A Proposal for Proper Paths

This may interest only a few residents of Tasmania and, perhaps, some concerned visitors to my seemingly moribund home State, but I have recently endeavoured to attract support for a proposal for proper footpaths because—I am convinced—I am not the only person who wishes to walk from place to place without risking death or dismemberment on public roads which, unjustly, lack adequate, concomitant footpaths, and on the general principle that, in a State now so heavily dependent on tourism but so infested with credulous believers in the odd notion that wondrous, modern technological advancement, somehow, adversely mutates our planet’s entire climate catastophically, “whithersoever a person may lawfully travel by motor vehicle a person should also be able to travel by foot or wheelchair or other personal conveyance just as readily”.

The “Putting a Price on X” Game

In “Clear link between climate change and bushfires: UN adviser warns Tony Abbott”, by the credulous Judith Ireland, we learn that the useless-when-it’s-not actually-destructive UN is still hoping to persuade people that slightly warmer weather is catastrophically dangerous, and that we must therefore lavish even more money on the already bloated bureaucrats who have lied to us for so long about the alleged dangers of very slight global warming.

A senior United Nations climate change official says there is “absolutely” a link between climate change and bushfires and has warned that the Coalition government will pay a high political and financial price for its decision to scrap carbon pricing.

There is, of course, no link at all between supposed anthropogenic global warming—which is what these venal buffoons mean when they refer to “climate change”—and bushfires.  That is a self-serving lie—or, to be charitable, perhaps yet another wondrous case of the modern flexibility of language whereby “absolutely” means “not at all”.

In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Monday, the head of the UN’s climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres, said there was a clear link between climate change and bushfires such as those raging in New South Wales.

She noted that the World Meteorological Organisation had not yet established a direct link between the NSW fires and climate change.

“But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency,” Ms Figueres said.

Uh huh; there’s no direct link, and no proof, but we should base all our spending on the notion that there is a proven link, anyway.  This loony is allowed outside to walk among us.

Ms Figueres described the NSW fires as an “example of what we may be looking at unless we take actually vigorous action”.
The UN adviser said the Abbott government would not only pay a high political price but a “very high financial price” for stepping away from a price on carbon.

A price on carbon, by the way, is code for a neo-Luddite tax (on industrial emissions of beneficent carbon dioxide, for the most part) which can do nothing to stop any global warming, or cooling, but further enriches banks, middlemen, and the misanthracist, malfeasant UN, predicated on the ludicrous, pseudo-scientific conjecture that man’s puny contributions to the atmosphere are warming the world dangerously.

“What we need to do is put a price on carbon so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of carbon,'' she said.

Christiana Figueres, clearly, is seriously deluded, but her “What we need to do is put a price on x so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of x” game seems like fun.  I’ll have a go:

What we need to do is put a price on the silly but expensively corrupt UN so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of the silly but expensively corrupt UN!

Furthermore:

What we need to do is put a price on those deluded, misanthropist, enviro-mentalist lunatics who won’t allow burnoffs but then have the gall to blame preventable or deliberately lit bushfires on non-existent AGW so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of those deluded, misanthropist, enviro-mentalist lunatics who won’t allow burnoffs but then have the gall to blame preventable or deliberately lit bushfires on non-existent AGW!

Or, logically enough:

What we need to do is put a price on putting a price on things so that we don’t have to continue to pay the price of putting a price on things.

See also Tim Blair’s “Tell It to Ixchel”. 

UPDATE I:  see “UN climate chief breaks down in tears over global warming”.  See also “Why the Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong”.

UPDATE II:  see “What Is Christiana Figueres Thinking?” by Donna Laframboise:

Christiana is a supremely well-connected child of wealth, power, and privilege.  At this moment, she’s the Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  […] Ban Ki-moon, the head of the UN, reached out his hand and appointed her to that prominent position on the world’s stage.
Let us be clear about what this means:  She is a bureaucrat, a hand-picked UN employee.  She speaks for no one other than her UN bosses.
As the person tasked with trying to secure a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, Figueres is supposed to be a diplomat.  Her job is to coax nearly 200 countries to come to a common agreement.
So what in the world is she doing criticizing Australia’s shiny new, democratically elected government?  According to an article in today’s Australian newspaper,

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has told CNN the Abbott government will pay a heavy political and economic price for walking away from Labor’s commitments on climate change.

But Figueres has things backward.  Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s freshly-minted government is doing exactly what he promised on the election trail.  It is reflecting the will of the people by scrapping that country’s hated, economically destructive carbon tax.

