This document is part of an archive of postings on Political Correctness Watch, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written.


This is a backup copy of the original blog


With particular attention to religious, ethnic and sexual matters. By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)



May 31, 2022


Poverty and Violent Crime Don’t Go Hand in Hand

Many analysts, along with the general public, believe that poverty is a major, if not the major, cause of crime. But a new study from a Columbia University research group should remind us of something that history has consistently shown: that the relationship between poverty and crime is far from predictable or consistent.

The Columbia study revealed the startling news that nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of New York City’s Asian population was impoverished, a proportion exceeding that of the city’s black population (19 percent). This was surprising, given the widespread perception that Asians are among the nation’s more affluent social groups. But the study contains an even more startling aspect: in New York City, Asians’ relatively high poverty rate is accompanied by exceptionally low crime rates. This undercuts the common belief that poverty and crime go hand in hand.

Asians had consistently low arrest rates for violent crime—usually lower than their proportion of the population, lower than those of blacks and Hispanics, and in one category (assault), even lower than that of whites, who, as a group, are far less often impoverished.

Using NYPD data, I calculated the arrest rates for violent crimes of each social group, accounting for the population size of each.

At 1.2 per 100,000, Asian murder arrest rates were nearly one-ninth of black rates. If poverty were the principal cause of crime, we would expect Asian rates to be as high, if not higher, than those of blacks. That the Asian rates are relatively low illustrates what I call the “crime/adversity mismatch,” a recurring phenomenon. As I observe in my history of crime: “Throughout American history, different social groups have engaged in different amounts of violent crime, and no consistent relationship between the extent of a group’s socioeconomic disadvantage and its level of violence is evident.”

When it comes to violent crime—murder, assault, robbery, and the like—history tells a complicated story. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, impoverished Jewish, Polish, and German immigrants had relatively low crime rates, while disadvantaged Italian, Mexican, and Irish entrants committed violent crime at high rates. This crime/adversity mismatch also seems to be a global phenomenon. In Great Britain, for instance, a criminologist observed that “all of the minority groups with elevated rates of crime or incarceration are socially and economically disadvantaged, but some disadvantaged ethnic minority groups do not have elevated rates of offending.” There, too, it was the case that Asians were more disadvantaged than blacks, but the latter had much higher offending rates.

Why is it that poverty is not consistently related to crime? A major reason is that crimes of violence are usually motivated by quarrels, personal grudges, perceived insults, and similar interpersonal conflicts, not by economic necessity. Consequently, a decline in one’s financial condition is not likely to cause violent criminal behavior. This explains why an economic recession or depression does not invariably produce a crime spike. In the second half of the 1930s, for instance, violent crime declined, even though the country experienced some of the worst years of the Great Depression. Likewise, during the Great Recession of 2007–2009, when the economy tanked, crime fell.

************************************************

New York issues its first gender neutral driver's licenses allowing motorists to mark 'X' as their sex instead of M or F

New York state has begun issuing gender neutral driver's licenses that allow motorists to mark down 'X' in the category for sex.

The state Department of Motor Vehicles announced the move on Friday, touting it as a 'historic day' and saying the very first gender neutral photo IDs had been issued.

The new policy is being implemented in accordance with the State's Gender Recognition Act, which officially goes into effect on June 24.

Governor Kathy Hochul praised the move, saying in a statement: 'As we prepare to celebrate Pride Month in a few days, I am excited to announce this historic change that represents another victory in our fight to help ensure equality and respect for the LGBTQ+ community.'

'Every person, regardless of their gender identity or expression, deserves to have an identity document that reflects who they are,' added Hochul.

'My administration remains committed to ensuring that New York is a place of value, love and belonging for members of the LGBTQ+ community,' said the governor, a Democrat.

Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Mark J.F. Schroeder said: 'Perhaps more than any other state agency, New Yorkers directly engage with their government through the DMV, so offering identity documents that are representative of all New Yorkers is a significant milestone.'

'We are thrilled to implement this new option that we know will have a positive impact on the lives of so many of our customers,' he added.

Former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the new law mandating gender neutral IDs prior to resigning in disgrace last year.

*****************************************************

What The Army Is Letting Woke Soldiers Do is a bad augury for military effectiveness. Does America need an army of wimps?

The US Army is circulating a draft policy tweak that would allow soldiers to request to move if they feel state or local laws discriminate against them based on gender, racism(?), or abortion.

The policy, dubbed “compassionate reassignment” will permit soldiers to request a transfer to a different base if they feel state or local laws discriminate against them due to their gender identity.

In effect, it would allow soldiers to declare certain states to be too racist or homophobic for them to live there.

Sources with direct knowledge of the plans said the updated guidance was drafted in response to several state laws – but before a draft of a possible Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade was leaked.

Here’s what Military.com reported:

The guidance, which would update a vague service policy to add specific language on discrimination, is far from final and would need approval from Army Secretary Christine Wormuth. But if enacted, it could be one of the most progressive policies for the force amid a growing wave of local anti-LGBTQ and restrictive contraception laws in conservative-leaning states, where the Army does most of its business.

The policy would ostensibly sanction soldiers to declare that certain states are too racist, too homophobic, too sexist or otherwise discriminatory to be able to live there safely and comfortably.

“Some states are becoming untenable to live in; there’s a rise in hate crimes and rise in LGBT discrmination,” Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, an advocacy group, told Military.com. “In order to serve this country, people need to be able to do their job and know their families are safe. All of these states get billions for bases but barely tolerate a lot of the service members.”

Remember last year when the US Army released a recruitment ad targeting gays and kids of gays? This is the same US Army that just lost a war to 10th Century barbarians and left them $80 billion in US weapons.

Maybe they need to refocus their priorities?

*********************************************

The Mass Shooting and Liberal Utopian Society

In the last two weeks, there have been two mass shootings in the United States, and the second took place this week at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. These shootings have reignited the regime’s already intense desire for a disarmed populace. Even before the bodies of the dead children had been removed from the school, our mentally diminished President spoke to the nation, demanding that rifles (which he is not even able to accurately describe) be confiscated across a 330 million person country spanning an entire continent. This despicable man, and the legion of sociopathic ghouls arrayed behind him, are clearly overjoyed that there is a classroom full of young children lying dead in Texas. They don’t actually care about the anguish of parents who will never see their child grow up. Their deaths are merely a political prop for the most evil people on the planet.

It is hard to fully comprehend just how totalitarian such designs are. But these are the very same sadistic freaks who successfully locked those 330 million people in their homes for weeks or months, and then (mostly successfully) restricted their ability to provide for their families if they refused to get an extremely dangerous mRNA injection that does not even accomplish its intended purpose. All you are to them is a guinea pig or a rat in a social experiment. You do not matter. Your children do not matter. You only exist to provide them with power.

You must understand that school shooters and other mass shooters are an extremely acute symptom of the disease that horribly afflicts the American nation. You live in an incredibly sick society, and since you are born into it and live in it every day, you go about your life mostly unaware of just how dreadful things really are. It is imperative for the people who manufacture the inversion of reality that you perceive everything through the lens of the now. This is why “The Current Thing” has such memetic power: it attacks reality distortion at its source, where obsession over what is, right now, cuts you off from any sense of historical perspective. In the case of mass shootings, the exclusion of historical perspective keeps the masses from noticing that mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon and that decades ago, when the United States had vastly more liberal gun laws, and anyone could even purchase fully automatic submachine guns in the mail, this never happened. The question you should ask is, why not? What exactly was different about America 90 years ago compared to today?

The answer to that question is fairly obvious. Modern American society is a factory for psychopaths. The young man in the North American Continent is planted in a field fertilized by atomization, loneliness, and hopelessness. Many have never met their father, and most do not have anything remotely close to a “good relationship” with him. Most have no meaningful connection to the community in which they live, nor even the nation they inhabit. In school, they are social outcasts, driven to niche internet communities for the only semblance of human interaction in their lives. They are marinated in hardcore pornography from before they have even reached pubescence. They know (or at least perceive) that they will never know the love of a flesh-and-blood woman. They are on the kind of pharmacological cocktail that any premodern society would only ascribe to witchcraft and demon possession. They have nothing to live for and no one who loves them. Given how many young men our nation is producing like this, the question we ought to be asking is not “why does this happen?” but rather “why does it not happen a lot more?”

America is an incredibly sick nation. There is a spiritual sickness that pervades everything like a dark cloud. The people who dominate every institution in our nation have held this power for at least sixty years. For these sixty years, they have treated this nation as a grand social experiment. They have made the natural family, the very bedrock of human civilization, an antiquated, outdated institution that we have progressed beyond. They have financialized and commodified all of human life, uprooting people from their homes and extended families, and making them mercenaries chasing after a rapidly devalued dollar. They have exported the industry of the nation impoverishing the heartland of the country and leaving them to languish in despair. They actively cheer the deaths and replacement of the hated population, while at the same time denying this was ever their intent. They have introduced racial and ethnic strife, and in the chaos actively undermined rule of law. Sixty years of full-spectrum control by utopian social engineers have transformed the most affluent society in human history into hell on earth.

This did not happen by accident. These people are motivated by a deep hatred of humanity. Like the geriatric that currently occupies the Oval Office who well represents them, they simply do not care how much people suffer. You might think the progressive is merely mistaken, deluded by ideology. This is not the case. They have had more than sixty years to see the full extent of human misery their ideology produces when applied to the healthiest and most prosperous conditions. They know what they are doing.

********************************************

The feminist case for marriage

Louise Perry

I regret to inform you that your kitten heels and morning suits will probably not be seeing service this wedding season: once again, marriage rates are down. In fact, this year the rate for heterosexual marriages is the lowest on record.

What’s more, fewer than one in five of these marriage ceremonies are religious, in keeping with a downward trend of several decades standing.

As a wedding guest, I slightly regret this turn towards the civil ceremony, only because the secular liturgy is so oddly anaemic. Seeing someone from the local council officiate on this most solemn of occasions, I can’t help but be reminded of the Simpsons episode in which a Las Vegas casino worker marries Homer and Marge with the words ‘by the power vested in me by the state gaming commission I pronounce you man and wife.’

But then everyone knows that the modern wedding is a bit of a farce, particularly since April of this year, when no fault divorce was introduced in this country. For the vast majority of couples, swearing an oath before God doesn’t mean much anymore, and the legal bond itself is now easier and quicker to wriggle out of than a bank loan. The only requirement for a divorce in England and Wales is that you must have been married for at least one year (I’m sure my husband and I weren’t the only couple to joke on our first wedding anniversary that the traditional gift of paper could very well include divorce forms).

When the wedding ceremony itself is increasingly drained of meaning, couples must cast around for another way of adding a sense of importance to the day. Thus, over the last century, the proportion of average household income put towards a wedding has doubled, and the extravagant receptions that were once confined to high society are now common among the middle and working classes. That only adds a further incentive for couples to hold off on getting married until they can afford a big do.

It used to be that the most crucial few minutes of the wedding ceremony were the most consequential minutes of most people’s lives, since they produced a profound and (almost) irreversible change. Those rare couples who sought out a divorce in the period before the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 must have desperately wanted to be rid of their marriages, since they had to work so very hard to get divorced, and could then expect to be marked with stigma for the rest of their lives.

The sexual revolution’s liberalisation of divorce law has consigned this stigma to the past. In the decade following the Divorce Reform Act, the number of divorces trebled and then kept rising, peaking in the 1980s. Since then there has been a slight decline in the divorce rate, not because of a genuine return to marital longevity, but rather because you can’t get divorced if you don’t get married in the first place, and marriage rates have not stopped falling. In 1968, 8 per cent of children were born to parents who were not married; in 2019, it was almost half. The institution of marriage, as it once was, is now more-or-less dead.

Of course, some marriages should end. Although married women are not at greater risk of domestic violence than unmarried women – the opposite, in fact – it is obviously better when abuse victims do not face legal obstacles in trying to leave their spouses. There are some couples who really should divorce and, before the reforms of the mid-twentieth century, they often couldn’t.

At the same time, only an ideologue could fail to recognise that a culture of widespread divorce has its casualties. There are, of course, the adults who later feel that they made a mistake: between a third and a half of divorced people in the UK report in surveys that they regret their decision to divorce. But just as importantly – more so, I would say – there are the children who are harmed by their parents’ divorce. Several studies in recent decades have revealed that children suffer more from the effects of a divorce than the death of a parent.

The outlook is similarly grim for those children whose parents were never married in the first place. Unmarried parents are about twice as likely to split as married ones, and children then find themselves either in a single parent family, or living with a stepparent – in practice, usually a stepfather.

Despite the often valiant efforts of single mothers, the data clearly shows that, on average, children without biological fathers at home do not do as well as other children, with higher incarceration rates for boys, higher rates of teen pregnancy for girls, and a greater likelihood of emotional and behavioural problems for both sexes. This is because single mothers are obliged to take on the almost impossible task of doing everything themselves: all of the earning, plus all of the caring, socialising, and disciplining of their children.

Meanwhile, less than two thirds of non-resident parents in the UK – almost all of them fathers – are paying child support in full. A perverse consequence of half a century of feminist opposition to marriage is that deadbeat dads are now protected from the consequences of their fecklessness.

The monogamous marriage model had many flaws, and the sexual revolutionaries were correct in pointing them out. But this model is also the best solution yet discovered to the problems presented by the asymmetrical investments that men and women make in the process of reproduction.

For all of its trade-offs, there was wisdom in the traditional model. The father was primarily responsible for earning money; the mother for caring for children at home. Such a model allows mothers and children to be physically together and at the same time financially supported. In an age of labour saving devices like washing machines and gas boilers, it has become less time consuming to run a household, and thus more feasible for mothers of young children to do paid work outside of the home – as most of us do. But attempting to play the traditional roles of mother and father simultaneously – as single mothers are forced to – is close to impossible, particularly on low wages.

Despite all of these costs – to poor women, and even more to poor children – some people still consider the death of marriage to be a good thing, and many of those people are feminists. Opposition to marriage was a common theme in much of the writing of the Second Wave, with feminists of this era describing their goal as ‘women’s liberation’. Womankind was in chains, they said, and those chains had to be broken.

‘Liberation’ was always a gnarly feminist goal. The reductive feminist analysis of marriage sees it as a method used by men to control female sexuality. And it does do that, of course, but that was never its sole function. There is also a protective function to marriage, but it’s one that makes sense only when understood in relation to children.

We are a sexually dimorphous species with distinct reproductive roles and substantial differences in size and strength between adult men and women. What’s more, there is also plenty of good evidence for some innate psychological differences between the sexes, including higher average male sex drive and greater desire for sexual variety. This empirical finding may be controversial in some quarters, but it should not surprise anyone who has eyes and ears.

In a world of sexual asymmetry, you cannot simply press the ‘more freedom’ lever and expect men and women alike to joyfully ascend to some new utopia. Not when one half of the population are far more physically imposing, are much more interested in pursuing casual sex, and will never be able to get pregnant, while the other half of the population bear (literally) the consequences of a sexual encounter that goes awry. Our biology is such that, when sex unexpectedly results in pregnancy – as it still often does, despite modern contraception – it will always be the woman left holding the baby.

The task for practically minded feminists, then, is to find a way of protecting the vulnerable from the problems presented by sexual asymmetry. Our current sexual culture does not do that, but it could. In order to change the incentive structure, we would need a technology that discourages short-termism in male sexual behaviour, protects the economic interests of mothers, and creates a stable environment for the raising of children. And we do already have such a technology, even if it is old, clunky, and prone to periodic failure. It’s called monogamous marriage.

Many feminists who lived before the 1960s knew this better than we do now. They looked at the asymmetries inherent to heterosexuality and they concluded that the male libido needed containment not liberation. Which was why two of the thirteen chapters in Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women were devoted to bemoaning the lack of chastity in men: the sex with the higher sex drive, and thus – to Wollstonecraft’s mind – the greater responsibility for containing their passions. ‘Votes for women, chastity for men’ was a real suffragist slogan, now forgotten.

But perhaps we are on the brink of rediscovering such ideas. My friend Mary Harrington has written in the Spectator’s American edition of a coming ‘sexual counterrevolution’ as young people brought up in our hyper liberal culture react against the principles of sexual liberation. The same trend is evident here in the UK, as whispers of discontent among young women grow louder and louder on social media platforms like TikTok. Earlier this year, the Guardian announced that Gen Z was ‘turning its back on sex-positive feminism.’ This ideology is, according to the New York Times, ‘falling out of fashion.’

At times if feels as if young people are reaching towards the traditional notions of marriage without quite realising it. Take the group of American students who set up the ‘Affirmative Consent Project’ and marketed a ‘consent kit’, containing a condom, two breath mints, and a contract stating that the undersigned had agreed to have sex. Couples were encouraged to take a photo of themselves holding the signed piece of paper. (‘Why not invite family and friends to witness the signing?’ joked some. ‘Why not hire a professional photographer? Dress up? Make an event of it?’)

Or consider the feminist commentators who responded to the expected overturning of Roe v. Wade with the suggestion that men ought to be somehow legally bound to the women they impregnate and compelled to provide, not only financial, but also social and emotional support. Vice magazine recently announced a ‘new type of relationship’ called ‘radical monogamy’ that sounds very much like an old type of relationship. ‘Radical monogamy will offer a totally new portal to a joyful, healthy, magical kind of love’ promises one of its clueless proponents.

For all of its flaws, it seems that marriage as an institution has a way of reinventing itself. For better, for worse.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Monday, May 30, 2022


Et Tu? Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre Adds Trigger Warning to Julius Caesar

Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London has added a trigger warning before a production of the Bard’s famed tragedy of Julius Caesar to warn attendees of potentially offensive content within the 1599 play.

Despite depicting perhaps the most famous assassination in history, theatre bosses at the Globe theatre have sought fit to provide audiences with “content guidance” that their production of William Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Julius Ceasar will include weapons and fake stage blood.

“Content guidance: Depictions of war, self-harm and suicide, stage blood and weapons including knives,” the trigger warning The Sun newspaper reported.

In addition to the trigger warning, the woke theatre company has also opted for a gender-bending diverse cast, with the role of Marcus Junius Brutus — the most famed assassin of Caesar — given to Anna Crichlow, a Black-British actress.

The production heads have also cast Roman senator and Caesar assasin Cassius with a female actress and Brutus’ wife with a black actress.

The Globe, which is located on the site of Shakespeare’s original theatre, will run the production from July to September.

***********************************************

Woke Activists In The Workplace Are Sparking A Surge In Free Speech Cases

Workplace activism has caused a surge in free speech litigation over the past few years as employees have been fired or disciplined for their political views, according to a public interest law firm.

“Normally, we get one workplace speech case every four years, and last year we got four in one year and we’ve already got another two starting to launch this year,” Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Pell told TheDCNF that employers face pressure from outside activists and often end up implementing “very one-sided, politicized, speech policies.”

A non-profit public interest law firm says that activism in the workplace has caused an explosion in free speech litigation across the country over the last two years, according to the organization’s president.

The Center for Individual Rights (CIR) is involved in six cases of employees being punished for expressing political views, Terry Pell, the group’s president, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. The expressions in question usually came on employee’s personal time and were often surfaced by “activist” employees.

“This is very unusual,” Pell told TheDCNF. “Normally, we get one workplace speech case every four years, and last year we got four in one year and we’ve already got another two starting to launch this year.”

In one CIR case, Greg Krehbiel, employee of Maryland marketing company BrightKey, was told when he was hired that activities and comments on his personal time, which included co-hosting a podcast, were none of the company’s business, according to CIR’s website.

However, co-workers became aware of Krehbiel expressing what Pell described as “standard conservative critiques” on diversity initiatives and hate crimes on his podcast, they claimed his opinions represented “white privilege,” demanded he be fired and staged a protest in which they walked off the job according to a complaint filed in federal court.

“Despite its earlier promise to Plaintiff… BrightKey quickly acceded to the wishes of the objecting employees and fired Plaintiff,” the complaint said, adding, “BrightKey knew that the objecting employees were motivated by Plaintiff’s race and political opinions in insisting that he be fired.”

The federal district court ruled against Krehbiel, who is appealing the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A Tony Warner, BrightKey’s vice president of human relations, told TheDCNF after this story had been published that the company had no comment due to pending litigation.

Pell told TheDCNF that Krehbiel’s firing reflected a trend where employers face pressure from outside political activists to adopt “very one-sided, politicized speech policies” that could result in an employee losing their job over “something you said five years ago,” Pell said, adding that employers go along because they fear “a Twitter storm.”

Pell pointed to the recent example of Joshua Katz, a classics professor at Princeton University, who claimed that his criticism of anti-racism and failure to defend free speech was the real motive behind his firing over an alleged consensual relationship with an undergraduate student.

“The Princeton matter is mind boggling,” Pell told TheDCNF, going on to say that the university set “a terrible example that will only reinforce the feeling of private employers that speech is toxic and must be suppressed by any means necessary.”

In another CIR case, Salvatore Davi, a hearing officer in New York State’s Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, commented on a Facebook post in October 2015, saying that the “wrong metrics” were being used to judge the success of welfare programs, according to CIR’s website. He was suspended for six months and transferred after his employer received an anonymous complaint about the posts.

“The really startling thing about this is that employees can get tagged for anything, they have no idea what they can say,” Pell told TheDCNF.

Before the complaint, Davi’s “performance reviews were all satisfactory,” and he was “described as an exemplary employee” who “had never been accused of bias in any of the thousands of individual appeals for which he had made recommendations” according to a legal filing by CIR on his behalf.

“Davi’s comments are primarily political speech about the proper role of government, which is among the most highly protected speech in our constitutional order,” United States District Judge Edward R. Korman wrote in the opinion granting summary judgement in Davi’s favor in March 2021. Davi and New York State’s Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

New York state’s Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

In a March 2022 poll by Siena College Research Institute, 84% of respondents said “Americans not exercising their freedom of speech in everyday situations due to fear of retaliation or harsh criticism” was a serious problem.

“Concern of the loss of civil liberties is ahead or crime and education on the list of things that voters are concerned about,” Pell said.

The CIR’s other free-speech cases include those of Dr. Norman Wang, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine who was disciplined over an article published in the Journal of the American Heart Association and Richard Rynearson, an Air Force veteran who was blocked from the Air Force’s Facebook page by the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, according to the firm’s website.

******************************************

More Saying It’s Time To Go Full 25th Amendment On Joe Biden

Joe Biden’s trip to Europe didn’t make much help, in fact, it even worsen the current crisis that he’s facing now and it even nearly started World War III many times.

He embarrassed the US troops in Ukraine, Ukrainian troops being trained by US troops in Poland, by replacing Vladimir Putin in Russia.

In other words, he nearly caused the US and NATO into a huge war with Russia.

Despite starting a war that had ruined the Russian economy, Biden is still aiming for more than we can guess as World War III.

Every time Biden stands up in front of the crowd and make himself a huge embarrassment which no longer new to use, his administration had to step in and correct Joe Biden in gaffe after gaffe. And while the public watches him making embarrassing the fake news media will of course exclude it from their report.

Well, aside from Vlad Putin, there’s still another man that’s dangerous and so his regime and sadly we had him ever since the 2020 election.

Last night, Tucker Carlson couldn’t take it much longer he went to discuss on his show and called on Congress to invoke the 25th Amendment before Joe Biden destroys the US economy, US borders, and gets us into a nuclear war with Russia.

Carlson said, “If ever there was a time to invoke the 25th Amendment, it’s now. As Joe Biden himself put it, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

***********************************************

Israel Folau set for international rugby union return with Tonga, three years after being sacked by Australian team

He is not allowed to play for Australia because of his Christian beliefs. But Christianity is widely followed in his native Tonga so he is acceptable there

Former Wallaby Israel Folau is set to return to international rugby union for the first time since 2018, after being named in Tonga's squad for July's Pacific Nations Cup and World Cup qualifying.

"He's going to bring a lot of experience to the table," Tonga coach Toutai Kefu told ABC Radio Australia. "His presence is going to be one of the most exciting factors we're looking forward to."

Folau played 73 Tests for the Wallabies before Rugby Australia terminated his contract in May 2019 for breaching its code of conduct.

However, he's now able to represent his parents' homeland, Tonga, due to changes to World Rugby's eligibility laws.

"It would have been at least a couple of years ago that we started having conversations about him possibly representing Ikale Tahi," said Kefu.

"It was quite informal back then — it was just an informal chat — and then, as his three-year stand-down approached, when that was going to finish there was a possibility of him playing Sevens to qualify for us and he was open to that.

"But then, fortunately, they changed that rule in November and he didn't need to go through that route anymore. All he had to do was stand those three years down and he would qualify straight away."

Folau is currently playing club rugby for the Shining Arcs in Japan under former Waratahs coach Rob Penney.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Sunday, May 29, 2022

Why the sexual revolution has been a disaster for women today - but a gift for men


I think the lady below has a point but I also think she may be overgeneralizing. Female instincts still run strong and will be a strong influence on relationships.  Some men do indeed find it easy to find new girlfriends.  I did myself for much of my life.  But not all men are in that boat.  The incels are testimony to that.

The things that influence female pairing decisions are as old as the hills. Women still like a strong and decisive man who is also kind to them. And looks are a huge factor too. The successfully promiscuous men described below will very largely be a small good-looking minority. I did not have that advantage but my rare combination of uncrushable self-confidence and high IQ was nearly as good.

So I think society is not as sick as she thinks.  Women still have a lot of choices and exercise them energetically



When Emma Watson, the film star and women’s rights campaigner, was criticised for showing her breasts on the cover of Vanity Fair, she hit back by asserting ‘feminism is about giving women choice.

It’s about freedom’. For liberal feminists like her that might be true.

But for many other women — perhaps a sizeable majority — that freedom has spectacularly backfired. It has turned out to be a lie and a con.

Rather than women being emancipated sexually, in the digital age we have become a society in thrall to the worst of male sexuality.

For younger women in particular, today’s sexual culture is destructive, divorcing love and commitment from sex and favouring one-night stands, casual ‘hook-ups’ and ‘friends with benefits’ arrangements.

Worse still, it pressures them into promiscuity, bombards them with violent pornography and tells them to enjoy being humiliated and assaulted in bed.

Dating apps such as Tinder turn people into products in a sexual marketplace that encourages users to browse the available merchandise and select their preferred options from the comfort of their homes, with very little effort and no intimacy whatsoever.

One male user described the voracious appetite that the apps encourage: ‘You’re always prowling.

'In a bar you might have two or three girls to choose from but online you can swipe a couple of hundred a day and set up two or three Tinder dates a week and, chances are, sleeping with all of them. 'You could rack up 100 girls you’ve slept with in a year.’

Another user compares Tinder to an online food delivery service —‘but you’re ordering a person’. He saw no harm in scrolling through would-be sexual partners in the same way as we scroll through any other kinds of consumables.

In reality, once you permit the idea that people can be products, everything is corroded.

I used to believe the liberal narrative that this free-and-easy attitude to sex was unalloyed progress.

