Qohel Home Page

Click photo to go to Peter's profile






Quality Web Hosting at the Best Price






www.1and1.com

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

What is it about Trump that some conservatives find so distressing?

You’d expect progressives to be disturbed, of course, even before you get to policies. Trump is a manly, no nonsense, successful businessman. When you do consider policies, the nightmare deepens. He is unashamedly proud of his country, and has made it clear that when it comes to foreign policy and trade, he intends to put its interests first. He is pro-life, and supports police and the military. He supports Israel, and Israel’s right to defend itself.  He does not buy into currently popular (and in some circles mandatory) issues like global warming and multi-culturalism.

A horror story for progressives. But why are some conservatives also lining up under the #nevertrump banner? Only a few percent; not enough to influence the outcome of the Republican Convention. But a few percent of conservatives who refuse to vote, or vote for a third party candidate, may be all it takes to get Hillary Clinton over the line and into the White House.

First in the litany of Trump’s faults is this: He’s a fascist! The word fascist comes from Latin fasces, a bundle of rods tied together, sometimes with a protruding axe blade. In Roman times it was symbol of magisterial authority. The meaning is that the state is stronger when all its members think and act in concert. Fascism subsumes the interests of individuals and families to the perceived needs of the state, in the belief that citizens are eventually better off if everyone serves the same purposes and works towards the same objectives.

Explaining in detail why this is wrong and does not work would take a much longer essay than this. The question for now is, “Is this the position that Donald Trump espouses?” Hardly. Trump’s central policy positions are small, low-tax, non-interventionist government, free speech, and individual and family rights. The exact opposite of an authoritarian, all-encompassing central government.

Well, then, he’s a racist! Racism is not intrinsic to fascism, although the two are often conflated. Is Trump a racist? No one has been able to point to specific instances where Trump has abused or disadvantaged anyone on the basis of race. He has been publicly supported by black and Hispanic staff and former staff, by black pastors and business people, by immigrants of a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, many of whom who share his concern over illegal immigration. It is assumed in some circles that if you believe illegal immigration is a problem, you must do so on the basis of race, because you are xenophobic. Showing that to be untrue is as easy as going to Youtube and looking for Hispanics for Trump.

Well then, he is an islamophobe! Here, as others have pointed out, it isn’t a phobia if there is genuinely something to fear. Since September 2001 over 28,000 terror attacks have been made on civilians specifically in the name of Allah and Muhammad. In the name of all other religions? About one tenth of one percent of that figure. ISIS, and before ISIS Al Qaeda, have called on all muslims everywhere to undertake random murders of civilian populations in non-muslim countries. Very few will take up that call. But very few will speak out against those who do, or explain how the Quran’s command to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” is to be set aside while at the same time maintaining the Quran’s commands apply for all time to all muslims everywhere. There is sufficient reason to be concerned, despite the French Prime Minister’s pronouncement after Nice that we must get used to living with terror, or Waleed Aly’s claim after the Boston bombing that terrorism is not an existential threat, merely an irritant. How to deal with Islamic terror is another question, but recognising that it is a problem is a good first step, and taking ordinary people’s fears about it seriously is a good second step.

Well, then, Trump is a sexist! This coming from the Clinton camp is, like, um, really? Are there no mirrors where you live? Coming from conservatives it is even more baffling. In an interview published in The Sunday Times on July 3rd, Trump’s daughter Ivanka described her father as having lived feminism:

“He always told me and showed me that I could do anything I set my mind to if I married vision and passion with work ethic. He’s also surrounded me with strong female role models who have done just that since I was a little girl. People talk about gender equality. He has lived it. He has employed women at the highest levels of the Trump organisation for decades.” Opposed to this is Trump’s admission that he finds attractive women attractive. Of course this is unspeakable bastardry in modern progressivism, but from conservatives it sounds more like desperation to find something, anything, on which to base their disapproval.

In addition, Trump makes the fatal error of actually treating women and men equally. In the world of gender equality, this is as big a blunder as finding women attractive. In business and political debate, Trump appears not to notice the gender of a competitor. For example, he noted that Carly Fiorina was so unattractive it was unlikely anyone would vote for her. In fact, pretty much no one did. If he had said this about Ted Cruz or John Kasich no one would have batted a butt hair, let alone an eyelid. But just as equality in race means treating people differently on the basis of their race, so gender equality means treating people differently on the basis of their gender. You mustn’t say mean things about women!