UPDATE III:  Prime Minister Tony Abbott today dismissed the irrational comments of Christiana Figueres, rightly asserting that bushfires, sadly, have always been “part of the Australian experience”; he explained to Fairfax Radio that the deluded woman was “talking through her hat”.

UPDATE IV (25 October):  US Congressman (and candidate for the US Senate) Paul Broun writes:

[S]ixty-eight years ago a clandestine organization was born.
It was the birthdate of the United Nations.
And now, sixty-eight years later, our nation is in danger because of this very institution.  The United Nations is threatening our everyday way of life, the freedoms and liberties we enjoy and the privacy our families deserve. 
I want to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.  That’s why one of the first bills I introduced this year in Congress was HR 75 to end all US participation in the United Nations.
If you agree that our nation is better off alone then cohorting with this organization that allows dictators into this country, then add your name to my petition today.
As the United Nations grows in power and authority, the United States sovereignty dwindles with it.  Our country, under the dismal direction of the Democrats, is spending millions of dollars supporting a organization that undoubtedly endangers our children and grandchildren’s future.

UPDATE V (25 October):   see “Al Gore Throws Another Climate Lie on the Barbie” from Investor's Business Daily: 

Al Gore, patron saint of climate fraud, argues with Australia’s prime minister that its brushfires [brushfires!] are not caused by warming and that the record shows the koala bear, like the polar bear, is quite safe.
They were the largest Australian bushfires in a populous region in recorded history, consuming half the state of Victoria, claiming 12 lives and destroying an estimated 1 million sheep and thousands of cattle.  And they occurred in February 1851 during one of the coldest years on record.
Bushfires have been part of Australian life for centuries, long before the Industrial Revolution and the sale of the first SUV.
Since the 1851 fires, there've been the 1898 fires in Victoria, which consumed 2,000 buildings, fires in Victoria in 1938 that killed 71 and destroyed 3,700 buildings, and the Ash Wednesday fires in the early 1980s that left 71 dead in the state of South Australia.
Australia has been battling another round of massive bushfires west of Sydney for more than a week now, fires not unlike those that have occurred throughout its history.  The difference is that this time we have Al Gore and his climate co-conspirators at the U.N., the corrupt and fraudulent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to blame the fires on climate change.
Gore is upset with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s insistence that the recent New South Wales wildfires are not linked to climate change and his statement on Australian radio that “these fires are certainly not a function of climate change, they are just a function of life in Australia.”  […]
“It reminds me of politicians here who got a lot of support from the tobacco companies and who argued to the public that there was absolutely no connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer,” Gore said on ABC’s Los Angeles affiliate Wednesday night.
This echoes the mantra of the climate scammers that climate change “deniers” have long had their science-based skepticism subsidized by energy companies.
Yet it is Al Gore and others like him who have gotten rich peddling their climate fiction, while leading governments to stunt economic growth and divert scarce billions to chase a mirage.
The inconvenient truth for Gore et al is that wildfires have been decreasing as have been instances of drought that cause them.
“Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%,’ wrote Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and the Copenhagen Business School in the Wall Street Journal.  […]
Domestically, the number of wildfires across the U.S. this year is on pace to be the fewest in the past 10 years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same period, according to an analysis by the National Interagency Fire Center.

See “Al Gore: Tobacco Hypocrite”
See also “‘Lack of political will’ the trigger” by John Ferguson and Stephen Fitzpatrick:

The Blue Mountains bushfire crisis was the result of a lack of political leadership over bush management issues and had nothing to do with climate change, says one of Australia's foremost disaster management experts.
It also demonstrated a failure to learn lessons from the 2009 Black Saturday fires in Victoria that killed 173 people and left thousands homeless, said David Packham, a former deputy director of the Australian Counter Disaster College.
Mr Packham said while issues such as power assets were crucial when it came to bushfires—and moving them underground would be an important step—ignition would remain a given, whether man-made or by lightning.
A spokesman for Endeavour Energy, which covers the Blue Mountains region, said more than 100 damaged poles had been replaced since the blazes began last Thursday.  However, he questioned a finding by the NSW Rural Fire Service that one of the biggest fires, in Springwood, was started “as a result of powerlines during strong winds”.
“These were extreme conditions and any time there [are] winds over 90km/h predicted that’s bad news for electricity providers,” he said.  […]
Mr Packham said “a little” had been learned from the Black Saturday fires—five of which, out of 11, were caused by electrical assets—but said the Blue Mountains had been allowed to accumulate fuel, with the predictable outcome being large-scale, uncontrollable burning.  “What is happening in NSW is exactly what happens every 10 or 20 years, right back to 1915,” he told The Australian.  “If you have lots of … fire fuel you will have lots of unpleasant fire.”
Mr Packham also said linking the NSW fire disaster with global warming was “nonsense” because climate change was incremental and could not be blamed for dire fire events such as this.