As a younger woman, I conformed to liberal feminist ideas that saw nothing wrong in porn, bondage, sadomasochism and hook-up culture. Women were just expressing the same casual and adventurous approach to sex as men did.

I let go of these beliefs after working at a rape crisis centre, where I witnessed the reality of male violence up close.

It made me realise that the sexual revolution has not freed all of us, but it has freed some of us, selectively and at a price.

Believe me, I’m not anti-liberal and I don’t reject the desire for freedom.

I recognise that with the right tools, freedom from the constraints imposed on women by our societies and our bodies now becomes increasingly possible.

Don’t want to have children in your 20s or 30s? Freeze your eggs. Called away on a work trip post-partum? FedEx your breast milk to your newborn. Want to continue working full-time without interruption? Employ a nanny or a surrogate who can bear your child.

But I am critical of any ideology that fails to balance freedom against other values.

Liberal feminists see having sex ‘like a man’ as an obvious route by which women can free themselves from old-fashioned expectations of chastity and obedience.

If you believe there is nothing wrong in instrumentalising other people in pursuit of your own sexual gratification, then this makes sense.

And if you believe that men and women are both physically and psychologically much the same, save for a few hang-ups absorbed from a sex-negative culture, then why wouldn’t you want women to have access to the kind of sexual fun that men have always had.

I don’t doubt that there are some women who genuinely enjoy casual sex and who decide, having weighed the risks and benefits, that it is in their best interests to pursue it.   

What I question is the claim that a culture of casual sex is of benefit to women as a group.

What is being ignored is the basic fact that men and women are not the same.

Physically, almost all women are weaker than almost all men. Men can out-run women as well as out-punch them.

Psychologically too, men and women are wired differently. On average, men want casual sex more often than women do, and women want committed monogamy more often than men do.

In other words, there are a lot more super-horny men out there than super-horny women, and a lot more super-not-horny women than super-not-horny men.

Yet casual, hook-up culture which treats men and women as the same in their sexual appetites is now the norm among today’s adolescents and young adults.

Sexual behaviour outside of traditional committed romantic relationships has become increasingly typical and socially acceptable.

Although it is possible for young women to opt out, research suggests that only a minority do so.

On our university campuses the gospel of sexual hedonism is openly preached.

The prevailing culture is a terrible deal for women. It demands that they suppress their natural instincts in order to match male sexuality and thus meet the male demand for no-strings sex.

And yet this prevailing hook-up culture is endorsed by feminists as a form of liberation.

Meanwhile, we scoff at the past, believing we have inevitably progressed from those Neanderthal days of the 1950s when a home economics book offered tips to housewives on ‘how to look after your husband’.

The housewife was advised that, when her husband got home from work, she should have dinner on the table, her apron off and a ribbon in her hair, and that she should always make sure to let her husband ‘talk first’.

This was ridiculed on social media when it was put online in 2016. How reactionary, how stupid and backward!

But then take a look at a small sample of Cosmopolitan magazine guides published within the last decade: ‘30 ways to please a man’, ‘20 ways to turn on your man’, or ‘42 things to do with a naked man’.

In what sense are these guides not encouraging precisely the same degree of focus on male desires, except in this case it is sexual pleasure rather than domestic comfort?

Women are still expected to please men and to make it look effortless.

We have smoothly transitioned from one form of feminine subservience to another, but we pretend that this one is liberation.

Liberal ideology flatters women by telling us our desires are good and that we can find meaning in satisfying them, whatever the cost. I propose an alternative sexual culture that recognises other human beings as real people, invested with real value and dignity.

For a start, women need to avoid courting danger.

Most feminists dislike this suggestion, believing that women should not be expected to be the ones who modify their behaviour.

Every now and again, a police force will launch a campaign on rape prevention, with posters advising women to stick together on nights out, to keep their friends safe and so on.

Invariably these efforts invite a feminist backlash.

They see this as victim blaming, when it’s the rapists the police should be concentrating on. Which is true.

But here’s the point: rapists don’t care what feminists have to say.

They are men who are aroused by violence and unable to control their impulses when presented with a suitable victim and a suitable set of circumstances — a victim who is drunk, high, or otherwise vulnerable, the absence of witnesses and no fear of legal or social repercussions.

Young women aged between 13 and 25 are prime targets, which is why if you wanted to design the perfect environment for the would-be rapist, you couldn’t do much better than a party or nightclub filled with young women who are wearing high heels (limiting mobility) and drinking or taking drugs (limiting awareness).

So my advice to young women has to be this: avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are alone with a man you don’t know or a man who gives you a bad feeling in your gut.

He is almost certainly stronger and faster than you, which means the only thing standing between you and rape is that man’s self-control.

I have no doubt that, in this free-and-easy, sleeping-around sexual climate, vulnerable young women need to be cautious for their own protection.

My advice to them is this: only have sex with a man if you think he would make a good father to your children.

Not because you necessarily intend to have children with him, but because this is a good rule of thumb in deciding whether he’s worthy of your trust.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10862331/Why-sexual-revolution-disaster-women-Feminist-Louise-Perry-sparks-fierce-debate.html

***************************************************

Tragedy strikes and opportunists circle America


Rick Manning is pretty right below but he omits to add some of the solutions to shootings that are available -- from arming the teachers to having security precautions at the entrance of each school -- as Trump has recommended

There are few words available to describe the shock and loathing in the wake of the murder of innocent children. The tragedy at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas crystallizes these feelings as people seek to grapple with what went so wrong with an eighteen-year-old that he would choose to murder children, an adult in the school as well as shot his own grandmother before traveling to the school.

Before the shock and dismay can even take hold and well before any honest understanding about what precipitated the carnage, the president jumped on television in a bald-faced attempt to score political points rather than provide a voice of healing and comfort, asking Congress to renew what he called the “assault weapons ban” on certain semi-automatic rifles.  

By setting simplistic battle lines, once again, the opportunity to get to the bottom of root causes and hopefully to prevent potential future attacks have been thwarted by a headlong rush to political rhetoric rather than honest, sensible solutions.

With Biden’s gun ban rhetoric, the opportunity to look at and learn from the assailant and the protective systems in place in the schools to hopefully create a better opportunity to protect our nation’s children from future attacks by the insane are thwarted.

But rather than being a leader, Biden chose to demonize his political opposition through the hollow, meaningless call to “take on the gun lobby,” a hollow line from a man who is a political dependent of those responsible for the national violent crime spree resulting from the defund the police, end cash bail, stop prosecuting property crimes, and open borders policies which have led to violent mobs to overrun our cities.

Maybe someday, our society will be able to have a real discussion about evil and things that can be done to stop pouring it into the ears of our children but when a politician uses the still warm bodies of dead children with zero facts other than a raw political, emotional appeal the opportunity for anything but national sorrow to come from their deaths.

It is sad.  And it further divides our already divided country.

America deserves more than failed political rhetoric. Those children deserve more than they typical ghoulish response from politicians who thrive on human suffering seeking gain out of the pain of others.

It is a time of tragedy. All of America grieves but beware the opportunists who seek political advantage out of this grief.

https://dailytorch.com/2022/05/tragedy-strikes-and-opportunists-circle-america

******************************************************

An angry black lady


I think that what we read below is mainly a case of misattribution.  There are plenty of occasions where a white boss fires a white employee so the lady writing below is wrong to think it does not happen.  

Her belief that a white boss will go out of his way not to fire a fellow white is evidence of how bad  race-consciousness has become in America.  The instances she relates  probably did occur but why they occurred is the issue.  She gets a glimmering of what was really happening when she says that:

"These white men went to kindergarten, middle school, college, and university together. They play sports together. Their families intermarry"

So it is a shared social background that is at work, not skin  colour.
 
"Old boy" networks do exist and she has encountered one.  To ensure that their sons are part of such a network is the principal reason why parents send their kids to private schools.  But if you are not part of that network  too bad.  Just having a white skin will not replace it.  I have never been part of such a network and I was once fired by a white boss.

So what the lady below complains about was personal, not racial



A few years ago, I worked with a white male colleague who was underperforming. For years, he was allowed to carry on, not delivering on his objectives and as a result, other members of the team had to do his work for him. I observed this in stupor. As a Black woman, I know I’d never be able to get away with doing this, but hey, white privilege is real. White men get to sit around and do nothing, and the company will just let them.

So in the case of my colleague that I’ll call Richard for privacy reasons, it had become a common understanding within the team that we couldn’t count on him. If you had any project where he was involved, you knew you’d have to do it all alone.

It irked me that Richard didn’t do a damn thing but as a Black person in corporate, I knew that if I complained about him, one or several of his white buddies would leap to his defense and I’d become the woman to kill. So you know what, I just kept quiet. Years went by, and nothing changed. At one point I found out that Richard was making over a million dollars — base pay and the incentive per year. I was shocked beyond words but still kept quiet.

One day, a new white boss joined the team. He disliked Richard and decided to fire him. What happened next was right out of the white privilege gamebook. The new boss, Kyle, told Richard he was going to fire him but, catch this, gave him 24 months to find a new job. To make sure that he did secure a new job, he wrote him a brilliant reference letter and even introduced him to his network. It was mind-boggling. Here was an underperforming employee, but all the same he was seeing to it that he found a job. This nonsensical situation was too much for me to comprehend so I asked the new boss why he was doing this. His response:

“Well, Richard has mouths to feed. Even if he’s underperformed, it is my role to make sure he doesn’t end up unemployed. Could you imagine what that would do to his pride?”

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I had heard about many Black people that had been fired from the same company with nothing much as a “goodbye”. Here my white boss was seeing to it that my white underperforming colleague could find a job elsewhere no matter what.

This whole situation really had me thinking about how comfortable life is for white men. The latitude of things that they can get away with in the workplace and in life, in general, is incredible. The white boys club is always there in the background waiting to catch them when they misbehave or fall. That must be a rather convenient life. Some of us out here i.e. Black women, have to hustle to get a job, shut up to keep it, and have anxiety about how we’ll find our next ones. We live in a completely different world from white men who have the comfort of knowing they’ll always be someone there to catch them.

I witnessed another similar situation a few years later. This time, a racist white male colleague was asked to report to a Black man. From the start, all of us in the team could feel the tension. I personally thought the white guy would learn to accept his new boss, but his lack of respect for him made the situation worse.

After years of this toxic situation where this white male constantly criticized his Black boss to others and sought to ruin his reputation, things came to a head. I expected the white male to be fired because he had clearly undermined his Black boss repeatedly. Again, the white boys club came to the rescue. The white male was offered a transition role in another team for a few months while the network secured a new job for him. Again, it was a matter of saving his white pride because you see, he had a family.

In all my career, I have never witnessed the same allowance being made for Black or brown people for that matter. When we underperform, we are kicked out. There is no underground network looking out for you. That is what being white gets you — a network of white people in white institutions that will cater to your white fragility and to your livelihood. As a Black woman, can I have that too?

The fact of the matter is that this network of white men is an institution. These white men went to kindergarten, middle school, college, and university together. They play sports together. Their families intermarry. Their strength lies in that they have been around forever. They are powerful. They have each other’s backs. When Black people talk about feeling out of place in corporate, this is one of the reasons why. They aren’t card-holding members of this white privilege, white boy clan and as such, they don’t have that safety net.

At the end of the day, however, it is important that people realize that these powerful networks exist. When we talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations, we need to realize that not everyone has the same privilege, and as a result, special attention needs to be paid to the “equity” part of the equation. I think that it is important to address this if organizations truly want to build environments where all employees, regardless of their ethnicity feel that they are on a level playing field with their white counterparts.

https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-white-privilege-white-boys-club-a708c586ae20

************************************************




The ADL Murder Report That Cried 'White Supremacist'

There are undoubtedly a few white supremacists in America but they are in the category of people trying to open a door that is already open. America is mostly white and it is supreme in many things. What need is there to proclaim the obvious? It doesn't need to be fought for. It already exists. A real white supremacist in America would just sit back and observe the world with great satisfaction. The "danger" of white supremacism that the Left is always talking about is mostly a figment of their imagination -- a tale to deflect attention from their own real policy failures

In May 2021, two members of the Family Values, a white supremacist prison gang, allegedly killed a member of the rival Southwest Honkeys prison gang over a longstanding beef. Three months later, a New Jersey man who had vandalized synagogues and distributed neo-Nazi pamphlets strangled his wife.

On the surface, the crimes would appear to have little more in common than their brutality. But the Anti-Defamation League includes these murders by white men of other whites in its tally of right-wing and white supremacist murders in its report, “Murder & Extremism in the United States in 2021.”

“In 2021, white supremacists were responsible for more murders than any other type of extremist; in many years, they comprised an outright majority of the extremist murders that year,” the report said. “Indeed, over the past 10 years, white supremacists have committed 244 (55%) of the 443 killings that the ADL (COE) has documented.”

The ADL also claims that other "right-wing extremists" were responsible for another 20% of extremist killings during the 10-year-period (2012-21) – including those it describes as "anti-government" and "incel/manosphere" (typically, involuntary celibates or misogynists).

The report has been cited repeatedly in media pieces as evidence of the lethal threat posed by far-right extremists since a mentally disturbed 18-year-old white supremacist murdered 10 African Americans and injured three others at a Buffalo market on May 14. Its stark warning has helped provide a backdrop for the narrative advanced by the White House, advocacy groups, and national media outlets that toxic white nationalism permeates American society. "White supremacy is a poison. It's a poison ... running through our body politic," President Biden said in his speech in Buffalo after the shooting. "… And it's been allowed to grow and fester right before our eyes."

But a closer examination of the statistics compiled by the ADL – which did not respond to multiple requests for comment – casts doubt on their use as evidence that African Americans or any other Americans are under increasing or serious threats from racist white zealots. The report was publicized in a month of back-to-back massacres by mentally disturbed young men, the latest by a member of a heavily Hispanic community in Texas, suggesting mass killings defy pat analysis.

Critics cite significant problems with the ADL presentation. Like other organizations tracking extremism, the ADL rarely offers context to claims regarding extremist murders by comparing them to broader homicide statistics. During the same 10-year period cited by the ADL in its 2021 report citing 244 murders by white supremacists, there were at least 165,000 murders in the U.S., meaning those the group attributes to white supremacists accounted for .001% of such violent deaths in that decade.

That statistic pales in comparison with those of major cities that have seen shocking increases in bloodshed, with recent annual murder totals breaking or nearing records set in the 20th century. Chicago had 797 murders in 2021, the highest total in 25 years, while much smaller Minneapolis, one year after George Floyd died in police custody there, had 96 murders, one shy of the city’s 1995 record. Huge jumps in murders also occurred in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and other metropolitan areas.

“The FBI has not issued the official number of murders in the U.S. in 2021, but it is expected to exceed the number of murders in 2020: 21,570 -- of which, according to ADL, 23 were committed by extremists,” Carl Moody, an economist at the College of William & Mary who studies crime, told RealClearInvestigations.

“The data presented by the ADL could also be characterized as follows: the number of murders committed by extremists is very small, only 29 in 2021, of which less than half were committed by white supremacists,” Moody said. “It is also 63% lower than the maximum number (78) in 2016, so extremism is down since 2016. In 2020, according to the CDC, 1080 people were killed falling out of bed. Therefore, you are 47 times more likely to be killed by a bed than by an extremist.”

“It’s important that we get the numbers right and in perspective,” said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. “And we’ve had mainstream narratives that make it sound like they are all like the Buffalo killer. But there are very specific circumstances to a number of these shootings. If there is a significant threat to blacks from these kinds of mass attacks they need to know that. Otherwise, you’re creating divisions that don’t need to be there.”

Crime experts also note that many of the killings cited by the ADL – such as the slaying committed by Shawn Lichtfuss, the New Jersey man who killed his wife, or John Hilt and Justin Murphy, the allegedly lethal members of the Family Values prison gang – were not hate crimes aimed at terrorizing blacks or other minorities.

These include:

A white supremacist with a "swastika and SS tattoos on his face" who killed another man in an extended-stay hotel “following an argument over a social media post.”

An alleged member of a Fresno, California, white supremacist street gang who “allegedly [shot] a man with whom he had long been feuding.”

Four members of the New Mexico Aryan Brotherhood who “were involved in a shootout amongst themselves inside a vehicle.”
(Scott Ash/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via AP)

In Waukesha, mourning a black racist massacre that the ADL neglected to count.
AP

At the same time, critics say the ADL overstates the percentage of white supremacist murders because it omits some high-profile crimes committed by non-whites. Lott provided eight examples of mass killings – traditionally defined as those with four or more fatalities – excluded by the ADL in its decade-long tally. One of those was the 2016 attack a black man launched against white police officers in Dallas that killed 5 and wounded 11.

The ADL report also does not include the more recent carnage in Waukesha, Wisconsin, last November when a black man with a history of racist social posts drove into a mostly white crowd in a Christmas parade, killing six and injuring 62. For 2021, the ADL lists just two murders by people it classifies as “black nationalists.” If the Waukesha victims were included, black racist murders would account for 23% of extremist murders (8 of 35) for 2021.

"The Wisconsin car attack is one that is very hard to miss," Lott said. "It is such an obvious and well-known case that you have to wonder if they omitted it because it goes against 'their narrative.'"

U.S. Department of Justice/Wikimedia

The ADL's report indicates that many killings it attributes to white supremacists do not fit common understandings of racist hate crimes -- for example, murders committed in the process of typical crimes by white-supremacist prison gangs.
U.S. Department of Justice/Wikimedia

The ADL’s own report indicates that many of the killings it attributes to white supremacists do not fit common understandings of racist hate crimes. It reports, for example, that 76 of the 244 killings, or 31%, were committed by members, suspected members, or associates of white supremacist prison gangs. They were the deadliest group profiled, and “given the nature of prison gangs as organized crime groups, it is predictable that many of the murders would be related to traditional criminal activities, ranging from drug-related murders to killings committed in robberies.”

Indeed, the ADL admits that the majority of murders it attributes to white supremacists were non-ideological.

“Over the past 10 years, only 86 of the 244 white supremacist killings (35%) were ideological murders,” the report said. “The remainder were group-related but not ideological attacks, were related to traditional criminal activities, or were murders for which no clear motive could be determined.”

That finding tracks with a March 2021 report from Lott’s organization addressing what it called "the false narrative of white supremacists doing mass public shootings." Examining all shootings involving four or more fatalities from 1998 to March 2021, it found in 71% of them "no mention of political affiliation” of the shooters. The report determined that “4% are right-wingers or conservatives or Republicans, 6% were liberals or Democrats or left-wing, and 10% were Muslim. About 9% are white supremacist, neo-Nazis, or anti-immigrant, but these people come from both the left and the right. Mass public shootings make up a small percentage of murders, and anti-minority mass public shooters are not the biggest threat even in that group."

Brian Levin, who heads the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, said it can be difficult to pinpoint precise motivations of mass murderers, as "we are seeing less rigid ideological killers who increasingly seem to browse at a buffet of hatreds."

The Buffalo killer’s overwhelming hatred, however, was racist, as he expressed both the belief that blacks are inferior and angst over a kind of global conspiracy called “the great replacement theory,” Levin said.

In his 180-page rant published while he was allegedly opening fire in Buffalo, the extremist described himself at various points as a “mild/moderate left authoritarian,” and he viewed conservatism with contempt as a corporate catspaw.

***********************************************

Teen Who Alleges He Knew Shooter Shares Disturbing Details He Says No One Is Reporting

A student at Uvalde High School in Texas who says he knew Salvador Ramos rejected the prevailing media narrative that the gunman was the victim of bullying, and this was the catalyst for his May 24 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School.

Ivan Arellano, a senior at Uvalde High School, told WFAA-TV in Dallas that Ramos “was not a good person” and had been a bully himself.

“Salvador Ramos was a boy who was not bullied,” Arellano said on Wednesday. “He would try to pick on people but fail, and it would aggravate him.”

Ramos was shot to death by a Border Patrol agent after his shooting rampage at Robb Elementary School, which left 19 children and two adults dead.

Shortly before the attack, the 18-year-old gunman shot his grandmother in her home. Celia Martinez Gonzales, 66, was reported to be in stable condition at a San Antonio hospital.

Arellano, who was friends with one of the victims, wanted to set the record straight because he had not seen any media coverage spotlighting Ramos’ cruel personality.

“I don’t see this covered and I’m going to put this out there: He would hurt animals. He was not a good person,” he said.

Arellano’s statements belie the initial media coverage of Ramos as a victim who was subjected to gay slurs and bullied over his lisp.

So do the observations of 17-year-old Crystal Foutz, who attended school with Ramos and worked with him at the fast-food restaurant Whataburger.

“He always seemed to take his anger out on the most innocent person in the room,” Foutz told KTBC-TV in Austin.

Our understanding of people and events generally morphs as the dust settles after a horrific crime like this shooting and research unearths more about the perpetrator’s background.

However, one thing is already clear: The school system and his own family failed Ramos, who should have been red-flagged over his threatening, anti-social behavior, which included self-mutilation, animal abuse and shooting people with BB guns.

American culture is cratering at a chilling pace, fueled in large part by toxic left-wing policies that marginalize nuclear families, decimate the working class and demonize hard work and meritocracy.

Our schools have devolved into mindless incubators of destructive leftist propaganda that lionizes victimhood, socialism, transgenderism and mediocrity.

Is it any wonder that American children lag behind their international peers academically and report increasing depression and hopelessness?

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Friday, May 27, 2022



Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?

Remember the claims that Russia’s economy was more or less irrelevant, merely the equivalent of a small, not very impressive European country? “Putin, who has an economy the size of Italy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea, “[is] playing a poker game with a pair of twos and winning.” Of increasing Russian diplomatic and geopolitical influence in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, The Economist asked in 2019, “How did a country with an economy the size of Spain … achieve all this?”

Seldom has the West so grossly misjudged an economy’s global significance. French economist Jacques Sapir, a renowned specialist of the Russian economy who teaches at the Moscow and Paris schools of economics, explained recently that the war in Ukraine has “made us realize that the Russian economy is considerably more important than what we thought.” For Sapir, one big reason for this miscalculation is exchange rates. If you compare Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) by simply converting it from rubles into U.S. dollars, you indeed get an economy the size of Spain’s.

But such a comparison makes no sense without adjusting for purchasing power parity (PPP), which accounts for productivity and standards of living, and thus per capita welfare and resource use. Indeed, PPP is the measure favored by most international institutions, from the IMF to the OECD. And when you measure Russia’s GDP based on PPP, it’s clear that Russia’s economy is actually more like the size of Germany’s, about $4.4 trillion for Russia versus $4.6 trillion for Germany. From the size of a small and somewhat ailing European economy to the biggest economy in Europe and one of the largest in the world—not a negligible difference.

Sapir also encourages us to ask, “What is the share of the service sector versus the share of the commodities and industrial sector?” To him, the service sector today is grossly overvalued compared with the industrial sector and commodities like oil, gas, copper, and agricultural products. If we reduce the proportional importance of services in the global economy, Sapir says that “Russia’s economy is vastly larger than that of Germany and represents probably 5% or 6% of the world economy,” more like Japan than Spain.

This makes intuitive sense. When push comes to shove, we know there is more value in providing people with the things they really need to survive like food and energy than there is in intangible things like entertainment or financial services. When a company like Netflix has a price-earnings ratio three times higher than that of Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, it’s more likely than not a reflection of market froth than of physical reality. Netflix is a great service, but as long as an estimated 800 million people in the world remain undernourished, Nestlé is still going to provide more value.

All of which is to say that the current crisis in Ukraine has helpfully clarified how much we’ve taken for granted the “antiquated” side of modern economies like industry and commodities—prices for which have surged this year—and perhaps overvalued services and “tech,” whose value has recently crashed.

The size and importance of Russia’s economy is further distorted by ignoring global trade flows, in which Sapir estimates that Russia “may account for maybe as much as 15%.” While Russia is not the largest producer of oil in the world, for example, it has been the largest exporter of it, ahead even of Saudi Arabia. The same is true for many other essential products such as wheat—the world’s most important food crop, with Russia controlling about 19.5% of global exports—nickel (20.4%), semi-finished iron (18.8%), platinum (16.6%), and frozen fishes (11.2%).

Such commanding importance in the production of so many essential commodities means that Russia, like few other countries on the planet, is in many respects a linchpin of the globalized production chain. Unlike “maximum sanctions” on a country like Iran or Venezuela, attempting to cut the Russian link has meant and will likely continue to mean a dramatic reorganization of the global economy.

Now that President Joe Biden has publicly renounced America’s decades-old policy of “strategic ambiguity” with regard to Taiwan, it’s worth thinking about what China’s economy looks like when we remove the same blinkers with which we’d always viewed Russia. If we consider the Chinese economy based on exchange rates—by simply converting China’s GDP from Chinese yuan to U.S. dollars—it is valued at about $17.7 trillion (as of 2021), compared to $23 trillion for the United States and $17 trillion for the European Union.

But if we adjust for PPP, we see that the Chinese economy reached almost $27.21 trillion in 2021, compared with $20.5 trillion for the EU and $23 trillion for the United States. In terms of PPP, in fact, China’s economy overtook America’s back as much as six years ago.

And what if we reduce the proportional importance of the service sector relative to industry and commodities? Services account for approximately 53.3% of China’s GDP, even less than in Russia (56.7%). If we roughly apply Sapir’s ratio of doubling the valuation of the nonservice sector to China, we may have to consider that in a very real and relevant way, the Chinese economy accounts for something like 25%-30% of the global economy on a PPP basis, rather than the current estimates of 18%-19%.

That would put the combined Chinese and Russian economies at about 30%-35% of the global economy (again, adjusting for PPP and the overvaluation of the service sector)—a behemoth and likely unsustainable challenge for a trans-Atlantic community that looks increasingly focused on using maximalist economic sanctions to punish bad actors and achieve desired policy outcomes. That challenge becomes even more daunting when we consider that the service sector accounts for roughly 77% of the U.S. economy and 70% of the EU’s—suggesting a potentially significant degree of overvaluation in Western economic heft, and far more parity in relative economic power with China and Russia.

How much does any of this hairsplitting matter? For one, the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Pacific look to be accelerating a division of the world into Cold War-like political and economic blocs. But whereas the West accounted for over 50% of global GDP at the beginning of the Cold War—with the United States dominating global manufacturing and running huge annual trade surpluses—the West looks to be in a weaker if more entrenched position of power today, and its major adversaries stronger in certain ways than the communist bloc was in 1948.

Before we enthusiastically embrace a new Iron Curtain, therefore, it’s worth pausing to consider how many countries in the world will voluntarily place themselves on our side. The countries of what we consider “the West” will—for ideological and historical reasons, in addition to economic and military enmeshment—undoubtedly remain relatively united. But the West only accounts for about 13% of the world’s population, with China and Russia together making up about 20%. That leaves about two-thirds of humanity “nonaligned,” a position that most of them would like to maintain. If we force them to choose a side, we may be surprised by many of the results.