Unless of course, you are a progressive, and a woman has said something that is outside the progressive agenda. Then all the rules cease immediately. So, for example, when Australian media personality Sonia Kruger suggested a temporary ban on muslim immigration, she got this (and hundreds of others) from compassionate inclusive Twitter persons: “You useless f%#king c&^t. The reason you spew this sh#t is cause your mouth is always full of c*%k.” Or this from a person deeply concerned about the impact of racism, to Rita Panahi, an Iranian born Australian, after she defended Sonia: “Ohh right curry muncher … say racist things about every person in a religion then say pay a visious price the things that mole said was visious but you won’t say that will you curry muncher.” Melania Trump has been described by a supporter of open borders as “a stupid bitch with a dumb accent.” A desire to welcome immigrants and ensure they are treated fairly is demonstrated here by insulting a successful immigrant woman who speaks four languages for her “dumb accent.”

Having exhausted all of the above, #nevertrump will eventually come out with the claim that Trump is stupid and cannot string a coherent sentence together. One has to step back in wonder at this argument. An unintelligent person who is not able to communicate built up an initial investment of $1 million into a multi-billion dollar real-estate and entertainment business. Nope. Just nope.  Trump is an entertainer himself. He communicates his vision clearly and effectively, and without the aid of a teleprompter. Watching his question and answer sessions at rallies you see a man who listens intently, conveys his interest to the questioner, and responds, generally, with a thoughtful and straightforward reply. Generally? Yes. Trump sometimes trips over his words. He sometimes responds or comments in ways that might have been more delicately put, or required more time and detail to explain. It is very easy to put together a video of such moments and portray him as a mindless bumbler. But doing so says little about Trump, and a great deal about the agenda of the video maker. One of the qualities ordinary people like in Trump is that he is not rehearsed. He does not give the impression of saying what he thinks will win approval. He doesn’t need to.

Finally, “He’s not a conservative!” Yes, he is. There is not a single Trump policy position that does not fit under the very wide umbrella of freedom-loving, free-market conservatism. It is certainly possible to disagree about some aspect of social policy, or trade, for example. But any position taken in these discussions is a long way from large government socialism. At best, #nevertrump can claim that Trump’s opinions now are not what they were twenty years ago. No intelligent person’s opinions are what they were twenty years ago. Values clarify as one gets older. Practical experience and knowledge of the world is gained. The world changes, problems and issues change, and ways of dealing with them change. There would be much more reason for concern if Trump’s opinions had not changed with changing times.

I wrote six months ago that the only way the Republican Party could lose the election would be to nominate Trump. He was not my preferred candidate. But he received more votes in the Primaries than any other Republican candidate ever. Men and women who have never voted before turned out to vote for Trump. A recent survey of bellwether counties in a bellwether state (Florida) showed Trump leading in every county. Some of team #nevertrump claim it is not a binary contest between Trump and Clinton Mk II. There are, they say, other options. Maybe in some parallel universe, but here in the real world the next President of the United States will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. At this point, continuing to undermine Trump and the Republican campaign is effectively lobbying for Clinton.

There never was any real-world evidence to support the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

According to Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, the ‘consensus’ was declared before the research had even begun: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

It has always been a media/political creation rather than a creation of science. John Cook of 97% fame, for example, is a cartoonist by trade, while Bill Nye the science guy is not a scientist, but an actor on a children’s TV program.

Just a couple of key things to note:
CO2 has never been a driver of climate. CO2 levels have been more than ten times higher than they are now, eg in the Mesozoic Era when corals flourished without any ill effects on anything, and positively beneficial effects for green plants.
There is no correlation between human use of fossil fuels and changes in global climate.

There is a very clear correlation between solar activity + PMO and AMO and changes in global rainfall and temperature.

Now very low solar activity is leading some scientists to take the view (one I have shared for the last fifteen years) that what we really need to be concerned about is the possibility of deep and extended cooling, and even of the end of the current inter-glacial. That would be genuinely catastrophic unless we focus now on developing all available energy sources, and improving crops to cope with much cooler conditions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#349298c569bb

Just back from handing out how to vote cards for a candidate I only halfheartedly support and who will not get my first vote.

