Ken Parish delivers a serve to Tim Blair. Ken's post is based on this typically hysterical screed against Phillip Adams from Tim, and it's a good one. Sample:

By "hand[ing] him a portion of their wages", I presume Blair is referring to the fabled 6 cents per day each taxpayer is said to contribute to the ABC. So what is Blair actually saying here? That Adams should work for nothing because he's "rich"?  That the "rich" have no right to express opinions, or to have them taken seriously? A strange attitude for a self-styled conservative and believer in free-market economics. Or is it only rich lefties who have no right to express an opinion, and only rich conservatives who should be paid for their labour?
Moreover, how big a portion of the wages of the poor? Well, from memory, the ABC's annual budget is around $60 million. Adam's salary represents 0.2% of the ABC's budget. So if that 6 cents per day figure is an accurate estimate of the average taxpayer's contribution to the ABC, each of us pays 0.0012 cents per day towards Phillip Adams' salary. Do you feel suitably outraged?
Is he also implying that the ABC should be abolished (so we no longer hand "a portion" of our wages to its greedy employees), leaving us all to the benevolent, public-spirited media offerings of Kerry Packer and Blair's boss Rupert Murdoch? That would at least be more consistent with standard conservative thinking. However, if that's what Blair means, why doesn't he just come out and say so, instead of slyly suggesting that Adams is somehow bludging on the taxpayers by daring to accept a salary?

UPDATE: Tim Blair has descended to actually take part in a discussion outside of his blog for once. You'll find his answers in Ken's comments.

posted by James Russell | 4:00 PM