Utopia, you are standing in it!

by Mario Rizzo  

This is an important time for Austrians. During the Great Depression and for many years thereafter, J.M. Keynes and his followers dominated macroeconomic theory (some say they created it) as well as the conventional wisdom about the historical lessons of the Depression and the New Deal.  

We are now witnessing many important developments that will affect economics and public perceptions for a long time to come.

Yesterday I reported that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that an Austrian woman, by teaching that the prophet Muhammad had married a six-year-old wife (Aisha), and then consummated the marriage three years later, had engaged in defamation of religion in a way that hurt religious sentiments. The ECHR was upholding two Austrian lower-court rulings, and fined the woman €480 and court costs. I gave these quotes from the Turkish Andelou Agency, one of the few sites to report the decision.

On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible…

I’m gobsmacked, as I hadn’t been aware of this case. This comes from the Andelou Agency, a Turkish website, so it’s not gonna be critical of this decision.

The text:

Strasbourg: Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.

According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.

She…

Golden Eagle ‘transitions’ to California’s wind powered future …

Renewable energy zealots didn’t invent hypocrisy, but they seem quite comfortable wearing it, like their very own badge of honour.

If wind power was even close to being a meaningful power generation source, you might, just might justify the wave of environmental and societal destruction that comes with it. Abandoned centuries ago for pretty obvious reasons, wind power was redundant the moment James Watt turned steam into motive force.

The wind cult, however, have no difficulty in justifying the destruction of pristine landscapes; the dismemberment of once cohesive, rural communities; the creation of toxic waste lands in China (where the rare earths essential to wind turbines are processed); power prices that punish the poorest and most vulnerable in society; and barely bat an eyelid at the slaughter of millions upon millions of birds and bats, across the globe.

The carnage…

Phil Goldberg writes at RealClearPolicy The Supreme Court’s Next Climate Change Case?  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to get a look at the latest attempt by environmentalists and their political allies to bypass legislatures and use the courts to enact their climate-change agenda. So far, they have sued America’s energy producers in hopes of having judges, not regulators, set carbon emission limits and making energy producers pay for local infrastructure projects to deal with the impacts of climate change. As the Progressive Policy Institute has explained, selling fossil fuels is not illegal, and sensible people on both sides of the aisle have long agreed that these actions have no foundation in the law.

Indeed, this litigation has already percolated up to the U.S. Supreme Court once. In a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court made it clear that…

Here’s another of those things well said, that need to be remembered. It comes from William Voegeli’s book The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion.

Economist Dierdre McCloskey calculates that in “the countries that most enthusiastically embraced capitalism” some two hundred years ago, real, per capita economic growth has increased by 1 .5 percent annually. Owing to the miracle of compound interest, this increase has meant a 19-fold increase in living standards over the past two centuries, which, she contends, is a “change in the human condition” that “ranks with the first domestications of plants and animals and the building of the first towns” McCloskey argues that this enormous economic result had a cause that was cultural rather than economic. Humans did not suddenly become more acquisitive or creative. Rather, “when people  treat the marketers and inventors as having some dignity and liberty, innovation takes hold. The new

One of the most controversial issues during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (‘EUWA’) was the so-called ‘meaningful vote’, which parliamentarians hoped would give the Commons a real say over any ‘deal’ reached by the Government with the EU (see previously on this blog posts by Alison Young and Jack Simson Caird). The provisions governing the vote are now set out exhaustively in s 13 EUWA (below).

This issue is now coming sharply into focus amongst parliamentarians and commentators as negotiations with the EU enter their final stages and attention starts to turn to the question of when and how the meaningful vote will take place. A post by Jack Simson Caird just this week considered some of the procedural issues surrounding the process of approval. This blog addresses the issue, recently alluded to by the Government, of possible legal challenges that might arise should…

Iceland is one of two countries that does not recognize International Whaling Commission’s ban on whaling and where commercial whaling is legal. Consequently, environmentalists with the Sea Shepherd terrorist group are making it a point to try to shut down Iceland’s whaling industry which is centuries old.

Below is an ABC Nightline report on the controversy. The report is fairly well done and also take note of the Sea Shepherd activist’s reaction when confronted with the fact that Iceland’s fin whale population is plentiful with 40,000 whales in Iceland’s waters.

CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons

In their recently published book, former Labour advisers Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton explore the backstage machinery behind Prime Minister’s Question Time. Drawing on her PhD research, which focuses on parliamentary mechanisms for holding prime ministers accountable in parliamentary democracies, Ruxandra Serban reflects on how the book informs wider debates in legislative studies.

Prime Minister’s Question Time does not have a particularly good reputation. Designed as a weekly opportunity for MPs to question the Prime Minister, it is criticised for being noisy, excessively theatrical, scripted, and confrontational. But to what extent does it fulfil its role in holding the Prime Minister to account? What other roles does it perform for parliament and for the political system?

As PMQs provides a forum for the head of government to be questioned publicly and routinely by MPs, its implications for politics and for the workings of democracy are very important. In the…

We are witnessing the spectacle of a high-ranking Federal District Court Judge twisting the law to suit her empathy for climate activists. This is playing out as a lawsuit brought by Our Children’s Trust with kids as willing human shields in the “fight against climate change.” (Background resources at the end) The proceedings have gone on for several years with no end in sight unless a higher court stops it. The next segment is a long (50 courtroom days) hearing on the merits scheduled to begin October 29, 2018.

The latest filings provide a view into how the legal system is being manipulated to support climatist beliefs and biases. The petition filed by the US is  PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

Excerpts in italics with my bolds first from the federal defendants and later from the District Judge’s latest order (Respondents refers to the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit)

From…