Interesting that Sportsbet, who are generallty far more reliable than any media pundits, predict the following:

Coalition: 79
Labor: 66
Greens: 1 (Adam Bandt – Melbourne)
NXT: 1 (Rebekha Sharkie – Mayo)
Other: 3 (Bob Katter – Kennedy, Cathy McGowan – Indi, Andrew Wilkie – Denison)

There will certainly be a huge swing away from Jamie Briggs in Mayo, but unless some very strange things happen with preferences, Jamie will still be returned.

I also doubt Cathy McGowan in Indi. Voters have had a chance now to see how unstable Cathy McGowan is, and I would not be surprised to see Sophie Mirabella returned, especially given Victoria will have what I suspect will be the only statewide swing to the LNP.

Andrew Wilkie in Denison? Only if voters have been smoking too much wacky weed.

The Coalition will be returned with a reduced but working majority.

On the other hand, I would not be surprised if Eden-Monaro, which has been a reliable bell-wether seat for many years, bucks that trend and slips back to Labor.

The Senate is where it will get interesting. Nick Xenophon has achieved precisely nothing, and is a rampant populist. But he has charisma, and sometimes latching onto passing trendy causes does work, temporarily. He may pick up a few more seats in the Senate. That may not be as much of a problem as some LNP leaders think. Despite his desperate need for approval, he is not irrational.

Family First may also pick up an extra seat, as may the LIberal Democrats. The ALA may also collect a couple. While howled down by both major parties, their views and policies do reflect those of a growing number of Australians.

The result will be a (hopefully) chastened Malcolm Turnbull, Jamie Briggs and LNP leadership, but a workable majority in the House, with the balance of power in the Senate held by minority parties, but (again hopefully) minority parties with sensible and experienced candidates, who will support pro-growth and security policies.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no prospect of a Liberal party led by Malcom Turnbull ever returning to the party’s former core values of social conservatism, fiscal responsibility and personal integrity.

Being determined to win at any cost, and make any promises to do so, is not a win at all. Certainly not for the Australian people. Unless there are principles, there is no point.

Three years of Shorten and Plibersek is a ghastly prospect, with its certainty of increased energy costs and costs of doing business, higher unemployment and debt, and a reopening and refilling of detention centres.

But it is more and more likely that ordinary and loyal Liberal voters will see this as the only alternative to the destruction from within of conservatism in Australian politics.

Those of us who believe that social conservatism and economic libertarianism offer the best path for peace and justice and prosperity for Australia may well believe that this will only be achieved, and with it, a sound future for Australia, by sending a clear message that the Liberal Party needs to return to principled conservative leadership.

The real question is, how to do that without the horrendous cost to Australia of three years (at least) of Shorten and Plibersek?

There has already been a substantial member level backlash against elected members who voted to replace Tony Abbott with Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull is simply not a conservative. He is a big spending, trendy issue, promise anything to get re-elected salesman. This is not what Liberal Party members, or ordinary Australians, want or need.

No conservative or traditional Liberal voter should feel guilty about giving first preference votes to other, conservative, candidates. In my electorate of Mayo, for example, Bruce Hicks of Family First will get my first preference. I know Bruce. He is a good guy; hard-working, a successful businessman in a very difficult industry (dairy farming) and a school principal. He knows about balancing budgets, and is a person of intelligence and integrity. He won’t be elected though. The seat will be retained by Jamie Briggs.

There is nothing much wrong with Jamie. The press has been monumentally unfair to him on occasion, but he has generally done a good job for his electorate. Apart from supporting an idiotic $20 million white elephant airport development on Kangaroo Island, so that airlines can run routes from capital cities other than Adelaide direct to Kingscote. Except that every major airline has already said they have no interest in such routes and no intention of flying them.

Then there is his refusal to get behind the Kangaroo Island water gap/ferry as part of the national highway network. This is the single change that would do more than anything else to boost the island’s economy, make KI the jewel of South Australian tourism, and help to reverse SA’s declining attractiveness to overseas and inter-state tourists. At the moment it is often cheaper to fly from Adelaide to Bali for the weekend, than to take a family and car from Adelaide to KI for the weekend. Absurd. Jamie’s reason for refusing to support making the ferry part of the highway network (thus equalising transport and freight costs) is that it would give an unfair advantage to Kangaroo Island producers. This is equally absurd. How does partially removing a substantial disadvantage suddenly amount to an unfair advantage?