“Where’s the Wascally Warming?”

A transcript of the Climate Council’s search for hidden global warming.

In his well-appointed office, the very silly Prof. Tim Flannery is becoming more and more frustrated.

Prof. Tim Flannery:  Warming? I know you’re somewhere, Global Warming; please stop hiding.  Warming?  Where are you?  All right, warming, we’ve had our fun, but it’s time to stop hiding now.  Are you there?  Look, I’ve had enough of this, so I’m going now.  [He walks to his door noisily.]  This is the sound of my leaving.  Yes, I’m heading out the door right now.  [He slams the door.]  Okay, everyone’s gone now.  You can come out now.  HEY!  Look, it’s no use pretending you’re not here because I know you exist—or, more to the point, I’ve been telling anyone who might send me a bob or two that you exist.  [He whistles.]  Here, Warming!  Warming?  COME ON, WARMING!  WARMING, COME OUT RIGHT NOW OR I’LL GET MIGHTY ANGRY WITH YOU!  Oh, please stop hiding.  Are you in the thermosphere?  Are you concealed by those pesky, democratic ants?  Are you, perhaps, under— [he lifts his couch] THIS COUCH?  Are you in my wallet?  No.  Are you there at all, Global Warming?  Please, I know you’re here somewhere!  Answer me!

Prof. Will Steffen:  [from behind an armchair]  I’m in the deep oceans!

Prof. Tim Flannery:  Warming? I knew you existed!  Hey, wait a bit; you sounded just a little like my fellow propagandist of climate doom, Will Steffen.  Was that you, Will?

Prof. Will Steffen:  [giggling]  Not at all!

Prof. Tim Flannery:  So it really is you, Global Warming? Proof at last!  Hang on, if you’re hiding in the deep oceans I shouldn’t be able to hear you—  [Flannery sees Steffen crouching behind the chair.]  What?  Professor, I have better things to do than play games; I’m going away!  [Flannery stomps to the door, slams it shut without leaving, tiptoes over to his desk, and crouches down under it.]

Prof. Will Steffen:  [rising slowly]  Oh, I so wanted to find Global Warming too.  I hope that I didn’t hurt Tim’s feelings; not that it matters, of course, because, frankly, he’s a bit of a loony cove.  I do wonder where Global Warming is sequestered or secreted or lying low.  Hallo?  Global Warming, it’s no use hiding because I can see you!  Come out, come out, wherever you are!  Can you hear me?  Are you in this room, Global Warming? 

Prof. Tim Flannery:  [giggling]  No!  I’m not!
Prof. Will Steffen:  Oh, darn; I’ll have to look somewhere else then.  [Steffen exits.]

UPDATE (16 October):  meanwhile, throughout the land, followers of the two silly but greedy professors have gullibly accepted those duplicitous propagandists’ pseudo-scientific, fallacious, self-serving arguments, and foolishly expect to rely on giant-whirligigs for their power in the future:

Comedian Confesses to “Climate Clive” Con

A Western Australian comedian, Matt Hayden, has finally confessed that he had been pretending to be, between stand-up gigs, a deranged believer in the debunked, pseudo-scientific conjecture of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.  Under his assumed identity of “Prof. Clive Hamilton”, Mr. Hayden finessed a professorship of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics; he also persuaded the previous federal government to appoint him to the board of the Climate Change Authority; he is the founder and former Executive Director of the The Australia Institute; and he was even appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for “service to public debate and policy development, particularly in the fields of climate change, sustainability and societal trends”.

Mr. Hayden admitted that, for the last fifteen years, he had made increasing sillier statements in support of neurotic, totalitarian responses to the non-problem of global warming in the hope that the escalating idiocy of his statements—rising in alarmist hysteria as the supposedly dangerous rise of a posited “average global temperature” actually slowed to a stop—would make the gullible believers of that foolish, conjecture rethink their adherence to an irrational, misanthropic, neo-Luddite, neo-Malthusian, catastropharian cult.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “even my most ridiculous, sarcastic and, frankly, immoral utterances have been reported as sensible comments by our sloppy, fawning, unthinking journalists.  No matter how over the top I spewed idiocy—such as, for example, when I suggested that all who doubt the most alarmist claims of global-warming doom should have ‘denier’ tattooed on their foreheads, or that scientists who correctly explain that science has never depended on a consensus should be executed, or that anyone who opposes my corrupt colleagues must be a paid stooge of a wicked cabal of deliberately destructive oil companies—the unprofessional, bootlicking morons in the mainstream media have just lapped up my extremist, hypocritical crap and demanded more.  I’ve had enough of feigning such stupidity.  It’s been a lark (and a very profitable one) but, sadly, too few people in the media can spot satirical parody.”
Mr. Hayden apologised both to the people deceived by his ruse and to the taxpayers whom the arrogant “Prof. Hamilton” has been defrauding as well as calumniating for so long.