A tally of the countries participating in current sanctions on Russia, in fact, makes it hard to say whether a new Iron Curtain is being drawn around our adversaries or around the West itself. Countries and nominal U.S. allies as significant as India and Saudi Arabia have been particularly vocal in their refusal to take sides in the conflict in Ukraine.

One telling barometer for this dynamic is oil. With Western oil sanctions on the world’s largest oil exporter, prices have predictably skyrocketed, rising from around $75 a barrel at the beginning of the year up to over $110 today. But countries that have refused to participate in sanctions are now taking advantage of the opportunity to negotiate for Russian energy deliveries at steep discounts. If Russia is still able to sell oil around the world, countries like India are able to negotiate for below-market prices, and Western consumers are being hammered with inflated prices, who is really being sanctioned?

A similar principle applies to the weaponization of the U.S. dollar and the Western financial system in general: If non-Western countries are increasingly told that access to dollars and transaction systems like SWIFT are conditional on policies made in Washington that may not necessarily be in their own self-interest, the result may be a de-dollarization of the global economy, not a strengthening of the Western order.

None of this is to say that the brutal invasion of Ukraine has been anything less than an atrocity, and that extraordinary measures may indeed be called for in order to counter Russian expansionism and its implications for global peace and stability. But it’s possible that the West, in a fit of self-righteousness and a need to satisfy various domestic demands, may be diving headlong into a future in which the global South and many others besides feel increasingly pressured to make a choice they don’t want to have to make, and which may leave the West more isolated than ever before in modern times.

*****************************************

Georgia voters expose the 'Jim Crow' smear as a lie

by Jeff Jacoby

WHEN REPUBLICAN legislators in Georgia last year passed S.B. 202, a law overhauling the state's election procedures, Governor Brian Kemp made a prediction: "This new law," he said as he signed the bill, "will expand voting access in the Peach State."
He was right.

Turnout in Georgia's primary election this month set new records, with more than 857,000 ballots cast during the three-week early voting period that ended on Friday. That was not only three times the number of early votes recorded in 2018, as The Washington Post noted, but higher even than the tally during the 2020 presidential election. Pointing with pride to the impressive results, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the election law adopted last year was "coming through with straight A's."

According to liberals and Democrats — who repeatedly and angrily described the Georgia law as a bigoted, antidemocratic obscenity — none of this was supposed to happen.

Just hours after Kemp signed the bill in March 2021, President Biden slammed it as "an atrocity," "pernicious" and "un-American" and "a blatant attack on the Constitution." In a subsequent speech, he excoriated Georgia for its "vicious anti-voting law," which he called part of "the most dangerous threat to voting and the integrity of free and fair elections in our history" — nothing less than a "21st century Jim Crow assault" on the right of every American to vote.

Again and again and again, that's how the Georgia law was described — as a racist scheme to suppress Black votes and revive the evils of the Jim Crow era. Republicans were endlessly accused of deliberately choking off the early voting options that were especially popular with Black Georgians. "As America embraces early voting, GOP hurries to restrict it," one CNN story was headlined. In a Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker drew a link between Georgia's new rules and the grisly 1964 murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in Mississippi. One of the young men had been found with "red clay in his lungs and clenched in his fist, indicating he was probably still alive when buried," Parker wrote. The "red-clay legislators" in Georgia who passed S.B. 202, she observed, were using more subtle means "to diminish minority turnout."

Major League Baseball — egged on by the president, who labeled the elections law "Jim Crow on steroids" — relocated the 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver. Two Georgia-headquartered behemoths, Coca-Cola and Delta, issued statements blasting the new law. When Home Depot, another Atlanta-based corporation, declined to pile on, Black church officials urged a boycott of the company.

Yet all along, it was the racial demagoguery about the Georgia law, not the law itself, that was obscene and immoral. You wouldn't know it from the rhetoric about "Jim Crow," but Black voter turnout has been rising steadily for years, even in Republican-dominated states with voter ID requirements. In 2018, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center, "all major racial and ethnic groups saw historic jumps in voter turnout."

In Georgia specifically, Black voters over the past quarter-century have become an ever-larger share of the electorate.

In 1996, the year Bill Clinton was reelected, there were 930,000 registered Black voters in Georgia, of whom 497,000, or 53 percent, cast ballots in the November election. By November 2020, all those numbers had jumped: There were 2.3 million registered Black voters, of whom nearly 1.4 million, or about 60 percent, cast ballots. In the face of such unambiguous evidence that Black Georgians are active and committed voters, the Democratic smear about "Jim Crow on steroids" was disgraceful partisan rabble-rousing.

The thunder of lies about S.B. 202 led some voters to expect the worst. The Washington Post spoke with Patsy Reid, a 70-year-old African-American retiree from Spalding County who, given the "reports of voter suppression against people of color in Georgia," said she was surprised by how easy it was to cast her ballot in the Democratic primary.

"I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any way possible because of the fact that we didn't go Republican on the last election, when Trump didn't win," she told a reporter. "To go in there and vote as easily as I did and to be treated with the respect that I knew I deserved as an American citizen — I was really thrown back."

There was no voter suppression, no Jim Crow, no "red-clay" assault on Black civil rights. Patsy Reid is one more Georgia voter who knows that now.

*********************************************

Get Woke, Go Broke: State Farm Exec Makes Panicked Promise as Trans Support Blows Up in Company's Face

Facing an uproar for its support of the transgender agenda, State Farm Insurance says it is dropping its alliance with a transgender group that wanted to supply indoctrination materials aimed at children to schools and libraries.

State Farm had said it would support a group called GenderCool, which was targeting children as young as 5 with books titled “Being Transgender,” “Being Inclusive” and “Being Non-Binary.”

On Monday, the conservative group Consumers’ Research responded with a video titled “Like a Creepy Neighbor.”

“State Farm tells us they’re a good neighbor,” the narrator begins. “But would a good neighbor target five-year-olds for conversations about sexual identity? That’s what State Farm is doing.”

On Tuesday, State Farm surrendered.

State Farm spokesman Roszell Gadson told The Washington Post that the partnership ended after it had “been the subject of news and customer inquiries.”

“Conversations about gender and identity should happen at home with parents,” Gadson said in a statement. “We don’t support required curriculum in schools on this topic. We support organizations providing resources for parents to have these conversations. We no longer support the program allowing for distribution of books in schools.”

“As a result, we have made the decision we will no longer be affiliated with the organization,” the company said on its website.

According to a report from RedState, Rand Harbert, State Farm executive vice president and chief agency, sales and marketing officer, sent out a voice message to agents and others about the book project.

The outlet, citing a transcript it obtained, reported that Harbert said, “First and foremost, I want you to hear directly from me that we made a mistake with our involvement in this program — and we’re sorry. As soon as we fully understood the issue Monday morning, the first decision we made was to cease our involvement with this organization.

“Let me be clear, our position is that conversations with children about gender and identity need to happen at home.”

Harbert then made it appear as though State Farm was not fully aware of to whom it was giving money and what would be done with the cash.

“As much as we would like to be aware of every program and involved in every decision, it’s simply not possible as most of these gifts are small. In this case, it was $40,000,” Harbert said, according to RedState.

“However, we recognize even small decisions can have a big impact, and we’re taking the necessary steps, so nothing like this happens again,” he said

**************************************************

Australian supermarket chain: Caring for some but not for others

They just love sexual abnormality

Coles sacked the last of its unvaccinated staff at the beginning of this year, long after state mandates fell and other industries began allowing the so-called mavericks of the workforce back into the office. The move, along with other supermarket giants, saw thousands of Australians unceremoniously dumped, many of them single mothers or from struggling households.

‘Shop safe at Coles’ is something that looks good printed in big letters across double-page ads to those still suffering from anxiety hangovers. Just don’t ask too many questions about the health logic, given unvaccinated people can shop in the store, but not stand behind the counter.

Speaking of corporate virtue signalling.

The same company turned around this week and announced it would be offering its trans and gender-diverse employees ten extra days of paid leave for the purpose of ‘gender affirmation’. ‘Affirmation’ is a hazy term that Coles describes as ‘any process’ that relates to the act of gender affirmation including surgical, social, legal, or medical action. Leave could be granted for anything from an appointment with a lawyer through to full surgery.

Gender Affirmation Leave was timed to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersexism, and Transphobia – one of the dozens of days and months dedicated to a sexual preference or pronouns.

Coles Chief Legal and Safety Officer, David Brewster, (who also serves as the Chair of the Pride Steering Committee), released a statement.

‘We know that we have at least 900 team members who identify as transgender or gender diverse. We need to have proper policy and education in this area so there is clear guidance around taking leave for this important transition in their life.’

Coles attached a long and bizarre ‘gender affirming’ statement that seems a little over the top for employment that largely involves stacking shelves and pushing trolleys. Its headings include ‘encouraging you to be your authentic self’ and ‘developing our Pride Team member network’ – which doesn’t sound like something employers should concern themselves with.

This move, described as ‘way ahead of politicians’ (add to that logic, reason, and fairness) is meant to be an action against ‘trans hate’. 2022 has transitioned into a world where an employer who is not constantly, publicly, and (preferably financially) ‘affirming’ an employee they must, by default, hate them. For most of human history, workers preferred their employers to keep their noses out of any private medical business.

‘You’ll be supported as the gender with which you identify, wear the clothes or uniform of your affirmed gender, use the toilets and change rooms of your affirmed gender and be referred to by the name of your affirmed gender too,’ read a statement, issued by Coles.

The statement leans heavily toward sentiments of anti-discrimination and equity – which is fine, one is simply left to wonder where this emotionally sensitive Coles hurt-feelings committee was when it was ruthlessly sacking unvaccinated staff who simply wanted to keep their jobs and their body autonomy at the same time. Coles went one step further, attempting to impose its vaccination policies on unrelated suppliers, contractors, partners, and anyone working onsite.

And no. If you’re an employee with a non-gender related medical or emotional issue, you’ll have to plan ahead and sacrifice some of your holiday leave when you run out of the standard state-sanctioned medical allotment. No one is going to give you a Woke Virtue point for a hip replacement.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Thursday, May 26, 2022

Inconvenient Fact About Mass Killings

After the mass murder of 10 in a Buffalo, New York, supermarket committed by a man who posted a racist manifesto, Wesley Lowery, a CBS reporter, said: “Let’s be clear, the stuff Tucker (Carlson) and Laura Ingraham say every night, it could be written by white supremacists very often. There’s a section of this manifesto where the shooter starts talking about, ‘People will always say diversity is strength. How is it a strength?’ And I could hear it in Tucker’s voice. He says this all the time, right? But the Ben Shapiros of the world say this. … There are plenty of people in our politics, in our media, who advance these ideas and advance them frequently. … We have to have a conversation about our political rhetoric in our country, right?”

Where to start? This “reporter” implies that “right-wing rhetoric” incited the 18-year-old Buffalo supermarket killer. Where’s the evidence? For all we know, he might’ve been an avid viewer of CBS News.

The next day after this mass murder, an Asian man opened fire on churchgoers in an Orange County, California, church, killing one and injuring five. Most of those at the church were reportedly of Taiwanese descent. But no doubt the shooter routinely DVR’d the Tucker Carlson show. Days later, a black man, who reportedly hated Asians, was arrested for injuring three Korean Americans in a shooting attack at a Dallas hair salon.

Lowery implies that “right-wing rhetoric” turns white males into mass killers. But there’s a problem with this narrative — the facts. When it comes to mass murderers, almost all of which are men, white men are actually underrepresented and black men overrepresented when compared to their percentages of the American male population.

In October 2017, Newsweek, in a story headlined “White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings than Any Other Group,” wrote, “Statistics show that since 1982, the majority of mass shootings — 54 percent — were committed by white men, according to data from Mother Jones.” But a few paragraphs later it added, “The high number of white men committing mass shootings is also explained, at least in part, by the fact white people make up a majority of the U.S. population (63 percent) and men are more likely to commit violent crime in general.” Wait, white males commit 54% of the mass shootings while the white population is 63%?

About the Newsweek article, PolitiFact said: “Critics argue that when you consider that non-Hispanic white men make up about 63 percent of the male population, white men appear proportionally less likely to commit a mass shooting, according to the Mother Jones statistics showing white men account for 54 percent of mass shootings.”

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh noted that blacks and Asians, from 1982 to 2021, committed 17.4% (12.3 % of the population) and 6.6% (3.6 %of the population) of mass shootings, respectively. Volokh wrote, “Non-Hispanic whites don’t seem to commit mass shootings at greater than their share of the population. The groups that appear overrepresented are blacks and Asians.”

An opinion piece last year in The Washington Post called “The Numbers Undercut Myths About Mass Shootings and White Men” found: “So it appears that the number of white men committing these crimes is close to what we’d expect from pure chance, maybe even slightly lower — the opposite of what we’d see if white supremacy culture were at fault.”

Again, the inconvenient fact is that white males, as a percentage of the American male population, are underrepresented when it comes to mass shooters. Black and Asian males, as to their percentage of the male population, are overrepresented. The left-wing media hyperventilate about “underrepresentation” or “overrepresentation” when it comes to poverty, prison population, admission to elite colleges and universities, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, NFL head coaches or Academy Award winners. But when it comes to mass shooters, suddenly “over-representation” becomes irrelevant.

***********************************************

In Brief: ACLU Denies Existence of Women

We’re old enough to remember that “woman” was a definable word. Now, we have an incoming woman Supreme Court justice who refuses to say what a woman is because to do so is to trigger the rabidly gender-confused Left.

Journalist Daniel Greenfield takes on the latest reality deniers at the ACLU.

“We’re Not Stupid: Outrageous Quotes from the War on Women,” the ACLU had headlined a post about its pro-abortion activism in 2013.

A decade later the ACLU is arguing in court that women don’t exist.

Not only does the ACLU’s current abortion coverage eliminate any mention of women, but in response to a civil rights lawsuit by women, it actually filed a motion arguing they don’t exist.

The particular fight has to do with California’s prison system, which houses men with women as long as the men claim to be women. A feminist group that hasn’t succumbed to the gender-bending Rainbow Mafia sued.

Krystal Gonzalez, one of four women being represented in the lawsuit, reported being sexually assaulted by a man who claimed to be “transgender” in prison. The California penal system however insisted that her male attacker was actually a “transgender woman with a penis.”

The ACLU, along with Lambda Legal and the Transgender Law Center, filed a bizarre motion in response denying that, “‘men as a class’ are defined and differentiated from ‘women as a class’ by their ‘anatomy, genitalia, physical characteristics, and physiology.’”

Are there physiological differences between men and women? Science says there are while the ACLU denies it in what may be one of the most surreal motions ever submitted to a court.

Denying sexual dimorphism is up there with a motion claiming that the earth is flat.

But the ACLU motion went on “to deny the allegation that ‘human beings’ are ‘sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]’”

Biology 101 is now an “allegation” to be denied in court.

Thus unfolds another chapter in the disgraceful history of the ACLU. As Greenfield concludes, “In an extraordinary document, the ACLU denies everything we know about biological science and it does so in the name of not only erasing women, but exposing them to sexual abuse.”

*******************************************************

The dubious use of sanctions

On 19 April Wimbledon decided to ban all players from Russia, the aggressor in Ukraine, and Belarus, which let Russia use its territory as a staging post for the attacks, from this year’s tournament. The ban may reflect a desire to avoid the possibility of embarrassing the Duchess of Cambridge as the royal patron of the All England Lawn Tennis Club. In that capacity, amidst the centenary celebrations of Centre Court, Kate Middleton is expected to present trophies to the men’s and ladies’ singles winners. There was a good chance that one or both could be Russian or Belarussian, in which case video footage of the trophy presentation could be weaponised for propaganda in the still-raging war.

The spate of expulsions of Russian athletes, artists and even dead authors and composers is an ugly outbreak of neo-McCarthyism ripping through Western institutions. Wimbledon is open to charges of gross hypocrisy and might have fashioned a rod for its own back to be used by activists on any fashionable moral crusade in the future. Why were American, British and Australian players not banned unless they denounced the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Are Russian actions in Ukraine more evil than China’s vis-a-vis the Uighurs? What of countries that execute homosexuals or condemn women to inferior status? The precedent has been set by the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament that even in competitions that feature athletes playing as individuals and not for their nation (as in the Olympics or the Davis Cup), regardless of where they reside (Victoria Azarenka has lived in the US since her teens), they can be banned for the sins of their governments. Of course, it also devalues the tournament. On current world rankings the ban will exclude more than twenty eligible players from the ladies and gentlemen’s (isn’t it nice that Wimbledon has stuck to this traditional language) singles competitions. On 10 May, the world’s leading men’s players called for ranking points to be withdrawn from Wimbledon in protest at the ban.

Wimbledon’s ban is a microcosm of the pathologies that afflict international sanctions. They expand the toolkit of powerful countries to impose their values and policy priorities on the rest and thereby build resentment in the latter who see hypocrisy where sanctions-imposing countries profess moral virtue. It’s proven extremely challenging to secure and sustain universal compliance with sanctions regimes. In a world of scarcity where costs and benefits are unevenly distributed, there will always be a market clearing price for every good. Three months into the war, even the BBC has woken up to the realisation that vast parts of the non-Western world do not share the West’s one-sided anti-Russian narrative. Whether based in economic and military self-interests or in perceptions of Western hypocrisy, double standards and colonial past, many countries have refused to join Western condemnations and sanctions.

In a CNN commentary, Jeffrey Sachs estimates that the 100 countries in the UN General Assembly that did not vote to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council account for 76 per cent of the world’s population. Energy price rises owing to sanctions are an inconvenience to Europeans. It’s a particularly perverse form of selfish arrogance to demand that India, for example, should eschew the purchase of discounted Russian oil when steep ptice rises in essential energy will cause significant hardship for millions of poor Indians.

As this suggests, the impact of sanctions is disproportionately harsh on innocent victims. A starkly graphic example of this was sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation to have caused 576,000 child deaths by mid-1994. Child mortality rate jumped from 56 to 131 deaths per 100,000 births from 1984–89 to 1994–99, according to Unicef which attributed 500,000 child deaths directly to sanctions. That experience did a lot to discredit sanctions as a supposedly humane alternative to war for dealing with rogue regimes. It also led directly to the oil-for-food scandal in which Australia was so badly implicated. In his annual report on the UN’s work in 1998, Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged that ‘humanitarian and human rights policy goals cannot easily be reconciled with those of a sanctions regime’. Sanctions create shortages and raise prices in conditions of scarcity.

The poor suffer; the middle class, essential to building the foundations of democracy, shrinks; the ruling class extracts fatter rents from monopoly controls over the illicit trade in banned goods. The evidence shows that time and again, family cliques surrounding dictators monopolise the black market spawned by sanctions and the resulting scarcities and shortages of goods in the open market. Sanctions also offer an easy scapegoat for ruinous economic policies. Economic pain is simply blamed on hostile and ill-intentioned foreigners. Bearing pain is portrayed as the patriotic duty of every citizen, and dissent silenced or liquidated.

There is the further pathology of mission creep and mutation. Like race-based affirmative action, gender equality and cancel culture, once introduced for one target group or goal, they are appropriated by others for additional groups and causes that are also pursued with proselytising zeal, meaning that opponents are not just inconvenient obstacles but positively evil. Therefore they are deserving of vilification, dehumanisation and punishment. And so it is that some experts and officials are already calling for countries that fail to cooperate with the WHO during a pandemic to be hit with prompt sanctions under a new pandemic treaty. Presumably this means that Sweden and Florida, among a handful of jurisdictions to have got their Covid policy settings right while all others raced to the bottom of panicked stupidity, would have been subjected to international sanctions. And we can safely predict that laggards in the global Net Zero race to the economic bottom would be early candidates for punitive sanctions.

More often than not, sanctions are morally dubious, ineffective and can be counterproductive, prompting a successful search for self-reliance or alternative suppliers for critical goods. They damage the economic interests of those imposing sanctions, including undermining reliability as a supplier and, in this case, risking the de-dollarisation of the world economy as others invest in the creation of parallel financial systems and institutions that are less vulnerable to capricious strikes by the dominant West. The rouble fell to begin with but since March 10, it has more than doubled in value against the euro, dollar and pound. Often they damage relations with allies and friends without securing the intended objectives against target regimes. All in all, therefore, sanctions are a poor alibi for and not a sound component of good foreign policy.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/05/bad-policy-bad-politics/ ?

********************************************************

Biden’s Buffalo Speech Was Speech of Indecent Man

If an American president has ever given as mendacious, anti-American, and hate-filled a speech as President Joe Biden did in Buffalo, New York, last week, I am not familiar with it. Nor are you.

Biden used the terrible mass shooting of black people in a Buffalo grocery store to smear America, divide Americans, and foment race-based hatred. A decent man would have given an entirely different speech.

A decent man would have gone to Buffalo and said something like this:

My fellow Americans, what happened here in Buffalo was pure evil. Let there be no equivocating about this moral fact. If evil exists, what happened here was evil. But, my fellow Americans, this young man and his race-based homicidal hatred represents an infinitesimally small number of Americans, white or otherwise.

The overwhelming majority of Americans of every race, ethnicity, and religion get along with each other beautifully. We work alongside each other, date each other, socialize with one another, and marry one another. We are the most successful experiment in creating a multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious country in world history. The actions of a deranged teenager do not change this fact.

Instead, the hater-in-chief went to Buffalo and said:

What happened here is simple and straightforward: terrorism. Terrorism. Domestic terrorism. Violence inflicted in the service of hate and the vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group. A hate that, through the media and politics, the internet, has radicalized angry, alienated and lost individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced. That’s the word. Replaced by ‘the other.’ By people who don’t look like them.

Look, we’ve seen the mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina; El Paso, Texas; in Pittsburgh. Last year, in Atlanta. This week, in Dallas, Texas, and now in Buffalo. In Buffalo, New York. White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison. It really is. Running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes. No more. I mean, no more. We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America. None …

Look, the American experiment in democracy is in a danger like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. It’s in danger this hour. Hate and fear are being given too much oxygen by those who pretend to love America, but who don’t understand America. …

Now is the time for the people of all races, from every background, to speak up as a majority in America and reject white supremacy …

We have to refuse to live in a country where black people going about a weekly grocery shopping can be gunned down by weapons of war deployed in a racist cause …

As noted earlier, this was not only a hate-filled speech; it was a speech of the Big Lie. The Big Lie of white supremacy as a major threat to America generally and to black America specifically.

Let’s examine each of the examples of white supremacist mass shootings he gave:

“Charleston, South Carolina”
Seven years ago, Dylann Roof killed nine black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

“El Paso, Texas”
In 2019, a 21-year-old white racist, Patrick Wood Crusius, killed 23 people and wounded 21 others at a Walmart store. The great majority of his victims were Hispanic.

“Pittsburgh”
In 2018, a white antisemite, Robert Gregory Bowers, murdered 11 Jews attending Sabbath services at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. As was the case with the Buffalo shooter, Bowers was a deeply troubled man. His father, while on trial for rape, committed suicide when Bowers was 7 years old, and like all the examples Biden cited, he was a troubled loner. Neither he nor any of these other shooters worked in concert with any hate group or co-conspirators.

“Last Year in Atlanta”
In 2021, 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long killed eight people at three massage parlors. The killings were motivated by his sex addiction and his religious conviction that those who tempted him should be killed. Race had nothing to do with it.

“This Week in Dallas, Texas”
Last week in Dallas, Jeremy Smith shot and wounded three women of Asian descent.

Smith is a black man.

Why Biden included this shooting as an example of white supremacy is a puzzle. Why no mainstream media I could find noted and condemned this lie is not puzzling.

So, then, our hate-fomenting president mentioned six examples of “white supremacist” shootings. A total of two, one of them seven years ago, involved a white racist shooting black people. One involved a sex addict killing sex workers. One involved a black man shooting Asian people. One involved an antisemite targeting Jews. And one was a black man who shot Asian Americans.

With these examples, Biden went to a grieving black community to lie to them in order to stir up anger in them about the alleged scourge of white supremacist violence in this country.

At least half of this country knows why Biden did this:

First, to focus Americans’ attention on “white supremacy” rather than on the inflation, looming recession, food crisis, and energy crisis he and his party have created with their policies.

Second, to keep black Americans voting Democrat by saying to them, in effect: “You need protection from your fellow hate-filled Americans; we Democrats are your protectors.”

Meanwhile, 9,941 black Americans were killed in 2020. Nearly all were killed by other black people. But to Biden, his party, and the mainstream, i.e., left-wing, media, those black lives don’t matter. At all. Why not? Because they weren’t killed by white supremacists, and they therefore don’t serve the Democrats’ deliberately divisive narrative.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05/24/bidens-buffalo-speech-was-the-speech-of-an-indecent-man/ ?

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



May 25, 2022


Elgin Marbles were not 'hacked' from the Parthenon but were rescued from rubble, British Museum claims amid row over repatriation

The Greeks of classical times were very different from the people who inhabit Greece today. They were a leading civilization, not the parasites of today. So it is arguable that Britain has more right to the classical sculptures than modern-day Greece has

The British Museum has insisted its contested 'Elgin Marbles' sculptures were rescued from the Greek Parthenon and not ruthlessly stolen as a row deepens with Greek authorities over their repatriation.

Ministers from Greece and the UK are set to hold talks over the future of the sculptures, which campaigners claim were violently seized from the Acropolis by henchmen working for British diplomat and art collector Lord Elgin in 1801.

Greek Culture Minister Lina Mendoni says Lord Elgin committed 'blatant, serial theft' by taking the marbles.

The 2,500-year-old carvings are classed among the wonders of Ancient Greece and officials from Unesco have now waded in to help settle the quarrel, The Times reports.

Despite the controversial story of their acquisition, The British Museum's stance is that the marbles were rescued from rubble outside the Parthenon and were not highly prized.

Deputy director of the British Museum Dr Jonathan Williams said: '[They were] in fact removed from the rubble around the Parthenon.

'These objects were not all hacked from the building as has been suggested.'

The museum's attempt to reject the historical account of the sculptures' acquisition has been challenged by classicists.

Professor Paul Cartledge, a renowned classicist from Cambridge, is among those calling for the Elgin Marbles' return to Greece. He said: 'Undoubtedly a lot of hacking went on.'

However, Prof Cartledge also stated that the manner in which the items were taken is morally irrelevant, adding: 'They should all go back, however, obtained.'

Letters written to Lord Elgin by his subordinates in 1801 appear to support the Greek version of events, with a note from Giovanni Batista Lusieri confessing to his master that he 'had been obliged to be a little barbarous' in removing some sculptures from the Parthenon temple.

Greek Culture Minister Ms Mendoni added: 'Greek authortiies and the international scientific community have demonstrated with unshakeable arguments the true events surrounding the removal of the Parthenon sculptures.

'Lord Elgin used illicit and inequitable means to seize and export the Parthenon sculptures, without real legal permission to do so.'

After Lord Elgin acquired them in 1801, the sculptures were bought by the British Museum in 1816.

Unesco's Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property has told Britain it needs to adopt a more cooperative approach to those demanding the sculptures are returned to Greece.