In addition, Jamie has given his support to what is surely the biggest pork barrel project in Australia’s history; the construction of submarines in Adelaide. Never mind the fact that the contract is to build submarines that haven’t been designed yet, using software that hasn’t been written yet. Never mind that the planned subs will be so much slower than surface navy vessels they will be unable to carry out escort duties, or effective intercept and denial. Never mind that it will take fifty years to build a fleet that will be outdated before the first one hits the water. Never mind that we could lease fast and tested Virginia class submarines from the US and have a functional fleet in five years at half the cost. And please don’t tell me we can’t use them because they can’t be serviced in Australia. A fully equipped service centre could easily be set up in Adelaide, with the subs returning to the US every ten to twenty years for an RCOH (Refueling Complex Overhaul).

Of course every Australian should mind all these things. Our defence focus is rightly on our navy. Defence personnel take enough risks and make enough sacrifices without having to worry about slow, second rate equipment. Tax payers make enough sacrifices that they should not have to worry about paying an extra $20 billion for submarines, even second rate French submarines, just so they can be built in Adelaide. The argument is that this will create jobs in Australia.

The argument is hogwash. The wages and on-costs paid to those employees is money taken from other businesses and wage earners.  The government is simply vastly less efficient than private enterprise at almost everything. That costs money and productivity. Then there is the weight of tax collection and compliance costs, and layers of bureaucracy on top. Every job the government “creates” comes at a cost of 2.2 jobs in private enterprise.

What the “build the subs in Adelaide” boondoggle will do is create about 5,000 jobs in key marginal Liberal seats in Adelaide, at a cost of 12,000 jobs elsewhere. That is behaviour by government, which means the elected members, which should not be rewarded.

In the Senate, the options for conservatives are fairly clear. We need to give Turnbull and his cronies a good thump, while not risking a balance of power held by Xenophon or the Greens. Xenophon is a charismatic character with absolutely nothing to say. He is simply, like Malcolm, a principle-less, headline seeking, big-spending populist. No thanks. The Greens, well, if you could run steel factories on unicorn farts, the world would be a lovely place. Until then, we live in a real world, with real profits and losses and energy needs. So again, no thanks.

My advice would be, vote under the line. The Liberal Democrats, the Australian Liberty Alliance, Family First, are all thoughtful, well-rounded, principled conservative parties. They may get one candidate each in each state. Two would be brilliant. Then give the rest to the LNP. The result, fingers, arms and ankles crossed, should be a Senate where the balance of power is held by real conservatives, while still giving the LNP room to govern effectively.

So, pace Miranda, it is entirely possible to be a deliberate, delectable, delicious conservative, determined to deliver without delay while deleting de louses, and not be at all delusional.

Or so says this imam.

I know we are all fed up with hearing about this. But watch this, and think, seriously, whether the attitudes on display here are compatible with Western values and liberal democracy.

And I promise this will be the last thing I post on this. Until the next atrocity …

 

Lots of assumptions were made following the Orldando shooting.

One assumption everyone seems to have made was that the murders were, at least in part, motivated by homophobia. The reason for this was that the shooting took place at a well-known gay nightclub.

But there is no evidence that the shooter was anti-gay. None.

His ex-wife thought he was gay. He frequented the Pulse Club, and used gay dating apps.

He also scouted other possible locations for the shooting, including the local Disney park.

There are no anti-gay remarks on any of his social media posts, or in any of his private messages. His calls during the shooting mention ISIS, and his desire for revenge on America. But he said nothing about gays.

Whatever his possibly confused sexuality, it now seems clear he chose the Pulse Club not because it was a gay club, but because it was a place he knew well, he knew there would be a large number of people in small place where it was difficult to exit quickly, and because it was a gun-free zone, and he knew he would face little effective resistance.

His ex-wife reports the FBI told her not to reveal her husband was gay. Why?

From the linked article …

“At least four Pulse clubgoers remembered seeing Mateen at least a dozen times in the past. But authorities said they had no further information when asked about the sightings on Monday. NBC reported that the FBI was looking into his alleged club visits.