Guillermo del Toro’s Couch Gag for “The Simpsons”

Preparing for a Knifing

A transcript of the future.

At home, in the wee hours of the morning, Bill Shorten rings a parliamentary colleague:-

Unidentified Caucus Member:  Huh? Do you know what time it is? It’s—hell!—it’s two-sodding-thirty-effen-two in the bloody morning!

Bill Shorten:  Yeah, I needed to know the time, but my watch is broken! Hello … hello?  Comrade?  That was a joke.

Unidentified Caucus Member:  Um, who is this?

Bill Shorten:  Bill, mate, Bill Shorten.

Unidentified Caucus Member:  Oh, faark.  What do you want, Shorten?

Bill Shorten:  I’m ringing around to see whether I should move against the Opposition Leader, yeah, and discover what sort of backing I might have.  I might have to sharpen the old knife again.

Unidentified Caucus Member: Hang on, what?

Bill Shorten:  I was thinking of moving against the Opposition Leader, and wondering whether I could count on your support, mate.  For a challenge.  Are you there?

Unidentified Caucus Member:  Um, Bill, you are the bloody Opposition Leader!

Bill Shorten:  I know; but can I be trusted?

UPDATE I:

Later that evening being interviewed on Lateline:-
Tony Jones:  There’s been talk around Canberra today that elements within the federal ALP caucus are unhappy with the current leadership—
Bill Shorten: Well, I know that I’ve heard absolutely nothing about that; but I do know this, that Mr. Abbott will cut, cut cut, and slash, slash, slash, and knife, knife, knife, and stab, stab, stab, and hack, hack, hack, and gash, gash, gash, and, um, impale, and, uh, lacerate…  Anyway, I must say, Tony, that I know that the Opposition Leader has a tough job—a very tough job—and I agree with everything and whatever our leader has said, absolutely at all times and without question—
Tony Jones:  Everything?
Bill Shorten:   And whatever.  But I know this:  Abbott can’t be trusted.  He will slice, slice, slice—
Tony Jones:  Ah, I put it to you, Bill Shorten, that you are the Opposition Leader—
Bill Shorten:  Well, yes, yes I am.
Tony Jones:  —so, you are saying that you agree with everything you have said?
Bill Shorten:  Everything!
Tony Jones:  Without, it seems, without even hearing what you’ve said?
Bill Shorten:  If that’s what I said, yes.
Tony Jones:  Right.  Ah, well, right.  Yup.  Well, Bill Shorten, we’re out of time, I’m afraid.  We’ll have to leave you there.  We thank you very much for taking the time to come in and talk to us tonight.
Bill Shorten:  Thank you.
Tony Jones:  That was the agreeable Bill Shorten, Opposition Leader, agreeing with his leader.

UPDATE II (13 September):  thanks to Wikileaks, we can read an assessment of Bill Shorten from the USA’s Embassy in Australia.

UPDATE III (13 September):

A New Blog

I have established a new blog—at Wordpress, which is better for allowing multiple comments—to discuss liberty, classical liberalism, the liberal arts and all such things liberally: ubi libertas ibi patria (which means “where liberty is, there’s my country”).

UPDATE (16 September):  See “For Our Own Good”.

Other blogs include: The Friends of Carbon Dioxide and Impact of Climate Change.

“One Day More”

Disobeying Rules and Breaking the Law

As is the case in every election, candidates—who seek to become our legislators—willfully refuse to comply with provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1912); here, for example, is Section 328:

Printing and publication of electoral advertisements, notices etc.

(1)  A person shall not print, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, an electoral advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice unless:

(a)  the name and address of the person who authorized the advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice appears at the end thereof […]

(1A)  A person must not produce, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorise to be produced, published or distributed an electoral video recording unless the name and address of the person who authorised the video recording appears at the end of it.  […]
(2)  A person who contravenes subsection (1), (1A) or (1AB) is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction:

(a)  if the offender is a natural person—by a fine not exceeding $1,000  […]

“address” of a person means an address, including a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day.  It does not include a post office box.

