system (or a credit system, which is the same thing) to reduce output of CO2.

More tax. Less whatever.

Tax productivity. Less productivity.

It's not too hard to understand, surely?

(Nothing Follows)

Some quick questions

Having a look at events in the US over the last week or so I have some questions.

Why did President Obama give his speech to the 'Muslim world' in Egypt rather than in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation? Or India with the second largest Muslim population?

Why is it racist for the right to attack Sonia Sotomayor but not when the left attacks Alberto Gonzalez?

Why is it OK for the US government to steal General Motors from its shareholders?

The government claims that it is going to turn GM into an efficient, profitable organisation.

Why should anyone believe that when Amtrak and the US Postal Service are such inefficient, low quality, massively expensive organisations?

If the government does manage to turn GM into an efficient, profitable organisation then will it turn its attention to Amtrak and US Postal, as well?

Does anyone understand that socialised health care means East German Trabants for everyone and not Mercedes?

This is the fallacy of 'quality' health care. The reason that high quality health care exists is because there are people who are able to pay for it. Rich people. Over time, those health technologies become more efficient and cheaper to bring to market meaning that a larger cross-section of the population has access to it. A one size fits all health system creates the situation where not only do new, life saving health technologies do not come to market as quickly as they should, if ever, but also that care is rationed by faceless government bureaucrats to those that will achieve the best outcome. If you're an older person then you'll be given less priority than younger people, as it is in the UK and Canada.

The US is stuffed for a generation thanks to the intervention of government into markets. President Obama's trillion dollar deficits will only make things worse.

Economic recovery comes about through capital growth.

None of the policies implemented in the US or the UK or Australia will result in one dollar of capital growth.

Why would anyone expect the economy to recover any time soon?

(Nothing Follows)

Sunday night rock 'n' roll covers

I'll tell you someone who was a terrific performer who is generally overlooked when considering the great guitar men - Rory Gallagher. How he didn't make Rolling Stone magazine's top 100 guitarists of all time beats me.

Rory Gallagher (pronounced "Ro-ree Gall-a-her") (born Liam Rory Gallagher, 2 March, 1948– died 14 June, 1995) was an Irish blues/rock guitarist. Born in Ballyshannon, County Donegal, Ireland, he grew up in Cork City in the south of the country. He is best known for his solo albums, and for his tenure in the band Taste during the late 1960s. A multi-instrumentalist who gained a reputation as a gifted and charismatic live performer, Rory Gallagher's albums have sold in excess of 30 million copies worldwide.

Bullfrog Blues is a 'traditional' blues rock tune for which Gallagher is recognised as having the best version. The following are audio only. I picked them because they are the best versions I could find.

Rory Gallagher - Terrific live version



Canned Heat - Monterey '67



(Nothing Follows)

Immigrants attacking Indian and Chinese students proves Australia is racist

The Indian community in Australia staged a quite large and noisy protest to highlight the fact that many of them, and particularly students, are being targeted in deliberate racist attacks.

Our Prime Minister has been forced to intervene in a diplomatic spat with India over the attacks.

Over the last week I have been watching the media reporting to see whether they're reporting on who the perpetrators of the attacks are.

Not one report has provided the information that is most salient to the crimes - that they're being mostly carried out by immigrants to Australia, mainly from Africa.

So what do we have now?

The nitwit leftists who jump on any opportunity to kick Australia and accuse it of being a nation of racists are howling from the rooftops.

In the People's Republic of Victoria, Rob Hulls has introduced new hate crimes legislation:

HATE crime could soon be an offence in Victoria as the State Government moves to crack down on violent attacks against Indian students, homosexuals and other targeted groups.

Under a plan being pushed by Attorney-General Rob Hulls, judges would have to take into account "hatred for or a prejudice against a particular group of people" as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders.

Tougher sentences would apply to crimes deemed to be based on victims' race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Of course, the only problem with such legislation is that the government will never have the courage to charge anyone other than white, male Australians.

The Chinese never miss the chance to put the boot in and take advantage of a situation:

THE future of the $15.5 billion overseas student industry is under threat after the Chinese Government went public with concerns about violence against its students in Australia.

Battling to contain the damage arising from attacks on Indian students, university vice-chancellors fear Australia's third-largest export industry may face sanctions from the Chinese and Indian governments.

Chinese embassy counsellor Liu Jin yesterday said his Government was intervening to ensure the safety of Chinese nationals.

"There are over 130,000 Chinese students in Australia," he said. "They have, on the whole, had a good study and living environment in Australia, but attacks on Chinese students also occurred in recent years.

"The Chinese embassy and consulates in Australia attach high importance to the safety of Chinese students … It is hoped that the Australian Government will provide better protection to international students from China and other countries and ensure their legitimate rights in Australia."

At least we have a Prime Minister who can tell the Chinese to pull in their heads in their own language. Not that he has the balls for that.

Not letting an opportunity to get her noggin into the media again, Australian minor Bollywood starlet, Tania Zaetta, has 'begged' Bollywood to stop a boycott against Australia.

Aussie Bollywood star Tanya Zaetta has pleaded with the Indian film industry not to boycott Australia over the spate of attacks on Indian students in Melbourne.

The actress, who appeared in the Melbourne-produced Bollywood movie Salaam Namaste, said she was "horrified" to hear of the race violence but added that any boycott would do more harm than good.

“I understand completely Indians being upset over the recent racial attacks, I’m appalled by them myself," Zaetta told ninemsn.

"It makes me ashamed to be Australian when you hear about attacks on people of other cultures.

"But I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. Bollywood boycotting Australia will only drive the two countries further apart."

Zaetta is 'ashamed to be Australian' due to attacks that are mostly carried out by a country whose intake of immigrants exceeds any other in the world on a per capita basis.

Why can't the truth be told?

Australia is among the least racist nations on earth. Not that you'd know that from reading the media.

(Nothing Follows)

Top Gear Muslims

During last night's Australian version of Top Gear during Warren Brown's interview with swimmer Liesel Jones I took the following photos:

Is it just me or is the presence of a couple of obviously Muslim kids in the background (one is just in shot in the 3rd photo) look staged?

(Nothing Follows)

Defence Skippy

I was out at the Department of Defence's Campbell Park offices the other day.

Campbell Park, together with Russell Offices, is the headquarters of the Australian Defence Force. It is located in Canberra, the national capital of Australia, in the suburb of Campbell, Australian Capital Territory.

The building looks eastward across the Majura Valley and Canberra International Airport and backs onto Mount Ainslie. The offices have seven floors of varying width, staggered back on tall concrete pillars to match and blend with the profile of the hill to the west. Four numbered sections, numbered from the south, bend slightly eastward at each 'node' where lifts take people between floors. Nodes B, C, D, and E also have spiral staircases. Access is by main security entrances at B and D Nodes, between CP1&2 and CP3&4 respectively. Underground document storage and work space is below part of the building.

Apparently, it's the longest building in the southern hemisphere.



Anyhoo, there happened to be a few kangaroo kicking about and so I took a few photos to prove to our overseas friends that these things really do bounce down the streets of our cities.

By the way, they are definitely not friendly and should not be approached if you happen to come across one. They'll do you some serious damage if you stir one up.

(Nothing Follows)