“[He’d get] really, really drunk,” Smith told the Canadian Press. “He couldn’t drink when he was at home — around his wife, or family. His father was really strict . . . He used to bitch about it.”

They also shot down claims that Mateen had snapped after seeing two men kissing each other in public.

“That’s bullcrap, right there. No offense. That’s straight-up crap. He’s been around us,” Smith said. “Some of those people did a little more than (kiss) outside the bar … He was partying with the people who supposedly drove him to do this?”

Kevin West, another regular at Pulse, told the Los Angeles Times that Mateen used gay dating apps on a regular basis and even messaged him on a gay dating app, Jack’d.”

Iran is building a military base in the Kurdish heartland of Northern Iraq, apparently specifically to target the Kurds, who are leading the fight against ISIS.

If this marks a new level of understanding betweeen Iraq and Iran, then it amounts to the creation of a Shi’ite arc extending from Hezbollah in Lebanon, through Syria and Iran down into Shi’ite majority Iraq.

The Saudis won’t like this.

Visit Blissyoo.

Don’t let Facebook decide what you see and what you can post.

Blissyoo means no censorship of posts, freedom of speech, videos, music, groups, pages, news, and soon, revenue sharing.

Visit, join, invite your friends.

Fukushima, vaccines, chemtrails. It is always the same.

CT (Conspiracy theorist) “Something really bad and scary is happening!”

Me “I don’t think there is any evidence to support that.”

CT “That’s because there is a massive cover-up. The (government, power companies, big pharma, Monsanto) are deliberately hiding the truth from the public.”

Me ” How do you know that?”

CT “Because there is no evidence. If they weren’t covering it up, there would be. Isn’t that obvious? Are you crazy or something?”

Yet another bogus quote in support of a trendy cause.

Spend enough time on Facebook or Twitter and you’ll eventually come across this quote which purportedly emerged from Churchill’s bulldog visage in the darkest days of World War II. It has Churchill responding to a plan to cut money for the arts to fund the war effort by saying: “Then what are we fighting for?”

According to Churchill historian Richard Langworth “This alleged quotation first appeared a few years ago in the Village Voice and is all over the web, but it is not in any of Churchill’s 15 million words in his speeches, papers, letters, articles or books.”

In fact there was no “arts funding” at that time. An allocation of 25,000 pounds had been made to assist cultural societies. This compares with 643,000,000 in defence spending. That money allocated to cultural societies nationwide would have made no difference to defence funding, and it is ludicrous to suggest Churchill would have been faced with a choice between the two.

Rather than dish out invented quotes, it would be better for people who believe taxpayers should be forced to pay for “art” they don’t like, want or need, to list the moral and cultural reasons why money should be extracted from them for that purpose.

In response to the customary whining on the ABC about possible reductions in the government spending other people’s money:

Cuts to arts funding are not ‘tantamount to the Coalition Government standing bang in the middle, right on top of Uluru with a megaphone, shouting “Oh just work for free! You know you want to!”‘

It is simply that ordinary tax payers are getting fed up with paying for other people’s hobbies. Artists do not have to work for nothing, nor are they expected to. Like the rest of us, whether butcher, baker, or candle-stick maker, they simply need to produce something other people value enough to pay for.

If they can’t or won’t, that’s fine, but then they have no right to demand the government force working families to pay for what is often mind-bogglingly dull and uncreative “art” that no one would buy if they had a choice.

Government funding for the arts encourages dependence and mediocrity. Time to can it completely.

If you want people to pay for something, make something people are willing to pay for.

Ah, the good old days. And joined by Rob Oakeshott? What a triumph!

Malcolm Turnbull Votes Against His Own party

Malcolm Turnbull Votes Against His Own party

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no prospect of a Liberal party led by Malcom Turnbull ever returning to the party’s former core values of social conservatism, fiscal responsibility and personal integrity.

Being determined to win at any cost, and make any promises to do so, is not a win at all. Certainly not for the Australian people. Unless there are principles, there is no point.

Three years of Shorten and Plibersek is a ghastly prospect, with its certainty of increased energy costs and costs of doing business, higher unemployment and debt, and a reopening and refilling of detention centres.