Here is Section 328A:

Publication of electoral advertisements on the internet

(1)  A person commits an offence if:

(a)  either:
   (i)  the person publishes an electoral advertisement on the internet; or
   (ii)  the person causes, permits or authorises an electoral advertisement to be published on the internet; and
(b)  the electoral advertisement is intended to affect voting in an election; and
(c)  the electoral advertisement is paid for by the person or another person; and
(d)  the name and address of the person who authorised the advertisement do not appear at the end of the advertisement.

Penalty:  10 penalty units.  [One penalty unit = $170.]

(2)  Subsection (1) does not apply if the matter published on the internet forms part of a general commentary on a website.

Let us examine the authorisation on an advertisement for Jane Austin, the ALP candidate for the seat of Denison in Tasmania:

Somehow, I reckon that “for the ALP, Hobart” inadequately constitutes “a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day”.

Rules, of course, are only for little people. 

UPDATE I:  here’s an electoral video recording for the ALP, shewn nationally:

For some reason, I doubt that “Australian Labor Party, Canberra” adequately constitutes “a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day”.

UPDATE II:  here’s another national advertisement:

UPDATE III:  Australian Unions publish electoral advertisements on various websites which are not authorised, and even the picture of a newspaper advertisement constitutes electoral material and ought to be properly authorised:

UPDATE IV:  I suspect that Australian Unions, like so many corrupt former unionists—such as Julia Gillard or Craig Thomson—, care not a jot for Australian laws except for those which might impede their own aggrandisement.

UPDATE V:  The Greens (I surmise) sponsor electoral advertisements on Facebook which fail to comply with the Act; for example:

UPDATE VI: The Greens, who cannot comply with the simple provisions of electoral law, will apparently find a way to end poverty!

UPDATE VII (5 September):  I have been searching for Liberal Party advertisements which fail to comply with the Act, but all those which I’ve seen have, so far, been authorised properly; meanwhile, the ALP’s main video, on its YouTube page, treats “Australian Labor Party, Canberra” as a sufficient description for the place, “including a full street address and suburb or locality, at which the person can usually be contacted during the day”:

UPDATE VIII (5 September):  a website, dontbeafuckingidiot.com, contains rather profane propaganda for the ALP (though pretending to be independent) and disparages the Coalition—which the site, rather ignorantly, designates “LNP”, though LNP properly refers only to the Liberal National Party of Queensland—, but fails to provide any authorisation:

UPDATE IX (6 September):  with false figures, feigned friends, phony followers and, now, fraudulent flyers, the fakery never stops with our fabricating, fibbing fabulist of a PM; see “Australian Electoral Commission to look into claims Kevin Rudd election campaign material is fake after voters deny giving quotes”, by Des Houghton and Anthony Gough:

Kevin Rudd has been accused of using phony endorsements in the campaign material designed to help him save his own seat.

A glossy flyer handed out in his electorate features endorsements from constituents declaring “that’s why we’re voting for him”.

But some of those featured say they never said such a thing.

Perhaps it’s all just a matter of forgetfulness.  Tim Blair noted a month ago:

Rudd’s wife Thérèse Rein told an interviewer in 2009 how she coped with negative media attention.

“All that stuff goes straight to the forgettery,” Rein said, explaining that the “forgettery” is a tradition in the Rein family.

These days, Rudd is claiming his wife’s family history as his own:

Asked how he dealt with [slights and offences], Mr Rudd said: “So for me, I just stick it into what Mum used to call her ‘forgettery’ – boof!  Remember the old computer programs it [sic] had the little rubbish bin at the top?  Boof.  Gonski.”

UPDATE X (8 September):  the LDP also failed:

Fast Lies and Not Very Fast Trains

Hon. Anthony Albanese, the Deputy PM and Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, today claimed that all continents—including, he helpfully explained, Europe and Asia—have high-speed rail.
That was a lie.
In Africa, Morocco, Algeria and South Africa are planning to have high-speed rail systems.

In South America, Argentina had plans to have high-speed rail; Brazil is constructing high-speed rail.
In North America, the USA has high speed rail only if we define high speed as not much above 60 mph—i.e., not very high speed at all.
Only in France and Japan, by the way, do enough passengers use high speed rail to make it profitable.
If Mr. Albanese were to give the $52,000,000 which he’s promising a proposed HSR-investigating authority* to me instead, I can safely promise him that I’ll be able to teleport people between the cities by transporter beam within twenty-five years—with as effective a guarantee as he’s promising high speed rail to the electorate. 
Of course, the Government’s silly proposal proves that the Government hasn’t quite listened to its own NBN propaganda; within twenty-five years no-one will need to travel because 120% of the population will be working from home, seeing their employers or clients on their monitors, having their medicines prescribed online, printing all their technological devices on their 3D printers, growing all their soylent green hydroponically in their basements, and going on holidays in their surround-sound holo-chambers. 