***************************************************

Data Shows White Supremacists Are Not The Most Likely Mass Murderers

Democrats are lying to Americans about the most likely motivations for mass murderers and the prevalence of guns in violent crime.

In his Buffalo, New York speech last week following a mass shooting, President Biden showed he still has only two things on his mind regarding crime: guns and white supremacists.

No one can defend white supremacists. But with violent crime soaring and this latest attack in Buffalo, people want something done. Yet Biden’s agenda won’t make people safer.

“Look, we’ve seen the mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina; El Paso, Texas; in Pittsburgh. Last year in Atlanta. This week in Dallas, Texas, and now in Buffalo. In Buffalo, New York,” Biden said. “White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison. It really is. Running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes. No more. I mean, no more.”

Of the 82 mass public shootings from January 1998 to May 2021, 9 percent have known or alleged ties to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or anti-immigrant views. Many of the anti-immigrant attackers, such as the Buffalo murderer, hold decidedly environmentalist views that are more in line with the Democrat agenda.

Another 9 percent are carried out by people of Middle Eastern origin, who make up only 0.4 percent of the country’s population. That makes Middle Easterners the most likely ethnic or racial group to carry out mass public shooting

Seventy-one percent of mass public shooters have no identifiable political views. But you would never know this from watching TV police dramas or listening to Biden’s constant claim that white supremacists pose the biggest threat of domestic terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claimed in testimony in April that white supremacy is the top terrorism-related threat to the homeland. But when pressed, Mayorkas couldn’t name a single white supremacy case that his department referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

White supremacists with guns are not the threat that our government would have us believe. It’s not just that white supremacy is rare. So too are gun crimes. The number of gun crimes has been falling dramatically, and they now make up less than 8 percent of violent crimes in America. Yet we constantly hear the opposite from politicians who support gun restrictions.

It might not be easy to accept, but based on the evidence, focusing solely on guns and white supremacy isn’t a wise use of resources.

**************************************************

Flight Attendants Fired for Opposing Radical Equality Act Sue Alaska Airlines

Two flight attendants are fighting back after Alaska Airlines fired them because they dared to question the validity of the proposed federal Equality Act in a company forum.

First Liberty Institute on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Marli Brown and Lacey Smith on grounds of religious discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Alaska Airlines.

In February 2021, Alaska Airlines announced on an internal employee message board it was going to support passage of the federal Equality Act. If enacted, the Equality Act would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. Employees were invited to comment.

Smith asked: “As a company, do you think it’s possible to regulate morality?”

Brown researched the Equality Act and discovered an article written and published by The Heritage Foundation, “11 Myths About H.R. 5, the Equality Act of 2021.” (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

After much prayer and thought, Brown posted a lengthy comment on the company’s message board based on what she’d read in the article:

Does Alaska support: endangering the Church, encouraging suppression of religious freedom, obliterating [women’s] rights and parental rights? This act will [force] every American to agree with controversial government-imposed ideology … or be treated as an outlaw.

The Equality Act demolishes existing civil rights and constitutional freedoms, which threatens constitutional freedoms by eliminating conscience protections from the Civil Rights Act.

The Equality Act would affect everything from girls’ and women’s showers and locker rooms to women’s shelters and women’s prisons, endangering safety and diminishing privacy.

Giving people blanket permission to enter private spaces for the opposite sex enables sexual predators to exploit the rules and gain easy access to victims. This is Equality Act …

The rest of Brown’s post was cut off due to character limitation. Her comments reflect her belief that the Equality Act would result in the violation of legal protections in the Civil Rights Act for religious people like her and for other girls and women.

Alaska Airlines didn’t need to enforce the Equality Act for Brown’s concerns to turn out to be true.

After the women posted their questions in good faith, Alaska Airlines launched an investigation, and they were eventually fired. The airline said the flight attendants had made “discriminatory” and “offensive” comments.

Alaska Airlines told the women:

Defining gender identity or sexual orientation as a moral issue, or questioning the Company’s support for the rights of all people regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, is not a philosophical question, but a discriminatory statement.

Your posting was offensive, discriminatory, and did not align with Alaska Airline’s values.

“Alaska Airlines ‘canceled’ Lacey and Marli because of their religious beliefs, flagrantly disregarding federal civil rights laws that protect people of faith from discrimination,” Stephanie Taub, senior counsel for the Plano, Texas-based First Liberty Institute, said in a statement.

It is a blatant violation of state and federal civil rights laws to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their religious beliefs and expression.

‘Woke’ corporations like Alaska Airlines think that they do not have to follow the law and can fire employees if they simply don’t like their religious beliefs.

This is another appalling example of the way big corporations that embrace the new “woke” standards on sexuality and gender identity treat employees with orthodox and traditional beliefs.

Instead of truly demonstrating inclusivity and diversity by treating all employees of all races, creeds, and beliefs equally, big corporations discriminate against—and even fire—those with orthodox views.

Those would be the very views Smith and Brown were worried would be squelched because of the Equality Act if it were to pass. It passed the House, but was filibustered in the Senate.

These two women were courageous to thoughtfully question today’s political dogma wrapped in a policy touted by the left. They are even more courageous now to stand up to their employer after being fired for their beliefs and concerns.

The firing of Brown and Smith for standing up for their Christian faith in the public sphere and questioning “progressive” policies is a flagrant violation of Title VII of federal law, which “prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color, and national origin.”

It’s disheartening to see anti-discrimination laws meant to protect people weaponized against those who are either religious or politically conservative, or who simply fail to march in lockstep with the left’s political and social agenda.

*****************************************

Christian Graphic Designer Fears for Her Life as Freedom of Speech Case Heads to Supreme Court

Lorie Smith left the corporate world in 2012 to form her own website design firm, 303 Creative, which soon flourished. But in 2016 she was asked to create a design conveying a same-sex marriage message that flatly violated her deeply held Christian faith.

Smith declined to do so and when it became clear a Colorado public accommodation law would be used to force her to create messages that she and other Coloradans did not support, or face harsh penalties, she decided she had to challenge the statute.

So she turned to the federal court system to uphold her First Amendment freedoms and six years later the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in her case later this year.

Now Smith fears for her life as she awaits the slow-turning of the wheels of justice—thanks to continuous terrifying harassment, including death threats, from activists seeking to suppress her Christian beliefs.

“I have received phone calls, I’ve had mail show up at my home, I have had people wish me really vile things, things that should not be repeated, threats of bodily harm, some really vile things,” Smith said in response to a question from The Epoch Times.

Asked if she feared for her life Smith quickly responded saying, “Of course. When you hear the things that I’ve heard it is terrifying. It definitely makes your skin crawl and the hair on your back stand up.”

Smith added that “my clients have been harassed, and I love all of them dearly. They’ve received threats, as well as ultimatums, which has been difficult.”

She said the ultimatums came from “the same groups of people who have been so hateful toward me, but they took it a step further. They figured out my clients’ contact information and harassed them as well.”

Smith’s comments came on May 18 during a discussion with reporters at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) headquarters in the nation’s capital. Smith is being represented by ADF, an Arizona-based public interest law firm that specializes in First Amendment and religious freedom cases. Her case is 303 Creative vs. Elenis.

Kristen Waggoner, ADF’s general counsel, told reporters that Smith had to appeal her case to the Supreme Court despite the multiple facts both sides of the litigation agreed on in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 10th Circuit ruled against Smith and in favor of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in a July 2021 decision in which the chief judge on the court dissented, calling the majority opinion “unprecedented” and “staggering” because the “Constitution protects Ms. Smith from the government telling her what to say …”

The chief judge also observed that, “Though I am loathe to reference [George] Orwell, the majority’s opinion endorses substantial government interference in matters of speech, religion, and conscience.

“Indeed, this case represents another chapter in the growing disconnect between the Constitution’s endorsement of pluralism of belief on the one hand and anti-discrimination laws’ restrictions of religious-based speech in the marketplace on the other.”

The judge was referring to Orwell’s famous quote that “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” He added that quote to his dissent text.

The first of the essential facts in the case that both sides accepted, Waggoner explained, was “that Lorie’s religious beliefs are central to her identity and that she strives to glorify God in everything she does. The second is that Lorie works with people from all walks of life, including those who identify as LGBT.”

Waggoner said, “the 10th Circuit also agreed that Lorie, like every other artist, serves everyone. Lorie chooses whether to create websites based on their content, not based on the person that requests that content, and the 10th Circuit agreed with that fact as well. Lorie’s websites are protected speech under the First Amendment, and the 10th Circuit agreed with that.”

Even so, she said, “the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that the government can actually compel Lorie’s speech, even though it admitted that her decisions hinge on what the message is in the speech and not the person who requests it.”

Waggoner described the decision as “absolutely unprecedented,” and said “our government’s duty is to protect freedom, not to take it away. So, if the government has the power to force Lorie to speak a message, then it can force any one of us to speak a message.”

The Supreme Court accepted Smith’s case in February. Waggoner said that law enforcement authorities will be contacted if Smith continues to receive harassment and threats.

Waggoner said she will be filing briefs to the High Court next week, and Colorado will then have several months to reply. Amicus briefs supporting Smith are due June 2. Oral arguments could come as early as October.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Tuesday, May 24, 2022


Netflix Cracks Down on Employee Activism. Is Woke Capital in Retreat?

Not everything that goes woke goes broke. But if you’re going broke, you better ditch the woke.

That’s what’s going on at Netflix, the online subscription streaming service that’s fallen on hard times.

Netflix announced that it lost over 200,000 subscribers in the first three months of the year and expects to lose millions more by the end of July. The company also lost tens of billions of dollars in market value after these announcements.

Clearly, Netflix is operating on much tighter margins than it once did.

The next step it took was remarkable given the collective left-wing turn of corporate America.

Netflix released a “culture” memo to employees that included sections telling them that if the shows or artists in the company’s programming offends them, they will have to deal with it or find another job.

“Not everyone will like—or agree with—everything on our service,” the memo says in a section about artistic expression. “While every title is different, we approach them based on the same set of principles: we support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with; we program for a diversity of audiences and tastes; and we let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices.”

The memo went even further, saying, “If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

This appears to be a response to protests of Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special “The Closer,” which provoked employee walkouts.

In the special, Chappelle made some—by his standards—rather mild jokes about transgender ideology. Apparently, the most “offensive” thing he said was that “gender is a fact.”

Employees melted down.

Woke zealots don’t have a sense of humor. And they don’t like jokes, as a counterprotester found out when he attended the Netflix walkout.

The disciples of tolerance don’t tolerate even the hint of poking fun at the things they care about. For all their talk about protecting marginalized groups, they are firmly committed to marginalizing, canceling, and destroying anyone who disagrees with their cherished narratives.

Given this reality, it’s hard not to see how this is problematic for an entertainment company trying to appeal to diverse audiences and not just the cult of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Netflix is doing even more than just cracking down on out-of-control employees. Several woke shows are also reportedly being shelved. The list includes Ibram X. Kendi’s “Antiracist Baby,” a children’s program that was going to be aimed at preschoolers.

The show, based on Kendi’s children’s book of the same name, was meant to “leverage the power of earwormy songs to empower kids and their caregivers with simple tools to uproot racism in ourselves and society.”

**************************************************

Elon Musk Responds to Twitter Employee Mocking His Asperger’s Syndrome

Alex Martinez, identified by Project Veritas as Twitter’s lead client partner, was allegedly recorded criticizing Musk’s takeover attempt and made a reference to Musk previously saying he has Asperger’s.

“He has Asperger’s. So he’s special!” Martinez said in the video, released Tuesday. “You’re special needs! You’re literally special needs.” He added, “So I can’t even take what you’re saying seriously.”

Musk issued a response to the video, saying: “Twitter exec trashing free speech & mocking people with Asperger’s …” He then pinned the Twitter post to his page for a period of time.

Another video that was released by Project Veritas a day before appeared to show another Twitter employee, senior engineer Siru Murugesan, who said in the undercover video that Twitter “does not believe in free speech” and accused Musk of being a “capitalist.” His fellow colleagues, meanwhile, are “socialist” and “commie as [expletive].”

“Ideologically, it does not make sense, like, because we’re actually censoring the right and not the left,” Murugesan said to an undercover Project Veritas journalist. “So everyone on the right will be like, ‘Bro, it’s okay to say it, just gotta tolerate it.’ The left will be like, ‘No, I’m not gonna tolerate it. I need it censored or else I’m not gonna be on the platform.’ So it does that on the right. It’s true. There is bias.”

Murugesan said the idea of Musk, the world’s richest person, taking over the company wouldn’t be favored by some of Twitter’s employees. However, Murugesan said he would be fine with the takeover.

“Some of my colleagues are like super left, left, left, left, left… They’re like, ‘This would be my last day,’” he said in the video. “We did all we could to, like, revolt against it. A lot of the employees revolted against it, but at the end of the day, the board of directors have the say and then they acted on their best interests because they didn’t wanna get sued.”

Last month, Musk and Twitter’s board announced he would attempt to purchase the firm for $44 billion, although the deal hit a snag after the billionaire started to publicly question how many automated accounts or bots were present on the platform. On Friday, he said he is still committed to the deal.

************************************************

Justice coming for the ‘Dirty 51’ Hunter Biden laptop liars

One of the most galling aspects of the Hunter Biden laptop saga is that the 51 former intelligence officials who played such a critical role in suppressing The Post’s stories and giving Joe Biden cover before the 2020 election have never been brought to account.

The “Dirty 51” lied by painting our stories as Russian disinformation in an Oct. 19, 2020, letter they signed and delivered to Politico five days after The Post exposé and three days before the final presidential debate of the election campaign.

They used the institutional weight of their powerful former roles to legitimize partisan political propaganda designed to smear The Post and everyone associated with the story and dissuade the rest of the media from looking deeper into the laptop.

The letter, titled “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden emails,” and signed by former CIA Directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Mike Hayden, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and other ex-spooks, claimed the material on Hunter’s hard drive “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” although not one of them had seen it.

Their lie “probably affected the outcome” of the 2020 presidential race, as former Attorney General William Barr has said, describing the letter as “partisan hackery,” “baseless” and signed by “a coterie of retired intelligence officials who had lost their professional bearings.”

Yet they have never apologized or retracted their lie. In fact, when The Post contacted the group in March, after the New York Times belatedly acknowledged the laptop was real, some, like Clapper, doubled down.

One former CIA officer who signed the letter, John Sipher, boasted that he took “special pride in personally swinging the election away from Trump.”

“I lost the election for Trump?” wrote Sipher during a Twitter spat with a former Trump official. “Well then I [feel] pretty good about my influence.”

The arrogance of these Deep Staters tells you that they believe they will get away with lying to influence an election.

But there’s one person with a bee in his bonnet who isn’t going to let the story go: Donald Trump.

The former president has sicced uber-attorney Tim Parlatore on the Dirty 51. On Wednesday, Parlatore launched the first stage of a multi-prong strategy to make those who signed the letter pay for the damage they have wrought to freedom of the press, election integrity and the welfare of the nation.

His goal is to uncover alleged communications between the Dirty 51 and the Biden campaign.

Parlatore began by filing five letters of complaint with the agencies that formerly employed the 51, including the CIA — which counted 43 of its former officials among the group — the National Security Agency, the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense.

‘Egregious breach’

Each letter complains of “an egregious breach” by former agency employees “that appears to have been overlooked by your agency, as it has gone uninvestigated and certainly unpunished. Specifically, the unauthorized publication and dissemination of an intelligence assessment, purportedly based on classified information, that was used wrongfully to influence the outcome of an election.”

It points out that each of the Dirty 51 was “bound by the lifelong obligation” to submit the letter to their former agencies for pre-publication security review to ensure it didn’t contain classified information, a process that could take several months. The letter then would have been stamped with a disclaimer that the agency was not vouching for its accuracy.

“That would have destroyed the usefulness of the document,” says Parlatore, “plus the process would have delayed it so long, it would not be useful” because the election would have been over.

Letters were sent to John Hoffister Hedley, chairman of the Prepublication Classification Review Board at the CIA; Gen. Paul Nakasone, director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command; Christine Abizaid, director of the National Counterterrorism Center at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Caroline Krass, general counsel, Department of Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review; and Avril Haines, director of the Information Management Division in the Office of the DNI.

*************************************************

Australia set to sign Geneva’s Global Pandemic Treaty

The ‘New Normal’ of medical fascism is coming regardless of how Australians vote at the federal election.

Having acquired a taste for globalised control during the Covid pandemic, the World Health Organisation has teamed up with vaccine manufacturers, philanthropic billionaires, and power-crazed world leaders to create a ‘Global Pandemic Treaty’ in Geneva.

It is set to form part of the ‘one health’ approach proposed by the WHO and has been pitched by its creators as a way to overcome the inconvenient battle between – as they put it – globalism and statism.

According to International Affairs who were reviewing the treaty, the globalist approach ‘shares many overlapping values with that of a transnational cosmopolitan, medical humanitarianism or moral egalitarian world-view, rooted in the Kantian logic of universal community’ while the statist approach is a nationalist one that might ‘undermine’ global efforts.

In June of 2021, Scott Morrison commented on the proposed treaty, saying:

‘It’s essential that we strengthen global (disease) surveillance and provide the World Health Organisation with the authority and the capacity to do this important job for all the peoples of the world. If we are to deliver on this ambitious reform agenda, then we must work together and put other issues aside.’

Yes, the same Prime Minister who attempted to escape criticism by saying ‘there’s no such thing as vaccine mandates’ is champing at the bit to grant the WHO absolute control over the health choices of Australian citizens. It amounts to extending similar emergency powers to the WHO that Daniel Andrews gifted himself in Victoria – except Australians can’t vote the WHO out of power. As for Labor, they have laid down at the feet of the WHO, tummies up and paws in the air like dogs waiting for a rub.

The advertised pretext for a global health treaty is that countries were wrongly allowed to take bespoke approaches to Covid – in particular, their vaccine roll-outs. According to the WHO, this endangered the health of the whole planet.

A more accurate reading of the situation comes from discussions had at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations launched at the World Economic Forum in 2017, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and a consortium of nations that include Australia. The Liberal government pledged a further $100 million to CEPI in March, 2022 to add to the $1.5 billion it has raised from other governments.

As explained in a previous Spectator Australia article, CEPI’s mission is to create ‘equitable access to vaccines’ because they do not like the volatility (and competition) of the free market. This is the same organisation that poured a fortune into RNA and mRNA vaccines for the WHO’s DiseaseX scenario which – less than a year later – was put into emergency production to combat Covid as a ‘proof of concept’ exercise. Their stated objective from the beginning, long before Covid, has been to find a way to force Western governments to purchase vaccines in bulk for the Third World under the banner of ‘equity’.

The handling of the Covid pandemic is being used as an excuse to justify what was already designed and publicised. In this light, the proposed Global Pandemic Treaty is – first and foremost – a trillion-dollar business deal.

Being discussed is a $10 billion per year ‘preparedness fund’ along with an additional $100 billion emergency fund – that you pay for. Who knows what else is coming…

The World Health Organisation often complains about free will when it comes to national pandemic responses. We now know that nations like Sweden were able to provide real-world data that contradicted much of the ‘approved’ health advice issued by the WHO. We also know that the WHO ‘leaned on’ European nations that tried to go their own way with health directives.

If anything, one of the great weaknesses of the Covid pandemic response was the uniform approach enacted by world leaders that copied Communist China in their locking down of nations, unethical medical coercion of citizens, and widespread police brutality. How much worse would the behaviour of state premiers, prime ministers, and presidents have been if their actions were ‘legalised’ by an international treaty with no possible recourse for citizens? There is certainly no confirmation that the WHO took the correct approach, considering some of the countries who deviated from the norm did better than the average of obedient nations.

Worse, the nation that caused the pandemic – China – is one of the notable absences from the treaty. What is the point of enacting the treaty if Patient Zero refuses to come to the table? It’s a bit like the United Nations’ Climate Change promises that don’t include the world’s largest polluter.

Further difficulty is being created by the reputation of the WHO. Historically, the WHO has hardly been a reliable or independent body worthy of wielding absolute power over the global health decisions. Its leader, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was controversially backed by Xi Jinping’s government in a nasty election process. Tedros, in turn, was criticised for shielding China from investigation over the outbreak of Covid that (almost certainly) escaped from a Level 4 Viral Lab in Wuhan. On repeated occasions, advice issued by the WHO was found to be inconsistent or simply wrong, while they issued eye-brow raising changes to long-held dictionary definitions of fundamental concepts like ‘herd immunity’ and ‘vaccines’, let alone the near comical back-flipping on mask advice.

It is not the sort of behaviour that instils confidence. This is before addressing the recorded failures and subsequent investigations into WHO practices in the Third World. If anything, what the world desperately needs is independent thought in pandemic responses – a free market of ideas where merit, not compliance, is given the opportunity to advance health.

If Anthony Albanese signs this treaty, it represents a seismic shift in everything we thought we knew about democracy.

It is likely the treaty will make it possible for a foreign bureaucracy with unacceptably close ties to China to call the shots – literally – on global public health. Universal healthcare was meant to be a voluntary safety net – not a stepping stone to international socialism or the dissolution of body autonomy. That said, the wheels are already falling off, with questions being raised about whether it will be a ‘treaty’ in the legal sense after parts of the WHO Constitution were re-worded.

The vote for this dangerous Pandemic Treaty will be held in Geneva on May 22-28. The Prime Minister of Australia will be there will bells on, ready to sign and absolve himself of the ‘bother’ of responsibility. It is a dream come true for weak leaders who would love nothing better than to let the blame for the next pandemic and the accompanying citizen outrage rest safely offshore.

Among the horrors facing Australia if the treaty were to proceed are the advertised promises of global tracking (most likely through the World Economic Forum’s Digital Identity policy linked to health passes), mandatory vaccination of all citizens, and the ability for the WHO to declare and sustain a pandemic along with its emergency powers.

Lately, international treaties have been used to undemocratically circumnavigate the sovereign will of nations. A treaty is a powerful legal document that leaders use to defy public opinion. While the United Nations cannot force a country to honour its ink-mark (as we saw with China’s shredding of the Sino-British Joint Declaration), Western leaders frequently brandish these treaties as security blankets to justify unpopular policy.

‘The ongoing chaos of this pandemic only underlines why the world needs an ironclad global agreement to set the rule of the game for pandemic preparedness and response,’ said WHO Director General, Dr Tedros.

Or – stay with me on this one – the WHO could do its actual job and properly investigate China and its medical partners for dangerous and experimental gain of function research in dodgy labs.

Will Australia vote for freedom?

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Monday, May 23, 2022

Australia's new Leftist government got less than a third of the vote

It's legitimate under Australian electoral law but it indicates only the weakest support for Leftism

Incoming NDIS Minister Bill Shorten says while the Morrison government had “run out of puff, Labor can’t “walk away” from their historically low primary vote.

After losing the “unloseable” 2019 federal election, Mr Shorten said the qualitative difference between the two polls was that Scott Morrison’s promise to “just be a daggy dad who wouldn’t cause much harm” had proven to be a lie.

“But more importantly, it feels like a national sigh of relief. The Morison government had run out of puff arguably like this to happen three years ago,” he told Sky News on Monday.

With less than one in three Australians voting for Labor as their first preference, Mr Shorten said he wasn’t going to “walk away” from the challenge of improving Labor’s primary vote, but rejected the narrative Labor's low primary meant the party had not “won the election”.

“When you look at where people put their second preferences, more Australians wanted Labor to be in charge than Liberal. But I don't walk away from the challenge of wanting to improve Labor’s primary vote,” he said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/politicsnow-survivor-dutton-in-box-seat-to-lead-libs/live-coverage/ce067d10e53c1c1dabbf135d6c0950e2

*********************************************




A black trainee vicar was blocked from becoming a Church of England priest after a white bishop voiced concerns about his belief that Britain was not institutionally racist

So who are the bigots here?  The Anglican episcopate are, it seems to me.  The bishops have a bigoted view of ordinary English people.  They have a sweepingly negative view of one group based mainly on supposition.  If that is not bigotry, I would like to know what it is.  They are clearly conventional Leftists rather than Christians.  They are condemning their neighbour rather than loving him.

In Galatians 3:28, Paul explicitly rejected such discrimination.  He said: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"  Maybe that verse got left out of the Church of England Bible

Mind you, one just has to look at the absurd "Bishop of London" below  to know that the C of E has zero respect for Bible teachings.  She is probably a nice lady but she is nothing like an episkopos of the New Testament church



See 1 Corinthians 14:33–35; 1 Tim. 3:1-7;  1 Cor. 11:3-16; 1 Tim. 2:11-15



In the latest storm to hit the Church, Calvin Robinson, a TV presenter and political commentator, accused senior figures last night of torpedoing his planned ordination because of his conservative and anti-woke views.

Internal emails obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby asked to be shown examples of Mr Robinson’s tweets amid mounting alarm within the Church over his criticism of ‘bleeding-heart liberal vicars’ and the Church’s race policy.

In one, The Rt Rev Rob Wickham, Bishop of Edmonton, voiced his fears to senior church leaders after Mr Robinson insisted that Britain was not riven with racism. ‘Calvin’s comments concern me about denying institutional racism in this country,’ he wrote.

Mr Robinson also claimed that the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Sarah Mullally, lectured him about racism in the church, insisting that ‘as a white woman I can tell you that the Church is institutionally racist’.

Mr Robinson, a former teacher who has trained for two years to become an ordained member of the clergy, has been told that plans for him to serve as a deacon at a parish in London have been axed.

Last night he described the decision as ‘soul-destroying’ and claimed it followed a ‘sustained campaign’ against him by the Bishop of Edmonton over his views, including on whether Britain and the Church were institutionally racist. ‘These people are claiming they are institutionally racist, yet they are disregarding the opinion of an ethnic minority because it is not fitting their narrative,’ he said.

In comments set to rock the Church’s hierarchy, he questioned whether the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has claimed the Church is ‘deeply institutionally racist’, had a part in blocking his ordination.

‘I would love to know how big a role the Archbishop had in it because he has certainly been a part of the conversation. He is the boss and the fact they have gone ahead and cancelled me suggests that he was happy with that.’

The controversy comes after the Archbishop was criticised for using his Easter Day sermon to attack Government plans to send migrants to Rwanda as ungodly.

The Church said last night there were only a few clergy positions in London and ‘no suitable option’ available in London for Mr Robinson, who became a trainee vicar – an ordinand – at St Stephen’s House, a theological college at the University of Oxford, in October 2020.

The emails reveal that even before starting his studies, Mr Robinson’s public comments were being scrutinised by church leaders. He claimed on ITV’s Good Morning Britain in September 2020 that the Black Lives Matter movement was stoking racial tensions, adding: ‘There are elements of racism in this country we need to stamp out, but while we are seeing everything as racist we are kind of undermining those racial issues we need to address.’