But it is more and more likely that ordinary and loyal Liberal voters will see this as the only alternative to the destruction from within of conservatism in Australian politics.

Those of us who believe that social conservatism and economic libertarianism offer the best path for peace and justice and prosperity for Australia may well believe, as I am coming to do, that this will only be achieved, and with it, a sound future for Australia, by sending a clear message that the Liberal Party needs to return to principled conservative leadership.

Even if the short-term cost is three years of Shorten.

I spent some time at QUT studying law. It was an interesting experience. I knew when one of the lecturers made the claim that the Blackstone contained the “rule of thumb” – a provision in law that men could beat their wives with a rod provided it was no thicker than a thumb – that theory was more important at QUT than reality. Blackstone of course says nothing of the sort, if anything highlighting the greater protection women have under English law.

So when I first read about this story almost two years ago, I was not surprised.

Two students entered a resource room. Several computers were free and they began to use one. They were confronted by a staff member who demanded to know if they were indigenous. They said they were not and she told them they would have to leave because that room was reserved for the use of indigenous students. They left without fuss, but later asked on Facebook how anyone expected segregation and racism to be overcome by a policy of segregating people and resources on the basis of race. Their posts were polite and intelligent.

The staff member concerned, Cindy Prior, made a complaint that their comments constituted racial vilification. She has been so traumatised she has been unable to work for the last two years.

Just to repeat. A staff member throws two students out of a resource room because they are the wrong race, and when they ask questions about this, they are accused of racial vilification. This is 18C. It is worth noting that the only reason this particular case has come to public attention is the the students have persisted in asking their questions, and in denying that they acted with any racial animosity. The vast majority of cases are “settled” in a Kafkaesque and labyrinthine system without any possibility of public scrutiny.

Now read on, from The Australian:

Two students accused the Human Rights Commission yesterday of “recklessly” breaching their human rights in a row stemming from a $250,000 damages claim brought by a worker who barred white students from a room at the Queensland University of Technology.

Jackson Powell and Calum Thwaites, who lodged separate complaints with the commission, are seeking a formal apology and compensation for their costs in defending racial hatred claims.

calumthwaites

QUT student Calum Thwaites prepares to defend himself against claims of racial vilification.

They say the commission has treated them with “flagrant indifference” because they are “white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual citizens who maintain a male gender identity”, have no criminal rec­ord, no outspoken political opinions and no record of participation in trade unions or religious sects.

Their lawyer, Tony Morris QC, said the commission’s conduct in managing the case had been “illogical, irrational and ­patently bizarre”, leading to gross unfairness to Mr Powell, Mr Thwaites and other students.

The students say their rights were infringed because the commission failed for at least 14 months to notify them they were being accused of racial vilification under section 18c.

The delay meant that while QUT, its staff and its lawyers had 14 months to prepare a defence to the claims by QUT staffer Cindy Prior, Mr Thwaites was told of the serious complaint days before he was told to go to a conciliation conference ordered and run by the commission. He had no funds and little time to get legal advice or achieve a resolution before the case escalated to the Federal ­Circuit Court.

The racial vilification case was lodged in the commission in late May 2014 by Ms Prior, who ­alleges she was severely traumatised by Facebook posts from students responding to her action in preventing the men using QUT’s Oodgeroo Unit in May 2013.

The unit has been described as a “culturally safe space” for indigenous students, but there was no sign suggesting it was off-limits to white students who wanted to access computers that were not in use.

Ms Prior has been unable to work for 2½ years and wants $250,000 from QUT and the students.

Well I was wrong about 4,000 new jobs in Adelaide at a cost of an additional $18 billion to build the subs here. Christopher Pyne says it’s 2,800 jobs. Let’s be generous and say 3,000.
 
That’s $6 million per job.
 
I have an idea. Why not let the Federal government pay 3,000 unemployed people in Adelaide $100,000 per year for ten years to sit around and do absolutely nothing. That’s a million dollars each. That would cost $3 billion.
 
Then we could get the subs built in France and save $15 billion, and Christopher Pyne would be so popular he would still get to save his seat.
 
Why not? Because it would be absolutely freaking ridiculous, that’s why not.
 
But nowhere near as freaking ridiculous as paying $18 billion for the same 3,000 make-work jobs.
Pages