*  to “finalise station locations and to develop a business case”. 

(Originally posted, piecemeal, to Catallaxy Files.) 

UPDATE I:  at a projected cost of $114,000,000,000, according to the Government, and assuming that the HSR averaged a thousand full fare-paying passengers a day all year (and also assuming—ha!—that the trains cost no more to run after that substantial investment), to pay back 10% of the investment annually, fares (in today’s value) would have to be over $30,000 each.  Currently, a cheaper fare for a trip by aeroplane from Melbourne to Brisbane can be procured for $147.

UPDATE II:

Yet Another Good Idea 

Though we’d travel more
quickly and far more cheaply
by an aeroplane,

the latest grand plan
from Rudd and Albanese:
a very fast train!

How could such a scheme
ever make any profit?
They cannot explain.

Evidently, the
PM and his deputy
are not very sane.

Bully for the PM!

A make-up artist, Lily Fontana, reported on her Facebook page that the Hon. Hevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia—well known as a rude, imperious, demanding, short-tempered, conceited, self-important, egotistical and perhaps even psychopathic, petty tyrant—was a bully:

Oh boy, I have [n]ever had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job.

 Subsequently, after a swift campaign of harassment, the woman deleted her post.  Ben Packham of The Australian reported that “Rudd has no hard feelings as make-up artist removes post”:

“Didn’t think my personal page/opinion of my day would get so much attention. What a lesson to learn. I’ve removed the post & regret making the comments I did,” she said.
Mr Rudd said he wasn’t happy about having make-up applied at the best of times, and had been “in the zone” when he encountered Ms Fontana ahead of his clash with Mr Abbott.
“I think a misunderstanding has occurred,” he said.

Ah, yes, it was all misunderstanding, because he was “in the zone”.  Let’s try making that excuse next time we’re up before the beak:  “Yes, your worship, I did kick that pusillanimous PM in the orchestras but I have an excuse.  You see, I was in the zone when he passed me and, well, I think a misunderstanding had occurred.”

Ms Fontana regretted posting her remarks after she was abused, bullied and calumniated—by the bullying supporters, henchmen and minions of the man who once promised that he’d never silently condone abuse of women:

Australian men need to take responsibility for changing the behaviour that leads to violence against women and children, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
It is time to end the silence which indicates a tolerance of violent behaviour affecting 350,000 women every year, at a cost to the nation of $13.6 billion, he said.
“Because for too long, silence has been seen as a form of tolerance,” Mr Rudd said in a speech in Canberra on Wednesday.
“And our national resolve must be zero tolerance. Zero tolerance when it comes to violence against women and violence against children.”

We have, for the next couple of weeks—but haply no more—a bullying, duplicitous, hypocritical coward for a Prime Minister.

UPDATE I:  

The PM’s “In the Zone” Example

Kevin Rudd, whilst having his make-up
done, acts as though he has a snake up
his arse. Perhaps we should all take up
his lead, and be mad, arrogant pricks.
This PM earns a “grabs the cake” cup
for spite, and badly needs a shake up;
the voters, I say, ought to break up
his rotten regime with well-aimed bricks.

Our dear PM chatting with his make-up artist.

UPDATE II (23 August):  adding a rather reasonable, heart-felt comment to your own Facebook page could be perceived by the media, alas, as a “precious” rant; see “Cracks now appearing in Kevin’s make-up”, by Simon Benson:

Whether Ms Fontana [were] justified in posting a rant about Rudd becomes an irrelevancy, however, in the face of the monstering she received in social media by the Labor hit squad.

No wonder her post was withdrawn.  The Labor luvvies took to Twitter like hounds to a hare, claiming a Liberal conspiracy.  A former State Labor MP said she was about to get on the phone and sort her out.

Rudd’s mood, if indeed he was in one as the Coalition was swift to suggest, may not have been helped by an event at the Broncos earlier in the day.  Officials at the club were bunkered down since morning, waiting for their own spray from Rudd.

The Prime Minister is the number one ticket holder of the Broncos, by virtue of his title presumably.

So it’s understandable that he may have had his nose out of joint when on the morning of the debate, Tony Abbott turned up at the club to make an announcement with the Premier of Queensland Campbell Newman.

The club has been lobbying for help to build a new training facility on neighbouring land.  Newman got up to announce he would give the land to the Broncos for free.  Abbott got up and said an elected Federal Coalition Government would give the club $5 million to kick start construction.

Rudd was in Brisbane on the same day and had been kept in the dark.  When he found out, he reportedly “lost his shit” according to a source.