That day the Bishop of Edmonton emailed the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Sarah Mullally, and a PR adviser to the Diocese of London to register ‘concern’ about Mr Robinson’s denial of institutional racism in Britain. ‘Calvin Robinson is not only a political commentator, but he’s an ordinand and former teacher in this area,’ he added. Despite the Church’s view on racism, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities concluded in March 2021 that Britain did not have a systemic racism problem. In November 2021 senior Church leaders received a complaint after Mr Robinson shared on social media a Daily Mail investigation that exposed how the Church gave official advice that being baptised could help failed asylum seekers stay in Britain.

It followed news that suicide bomber Enzo Almeni, who detonated a device at a hospital in Liverpool last year, was baptised there as a Christian in 2015. Mr Robinson, by then a GB News commentator, tweeted that ‘misguided bleeding-heart liberal vicars could be complicit in recent terror attack’, adding: ‘Not to mention abuse of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism.’

Bishop Wickham criticised the ‘highly irresponsible’ comments in an email to Emma Ineson, assistant bishop to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and said they remained online after 27 migrants died in the English Channel. ‘These are clear examples as to why, in my opinion, his ordination should be looked at very closely indeed,’ he wrote. ‘Calvin’s Twitter feed is here. It is worth scrolling down.’ He revealed the Archbishop of Canterbury had ‘asked for examples of Calvin Robinson’s tweets’ and highlighted that Mr Robinson had also criticised the findings of the Church’s anti-racism taskforce, which recommended quotas to boost the number of black and ethnic-minority senior clergy. Bishop Ineson said she would show the information to Archbishop Welby.

Mr Robinson was to be ordained as a deacon with a part-time role as assistant curate at St Alban’s Church in Holborn, central London. But in February the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Rev Jonathan Baker, told him the role was ‘likely to prove problematic, and would not lead to a fruitful or happy formation for you in your early years in ordained ministry’. Mr Robinson offered to reduce his media work but was told he would still not be able to take up the proposed role because ‘that moment had passed’.

At a meeting with Mr Robinson this month, Bishop Mullally insisted the decision was not about his politics, but because his ‘presence’ on social media and TV ‘is often divisive and brings disunity’.

Tory MP Tom Hunt backed Mr Robinson last night, saying: ‘The message the Church seems comfortable to send out is that it’s OK to propagate some political views but not others. Sadly, Church of England congregations will continue to decline as millions of Christians are alienated by its behaviour.’

Mr Robinson announced last night he was leaving the Church of England and joining the breakaway conservative Global Anglican Future Conference.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishops of Edmonton and London declined to comment. The Diocese of London said: ‘We have a limited number of curacies available. In this instance, it is felt that there is no suitable option available that London can offer. We continue to be in conversation with Calvin, are willing to work with him to discern the right way forward, and we keep him in our prayers.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10840691/Black-priest-Calvin-Robertson-said-Britain-NOT-racist-country-BLOCKED-priest.html

***********************************************

Men's and women's national soccer teams to get equal split of prize money


This is NOT equal pay for equal work.  It is unfair discrimination.  The men bring in much more revenue than the women -- mainly because it is the men that people want to watch.  But I guess the split is chivalrous


The unions for the United States men's and women's national soccer teams have ratified new collective bargaining agreements with U.S. Soccer that include an equal split of World Cup bonuses, the federation and the two unions announced on Wednesday.

The two CBAs will go into effect on June 1 and will last until the end of 2028. The U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association (USNSTPA), which represented the men's players, had been operating without a CBA since the end of 2018. The deal for the U.S. Women's National Team Players Association (USWNTPA) expired at the end of 2021, though it had been extended.

The agreements are a promise kept by U.S. Soccer Federation president Cindy Parlow Cone, who had vowed that new CBAs would need to address the equal pay issue of World Cup bonuses. The CBAs also put into effect the much-celebrated financial settlement between the USWNT and the federation, which was announced in February after years of legal jostling.

"I've been saying it for a long time. I wanted to lead on this. I wanted U.S. Soccer to lead on this," Cone told ESPN via a video call. "But we couldn't do it alone. We needed both the men's players and the men's [union] and the women's players and the women's [union] to come together in one room to negotiate a contract.

"And I'll be honest, there were days that I didn't think we were going to get it across the line. But we are here, and I'm just so incredibly proud of what we have accomplished and what it is going to mean, not only for the game here in the U.S. but globally."

The deals change the dynamic between the two teams. Before, they were competing for attention and resources from the USSF. Now, they're working together to benefit both unions.

"I'm really excited to start this partnership almost fresh, a clean slate. We're working together," said Nashville SC defender Walker Zimmerman, a member of the USNSTPA's leadership team. "We have accomplished so much together with this revolutionary CBA, and certainly we're [going to] be cheering like crazy, because that's exactly what this CBA is. It's equal. We will be their biggest fans. I'm sure they will be our biggest fans, as well."

U.S. Soccer president: New CBA agreement a truly historic momentU.S. Soccer president Cindy Parlow Cone explains the details of the new CBAs for the USMNT and USWNT.
As women's national team forward Midge Purce, a member of the union's CBA committee, added, "I think what this CBA does is it finally creates that 'One Nation. One Team.' And I think that it's really brought us together under that ideology that we've been chasing after for a really long time."

The respective unions will receive 90% of the FIFA bonuses paid at the 2022 and 2023 World Cups and 80% of the bonuses at the 2026 and 2027 editions. All of the funds paid out from those bonus pools will be split evenly among the two national teams. FIFA has announced that the entire bonus pool for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar will be $400 million, while the bonuses for the women's tournament in Australia in 2023 will be $60 million. In the previous World Cup cycle, the last-place men's team won more prize money than the first-place women's team.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states-usaw/story/4668464/uswntusmnt-get-equal-split-of-world-cup-bonuses-in-new-cbas

***************************************************

Testosterone Treatment Turns Democrat Voters More Conservative


The implications of this are not obvious.  There have been various claims that men are more conservative than women but the vote at election time normally splits pretty evenly between men and women. so there is not an overall political differnce between men and women.  But what was found below concerned only "weakly-affiliated Democrats" so they would appear to be a special case. It may mean that they swing easily, which would be good news

Increased testosterone levels can cause Democrats to become more conservative in their political affiliation, a recent experiment analyzing voters in U.S. elections found.

The study – Testosterone Administration Induces A Red Shift in Democrats – was published on November 14th, 2021 by Professor Paul Zak, the Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University.

“His research has made a substantial impact in explaining the variation in human social behaviors and has been cited by other scholars over 18,000 times placing in the top 0.3% of all scholars,” explains his professional biography.

Zak’s latest findings reveal a link between testosterone levels and political preference through analyzing 136 voting-age males throughout the 2012 election season.

“Our results demonstrate that testosterone induces a “red shift” among weakly-affiliated Democrats,” summarized the paper.

Researchers administered synthetic testosterone or placebo to participants who previously disclosed their political affiliations, allowing researchers to track how the hormone affected participants’ politics.

“When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party fell by 12 percent and they reported 45 percent warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president,” explained the study.

“Before the testosterone treatment, we found that weakly affiliated Democrats had 19 percent higher basal testosterone than those who identified strongly with the party,” the study continues, reiterating the correlation between individuals with lower testoreone having left-wing political beliefs.

While the effects of testosterone waned with individuals who were staunch Democrats or weak Republicans, “our findings provide evidence that neuroactive hormones affect political preferences,” posits the study.

The study comes amidst an ongoing discussion about declining testosterone levels in the U.S. and mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times attacking Fox News host Tucker Carlson for addressing the issue in a recent documentary.

The unearthed link between hormones and political ideology also follows scientists floating “morality pills” as a method to enforce COVID-19 mandate compliance.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05/18/ncreased-testosterone-levels-turns-voters-more-conservative/

****************************************

My other blogs.  Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)  

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************





Sunday, May 22, 2022


Jesus of Nazareth and White Evangelical Fragility

There is an article below by an atheist who is very hostile to evangelical Christianity. The points he makes are actually a fairly common critique of such faith. In essence, he is noting that Christians often don't act in a Christian way. They do not actually follow the teachings of Christ. They are too stern, too strict, too intolerant.

And there is no doubt some truth in that. Committed Christianity can be very demanding. And those demands upset our author. But I too am an atheist and I am not nearly as judgmental about evangelical Christianity as he is. Why?

I think there are two things missing in his story. He has no religious feelings and he is intolerant of human frailty.

He also does not understand the origin of Western Christianity as we have it today. Protestant Christianity arose in Germany through the efforts of Martin Luther and his King, Frederick the Wise of Saxony. There had been many other uprisings against Roman Catholicism in Europe before that, and from Giordano Bruno to John Hus to Savonarola, those rebellions resulted in the death of the rebels and no change to the dominance of the church.

So why did the rebellion of the Saxons led by Martin Luther succeed where others had not? It was because it took place in Germany. Germans were different. They were a warrior race and were, as such, fiercely self-confident and independent. Bowing down to priests was not congenial to them. So when the oppportunity arose, they eventually rejected Catholicism in favour of attitudes which were more congenial to them.

They embraced beliefs that centred around the sort of independent individuals that they personally were. The Germanic spirit of independence emerged in a form of Christianity that suited Northern Germans, a form that put power and responsibility for salvation right back on to the individual, with no intervening priest needed.

Luther was a learned Augustinian priest so he was able to find ample scriptural justification for the new faith. Ultimately, however, Protestantism was as much German as Biblical. Protestantism is a German faith


The Saxons in Germany today. For some history of the Saxons see here

And one might note that the other great Germanic country -- aside from Germany itself -- England -- was not so different. In England, Wycliffe was saying the same sort of things that Luther was saying long before Luther said them. And Wycliffe too had the protective support of the King and his court. Wycliffe was over a century before Luther in fact. Luther wrote his "Ninety-five Theses" in 1517 whereas Wycliffe was officially condemned in 1377 by Pope Gregory XI.

The difference with Wycliffe was that he tried to reform the church rather than replace it. He actually died while saying a mass. So Wycliffe might at first glance be seen as another failed rebel. He was not. What he did was set alight a fire in the minds of Englishmen that eventually consumed the church even more comprehensively than Lutheranism did.

He had awakened the old rebellious spirit of the Saxons and that spirit was the principal support for the actions of King Henry VIII. When Henry dispossessed the priests and rejected the Papacy, the people loved him for it. They supported their King, not their priests. Wycliffe had lit a slow-burning fuse that eventually gave rise to an explosion. And that fuse kept burning for so long because it was founded on a Saxon independence of mind among the people. Wycliffe died in 1384, Henry became king in 1509.

I have in a much abbreviated way raised above a large number of issues about Germans and the Germanic people, and I understand that some of my readers may have energetic criticisms of what I have said. So it may be of interest that I cover those issues elsewhere at much greater length.

So my point in all this so far is that looking to the Bible to understand Protestant Christianity is to miss half the story. To an extent what people of German and English ancestry do today reflects German values, not the attitudes of Jesus of Nazareth. If Protestants are demanding and unforgiving of others, they are so because of the Germanic faith that their ancestors devised and which still sounds right to them, the descendants. Their ancestry lives on in them.

And at that point I think I might add a personal note. In my mid-teens, I was an active member of probably the most evangelical Protestant faith in the Western world today -- _ Jehovah's witnesses. And they are very strict and Puritanical Christians indeed. So was I oppressed by them? Maybe but, if so, I loved it. My time as an extreme evangelical is still a warm and pleasant memory to me. The religion suited me. It was in my ancestry. I was true to my Germanic ancestors. And the large number of people with similar ancestry in America today is a major explanation for the prominence of evangelical Christianity there.

It is obvious that there is no one-to-one correspondence between Germanic ancestry and evangelical Protestantism. After all, Germany is still half Catholic to this day. But, as any German will tell you, Germany is not monolithic. As a very rough generalization,the South is Catholic and the North is Protestant. Be that as it may, however, there are many influences bearing on faith or the lack of it but my submission is that ancestry is one of the more powerful influences on it

So our author below is in my submission unsympathetic to evangelical Protestantism because he does not have the requisite religious feelings for it. He does not have the old tough and fierce Germanic attitude of mind that would give him an instinctive understanding of it. And for all his praise of tolerance and kindness he is intolerant of the failings of ordinary Christians. As Christians sometimes say, "We are saved, not perfect"




If Jesus of Nazareth was an actual human who actually existed, this is, apparently, what that man looked like, according to an artist and an algorithm and actual, historical, data (as opposed to a story that white people tell each other).

I am an atheist. I do not believe in god, or the devil, or heaven, or hell. But I like and respect this guy. He was a rebel, he was an antiauthoritarian, he dedicated his life to helping the poor, the sick, the indigent, the people who were discarded and rejected by society. He hung out with sex workers and lepers, and gave comfort to the sick and suffering, and he loudly and relentlessly called out the hypocrisy of the church and its leaders. As I understand it, he was like, “Hey, you’re a sinner. That’s a bummer. Let me help you be a better person. No, I don’t expect anything from you for that. I just want to be as loving as I can be.” He was a really cool guy. He was also a revolutionary, a rebel, a profound threat to the people who were in power at the time.

This guy, in this picture, is not the Jesus I was introduced to in parochial school. The Jesus I was introduced to was soooooo white, like super super super white, and he was keeping an eye on you so he could snitch on you to his dad, who was SUPER PISSED AT EVERYTHING YOU DID all the time for some reason. The Jesus I knew was, like, maybe going to be okay with you, as long as you knew what a giant fuck up you were. And he was absolutely not accepting of anyone who didn’t do exactly what the authority figures at school told us we had to do. And Reagan was essentially his avatar sent to Earth. If we didn’t worship Reagan the same way we were supposed to worship white Jesus, we were going to have a REALLY bad time. Did I mention that I was, like, 8 when all of this was drilled into me?

I deeply resent American Christianity. It has brought nothing but pain into my life. I deeply resent and despise evangelical Christians who turned this guy in this picture, who was reportedly a cool, loving, gentle, dude, who was a legit rebel, into someone who hates all the same things they hate, and who LOVES authoritarians the same way they do. I despise the people who do all sorts of cruel, hurtful, hateful things in this guy’s name. And they are EVERYWHERE in America.

I don’t know what it’s like in the rest of the world. What I do know is that, in America, this person has been perverted into a weapon, a cudgel, to be used against the same people the actual Jesus loved and stood up for. It’s disgusting.

And, look, if someone professes to follow the teachings of this dude, whose WHOLE FUCKING THING was “love everyone. Period. No exceptions”, and they don’t, like, do that? They are as bad as the money changers in the temple. I know that this dude loves them, because that’s his whole thing, but I suspect that, if this dude exists, he is disappointed and maybe a little embarrassed by them.

As an afterthought: I can’t stop thinking about how this dude was an immigrant, and poor. I keep thinking that, if he showed up in … let’s say Texas, today, how badly he would be treated by the very same people who use his name and pervert his teachings to exert control over the very same people Jesus spent his entire life looking after.

And, honestly, none of this would even matter if the American Christian extremists would keep their white Jesus out of our laws and government.

**********************************************

Have the Left broken America's backbone?

Americans are now entering uncharted, revolutionary territory. They may witness things over the next five months that once would have seemed unimaginable.

Until the Ukrainian conflict, we had never witnessed a major land war inside Europe directly involving a nuclear power.

In desperation, Russia’s impaired and unhinged leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin, now talks trash about the likelihood of nuclear war.

A 79-year-old President Joe Biden bellows back that his war-losing nuclear adversary is a murderer, a war criminal, and a butcher who should be removed from power.

After a year of politicizing the U.S. military and its self-induced catastrophe in Afghanistan, America has lost deterrence abroad. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia are conniving how best to exploit this rare window of global military opportunity.

The traditional bedrocks of the American system—a stable economy, energy independence, vast surpluses of food, hallowed universities, a professional judiciary, law enforcement, and a credible criminal justice system—are dissolving.

Gas and diesel prices are hitting historic levels. Inflation is at a 40-year high. New cars and homes are unaffordable. The necessary remedy of high interest and tight money will be almost as bad as the disease of hyperinflation.

There is no southern border.

Expect over 1 million foreign nationals to swarm this summer into the United States without audit, COVID-19 testing, or vaccination. None will have any worry of consequences for breaking U.S. immigration law.

Police are underfunded and increasingly defunded. District attorneys deliberately release violent criminals without charges. (Literally 10,000 people witnessed a deranged man with a knife attack comedian Dave Chappelle on stage at the Hollywood Bowl last week, and the Los Angeles County district attorney refused to press felony charges.) Murder and assault are spiraling. Carjacking and smash-and-grab thefts are now normal big-city events.

Crime is now mostly a political matter. Ideology, race, and politics determine whether the law is even applied.

Supermarket shelves are thinning, and meats are now beyond the budgets of millions of Americans. An American president—in a first—casually warns of food shortages. Baby formula has disappeared from many shelves.

Politics are resembling the violent last days of the Roman Republic. An illegal leak of a possible impending Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade that would allow state voters to set their own abortion laws has created a national hysteria.

Never has a White House tacitly approved mobs of protesters showing up at Supreme Court justices’ homes to rant and bully them into altering their votes.

There is no free speech any more on campuses.

Merit is disappearing. Admissions, hiring, promotion, retention, grading, and advancement are predicated increasingly on mouthing the right orthodoxies or belonging to the proper racial, gender, or ethnic category.

When the new campus commissariat finally finishes absorbing the last redoubts in science, math, engineering, medical, and professional schools, America will slide into permanent mediocrity and irreversible declining standards of living.

What happened?

Remember all these catastrophes are self-induced. They are choices, not fate. The U.S. has the largest combined gas, coal, and oil deposits in the world. It possesses the know-how to build the safest pipelines and to ensure the cleanest energy development on the planet.

Inflation was a deliberate Biden choice. For short-term political advantage, he kept printing trillions of dollars, incentivizing labor nonparticipation, and keeping interest rates at historical lows—at a time of pent-up global demand.

The administration wanted no border. Only that way can politicized, impoverished immigrants repay left-wing undermining of the entire legal immigration system with their fealty at the ballot box.

Once esoteric, crack-pot academic theories—“modern monetary theory,” critical legal theory, critical race theory—now dominate policymaking in the Biden administration.

The common denominator in all of this is ideology overruling empiricism, common sense, and pragmatism. Ruling elites would rather be politically correct failures and unpopular than politically incorrect, successful, and popular.

Is that not the tired story of left-wing revolutionaries from 18th-century France to early 20th-century Russia to the contemporary disasters in Cuba and Venezuela?

The American people reject the calamitous policies of 2021-2022. Yet the radical cadres surrounding a cognitively inert Biden still push them through by executive orders, bureaucratic directives, and deliberate Cabinet nonperformance.

Why? The left has no confidence either in constitutional government or common sense.

So as the public pushes back, expect at the ground level more doxxing, cancel culture, deplatforming, ministries of disinformation, swarming the private homes of officials they target for bullying, and likely violent demonstrations in our streets this summer.

Meanwhile, left-wing elites will do their best to ignore Supreme Court decisions, illegally cancel student debts, and likely by the fall issue more COVID-19 lockdowns. They will still dream of packing the court, ending the filibuster, scrapping the Electoral College, adding more states, and flooding the November balloting with hundreds of millions more dollars of dark money from Silicon Valley.

When revolutionaries undermine the system, earn the antipathy of the people, and face looming disaster at the polls, it is then they prove most dangerous—as we shall see over the next few months.

*************************************************

Economics is basic to public health

The dramatic shortage of baby formula underscores the point: a functioning economy is essential to public health. It’s the same with inflation and food shortages: if you cannot afford to eat or the shelves at the grocery are empty, that results in a diminution of public health. If products essential to life—parts to fix trucks or medical equipment—are unavailable due to supply-chain snarls caused by lockdowns, you have a public-health disaster brewing.

Similarly, if elites attempt to fix a public-health crisis without regard to economic considerations, they will create disaster. And they have, including the worst global food crisis in 70 years.

So there we have it finally, a clear demonstration that those who contrasted economics with “saving lives,” as if a functioning economy was only about Wall Street profits and nothing else, were deadly wrong.

I had to do a quick search to check my memory from early lockdowns but sure enough, it was everywhere: the claim that those who opposed the draconian response were merely putting economics ahead of life. Thousands of such posts were all over Twitter. It was a common putdown on all talk shows.

They wrecked social and market functioning and cannot fathom why we have a demoralized population, a mental health crisis, falling financials, soaring inflation, and shortages of goods and services that are essential to life. This is what the experts recommended and yet here we are today.

Early on, an edict came out in every part of the country to shut the hospitals to everyone who didn’t have an emergency reason to be there, while prioritizing covid in the name of ending the pandemic. This happened all over the United States. It was an action without precedent. And in the places without covid of any substantial degree hospital parking lots emptied, hospital revenue collapsed, and hundreds of nurses were furloughed. Healthcare spending (in a pandemic!) plummeted.

Is it not completely obvious that the medical system is part of the economy? Apparently it is not. And this is likely due to the ridiculous popular notion that economics is only about big shots flipping money back and forth and skimming along the way.

In fact, economics is the pith of life, the study and practice of our daily engagement with the material world, the delicate dance of balancing unlimited wants with nature’s scarce means while working toward the creation of more resources to be available for everyone. There is no getting rid of economics any more than we can put an end to pathogens in the air and in our bodies. It’s just part of reality and we need to learn to manage the challenge well.

The phrase public health is one I like, despite criticism I’ve endured for two years for deploying it. The phrase emerged in the late 19th century in dealing with cholera epidemics. Scientists came to learn that the source of spread was the water supply and hence found a path toward better living for everyone. So the phrase refers both to our health as individuals but also, crucially, the communities in which we live and the products and services we share together.

It does not necessarily mean “provided by the state.” It means literally that which impacts the public. Our longing to live in communities of healthy individuals with shared resources (air, water, roads, commercial sectors) requires that we think and act to live better as people both from a personal point of view and also with an eye toward the well-being of others. In that sense, the phrase is perfectly suitable.

It is precisely the same with economics, and has been this way since the discipline first came to formal attention in English-speaking countries with the works of Adam Smith. It is about individual interest and it is also about the well-being of the community. The core principles of economics are very similar to the principles of public health. It is not just about one pathogen or industry but all aspects of health and the economy, and not just for the short term but for the long term too.

The policies to deal with covid jettisoned not only economics but also traditional wisdom in public health, and we ended up sacrificing both in the long run. You cannot have a healthy society by the crushing of market functioning. That ended up ruining lives and it is still going on today.

Polls show that people say inflation is the number one problem and covid is the least of their concerns; but this disguises the common root of both: both issues trace to the radical mismanagement of the social order by the ruling class, at the expense of everyone else.

The shortage of baby formula underscores the point: it takes a functioning economy to feed the children. If you give that up, people will starve. That the likes of Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates did not think of that—and that the mobs shouted to throw out economics to maintain health—reveals a deep and dangerous ignorance of how a good society functions.

******************************************************

Support for sexual abnormality becoming compulsory?

A row about rainbows has broken out in football. Paris St-Germain players wore brightly coloured numbers — a show of support for this week’s ‘International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia’. But one player was missing from the line-up: Idrissa Gueye.

PSG’s manager Mauricio Pochettino said that Gueye missed the game against Montpellier – which his team won 4-0 – for ‘personal reasons’. It has now emerged that he refused to play to avoid having to wear the rainbow symbol.

Was Gueye, a devout Muslim who regularly shares messages about his faith on social media, entitled to take such a stand? Senegal’s president Macky Sall thinks so. ‘I support Idrissa Gana Gueye,’ he said. ‘His religious convictions must be respected.’

The French Football Federation sees things differently. In a letter to Gueye, the FFF has reportedly called for him to ‘issue a public apology’ or to clarify that the rumours he refused to play are ‘unfounded’.

Gueye at least has the backing of some other players: Crystal Palace’s Cheikhou Kouyate and Watford’s Ismaila Sarr have posted in support of their Senegal teammate. ‘We wholeheartedly support you brother,’ said Gueye’s fellow midfielder Kouyate.

Now both Kouyate and Sarr are in trouble, too. Crystal Palace manager Patrick Vieira said: ‘We are against any form of discrimination’ and has confirmed he will talk to Kouyate. Meanwhile Watford has reiterated ‘its long-term commitment to…Equality Diversity and Inclusion values’.

The rainbow flag is big business — it is used by corporations to signal their support for LGBT rights. Banks change their logos to display the rainbow. Burger King once flogged a ‘pride whopper’ to celebrate LGBT customers.

Even Newcastle United players, who turn out each week for a club owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, wear rainbow laces. But how does this benefit the Saudi homosexuals facing the death penalty 4,000 miles away from St James’ Park? Do colourful shoelaces help Suhail al-Jameel, a gay Saudi social media influencer who was thrown into prison – and remains behind bars, nearly two years on – after he posted a topless picture of himself wearing leopard-print shorts?

As for Gueye, should we be angry at him for not playing in rainbow colours? Might it be better instead to direct our focus on his club, PSG, which is owned by Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar? Male homosexuality remains illegal in Qatar and the death penalty hangs over Muslims who engage in same-sex relations. At least one gay footballer has spoken out over his fears of playing in the World Cup later this year, which will be hosted by Qatar.

PSG has said that they are ‘very proud to wear this (rainbow) shirt’. ‘The biggest stars of world football were on the field on Saturday and expressed the club’s commitment to the fight against homophobia and all forms of discrimination,’ it added in a statement.

That ‘fight against homophobia’ should start with helping those who have been locked up for being gay, not hounding someone who refuses to play decked out in rainbow colours.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Friday, May 20, 2022

The troubling story of how trans activists 'groomed' girl, 17, before she was helped to transition into a man after a ONE-HOUR 'gender clinic' consultation... and at 21 she wants to be FEMALE again

A troubled teenage girl who was provided drugs to transition into a man after an hour-long consultation at a 'gender clinic' is now fighting to reclaim her adult life as a woman.

Tanya, not her real name, changed genders at the age of 18 while dealing with bi-polar, autism, anxiety and depression.

Now aged 21, the still young woman struggles with suicidal thoughts every day as she works to reverse the transition process.

Ms Hunter told Daily Mail Australia her daughter was 'beguiled, groomed and kidnapped' by the transgender community.

'There will be a tsunami of kids like our daughter,' she warned. 'It is like being brainwashed in a cult and if you don't go along with it you are punished.'

Tanya took the hormone testosterone for 18 months and was later supported by the trans community with crowdfunding to raise money for breast removal.

Three years after her journey to manhood began, Tanya admitted herself into a mental hospital on the verge of suicide.

Ms Hunter said her daughter begged her to help save her from what she had become.

By then, the testosterone that had pumped through her veins had wrought irreversible effects on Tanya's body. Her voice had deepened, her hairline receded and she had a significant redistribution of body fat.

Tanya's female body had become masculine, including a massive increase of body and facial hair. She now suffered ongoing vaginal atrophy and dryness, causing her significant pain and requiring constant medication.

Ms Hunter claimed her daughter's story was not unique, with countless other parents sharing their horror stories with her.

'The parents who say, "no it's not the right thing to do" are (attacked) by the kids and the online sites tell them to turn their back on their family. "Get rid of your family. We are your family now",' she said.

When Ms Hunter discovered the myriad of transgender videos and websites Tanya had been viewing online, she was horrified.

Tanya's mobile phone was littered with text messages from a militant transgender activist. 'Snip, snip the motherf**kers. Get rid of them', one read - in reference to Tanya cutting off her parents.

When Judith Hunter's husband messaged back asking him to stop contacting his daughter, the activist laughed.

Determined to see the troubled teen transition, the activist contributed money to Tanya's GoFundMe page for her 'top surgery'.

'They are bold as brass. They behave like thugs,' Ms Hunter said. The activist admitted to Daily Mail Australia they had sent a meme. 'It was like an online manual, what to do, what to say, how to treat your parents and tell them you are suicidal, so you'll end up in hospital where you'll be affirmed by hospital staff who will turn on your parents and take your side,' she said.

The Newcastle mum, north of Sydney in New South Wales, said while her daughter had struggled for three years through high school after being diagnosed with bi-polar, autism, anxiety and depression, she had no history of gender dysphoria.

Tanya's trans nightmare began in year 11 when her mother was forced to take her to a psychiatrist after she threatened suicide. The doctor immediately told the worried mum to take Tanya straight to hospital, where she was admitted to the mental health ward.

'When I went to the hospital the next day and asked to see my daughter, I was told I had a son and there was a male name above her bed,' Ms Hunter said.

'I said 'this is ridiculous' and was then called a hateful parent, bigoted and transphobic. I was told I had a live son and a dead daughter.'

The hospital referred Tanya to the John Hunter Hospital and after just two short appointments, allegedly without her parent's consent, Tanya was put on testosterone.

Juiced-up on the drugs, Ms Hunter claimed Tanya became so abusive her 14-year-old brother would curl up in the foetal position on the floor begging for her to stop. 'It was like living in a war zone,' she said. 'It has decimated our family.'

Over the next three years Tanya lived in filthy student accommodation or with a group of transgender people.

In December last year, she contacted her mum and asked to come home.

'She was deeply suicidal. It was the realisation that even though she'd stopped testosterone for 18 months that things weren't going to go back to the way they were,' Ms Hunter said.

Even while back in the safety of her own home, Ms Hunter claimed the trans community refused to let her go and had continued to harass her family. 'People would have no idea what we have been through since she's been home,' she said.

'Tanya was suicidal because she didn't want to live with what she had done to her body. She deeply regrets it.'

Ms Hunter remains livid the Newcastle clinic that treated her daughter continued to ignore her concerns.

'We went and knocked on their door. Finally, two doctors came out. They said they are not an emergency service. It was like talking to a brick wall,' she said.

'The medical professionals who are telling teenage girls to have double mastectomies before they have reached adulthood are evil.

'Telling our girls that being uncomfortable in puberty is a 'medical condition' have lost their moral and ethical compass. A generation of young people are being harmed and failed.'

Ms Hunter compared sections of the transgender community to an 'online cult', which had infiltrated the medical profession. 'It is a horrific medical scandal.'

President of the National Association of Practicing Psychiatrists, Professor Philip Morris AM, told Daily Mail Australia there had been an explosion in presentations of rapid onset gender dysphoria in the past five years - especially among young women presenting to be trans males.

'The problem is many of the early adolescents don't have a long history of gender issues going back to their early childhood. Many of these young adolescents are coming forward without a history of gender issues,' Professor Morris said.

Professor Dianna Kenny - a psychologist specialising in children - said it was a 'negligent and irresponsible practice of medicine' to approve cross-sex hormones on young people after a brief assessment.

'You don't subject young people to life changing and irreversible treatment without exploring all possible ideologies and options before resorting to radical, off label treatment of young people,' she said.

Professor Kenny said there needed to be radical oversight of gender clinics and more gateways and protections for young people. 'It's a medical scandal aided and abetted by the family court and woke politicians too gutless to speak out,' she said.

'We are now seeing the long-term outcomes with tens of thousands of people wanting to de-transition who have had double mastectomies and cross sex hormones that have changed their body for the rest of their lives.'

***********************************************

Is George Washington fit only for contempt?

Jeff Jacoby

"George Washington University needs a new name" was the eye-catching headline on an opinion column published by The Washington Post last week. The 750-word essay was written by Caleb Francois, a GW senior majoring in international relations who isn't happy with his alma mater. I read the column with particular interest: George Washington University is my alma mater.

Francois indicts GW for its "systemic racism, institutional inequality, and white supremacy," which he blames for such alleged shortcomings as the fact that the faculty is only 19 percent Black and that "no African languages are taught at GW." Although a majority of GW's students are nonwhite, Francois derides the admissions office for its failure "to ensure a student body with adequate minority representation."

Can GW be redeemed? Francois suggests four ways to achieve progress: "decolonizing" the curriculum, admitting more Black students, hiring a Black president, and — the marquee proposal — changing the university's name. Stripping all mention of George Washington from the university that Congress itself named in his honor "would cement the university's dedication to racial justice." Francois doesn't say whether Washington's name should also be stripped from the city where GW is located and the masthead of the prominent newspaper that featured his column.

You might expect a column calling for the cancellation of George Washington to offer a substantive critique of the man. But Francois mentions only one thing about him: that he was "an enslaver of men." About Washington the indispensable hero of the American Revolution, about the towering leader without whom independence would have failed, about the only American so highly regarded that he was unanimously chosen to be the nation's first president, about "the greatest man in the world," as George III called him when he learned that the general who had defeated the mightiest military power on earth intended to return to private life — about that Washington, the column says nothing.

Calls to strip Washington's name and image from the public square because he kept human beings in bondage have proliferated in recent years. Not all those calls have been peaceful. In one notorious incident, a statue of Washington was toppled by rioters in Portland, Ore., who wrapped its head in an American flag that they set on fire.

Is Washington's complicity in slavery the only detail of his life that 21st-century Americans should care about? Does nothing he accomplished matter more? If so, then no school should bear his name and no statue should honor his memory, or that of any of the Founding Fathers who enslaved Africans. But not even the most passionate foes of slavery doubted that men like Washington — despite that terrible blot on their records — were entitled to esteem and gratitude.

In his Post column, Francois recommends renaming GW for the renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass, to honor "his work for social reform and equal justice." Yet Douglass himself was not blind to the imperfections or the greatness of Washington and the other Founders.

On multiple occasions, Washington spoke of his philosophical opposition to slavery. He wrote in 1786 "that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." In his will he left instructions for the eventual emancipation of everyone enslaved by him and for those who had grown old or ill to be supported by his estate in perpetuity. That doesn't erase Washington's culpability in what he knew was an odious practice, but it earned Douglass's admiration. In his tremendous 1852 oration, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" Douglass reminded his audience that "Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves." More significantly, Douglass extolled the heroism of Washington and the other Founders:

"They were statesmen, patriots and heroes," he said. "For the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory." Like all of us, Washington and his peers were diminished by hypocrisy and moral flaws. Yet "with them, justice, liberty, and humanity were final — not slavery and oppression," Douglass emphasized. "You may well cherish the memory of such men."

Washington's enslavement of other people was a grievous failing, the worst thing he did on this earth. But only someone blinded by ideology would contend that it nullifies everything about Washington's legacy that was so extraordinarily positive. Without him there would have been no Revolution, no United States, no new nation conceived in liberty, no growing pressure on America to live up to the ideal that all men are created equal.

"Rename George Washington University" may be a catchy battle cry. But whatever ails my alma mater will not be healed by repudiating its namesake

**********************************************

Hong Kong and the surprising truth about the British Empire

George Lai

What would the world be like if the British Empire had never existed? Critics of British colonialism say that the countries that fell under its rule would have been better off without it; the Empire’s supporters say it brought progress and prosperity in its wake.

So who’s right? The truth is hard to find. After all, one of the difficulties in assessing the legacy of British colonialism in many ex-colonies is the lack of a counterfactual. Put simply, we don’t know what a place would be like if it hadn’t been colonised. But Hong Kong is a special case. Since the bulk of China, except tiny bits like Hong Kong, were never colonised by Western powers, a counterfactual for Hong Kong exists: just look across the border to mainland China for an alternative to colonial rule.

Tens of thousands of Hong Kongers have made their way to Britain in recent years as China’s crackdown continues. The affection they feel for the UK is nothing new: in 1997, when British rule was coming to an end, pollsters asked people in Hong Kong their views on the empire. The result was decisive: three quarters said Hong Kong would have been ‘worse off’ and only 5 per cent said ‘better off’ without it. Another poll found that 65 per cent of people in Hong Kong thought that British rule is more good than bad; only 3 per cent thought that it was more bad than good.

Even before Britain pulled out of the peninsula, many people in Hong Kong knew from their own experience what the alternative was – and how little it appealed. The 1961 Hong Kong census found that of the more than 3.1 million people in Hong Kong, half were born in mainland China and only 47.7 per cent were born in Hong Kong itself. Many had fled the mainland as Mao’s terror took hold. They escaped oppression and misery in China; these people – my grandparents were among them – and their descendants, found a better life in the British colony. It’s a story you don’t hear all too often nowadays when discussion turns to the legacy of empire.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that British Hong Kong would compare well to Communist China. But comparisons between China and Hong Kong painted the British Empire in a favourable light long before Mao came to power.

The 1931 Hong Kong census found that of the more than 840,000 people in Hong Kong, 66.7 per cent were born in mainland China and only 32.9 per cent were born in Hong Kong (including those born in the New Territories). The border between Hong Kong and China was much more open before the communists took charge, so migration to Hong Kong was easier in this early period. Similar patterns were true even in the 19th century. Indeed, throughout almost the whole existence of British Hong Kong, it was a hotspot destination for mainland immigrants. These people had the choice of where to live, and in huge numbers they opted to live under the British flag, rather than in China.

Why did they choose to do so? The reality is that while the British Empire was flawed in many ways, it offered a brighter alternative. It is easy to forget that the freedom, human rights and democracy we enjoy in various degrees nowadays are relatively recent developments, only being established in the Western and Western-influenced world in the last century or two. It is tempting to imagine that, before the arrival of Western colonisers, people lived peacefully in harmony, free and happy, in a land with no oppression and discrimination, ruling themselves. But this just isn’t true. In reality, those in China often lived miserable, unfree and powerless lives, under the fist of an emperor who ruled like a brutal dictator, and who in many cases were not even of the same ethnicity as them. Indeed, discontent was ubiquitous and rebellions common throughout Chinese history. Even before the Opium War (1839–1842), the Chinese government was troubled by rebellions and uprisings; the White Lotus Rebellion (1796–1804) and Eight Trigrams uprising (1813), in which some hundreds of thousands were killed, are just two examples. The Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864) was far more violent still: it resulted in the deaths of millions.

In such a charged atmosphere, the Chinese government routinely resorted to extreme measures to uphold its imperial authority. Summary executions without trial were routine. The summer of 1855 was one of the bloodiest: some 70,000 people – at least half of whom were probably innocent of the charge of rebellion – were beheaded in Guangzhou city alone.

This bloodshed was not unusual; such was the criminal justice system in China at that time. In contrast, in British Hong Kong in the same period, the most high-profile case was the Esing Bakery incident in 1857, where several hundred European residents were poisoned after eating bread from the Chinese-owned Esing Bakery in Hong Kong. The proprietor of the bakery, Cheong Ah-lum, was accused of plotting the poisoning. But he got a fair trial in the colonial court; due to lack of evidence, he was acquitted by the jury. The same is unlikely to have happened on the mainland.

If incidents like this serve as a comparison between the two respective justice systems, it is no wonder a large number of mainland Chinese migrated to Hong Kong in this period. Between 1841, the year the colony was established, and 1857, Hong Kong’s population rose from 7,500 to 77,100 (of whom 75,700 were Chinese). The relatively benign British legal system was one of the reasons that Hong Kong was so attractive to Chinese immigrants.

Of course, we shouldn’t forget the flaws in colonial rule in Hong Kong. Especially in the early period before World War II, racism and discrimination manifestly existed. For much of the time of British rule, the top level of government was dominated by white British except for a few ethnic Chinese appointed to the Legislative and Executive Council. In the 19th century, Chinese people were often treated differently and more harshly than Caucasians by the colonial law enforcement and justice system. And from 1904 to 1946, for ‘public health’ reasons (in response to the bubonic plague endemic that ran from 1894 to 1929, to protect Europeans from the ‘poor hygiene practices’ of the Chinese), ethnic Chinese people were banned by law from living in one area of Hong Kong. This was effectively a form of legalised segregation.

But how did life in China compare? The Chinese government was not democratic, so ordinary Chinese people hardly had more power in China. And while ordinary people in Hong Kong would not have seen their leadership as representative, the same was true on the mainland: up until 1912, Chinese people in China were not even ruled by people of the same ethnicity, nor were they treated equally.

Why? Because the Chinese government from which the British took Hong Kong was not, in fact, Chinese. Instead, it was Manchurian: a group of people who had conquered China in the 17th century. The Manchu ruled over China as alien conquerors, maintaining their power over the culturally different ethnic Chinese people with racist and discriminatory practices. The Manchus had set themselves up as a privileged minority separate from and superior to the Chinese people. Manchus dominated the top level of China’s government, despite only making up a little more than 1 per cent of China’s population. They received preferential treatment over Chinese people legally, politically and economically; they were dealt with more leniently under the law, had more opportunities to enter and advance in government service, and received stipends not available to the Chinese. What’s more, the Manchu and Chinese were administratively and residentially segregated, and they were banned from intermarrying. Indeed, imperialism and discrimination was not a European invention – it had been the norm throughout history until the arrival of modern Western ideals in the modern time.

Given the persistent flow of Chinese migration into British Hong Kong, what did those people who experienced both places at the time say? One of the most famous and respected figures in Chinese history, Sun Yat-sen, also known as the father of modern China, was someone who had such first hand experience. He moved to Hong Kong in 1883 in his youth to study; many years later he became the leader of the revolution which overthrew the Chinese monarchy in the mainland in 1912.

In 1923, he gave a speech at the University of Hong Kong, where he discussed the reason why he became a revolutionary. He recalled that when he came to study in Hong Kong more than thirty years before ‘Hong Kong impressed me a great deal’. He was struck by the order, safety and security in the peninsula, in contrast to the mainland where it was the opposite. And he noted how in Hong Kong, government corruption ‘was the exception’, while in China it ‘was the rule’. His time in Hong Kong led him to realise that a better way was possible – and ultimately took him on the path to seeking to implement a new government based on Western models. ‘We must carry this English example of good government to every part of China,’ he said.

Of course, Sun Yat-sen was no fan of colonialism. As one of the early proponents of democracy in China, he believed that the Chinese people should rule themselves. But the main target of his anti-imperialism was not the British leadership in Hong Kong, but the Manchu in mainland China.

His aim – to free China from the Manchus – ultimately came true. Yet he would have been sorely disappointed by what followed: a civil war between warlords; the Japanese invasion of China; and after that the communists seizing power only to carry out countless atrocities. For decades, waves and waves of Chinese migrants and refugees continued to flee to Hong Kong to find safe haven in the British colony. Now that China imposes its will on the peninsular once more, many now seek a new life in Britain itself.

***************************************************

UK: A bonfire of the quangos should start with the College of Policing

Toby Young

I welcome Jacob Rees-Mogg’s recent announcement that he intends to reignite David Cameron’s ‘bonfire of the quangos’ in his capacity as minister for government efficiency. I’m sure many Spectatorreaders will have a particular quango, or arm’s-length body, they’d like to incinerate and I hope they write to him with their suggestions. I’d like to nominate the College of Policing, which is responsible for overseeing the police in England and Wales.

The college made headlines last weekend when it emerged that it had urged the 43 different forces to ‘decolonise’ their training materials in order to recruit a more diverse workforce. It also advised them to ‘consider introducing gender neutral facilities’ and become ‘Stonewall Champions’ to make themselves more attractive to transgender applicants. In addition, training staff were warned that ‘not giving individuals the time to reflect on unconscious bias training may lead to unconscious bias’.

If you think chief constables will have the good sense to ignore this gobbledegook, think again. In 2014, the college issued its infamous Hate Crime Operational Guidance which introduced the novel concept of a ‘non-crime hate incident’ (NCHI). This is defined as ‘any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice’ towards one or more of the victim’s ‘protected’ characteristics, i.e., their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity. The College advised chief constables that any reports their officers received of these ‘non-crimes’ being committed must be investigated and recorded – and the chief constables duly obliged.

According to the Telegraph, 34 police forces in England and Wales recorded 119,934 NCHIs in the five-year period following the introduction of the guidance, which by my reckoning is an average of 65 a day. If you assume the other nine forces have been recording them at a similar rate – and it’s continued at the same frenetic pace since – that brings the total to nearly a quarter of a million. This is an extraordinary number of man hours devoted to investigating ‘non-crimes’, particularly when you consider the police solved just over 5 per cent of burglaries in England and Wales last year. Such are the priorities of the College of Policing.

Rees-Mogg has written to his cabinet colleagues asking them to consider whether the arm’s-length bodies in their departments are offering good value for money, and by that yardstick the college isn’t faring very well. According to its latest annual report and accounts, available at Companies House, its total expenditure in the year ending 31 March 2021 was £71,078,000. In the same period it brought in £24,285,000 from contracts with customers for training police, meaning it made a net loss of £46,793,000. (The previous year it lost £41,642,000.) Fortunately, that’s a rounding error in quango-world.

‘The directors have a reasonable expectation that the college has adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future,’ the report says. ‘The basis of this is continued support from the Home Office.’ Sure enough, in the same year the college lost £46,793,000 it received £49 million in grant-in-aid from the Home Office. Incidentally, one telling detail I noticed in the report is that only 2 per cent of the college’s employees, contractors and secondees in 2020-21 were black. Yet this is the organisation that presumes to lecture the police on how to diversify its workforce.

The accounts reveal that the highest–paid director of the college is on a salary of £207,500, which is a good deal more than the Prime Minister. Presumably, this is the genius who decided to fight tooth and nail when an ex-policeman called Harry Miller challenged the legality of the college’s guidance on NCHIs in the courts and won. (He was miffed when an NCHI was recorded against him for retweeting a comic verse about transgender people.)

The Court of Appeal ruled last December that insisting that police forces record all NCHIs, regardless of how serious they are, is an unlawful interference in the right to freedom of expression, given that they can show up on people’s records when prospective employers carry out Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks. Miller estimates that the College of Policing has run up legal fees in excess of £350,000 fighting and losing his case.

Needless to say, the unlawful guidance is still on its website and I expect police officers are still dutifully recording NCHIs to this day.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Thursday, May 19, 2022


The plight of black women

I have been reading stories recently that were put up on medium.com. Medium is basically a place where people can put up thoughts and experiences that might not find a home elsewhere. It is primarily a place for opinions about the world or some part of it.

And there are quite a few stories put up by black American women in which they recount their experiences with relationships. And the stories are basically a tale of woe. Like many others, they use internet dating to meet potential partners and they do find that hard going.

Meeting a compatible partner is tricky at any age and always has been. And the big issue is what one finds attractive or acceptible in another person. And you will never get perfection in another person. The other person may lack attraction in most ways but there have to be a few things there that are positive. And what black women look for is not mysterious or unusual.

But they often find NOTHING attractive in black men. They find black men to be inconsiderate, violent, useless and parasitical. And the women say that loud and clear. Some of the entries on medium.com amount to a long hate session about black men

And there is no easy solution to that. The obvious solution is to find a white man in the hope that he will be more civilized. And black women do look in that direction. But white men who date black women are few and they are pretty fussy. They want a black woman with lots of desirable qualities. So at most a black woman has on average only a 5% chance of teaming up with a white man.

So almost all black women are stuck with black men if they are to have any kind of partner. So they are in an unusually unfortunate position. Because they live in a predominantly white society, they tend to acquire the attitudes, expectations and values of whites. What they want is black man who behaves accordingto white standards. And they will very rarely get that

I am not of course saying that white men are always good partner material. With my record of four marriages and many relationships, I would have to be one of the problem people. In the circumstances, I am very glad that at age 78 I do nonetheless have a loving lady in my life. And I met her through the internet! -- JR.

*************************************************

Judge: California’s women on boards law is unconstitutional

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California’s landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

David Levine, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, said he was not surprised by the verdict. Under state and federal law “mandating a quota like this was never going to fly,” Levine said.

State Senate leader Toni Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego, said the ruling was disappointing and a reminder “that sometimes our legalities don’t match our realities.”

“More women on corporate boards means better decisions and businesses that outperform the competition,” Atkins said in a statement. “We believe this law remains important, despite the disheartening ruling.”

The decision comes just over a month after another Los Angeles judge found that a California law mandating that corporations diversify their boards with members from certain racial, ethnic or LGBT groups was unconstitutional.

The corporate diversity legislation was a sequel to the law requiring women on corporate boards. The judge in the previous case ruled in favor of Judicial Watch and the same plaintiffs without holding a trial.

The law voided Friday was on shaky ground from the get-go, with a legislative analysis saying it could be difficult to defend. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed it despite the potential for it to be overturned because he wanted to send a message during the #MeToo era.

In the three years it has been on the books, it’s been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.

The state defended the law as constitutional saying it was necessary to reverse a culture of discrimination that favored men and was put in place only after other measures failed. The state also said the law didn’t create a quota because boards could add seats for female directors without stripping men of their positions.

Although the law carried potential hefty penalties for failing to file an annual report or comply with the law, a chief in the secretary of state’s office acknowledged during the trial that it was toothless.

No fines have ever been levied and there was no intention to do so, Betsy Bogart testified. Further, a letter that surfaced during trial from former Secretary of State Alex Padilla warned Brown weeks before he signed the law that it was probably unenforceable.

“Any attempt by the secretary of state to collect or enforce the fine would likely exceed its authority,” Padilla wrote.

The law required publicly held companies headquartered in California to have one member who identifies as a woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By January 2022, boards with five directors were required to have two women and boards with six or more members were required to have three women.

The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members.

The Secretary of State’s office said 26% of publicly traded companies headquartered in California reported meeting the quota of women board members last year, according to a March report.

Half of the 716 corporations that had been required to comply with the law didn’t file the disclosure statements.

Supporters of the law hailed it for achieving more gains for women. Other states followed California’s lead. Washington state passed a similar measure last year, and lawmakers in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii proposed similar bills. Illinois requires publicly traded companies to report the makeup of their boards.

Deputy Attorney General Ashante Norton said alternatives to a law mandating seats for women had been tried in California to no avail. In 2013, for example, the Legislature passed a resolution to get companies to add women to their boards, but few did.

**********************************************

Victory for Ted Cruz as Supreme Court Rebuffs Biden Administration, Strikes Down Campaign Spending Rule

In a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a campaign finance rule regulating the repayment of loans by a candidate to his own campaign, handing a win on May 16 to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation.

“[The decision] is a resounding victory for the First Amendment,” a spokesperson for Cruz told The Post Millennial.

“Sen. Cruz is gratified that the Supreme Court ruled that the existing law imposed an unconstitutional restriction on free speech that unfairly benefited incumbent politicians and the super-wealthy. This landmark decision will help invigorate our democratic process by making it easier for challengers to take on and defeat career politicians.”

The appeal to the Supreme Court was brought by the FEC after a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled against the agency last year.

The legal provision in question is in Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, which imposed restrictions on post-election contributions by limiting the amount that a candidate may be repaid from such funds to $250,000.

Cruz lent his campaign committee money, and the committee deliberately failed to categorize the unrepaid part of the loan—$10,000—as a campaign contribution in order to launch a First Amendment-based challenge to the rule.

The case grew out of the 2018 election cycle that culminated in the Republican U.S. senator’s victory over Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat, by 2.6 percentage points. O’Rourke raised more than twice as much money as Cruz in the high-profile, record-breaking $115 million Senate race.

Cruz wrote in a brief that Section 304 unconstitutionally deters candidates from lending money to their campaigns by restricting the campaign’s ability to repay.

The $250,000 repayment limit, “by substantially increasing the risk that any candidate loan will never be fully repaid—forces a candidate to think twice before making those loans in the first place.” As the district court found, this limit burdens a candidate’s right to speak freely in favor of his own election and “runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

The Biden administration had argued that disallowing the rule would open the door to bribery in elections, but the high court found that the restriction on candidates’ post-election use of political contributions to recover personal funds lent to the campaign ran afoul of First Amendment speech protections.

The decision (pdf) in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, written by Chief Justice Roberts, was joined by the court’s five other conservative justices. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion that was backed by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

“The question is whether this restriction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and their campaigns to engage in political speech,” Roberts wrote.

“There is no doubt that the law does burden First Amendment electoral speech, and any such law must at least be justified by a permissible interest.”

Roberts then directly quoted the 2014 plurality opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC, saying that “when the government restricts speech, the government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.”

The government “is unable to identify a single case of quid pro quo corruption … even though most states do not impose a limit on the use of post-election contributions to repay candidate loans.”

The government failed to demonstrate that Section 304 of the BCRA “furthers a permissible anti-corruption goal, rather than the impermissible objective of simply limiting the amount of money in politics,” according to Roberts.

The rule “burdens core political speech without proper justification.”

Kagan wrote that the Supreme Court, which in recent years has been weakening campaign finance restrictions, was making a mistake.

“In striking down the law today the court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop. … In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today’s decision can only bring this country’s political system into further disrepute,” she wrote.

Kagan embraced the bribery argument advanced by the Biden administration.

“Repaying a candidate’s loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities,” she wrote. “All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor—by a vote, a contract, an appointment.

“It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption—the danger of ‘I’ll make you richer and you’ll make me richer’ arrangements between donors and officeholders.”

*****************************************************

Southwest Flight Attendant Fired Over Pro-Life Views to Have Her Day in Federal Court, Judge Rules

A federal judge has ordered that fired Southwest Airlines flight attendant Charlene Carter’s religious discrimination lawsuit against the company and its union would proceed to trial, after the judge denied a request to dismiss the lawsuit.

The case, known as Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556, civil action 3:17-cv-2278, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 5, Judge Brantley Starr, a Trump appointee, denied (pdf) a motion for summary judgment brought by the union and the airline.

Starr ruled that the suit should go to trial because “genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment” on all claims.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix, whose organization is representing Carter in court, hailed the court ruling.

“This decision is an important step towards long overdue justice for Charlene,” Mix said in a statement. “The ruling rejects several attempts by Southwest and union officials to deny Ms. Carter’s right to bring this case in federal court and enforce her RLA-protected speech and association rights.

“Further, the decision acknowledges that, at its core, this case is about an individual worker’s right to object to how forced union dues and fees are spent by union officials to take positions that are completely contrary to the beliefs of many workers forced under the union’s so-called ‘representation,’”

Carter’s story goes back to 1996 when, as a Southwest employee, she joined the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556. A pro-life Christian, she quit the labor union in 2013 upon learning her union dues were being spent to promote social causes that violate her conscience and religious beliefs.