An official of the club had told several attendees that they had their hard hats on, waiting for the backlash to come.  But to Rudd’s credit, he never made the call.

Hang on, it’s to the PM’s credit that on one occasion he didn’t furiously over-react?  So we ought to praise him for acting with the sort of common courtesy which is rightly expected from ordinary people as a matter of course?

[H]is office told the club they understood the political realities involved.
But the fact that people live in anticipation of Rudd throwing a wobbly when he doesn’t get his way says a lot about whether people believe he has changed.

UPDATE II (23 August):  an example of Kevin Rudd’s famed courtesy towards women: 

UPDATE III (25 August):  Miranda Devine, in “Character is destiny, Kevin”, refers to Lana Fontana’s “bombshell comment”:

It was […] devastating because it was so believable.  It crystallised underlying character assessments of both men that have slowly been forming in the electorate.

Despite his genial, cheery persona, here was a glimpse of the other Rudd we have heard about, a nasty, volatile man.

Before Fontana was harassed into deleting her Facebook post on Thursday, fellow Brisbane make-up artist Abigael Johnston added a comment:  “I second this Lily.  I have had a very similar experience!  Must run in the family as Mr Howard and Mr Costello were gentlemen with a capital G.  Mr Abbott is following in their footsteps.

“The other, I could not even Facebook how he treated the crew.  Just abhorrent!”

We have enough circumstantial evidence to say that Rudd treats people he regards as lower status as insignificant and unworthy of courtesy.

This is why Fontana’s observations were significant.  Kevin Rudd has form.  […]

A former soldier, Arthur, on duty at Kabul International Airport one wintry day in 2007, remembers Rudd’s first visit to Afghanistan as PM.

It still hurts to recall the bags of eagerly anticipated Christmas mail due on the plane.

Before Rudd landed, a senior officer warned the troops there would be no mail.  Rudd had “insisted his entire entourage fly with him on the same aircraft so they offloaded all the mail”, says Arthur.

One of the Diggers broke the silence:  “Johnny would have brought the mail.”  As in Howard.  […]

Three years later, Arthur was on his way out on leave when his plane was diverted to Tarin Kowt to pick up a VIP whose plane had broken down.

It was Tony Abbott.

Once airborne, the Opposition Leader walked to the back of the plane and told the troops:  “I just want to apologise for stealing your aircraft and holding you up.  I know you all have somewhere you would rather be.”

Arthur remembers Abbott took time to speak to each person in the cargo hold.  Reputations are built up bit by bit, through chance encounters, small connections, word of mouth.  But once they jell, it is impossible for even the cleverest spin doctor to supplant them.

Character is destiny.

UPDATE IV (28 August):  see “Rudd family hurt by rudeness claims”, by Lanai Scarr and Gemma Jones:

Kevin Rudd denies he has a rude personality and says anyone who has known him long would know he doesn’t.
Following reports last week that Mr Rudd was rude to a make-up artist at a forum in Brisbane, the Prime Minister defended himself.
He said such commentary hurt both him and his family.
“It knocks you around a bit, that’s the truth of it, because we are all human beings,” Mr Rudd told the [astonished] Seven Network [which, thitherto had believed that Mr. Rudd and his family were demigods or alien, astral beings].
“Anyone who has worked with me closely for a period of time will have a conclusion that is vastly different to what is run in Liberal Party political advertisements.”

Some of the people who worked most closely with the PM might beg to differ.

Nicola Roxon:  “He was very difficult to work with […].  It wouldn’t be good for the country to have Mr Rudd as prime minister again.

Tony Burke:  “And the stories that were around of the chaos, of the temperament, of the inability to have decisions made, they are not stories.”

Stephen Conroy:  “Kevin Rudd had contempt for the cabinet. Contempt for the cabinet members. Contempt for the caucus. Contempt for the parliament. Ultimately what brought him down ... was the Australian public worked out that he had contempt for them as well.

Stephen Smith:  “If you wanted one sentence why the cabinet and the caucus and the party moved away from Kevin, it was because it became increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to work difficult issues through with him.

Alan Ramsey:  “Kevin Rudd is what I call a PPP – a prissy, precious prick.  One with a glass jaw, a quick temper and, when he loses it, a foul tongue.  And don't imagine I’m the only one who thinks so.

A brief excerpt of the PM trying to film a polite response to those who call him rude: 

UPDATE V (28 August):  Louis XVIII is supposed to have said, “l’exactitude est la politesse des rois”; whilst punctuality is the politeness of princes, tardiness is the discourtesy of insolent leaders.  See “Abbott’s dirty tricks? Consistency and class”, by Miranda Devine:

If you measure a candidate by the logistical execution of their campaign, then so far, according to the travelling media pack, the Abbott camp wins, hands down.
“Chaos” and “late” are the two words most frequently used to describe Rudd’s campaign.
On Monday afternoon for instance, camera crews were told to assemble at Circular Quay for a Prime Ministerial picture opportunity.
After waiting more than 90 minutes, during which time Rudd conducted an interview with the ABC’s youth radio station Triple J, the waiting crews were told he would not be arriving.  No explanation.
No one expects sympathy for the media.  But there is talk of other, far less forgivable delays, such as Aborigines in Arnhem land kept waiting for three hours for Rudd to arrive for a brief stump speech, soldiers in full kit in Townsville languishing for two hours in 35 degree heat.
The delays are chronic and inexplicable, often involving Rudd sitting in his VIP RAAF jet.
There are stories of RAAF crews and AFP officers left cooling their heels on tarmacs all over the nation, delays which play havoc with rosters.
Even the one night Rudd put on media drinks at a pub in Townsville, he didn’t arrive till 10.30pm, by which stage some of the media, who had been up since 5am, had given up waiting and gone to bed.
Rudd’s tardiness has become such a hallmark of his campaign that one photographer created an online video called Waiting for Kevin, showing people standing around, just waiting.
These may seem like small quibbles in the context of an important federal election, but the logistical differences between the two campaigns are a clue to each candidate’s temperament and leadership style.

UPDATE VI (2 September):  Thérèse Rein, the wife of our incompetent prime minister, relates how Kevin Rudd can’t be trusted to perform simple tasks correctly:

“I want to introduce a husband who was sent to Bunnings for a mozzie candle—one mozzie candle.  He comes back with Roman flares, Blu-Tac, an extension cord, potting mix, a step ladder, secateurs, but no mozzie candle.”

Thérèse Rein is a woman, by the way, whom her husbands’ friends in government sent to help unemployed and disabled people but returned, not with a sterling record of successfully assisting anyone, but with a couple of hundred million dollars appropriated from taxpayers.

UPDATE VII (2 September):  at Labor’s campaign launch, the PM said:

To those who say that Mr Abbott has already won this election, I say this:  never, ever, ever, underestimate the fighting spirit of the Australian Labor Party.  I have been in tougher spots before and come back from behind.

When, however, has the PM been in tougher spots?  When, because of his growing unpopularity and remarkable incompetence, he was sacked as PM by his own party and felt obliged to engineer his return “from behind” with a three-year campaign of destabilising his own party and Government?  Oh.

UPDATE VIII (3 September):  on the ABC’s “Q & A”, the Kevin Rudd mocked Christians and attacked a pastor, who asked a general question on the PM’s good faith, on the PM’s recent support for same-sex “marriage”:

Pastor Matt Prater:  I’m just curious, for you, Kevin, if you call yourself a Christian: why don’t you believe the words of Jesus in The Bible?”
Hon. Kevin Rudd:  Well, mate—well, mate, if I was gonna have that view, The Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition. [Wild applause.]

So, he’s not a Christian, then.

UPDATE IX (5 September):  see Outburst a pointer to Labor fall”, by Andrew Bolt:

Rudd used to argue—just like [Pastor Matt Prater]—“marriage is between a man and woman” and “it’s just been our traditional, continuing view”.  Was he then a gay-hater?
But with a convert’s zeal, Rudd showed no respect for the opinion he used to hold or for the pastor.  He sought to win an argument by bullying, not persuading.  Hasn’t that been Labor’s way?  To denigrate people for holding opinions Labor itself once held or has since adopted?
Remember how Labor abused as “racists” those of us warning its lax border laws were luring boat people here?  See how Labor has since decided, too late, its laws were indeed too soft?
Remember how Labor branded as “misogynists” those of us warning Julia Gillard was incompetent, preaching division and hatred?  See how Labor has since admitted Gillard was too divisive?
Remember how Labor vilified as “deniers” those of us warning the carbon tax was a useless fix to a global warming that's paused?  Remember how we were abused, but never answered?
This is the most important lesson from Rudd’s attack.  Given the chance to persuade even a fellow Christian, Rudd abused him instead and insulted his faith.  He made an enemy of Christians who could have been his allies.
“I thought he was a bit rough,” Prater later told The Australian.
“I was a bit shocked because I feel we have to have a reasonable rational discussion about this.”
Yet Rudd’s camp thought this his finest moment, wife Therese Rein retweeting, “You were bloody brilliant tonight Kevin”.
No, he wasn’t.  And until Labor realises why, it’s finished.