Despite resigning from the union, Carter was still required to pay fees in lieu of union dues as a condition of her employment. State-level right-to-work laws don’t exempt her from forced fees because airline and railway employees fall under the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA), which permits union officials to have a worker fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees. Despite this, the RLA protects the rights of employees to remain nonmembers of the union, to criticize the union and its leadership, and to advocate for changing the union’s current leadership.

When Carter discovered in 2017 that TWU local President Audrey Stone and other union officials used union dues to attend a pro-abortion event in the nation’s capital and that the company had accommodated local members wishing to attend by rearranging their work schedules, she took to social media to challenge Stone’s leadership. The airline demanded a meeting with Carter, informing her that Stone felt harassed by Carter’s activism.

A week later, the airline fired Carter. Not long after, Carter sued.

“Forced unionism, in all of its manifestations, including this one, is wrong and a violation of individual freedom and liberty,” Mix told The Epoch Times in an interview.

“In this case, we have an employee who is forced under the representation of a union that she does not support, and yet they claim to speak for her in all aspects of her working-conditions life, and when she found out that they were basically promoting causes and ideals that she opposed, she spoke up against it and then she lost her job,” he said.

“This is the coercion that workers across America, whether it be in the government sector, in the private sector, or in the rail, light railway, or railroad or airline industries, face when union officials get monopoly control over working conditions.

“And what we have here is Southwest Airlines, which is really a bad actor in this particular case, and the Transport Workers Union basically teaming up to thwart the political and ideological views of one of their employees.

“Notwithstanding Southwest’s branding that they love their employees, they don’t love Charlene Carter, because she has different political views than the union officials that claim to represent her.”

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Wednesday, May 18, 2022


Jordan Peterson calls it like it is again

Below is the woman whom Peterson described so frankly




Each to his own, of course, but below is the sort of figure I enjoy most in my arms. Fortunately I get it. Despite her years, my girlfriend does have a figure similar to that. She runs for miles every day to maintain it




A controversial psychologist and best-selling author has sparked outrage after declaring a Sports Illustrated model “not beautiful”.

Dr Jordan Peterson, 59, took to Twitter to shame plus-size model and musician Yumi Nu after she appeared on the magazine cover. “Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that,” he wrote to his 2.7 million followers.

“Sheesh. Big fan here. I find my girlfriend with a body type like this quite beautiful. Dial it back a bit homie,” one man wrote.

“Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that,” wrote another alongside a photo of Peterson.

“Why do men feel it’s their duty to publicly pronounce their view on the attractiveness of women? Couldn’t you just keep it to yourself?,” added another woman.

The model featured on the cover did not seem fussed about the comments made by Peterson - who has made a name for himself by railing against everything from feminism to social justice warriors.

Dr Peterson has a checkered history in both his private and public life, having developed a dependency on prescription medication and being admitted to rehab following his wife’s cancer diagnosis.

He was thrust into the mainstream after a video of him arguing with students and refusing to refer to them as their chosen gender pronouns went viral online.

He leveraged his newfound fame by injecting himself into the Canadian debate over transgender rights.

His 2018 self-help book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos - which encouraged readers to stand up straight, not bother children skateboarding and avoid petting stray cats - sold more than three million copies worldwide.

Dr Peterson has repeatedly been criticised for his old-fashioned views on women and accused of spreading misinformation.

Peterson also pushed against Covid-19 vaccines and restrictions in Canada, in one instance claiming the Canadian PM would have to kill him before getting a booster.

****************************************************

33 Shot, 5 Dead… Bodies are Everywhere

The mass shooting in Buffalo this weekend got all the media, but what happened in Chicago was just as bad.

The moment it was reported that the shooter was a white supremacist, we all knew that story would take on a life of its own.

What most people never saw reported, however, was that 33 more bodies hit the ground in Chicago over this weekend, five of them losing their lives.

By no means am I trying to downplay what happened in Buffalo. It was a disgusting attack by an appalling individual.

I do have a question, however. That would be why nobody is outraged over the dozens of shootings and five lost lives that took place in Chicago this weekend, a scene that plays out virtually every weekend.

Among the fatalities in Chicago were three teenagers aged 16, 17, and 19.

Ironically, the uptick in violence occurred on the weekend after Lori Lightfoot demanded a “call to arms” over the leaked SCOTUS brief. I would appear as though the people of Chicago heard her.

*************************************************

New York: Two Washington-based groups representing Google, Facebook and other tech giants filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, seeking to block a Texas law that bars social media companies from removing posts based on a user’s political ideology

The Texas law took effect on Wednesday after the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans lifted a district court injunction that had barred it. The appeals court action shocked the industry, which has been largely successful in batting back Republican state leaders’ efforts to regulate social media companies’ content-moderation policies.

In their filing to the Supreme Court on Friday, Washington-time, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) argue that the law violates the US Constitution and risks causing “irreparable harm” to the internet and businesses, according to a news release.

The law “strips private online businesses of their speech rights, forbids them from making constitutionally protected editorial decisions, and forces them to publish and promote objectionable content,” NetChoice counsel Chris Marchese said in a statement.

“Left standing, [the Texas law] will turn the First Amendment [which guarantees freedom of expression in the US] on its head -- to violate free speech, the government need only claim to be ‘protecting’ it.”

The application brings before the nation’s highest court a battle over the future of online speech that has been roiling policymakers in Washington and in statehouses.

As elected officials across the country increasingly call for regulation of Silicon Valley’s content-moderation policies, they’re colliding with the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from regulating speech.

The application was filed with Justice Samuel Alito, who was nominated to the court by Republican President George W. Bush.

The Texas law, which was signed by Governor Greg Abbott in September, reflects a growing push by Republicans in statehouses -- while they remain in the minority in Washington -- to advance their accusations that tech companies are biased against their ideology.

The law enables Texas residents and the state’s attorney general to sue social media companies with more than 50 million users in the United States if they believe they were unfairly banned or censored. The law also requires tech companies, including Facebook and Google’s YouTube, to build a complaint system so that people can challenge decisions to remove or flag illegal activity.

The law was initially blocked from taking effect by a federal district judge. But in a surprise decision on Wednesday night, the appeals court lifted the judge’s temporary injunction -- allowing the law to come into force while a lower court continues to litigate its merits. In filing the emergency application to the Supreme Court, the tech trade groups are seeking to vacate that decision.

The law reflects conservatives’ long-running claims that Silicon Valley social media companies are “censoring” them. The companies deny those accusations, but the charges have become central to Republicans’ political messaging.

Elon Musk’s recent accusations that Twitter has a “strong left-wing bias” amid his takeover of the company have only fuelled these claims.

Florida last year passed a similar social media law, which was blocked from taking effect. The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit heard the state’s appeal last month but has not ruled.

Legal experts and tech groups have largely argued that such laws run afoul of the First Amendment. They also warn that they could make it more difficult for companies to remove harmful and hateful content.

“No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech,” CCIA President Matt Schruers said in a statement to The Washington Post. “While views may differ on whether online platforms should host viewpoints like hate speech or Nazi propaganda, the First Amendment leaves that choice to private citizens and businesses, not bureaucrats.”

***************************************************

Texas appeals court reinstates law prohibiting social media companies from banning users over political views

A federal appeals court in Texas has reinstated a Republican-backed Texas law that prevents large social media companies from banning users over their political views.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel did not explain its reasoning for granting the state's request for a stay of a December order from a federal judge. The order also did not evaluate the law on its constitutionality. It merely allows the law to go back into effect while the case continues in the lower district court.

The decision is a win for Republicans who have accused social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter of being biased against conservatives. A flashpoint on the issue came when Former President Donald Trump's Twitter account was permanently suspended days after he was accused of inciting the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill.

The law, known as HB 20, requires social media platforms with more than 50 million monthly users to publicly disclose information about content removal and account suspensions.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office praised the appeals court's decision, calling it a "BIG WIN against BIG TECH."

The tweet went on to say, "The 5th Circuit made the right call here, and I look forward to continuing to defend the constitutionality of #HB20."

Two industry trade groups that represent companies like Google and Twitter sued to block the law last fall.

A judge then ruled in favor of the groups, blocking the law while the lawsuit continues, saying the First Amendment protects a company's right to moderate content, according to The Texas Tribune. AG Paxton then appealed the judge's decision.

Florida is also appealing a ruling against a similar law.

Censorship on social media has taken center stage in recent months after billionaire Elon Musk moved to buy Twitter and vowed to make changes to how the social media giant operates. Conservatives have cheered the move.

Musk has said he would allow Trump back on Twitter once his purchase of the company is complete. Trump, however, has previously said he will not go back to the platform and will instead stick to his own Truth Social platform.

******************************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Tuesday, May 17, 2022


12 Things Women Only Do With The Men They Love

I am very lucky to have a loving lady very much in my life so I thought I would use our relationship as a yardstick to validate the claims below. And I am pleased to say that the list below is pretty right. Only one out of the 12 behaviours is a clear miss for us.

The item that we miss out on is no. 6. My lover definitely tries to change one thing about me: my diet. And it is quite a big change she seeks. Because of my appreciation of her I have in fact partly modified my diet towards what she wants

I don't think my experience with issues about diet invalidates the generalization concerned, however. I suspect that many women make efforts to move their man towards a healthier diet. They would say that they are thereby being kind to their man. My lover certainly thinks that way. She says her diet recommendations are designed to help me to live longer.

The research studies show that lifestyle changes (diet and exercise) usually do not prolong lifespan but it is comventional wisdom to claim otherwise



A lot of people say that women fall in love faster than men do. But that’s not necessarily true, men and women just fall in love differently and experience and show it in different ways.

So how can you know whether or not her feelings for you are genuine? There are some subtle giveaways to pay attention to and here are a few signs that she truly does love.

1. She Wants To Know Everything About You
A woman who loves you will want to know everything about you. Even the smallest details that might not seem important to you, she’ll want to know.

After a while, this may get annoying since men, in general, aren’t too keen on sharing their feelings. But women often see sharing your hopes dreams fears details about your life as an indication that you care. She wants to know about your world because she wants to be a part of it. She wants to know even the little details to make you feel like she knows you and that she’ll stand by you.

2. Her Maternal Instincts Kick In
This is simply human nature at work.

Men are naturally protective of people they care about while women are naturally nurturing. It’s instinctual for both.

These instincts can be controlled and toned down. But all it means when she starts acting motherly toward you and genuinely making sure you’re well is that she loves you.

3. Encourages and Supports You in Reaching Your Dreams
When you love someone, you want them to be as happy and successful as they can be. So when your woman loves you, she’ll push you to reach your dreams and achieve your goals.

She wants you to be truly happy, and she will encourage you even when you’re unsure of yourself. She will always do her best to help and support you in your endeavors.

4. Stays With You in Your Darkest Times
During hard times, she works even harder to help you keep up your self-esteem. Loving you means knowing you and when she knows you she believes you’re a good person and believes in you and won’t abandon you at your worst.

Instead, she’ll help you get back on your feet and rediscover your worth. True love sticks through thick and thin.

5. Goes Out of Her Way to Make You Smile
She puts in that little bit of extra effort to let you know that she cares whether it’s showing up to the office for a surprise visit or texting you to see how you’re doing. She may even try to dazzle you with tickets to see your favorite band or prepare a meal for you after a long day.

Just a bunch of things to make you smile and show that she loves you.

6. Accepts You as You Are
A strong indicator that a woman truly loves you is if she accepts you the way you are both your strengths and weaknesses. She knows that you’re not perfect. No one is and she understands that you make mistakes.

Loving you means she can try and help you grow as a person while forgiving your imperfections.

7. Tries to Get Closer to Your Loved Ones
She always shows respect for the people you care about because she knows they’re important to you.

Being accepted by your loved ones is something she strives for. She’ll do her best to act accordingly around them and treasure their happiness as you do.

They mean a lot to you. So she’ll make sure they mean a lot to her as well.

8. She’s Vulnerable With You
Spending time together, and having conversations about things that make you vulnerable helps create a strong bond and vulnerability to feel different for everyone. Some topics that make her feel vulnerable differ from yours, whether it’s about work friends, or family.

Sharing parts of yourself that are usually kept hidden takes a lot of energy and strength. She wouldn’t do so unless she trusted you and had real feelings for you.

9. Trusts You with the Deepest, Darkest Parts of Her Past
If she’s willing to talk about darker parts of her past, chances are she wants a future. Everyone has some sort of baggage but someone telling you about it is different than you just knowing it’s there sharing the dark parts of yourself as someone adds to your bond.

So if she talks to you about them, she trusts you and has a special place for you in her heart.

10. She Does Not Take You for Granted
Another way your girl shows her love for you is by appreciating everything you do for her.

She never forgets to tell you she’s thankful. No matter how small the gesture. She knows you have needs and feelings and doesn’t waste your efforts. Also, she wouldn’t try to embarrass you in front of others either. No matter the mistake.

11. She Is Your Best Friend Advisor
She’ll try and give you the best advice she can when you have a problem. She’s someone you can count on to be there, stand by your side, and fight for you. In return, she’ll rely on you for the same thing. Listening to the opinions and advice you give her.

12. She Shows You Her Priority
While you are a priority to her, this doesn’t mean she’ll put you above all of her friends and family right away. But she will make sure to take into account the relationship you have and your feelings.

She will invite you along for a family dinner, or make sure to let you know when she goes out with friends.

It isn’t asking your permission, and that shouldn’t be something you expect. But if you need her, you can trust that she’ll be there for you.

************************************************

An angry Leftist: Milla Jovovich



Sheer rage. Quite frightening. See the video here

**********************************************

How influential is the Leftist media?

BY ALL the usual auguries, Republicans are headed for sweeping gains in the midterm elections.

"It's going to be a terrible cycle for Democrats," Doug Sosnik, a former senior advisor to Bill Clinton, told The New York Times last month. Amy Walter, the editor of the Cook Political Report, says both parties are bracing for "a Red Tsunami." According to CNN's Chris Cillizza, "the signs are all there" for a GOP takeover of Capitol Hill: "President Joe Biden is unpopular, Republican base voters are more energized than Democratic ones, and House Democratic retirements are near historic highs."

Of course an upset is always possible. But it seems reasonable to predict that voters this fall, barring something truly unexpected, will hand control of both houses of Congress to the Republican Party. Democratic loyalists and progressive activists, who detest the GOP and see conservatives as a mortal threat to American democracy, will be aghast. Which means that much of the traditional news media, whose liberal political bias and Democratic affinity have long been widely recognized as facts of American life, will be aghast as well.

When Republicans in the midterm elections of 1994 won control of the House and Senate for the first time since 1952, leading journalists rained contempt on the electorate for its turn to the right. Peter Jennings, then ABC's most prominent news anchor, likened the voters to two-year-olds having a tantrum: "the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming — it's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around.... Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week."

In the 2010 midterms, the GOP picked up 63 House seats. It was the largest shift since the Truman administration, and President Obama candidly acknowledged the "shellacking" he'd received from the voters. But again the reaction in some quarters of the media was to sneer.

Expect something similar if the predicted "red tsunami" does indeed materialize in November. Railing against Republicans and conservatives, along with warnings about the horrors to come if they prevail, have been regular features of "mainstream" journalism for as long as I can remember. And for as long as I can remember, Republicans and conservatives have resented and condemned the unfair coverage of their candidates and causes by the leading media outlets.

Donald Trump, of course, made that resentment and condemnation a signal feature of his political persona, labeling the press "the enemy of the American people," relentlessly mocking journalists and media outlets as "failing," "dishonest," or "terrible," and disparaging any coverage he didn't like as "fake news." Many of Trump's animadversions were ridiculous and crude, but there is no question that in elite media circles he and his followers were thoroughly detested. Just as conservatives and Republicans had been detested in those media circles long, long before Trump came on the scene.

By now, bitterness toward what Sarah Palin called the "lamestream media" for its anticonservative prejudice has been incorporated into the ideological DNA of the Republican Party. In 2017, National Review's editor-in-chief Rich Lowry remarked that "the media has become for the right what the Soviet Union was during the Cold War — a common, unifying adversary of overwhelming importance." My sense five years later is that conservatives are more infuriated by liberal media bias than ever before. The irony is that liberal media bias has never mattered less.

Really, how much did it ever matter? For all that those of us on the right have decried or dissected the anti-Republican hostility that flourishes in the newsrooms of The New York Times, NPR, or the Big Three broadcast networks, that hostility was never all that potent.

Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans' "Contract with America" were mercilessly skewered in the media, but that didn't prevent the GOP's historic romp to victory in 1994.

Intense media animus, after all, didn't keep Trump in 2016 from winning the GOP nomination and the general election. The press reviled Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, yet both were elected to the White House, then re-elected in massive landslides. Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans' "Contract with America" were mercilessly skewered in the media, but that didn't prevent the GOP's historic romp to victory in 1994. During Obama's presidency, Republicans were inundated with negative coverage. Yet those were the years when Republican pickups at every level of government left the GOP stronger than it had been in 80 years. And despite being excoriated by the media for offenses ranging from "voter suppression" to defending the filibuster to opposing Roe v. Wade, Republicans appear to be heading for another historic triumph at the polls.

Like the wizard of Oz, the mainstream media isn't nearly as great and powerful as its reputation would have it. Frankly, how liberal can the "mainstream" be in an era when Fox News is the most-watched cable news network, when the conservative Daily Wire news site far outstrips every other publisher on Facebook, and when Ben Shapiro's podcast is consistently ranked among the most popular in the United States? There was a time when the liberal-dominated media in this country had something like a monopoly on national news and commentary, but that time is long past. "The talk radio revolution pioneered by Rush Limbaugh and the rise of Fox News," Jonah Goldberg noted recently, "can only be understood as a rebellion against the hegemony — real or perceived — of the liberal media."

That rebellion succeeded. It did so not by making the legacy media more conservative — if anything, traditional news outlets are more left-leaning than ever — but by creating a parallel media universe that tilts well to the right and attracts a vast audience of its own. Like so much else in America these days, the media are deeply polarized. Liberals have their news outlets; conservatives have theirs. It isn't ideal. Our society would be healthier if Americans shared more common ground, or if journalists operating in the right- and left-wing echo chambers had more respect for those with a different worldview. In the meantime, partisans on both sides can complain about bias in the media. And if journalists don't like how an election turns out, well, there's always another one on the horizon.

*****************************************************

Leftist haters are mounting a serious attempt to destroy civilization in America

Newt Gingrich

Two patterns of destroying civilization are coming together to form a river of violence and intimidation that can destroy the Constitution, the rule of law, and the very basic elements of our free society.

On the political front, there is a self-righteous fanaticism dominating the secular-religious intensity of the Left. This has convinced many on the left that the end justifies the means and therefore, they have the right to break the law for political purposes.

Whether it is burning down neighborhoods, smashing store windows, or throwing Molotov cocktails into pro-life offices, the woke Left has now broken free from the restrictions of the American system of law and constitutional government.

Theodore White warned of this growing extremism in his book, “The Making of the President 1972,” when he described the militant, uncompromising Left as having moved from a liberal ideology to a liberal theology. Now, 50 years later, the theology of the woke Left has grown more extreme, more hostile, and more willing to use force and intimidation to get what it wants.

I should note that mobs are always wrong, whether it is a summer of riots in cities, people occupying the Capitol on January 6, 2021, or mobs staking out the homes of Supreme Court Justices.

Most recently, the mobs threatening conservative Justices, protesting outside of their homes, and consciously seeking to intimidate them into voting as the Left demands is an example of the political violence that is growing and becoming legitimized on the left.

This political violence is paralleled by the personal violence of hardened criminals that the Left is releasing from jail and putting back on the street. The timidity of the innocent in refusing to put down either mobs or criminals increases the demands and the dangers of both.

The spirit of breaking the law in large groups is mob violence. In small groups, that spirit is criminal. However, when criminals see mobs being tolerated, they are more likely to believe there will be no consequences for committing crimes.

It is time for the innocent and the law-abiding to reimpose civilization on the vicious, the violent, and the predatory.

It really is that simple.

The question is whether the American people are ready to throw out the politicians who have put their lives and their country at risk.

************************************************

Why progressives can't tolerate Christians

Leftism is a religion too so they see Christianity as a rival religion

For decades, Christians have talked about feeling persecuted in advanced secular and liberal democracies. They’ve often sounded a bit hysterical. It’s true that governments and societies have moved towards a kind of post-Christianity. The world in which we live has adopted some of the gentler stuff about love and ignored the challenging stuff about sex. Devout Catholics, Anglicans and Evangelicals can therefore be made to feel a bit weird and out of place. But persecuted? Not really. Christians are on the whole free to live according to their faith without harassment, which is very unlike the situation in some Muslim counties — or China.

Look at the vicious reaction to the big Supreme Court news about Roe v. Wade in America, however, and you see something changing. Enraged by what they perceive as a dastardly plot by the religious right to take back control of women’s bodies, American progressives have turned aggressively on Christian groups.

Masses and services have been disrupted and churches graffitied. A tabernacle has been stolen from a church in Texas. In Wisconsin, Antifa protestors threw Molotov cocktails into a Christian counselling centre. ‘If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.’ Those words were scrawled on the side of the building.

There’s also the very angry group called Ruth Sent Us, named in a curiously quasi-religious way after the late feminist Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth Sent Us published the GPS coordinates for the homes of Supreme Court justices.

The idea, surely, was to encourage pro-abortion activists to harass and intimidate the justices. Intimidating judges is a crime. Last week there were protests outside the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Ruth Sent Us declared on Twitter: ‘Stuff your rosaries and your weaponised prayer… We will be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic churches have condoned for centuries.’

The use of the word ‘weaponised’ there is interesting. If organised religion is just a load of cobblers, how can the act of prayer be a weapon? If the Eucharist is just superstition, why burn it? But the pro-abortion movement is increasingly defined by its rage and militant sense of righteousness. That rage is not deployed to ‘defend women’, whatever pro-abortion protestors may say. It is, as we can see, aimed directly at the many people who still believe in God and the sanctity of life. There’s almost a palpable frustration that Christian views still have any sway in the public square at all.

Of course, abortion is controversial. The issue arouses strong feelings. But almost no reasonable person who has looked closely at the matter agrees that Roe v. Wade is an ideal way of settling a difficult question. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft verdict is not an assault on female rights. Even Bader Ginsberg, the patron saint of Ruth Sent Us, agreed that Roe v. Wade was bad law, and countless other pro-abortion legal scholars agree.

The Mississippi case, which Alito was responding to in his leaked draft opinion, doesn’t even ban abortions. It merely proposes to make most abortions illegal after 15 weeks, which means Mississippi abortion law would still be more liberal than, say, the law in France, Germany, Italy or Greece. As the bill for the law states, ‘fully 75 per cent of all nations do not permit abortion after 12 weeks’ gestation, except (in most instances) to save the life and preserve the physical health of the mother.’

The vehemence of the reaction to the Supreme Court leak, however, and the violent targeting of Christians as enemies of progress, suggests that America’s pro-abortion movement is not just for women’s rights, it’s against Christian ones. For progressives, democracies should move away from tolerance if it means that religious people can have power. That’s not liberalism. It’s revolutionary secularism. And it’s frightening.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************


Monday, May 16, 2022



Are we destined for multiple loves? Millennials think we are

As a person who has been married four times, it is possible that I might have something useful to say about this. The crazy thing is that I actually have some talent for monogamy. In all four of my marriages I did not stray. But before and in between marriages I had a lot of significant, enjoyable but uncommitted relationships. After 40, however I became more interested in committment and subsequently had a long term marriage and a long term relationship

So a possible lesson from that is that monogamy is for later life. And that may be because we don't know what we want until we have sampled a variety of possibilities. That is bad advice for people in early life, however, as it is not conducive to marriage and chidren

But there is no doubt that a variety of experiences is desirable. I would not for all the world have missed the many wonderful ladies I have been involved with. They were all different and all good women.

Something that I am grateful for, however, is that none of my partings have been acrimonious. I still in fact have two "exes" very much in my life as friends -- rather to the disgruntlement of my present girlfriend.

And thereby lies what I think is the second lesson that I think I have to offer: I never lie to women. The most upsetting thing in breakups is not usually the breakup itself but rather the feeling of betrayal that comes from a trusted partner having a secret affair. Being lied to by a trusted partner is about as upsetting as it gets. I have passed up possible affairs rather than do that. It is amazing what a woman will put up with from her man but being lied to is the big exception

So I do regard having many partners over a lifetime as greatly desirable but how you go about arranging that has to be an individual matter. Fortunately, anything goes these days


“Is it possible we could develop an alternative model of loving each other?” This is the question posed by the character Bobbi in Sally Rooney’s debut novel Conversations with Friends, and is a core tenet of the story. Spoken by a 21-year-old, are these words merely youthful idealism?

Conversations with Friends follows university students Bobbi and Frances, whose lives become entangled with those of a wealthy couple in their 30s, Melissa and Nick. Similar to Rooney’s Normal People, it’s set in Dublin but rather than an intense love story, Conversations with Friends depicts monogamy (and the prospect of marriage) as rather bleak. Melissa and Nick sleep in separate beds and have both had affairs. The affair Nick has with Frances, the core plot line, seems to reinvigorate their marriage and they return to monogamous life. The farce is that the success of their “monogamous” relationship hinges precisely on the relationships that exist outside of it.

Now, the novel has been adapted for television as a limited series on Amazon Prime, starring Alison Oliver, Sasha Lane, Jemima Kirke, and Joe Alwyn.

In an interview with The Telegraph London, Kirke spoke of the cognitive shift the role required her to make. “It’s remarkable that someone of that age [Rooney] has so much discipline and focus, but as I was finally reading the book, I was thinking, ‘This is marriage written from the perspective of a 22-year-old.’ I don’t think that’s good or bad. Her writing is beautiful but there were moments when I struggled to make something work.”

Kirke, 38, is no stranger to married life and its potential to fail after splitting with her husband of eight years in 2017. And while she’s not opposed to marriage, she does take a more carefree approach to it. “The perspective of marriage as something super-permanent and spiritual is really antiquated.”

Jennifer Pinkerton spoke to more than 100 Australians aged under 40 for her book Heartland: What is the future of modern love? She says that the decline in people getting married is not a phenomenon that’s just relegated to Millennials and Gen Z. “Globally, marriage has been a downward travelling trend for 50 years now. When we speak about fewer people getting married, it’s not just the younger generations.” (The only exception to this, she notes, is gay marriage).

Certainly, however, this downward trend has accelerated in the past decade. In 2020, 78,989 marriages were registered in Australia, a 30.6 per cent decrease from 2019, and the largest annual drop ever reported by the ABS since 1961. Obviously COVID-19 has played a role but there are other key trends too. Pinkerton suggests that a high divorce rate means young people, seeing their parents getting divorced, have grown disillusioned with marriage. Global instability is another big one. “Climate change and war mean that the future is less certain,” says Georgia Grace, a Sydney-based sex and relationship therapist. She adds that the sex positive movement means that acceptance for different relationship models is changing.

Nina Lee, 32, is part of this declining group. A Sydney-based hairdresser and owner of Extra Silky, she married her long-term partner Aedan Lee during lockdown last year. While the couple isn’t religious and didn’t face familial pressure, marrying was just something they both knew would happen. “It felt like a natural progression”, she says, adding that it was about “solidifying our love.”

Alice, 22 (who is using a pseudonym for privacy reasons) lives in Sydney, and has been in a monogamous relationship for three-and-a-half years. Both are bisexual, and her partner identifies as non-binary. “Love is a choice to be together”, she says. “I can’t imagine anything less romantic than having a legal document officiate my relationship.”

For Millennials, there can be certain dealbreakers in finding love. Harriet, 34 (Sydney), has never wanted children. “Even when I was a little girl, I never played house with dolls – if anything I would play ‘dog mummy and daddy’.” Harriet’s last serious relationship ended after seven years. In her early 20s, the question of kids wasn’t such a concern. Now, it can make dating a little more complicated. “I make sure to talk kids and politics on the first or second date.”

Are rigid constraints of marriage a thing of the past? “Younger generations are now more likely to crave fulfillment, connection and flexibility rather than permanence in relationships,” says Pinkerton.

Polyamory, then, is a natural result of this shift in values. Georgia Grace says that she is increasingly working with people interested in exploring this. While popular perception of polyamory is that it’s just about promiscuity, there’s no singular model for what it can look like. “I work with couples to create a relationship structure that works for them,” she says. “Non-violent communication, consent and having a network of supportive, sex positive friends and family are at its core.”

In Melbourne, Emil, 29, is a counsellor for people with HIV and a sex worker. They document encounters with clients and lovers on Instagram, posting polaroids of men alongside captions about the intimacy of the meeting.

The overwhelming majority of clients are straight men. Their reasons for visiting are myriad – for many, it’s a means to be a version of themselves outside of monogamous, heterosexual love, for others it’s a way of indulging a fetish or sheer curiosity. One quote accompanies an Instagram story picturing a man’s chest: “I hope you understand how hard this is for me. I always have my religion at the back of my head.”

Emil wants to change the way society views hook-up culture. “Most people see such encounters as disposable or transactional, but they can be deeply intimate and emotional too,” they say. “We have these very crystallised ideas of polyamory but really it just means you can love more than one person.”

*********************************************

Bittersweet Victory for Doctor After Practice Unlawfully Suspended for Refusing Vaccine

After six months of suspension, Rhode Island, in its munificence, has permitted the “defiant” maxillofacial surgeon Dr. Stephen Skoly to reopen his medical practice. Of course, in the mind of the state, the suspension was always Skoly’s own fault. If only he had submitted.

When the vaccine mandate for health care workers was promulgated to be effective Oct. 1, 2021, Skoly had the temerity to consult his personal physician and study the medical literature. He was a survivor of Bell’s palsy facial paralysis, and the medical advice, consistent with medical literature, was to not risk vaccination. Bell’s palsy paralysis is dormant in your body, and vaccination may incite a reoccurrence.

Rhode Island’s vaccine mandate for health care workers allowed an exemption for certain medical conditions (though not recognizing Bell’s palsy). To protect patients from infection, Rhode Island permitted the unvaccinated exempt worker to work with patients so long as the unvaccinated exempt worker was N95-masked.

For Skoly, N95 masking was a breeze. He is a dental surgeon. Around patients, he is always N95-masked, and wears a surgical shield, gloves, a gown, and engages in other safety precautions far in excess of the mere N95 masking required for vaccine exempted health care workers.

There was more. Skoly has natural immunity. Having continued to serve the community throughout the epidemic, Skoly had contracted COVID-19, most probably while serving a patient at the state’s psychiatric hospital or prison (where, in addition to his private practice, he worked as a dental surgeon).

Certainly, Skoly thought, between his safety precautions and natural immunity, the state would permit him to practice without vaccination. The state was rational after all, wasn’t it? Prior to the Oct. 1, 2021, effective date of the vaccine mandate, Skoly explained to a reporter why, for medical reasons, he could not be vaccinated.

Immediately, the press branded him as “defiant,” and the Rhode Island Department of Health suspended him from practice. As it exempted over 300 other health care workers from vaccination, so long as they were N95-masked, the state continued to refuse to treat Skoly the same—to allow him to practice his livelihood while N95-masked.

Many suffered. Skoly tried to keep his staff but could not: He was forced to lay off 10 workers—parents with children and mortgages. What happened to his hundreds of private patients, many in mid-treatment? He tried to refer them to other dentists, but the waiting lists were monthslong. His patients at the psychiatric hospital? Rhode Island tried to hire a replacement but could not. There is a shortage of maxillofacial surgeons in Rhode Island.

But the prison system did find a workaround the Rhode Island dental surgeon shortage: At a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, the prison flew in weekly a surgeon from out-of-state to replace Skoly.

Unemployable, Skoly himself applied for unemployment benefits. Benefits were denied. He had made himself unemployable as a doctor by not being vaccinated, he was told. And he was also told he could always apply for a job at Walmart.

But he did get an answer as to why the state could not just treat him like an exempt medical worker and let him keep working so long as he was N95-masked. He had opened his “big mouth” and gone to the press, making his suspension a political, not a medical, issue. The state does not tolerate any questioning of its vaccine conduct. The only option offered by the state was submission—be vaccinated or have your livelihood destroyed.

Skoly sued, as is still one’s right in Rhode Island. A hearing was scheduled for mid-March 2022. He retained two of the nation’s most experienced COVID-19 doctors and researchers to testify to the irrationality of Rhode Island’s COVID-19 policy, particularly its refusal to recognize natural immunity as being more durable and effective than vaccine immunity.

Three days before the hearing, Rhode Island altered its policy. The new COVID-19 safety rule required health care workers to be vaccinated or N95-masked in the presence of patients. The court hearing was adjourned as unnecessary.

Rhode Island stated, in writing, that it would be irrational to treat the vaccinated and N95-masked workers differently—just as Skoly had been arguing since October 2022.

On March 11, 2022, the state permitted Skoly to put up his “open for business” sign.

It has not been easy. Skoly’s staff had scattered. It has been difficult to locate new hires. But the process has begun, and patients, denied treatment for months, have returned. And new patients have come, many saying that they want to be treated by the man who said “no” to the state.

The process is not over. Rhode Island continues to refuse to recognize the effectiveness of natural immunity. With COVID-19 variants, there will be new “emergency” rules and mandates. No Rhode Islander is safe from a new vaccine rule that arbitrarily throws someone out of work. Skoly has been there and has survived. It is not likely that he would survive another arbitrary suspension.

But, for now, he has “won.” He is working. He is free to take his physician’s medical advice about his personal medical treatment. He is free to speak his mind about public issues such as the vaccine mandate.

The victory is partial and bittersweet. How many Rhode Islanders—police officers, firefighters, teachers, office workers—have been forced from employment because they would not vaccinate? For Skoly, a battle has been won. The cost was high. The war conti

************************************************

Anguished parents of trans kids fight back against ‘gender cult’ trying to silence them

When Denise Canaan’s 17-year-old daughter Chiara came out as a trans man in 2014, she thought it was “cool” at first.

Even though Chiara made her announcement after watching trans-oriented YouTube videos and social media for just a few weeks, Denise said she wasn’t worried.

“The trans thing sounded like it was going to be the next big civil rights issue and I thought, great!” said Denise, who lives in North Carolina. “I didn’t know much about it.”

But when Chiara immediately began talking about undergoing a medical transition, which can involve puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, Denise got nervous. Chiara wanted a mastectomy, or what is called “top surgery.”

“I knew something wasn’t right because this came out of nowhere,” Denise said. “I didn’t care what kind of clothes or hairstyle my kid wanted to wear. I supported all that. The medical intervention is the real issue. I scoured the Internet for help but there was nothing out there. I was screaming into the void. But there were no groups out there to help.”

So she started one, called 4th Wave Now, which was the first to question the more extreme aspects of gender ideology and “trans kids,” a population that started to explode in 2015, accelerated by trans-friendly content on social media.

Since then, a number of activist and parent support groups have sprung up, including GenSpect, Partners for Ethical Care, Our Duty, Transgender Trend and Parents With Inconvenient Truths About Trans or PITT.

Parents of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria Kids launched in 2017 with just two mothers. Now they have more than 2,000 members and are growing rapidly with chapters in most states and some in Europe and Asia.

“I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy,” an activist mom who uses the pseudonym Charlie Jacobs told The Post. “We face teachers going behind our backs, radical trans activists trying to doxx us, we face gender clinics pumping our kids full of hormones and we face our college-age daughters coming home for Christmas with no breasts. I’m a liberal. I believed it all at first. But this is the emperor’s new clothes, designed to hurt children.”

In the past, some experts say, transgender people were a rarity and doctors advised months if not years of counseling prior to taking hormones or undergoing surgery to change gender.

It wasn’t until 2007 when Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric endocrinologist, opened the country’s first pediatric gender clinic in Boston. There are now an estimated 60 to 300 gender clinics that provide hormonal intervention to minors.

According to activists, kids in some states can get blockers and hormones just by walking into a Planned Parenthood office or a gender clinic within an hour.

“The colleges are handing it out like candy,” said Josie, head of Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans website and the mother of an 18-year-old son who came home from school one day and said he wanted to transition. “You go to the college health center and say you’re trans and you get the hormones with hardly any questions asked. Some colleges you can get the surgery free.”

The majority of parents who spoke to The Post described themselves as Democrats. They said they are not anti-trans but oppose extreme gender ideology and what is called the “medicalization” of trans youth. They rail against what they say is the emotional blackmail peddled by trans activists.

“They all say you must affirm your trans child because anything else leads to suicide,” said Maria Keffler, a mother, author and head of Advocates Protecting Children. “That’s not true and they don’t have the data to back that up. We offer a counter-narrative for parents to navigate out of what we believe is a cult, a gender cult.”

The rise in parent opposition groups coincides with the Biden Administration’s increasing advocacy of all things trans.

On March 31, the Dept. of Health and Human Services, where Admiral Rachel L. Levine, a transgender woman, is Assistant Secretary, released a manifesto encouraging early “gender-affirming” surgeries for young people as well as puberty blockers and hormones.

The Department of Justice also sent a strongly worded letter to all state attorneys general “reminding” them that anyone who does not allow “gender-affirming care” for trans youths could be violating their constitutional civil rights.

Many of the parents involved in the support groups asked to be anonymous, saying that if they question any aspect of the trans kids movement they are immediately labeled transphobic, bigoted and guilty of hate speech.

“I have nothing against the whole trans thing except for the fact that my kid isn’t transgender,” said Gigi, a California mother in her 50s whose child wanted to become trans and who works with the UK anti-gender ideology organization, Our Duty.

“Most of these kids fit a pattern — they may be depressed, have anxiety, be on the spectrum or have same-sex attraction. But they get celebrated for coming out. People applaud, the teachers call you the name you want. You become bulletproof, it gives you status. Meanwhile the parents have to worry about Child Protective Services (CPS) coming to their door if they don’t go along with it.”

************************************************

BLM has left Black Americans worse off since the movement began, experts say

The Black Lives Matter movement started a massive wave of Americans uniting to call for defunding the police and eradicating white supremacy to make positive changes for Black Americans. But experts reflecting on the movement’s scorecard in 2022 say Black America hasn’t benefited.

"I would argue that, on balance, these communities are worse off because by [BLM] overemphasizing the role of police, they've changed police behavior for the worse," the Manhattan Institute’s Jason Riley told Fox News Digital in a phone interview. "In other words, police do become more cautious. They're less likely to get out of their cars and engage with people in the community. And to the extent that police are less proactive, the criminals have the run of the place."

Riley noted that "police brutality still exists, bad cops exist," and he has no "problem with raising awareness about police misconduct." But he argued that BLM is "over-focused" on police and does not take into account that "97, 98% [of Black homicides] do not involve police at all."

Dr. Carol Swain, a retired professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, told Fox News Digital that "an intelligent observer would be hard-pressed to identify any area in American society where BLM’s activism has benefited the Black community."

"What BLM has done is pervert the criminal justice system by engaging in activities that have resulted in a growing trend of trials by media," Swain said. "BLM has intimidated juries and judges. Its leaders have no interest in due process or the presumption of innocence."

Black Lives Matter began with the social media hashtag #BlackLivesMatter and was officially founded in 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting case of 17-year-old ​​Trayvon Martin. Chants of "Black Lives Matter" later rang out at protests following the police-involved killing of Michael Brown in Missouri in 2014 and continued to into the next year after the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.

It ultimately grew to a vast movement by the summer of 2020 that swept the highest echelons of America, from corporate leaders to Hollywood icons to powerful sports figures pledging support.

Defunding the police is a cornerstone of BLM’s mission and remains on its list of seven demands on the group’s website.

"We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health and education investments — we will never be truly safe," BLM posted in July 2020.

But as the calls to defund rang out, violent crimes in the Black community skyrocketed. Murders in the 2010s first broke the 7,000 mark in 2015 after the highly-publicized deaths of Gray that same year and Brown in 2014, jumping by nearly a thousand in one year.

In 2020, the year George Floyd was killed during an interaction with Minneapolis police, Black murders jumped by a staggering 32% compared to 2019, according to FBI data.

Overall, Black murders increased by 43% that year compared to the prior 10-year average. CDC data published Tuesday additionally showed that in 2020, Black Americans were disproportionally affected by gun-related homicides, increasing by 39.5% that year compared to 2019. Gun-related homicides rose by 35% overall that year, according to the CDC.

"Certainly, the protests and riots mid-2020 after the death of George Floyd followed a pattern of spiking violence that we've seen following past viral police incidents, such as the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. This pattern has been termed the ‘Ferguson Effect' — police pull back while violent crime spikes precipitously," Hannah Meyers, director of the policing and public safety initiative at the Manhattan Institute, previously told Fox News Digital.

The Ferguson Effect unfolded again in 2020, according to experts, but polling showed the Black community wasn’t on board with the calls to defund.

A Gallup poll from August 2020 found 81% of Black Americans wanted "police to spend [the] same amount of or more time in their area," compared to 19% reporting police should spend less time in their neighborhood.

Riley said that the polling shows "that these activists are not in step with the people who actually live in these violent communities."

"You have to remember the overwhelming majority of people who live in these communities are law-abiding. You're talking about a very small percentage, mostly men, and mostly young men that are causing all this havoc in these communities. Many of these people would leave these communities. They can't afford to move anywhere else, so they're forced to deal with this."

Swain added that "BLM focuses on scattered cases of police abuse," but ignores "the horrendous Black-on-Black crimes that take place daily in cities around the nation."

***************************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Sunday, May 15, 2022


Crazy love

The strength of the attachment that some women develop towards a man never ceases to amaze me. The story below is an  enormously sad example of that.  

We all know that women tend to like tall, well-built  men but what if the man is 6'9" tall?  For one lady, a 56-year-old widow, it produced a love so strong she sacrificed everything for the chance of being with her man.   But her love was obstructed by his circumstances.  He was in jail for murder.  

So there was no real hope that she could ever live with him.  So she tried a desperate gamble and when that failed she suicided. She could not live without him.

The love of a woman can be an amazing thing.  What women put up with from their men is a never-ending wonder: A very sad wonder in this case.  She was attractive and resourceful but her love betrayed her. A terrible waste






In an obscure Indiana town on the banks of the Ohio River, the 11-day manhunt for escaped convict Casey Cole White and his jailboss girlfriend Vicky White came to a crashing end.

The Alabama fugitives, who’d been in a “jailhouse romance” for nearly two years before Vicky broke Casey out of the Lauderdale County jail on April 29, were found hiding in plain sight at a dingy, roadside motel some 300 miles away on Monday.

With cops hot on their tail, they fled the Motel 41 in Evansville and led police on a chase that ended later that afternoon when members of the US Marshals Service rammed into the couple’s latest getaway car, sending it careening into a ditch.

The pair had planned to end their time on the run in a bloody blaze of glory by starting a shootout with police — but instead, Vicky turned the gun on herself the moment cops closed in, while Casey surrendered.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/10/how-vicky-white-casey-white-spent-11-days-on-the-lam-in-alabama-jailbreak/

**********************************************



A sad lady. She's never had a boyfriend



Melissa Alvarez, writing below,  is a 29 year old Film Industry professional living in Los Angeles.  That's a very critical environment where everyone is aiming for the sky so unless you have a "gimmick", you will not be noticed

And I am fairly sure what her problem is:  She is not pretty -- not by the Nordic standards that prevail in Hollywood, anyway. That makes you invisible in Hollywood.  But for her never to have had any sort of real relationship is sad.  She might be better to move to Texas.  Her dark Hispanic looks would be more normal there

Looks do matter and it is rare for a relationship to begin without the pair liking one-another's looks.  At my age (78) I would have to have very unattractive looks.  And so I have found it.  When I became single again a couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time approaching women online and got a heap of rapid  knockbacks.  But eventually along came a lady of around my age who DID like my looks, much to my surprise.  We now have a very warm relationship. I like her looks too. We do of course have other things in common but looks were the starting point

So that's how it is with Ms Alvarez.  Without good looks you have to wait a long time.  I only hope she gets as  lucky as I did.  The only thing that would probably help her would be to get a boob job.  Sorry to be so crass but in the world she lives in that is probably orthodox advice



So, I’m 29 years old. I’ve never had someone ask me to be their girlfriend. I’ve never called someone my boyfriend. I’ve dated a lot of people who wanted a casual relationship. Men I met off of apps who said they were looking for a relationship, but in the same breath said they were just having fun. I’ve been involved with a lot of men who didn’t see me worthy of commitment. I’ve also dated a lot of men who were in transition in their life.

Men who voiced that I was intimidating. Men who wanted to get their life together before they ventured into a committed relationship. I found this odd because they had relationships before. They might have been talking to someone else. I didn’t pick up on the fact that they weren’t actually interested in me seriously or romantically. It wasn’t until afterwards that I realized they were feeding me fboy jargon.

I only realized after their IG engagement announcement.

This is not something I’m super stoked on sharing. I’ve gone through a lot of trial and error. I’ve accepted the bare minimum a lot, in hopes that the person I was dating would change their tune about commitment once they saw how great a relationship would be. Or once we were in a relationship for all intents and purposes.

I was willing to accept scraps. I didn’t fully understand how people romantically behaved.

I was always looking for a relationship, but would settle. It felt like everyone was just looking for casual. Now, I don’t believe that. I believe the types of men I was going after were looking for casual. I tend to go after men who possess the same characteristics my mother does. That’s a whole nother article in itself — that relationship is complex.

I feel like I wasted a lot of time being involved with casual dudes. I wasted a lot of time where I could have been happy single.

I feel too old to have a relationship, just to have a relationship.

At my age, the question of marriage comes up a lot. My girlfriends who are in long term relationships are anticipating that they will marry their boyfriends. The marriage question is coming up in their lives. There are a lot of men who are secretly looking for who they’ll settle down with, even though they say they’re not. They’re just not looking to settle down with, you. They keep the casual girl around until their match comes along. So, now I’m worried. I don’t want my first boyfriend to be the man I marry.

If I’m not looking to get married, I don’t want that to make me a target for getting used for sex.

I didn’t get to have a lot of relationships. I didn’t get to have healthy ones, or ones where I was secure in where I stood. I want that, but I’m not looking to get married in a certain time frame. I’m not looking to get married in a few years. I want to date someone for real, I don’t want to be casual, but I’m not ready to settle down either. I fear that that sounds like a catch22.

Nonetheless, that is simply how I feel.

I think a lot of us are in a tough spot. We’ve been on the shifty dating scene too long. We didn’t come out on the other side of apps with multiple ex- boyfriends.

We emerged with lessons.

https://medium.com/heres-the-thing/i-dont-want-my-first-boyfriend-to-be-my-last-f3766b955600

**************************************************



Sorry, Leftists, Medieval England Wasn’t Black

There was a previous episode of similar nonsense in 2017

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

While it’s almost become cliché at this point to refer to the radical left’s antics using the language of George Orwell’s “1984,” the left’s ongoing assault against honest and accurate history makes Orwell’s tale look quaint in comparison.  

A recent example of the leftist war on history concerns a book called the “The Bright Ages” and the ensuing kerfuffle over race in the medieval period.  

The book reframes the collective understanding of the medieval period from the 400s to the 1400s as a dark and violent time and highlights the stories of nonwhite minorities and women in Europe, attempting to frame them in a larger role.  

The New York Times reported that even though the book would seem to hit all the proper leftist checkmarks of centering on women and minorities, it still wasn’t enough.  

“The language and core themes of the book don’t reveal brightness so much as ‘whiteness,’” wrote Mary Rambaran-Olm. Rambaran-Olm is a historian who focuses on race in early England.

She continues,  

Writing a book that aims to feature women and/or other marginalized figures demands a stepping outside of oneself that is not accomplished throughout this work. Simply naming women who remained subsidiaries in a patriarchal society, or referring to auxiliary figures who were Muslim, Jewish, Mongols, or pagans (never mind the near erasure of trans or queer folk) in order to demonstrate how Christianity developed is nothing less than Christian apologia.

In other words, the white men who wrote the book didn’t go far enough in explaining that it’s really women and minorities, and not the white natives, who really impacted Europe.  

Recent attacks on history from radical leftist academics in publications intended mostly for other academics aside, historical revisionism is a plague currently infecting our entertainment and media landscape as well.  

In an example from Hollywood, Robert Eggers’ new Viking epic “The Northman” received criticism from one pop culture website for not focusing on female Viking warriors. While there’s no compelling evidence to suggest female warriors or shield maidens existed in the Viking Age, that doesn’t stop the left from clamoring for more female representation in places they didn’t historically exist.

It’s a shame the left would rather lie and pretend history was always as diverse or enlightened as modern-day San Francisco instead of perhaps focusing on the great untold stories featuring real minorities from throughout history.  

The story of Robert Smalls, a slave who stole a Confederate battleship, sailed his way to freedom, fought in the Civil War, and then became a congressman comes to mind as the type of story the left claims to want to see.

Never heard of him? Most people haven’t. So, why not tell that story instead of trying to pretend medieval England was ethnically diverse?  

Sadly, this obsession with creating a nonexistent ethnically diverse antiquity has further consequences than just a lack of historical accuracy.  

If minorities are constantly race-swapped into versions of real history, it ironically reinforces the idea that only white people matter and that the only way to get minorities into the limelight is by swapping out a white character.  

How’s that for “white privilege”?

Leftists like to claim history is subjective. It is not. It is the lens through which we view history that is subjective. Whether you view George Washington as a glorious Pater Patriae or a vicious slave owner is a lens. That he fought the British, was the first president of the United States of America, and was buried at Mount Vernon are facts.  

The left is currently trying to break the distinction between a fact and a lens.  

No factual evidence exists that shield maidens were widespread? That goes against what I want, so I’ll just teach otherwise.  

To come full circle, the left is indeed trying to control the past to control the future, as Orwell prognosticated. His book warns us just what a tragedy that would be.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05/12/sorry-leftists-medieval-england-wasnt-black/

************************************************




‘Phage therapy’ successes boost fight against drug-resistant infections

Phage therapy has been known for around a century and had a particular following in the old Soviet Union.  But Western researchers long saw it as a poor relation to antibiotics.  It's much more than that.  Good that some now realize it

Two US patients have recovered from intractable infections after being treated with a pioneering therapy involving genetically engineered bacteria-killing viruses.

The cases raise hopes that so-called phage therapy could be used more widely to combat the global crisis of drug-resistant infections. One of the patients, Jarrod Johnson, a 26-year-old man with cystic fibrosis, was approaching death after suffering a chronic lung infection that resisted treatment by antibiotics for six years. After being given the phage therapy, his infection cleared allowing him to receive a lung transplant and resume an active life.

“I am so grateful for the effort, persistence and creativity of all the people who were involved in my treatment,” said Johnson, who lives in Denver. “I thought I was going to die. They have literally saved my life.”

The other patient, a 56-year-old man with severe arthritis, showed a remarkable recovery from a skin infection that was taking hold of his body and which had proved untreatable with conventional drugs. The team, who also developed the breakthrough treatment of a British teenager four years ago, say these latest cases will pave the way for a clinical trial of phage therapy, which could launch as soon as next year.

“These two reports really provide substantial encouragement for phage treatments for patients where antibiotics not only fail to control the infections, but also contribute substantial toxicity,” said Prof Graham Hatfull, whose team at the University of Pittsburgh developed the therapies.

Prof Martha Clokie, a microbiologist at the University of Leicester who was not involved in the work, said: “There is a growing feeling within the clinical community … that phages could be part of the solution for patients, especially with those that really at the moment have no other alternative option. The overall need for alternatives for antibiotics is huge.”

In 2019, 1.2 million people are estimated to have died globally as a direct cause of antimicrobial resistant infections and in about 5 million people, a multi-drug-resistant infection contributed to their death.

Bacteriophages, phages for short, are harmless viruses that are natural enemies of bacteria. Hatfull has spent nearly four decades amassing a collection of phages, stored in 20,000 frozen vials in his lab. “We’ve got a large collection of phages, and we’ve sequenced over 4,000 of their genomes, so we understand their genomic profiles and relationships in exquisite detail,” he said.

Since the 2019 British case, the team has been inundated with requests from doctors who had run out of treatment options for patients. “That’s when the floodgates opened,” said Dr Rebekah Dedrick, a research associate in Hatfull’s lab. “We started to get requests from around the world, and we still get them.”

One of these was Dr Jerry Nick, director of the adult cystic fibrosis programme at National Jewish Health in Denver.

His patient, Jarrod, has cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease that results in frequent infections clogging up the lungs with mucus. By 2020, his lungs had less than a third of their normal function and he had been plagued by a stubborn bacterial strains for six years. He was rejected for a lung transplant due to the high risk of the infection spreading once he was on immunosuppressant drugs. “In the year before the operation, he was admitted to hospital 11 times and for 200 days in total,” said Nick. “He was approaching death and probably had a year left.”

In 2016, Nick and his colleagues had sent samples of the Mycobacterium abscessus from Johnson’s lungs to Hatfull’s lab in the hope of finding a phage that could eliminate it. But phages are often specific for only a few types of bacteria so Hatfull and his team screened dozens of candidates before finally identifying two that efficiently killed the bacteria. They then genetically engineered the phages to boost their efficiency.

Johnson was treated with a combination of the phages and antibiotics for just over a year, requiring two daily intravenous injections, which cleared the infection, allowing him to have a lung transplant. His body developed some antibodies against the phages, but this happened slowly enough that the phages were able to get rid of the bacteria, quicker than the antibodies killed off the phage.

Since treatment, Johnson has finished high school, been working, met a girlfriend and although he has had some complications from the transplant, overall Nick says he is doing well.

The second patient, the 56-year-old man with arthritis, developed a serious skin infection, which is a risk among those on immunosuppressive drugs. He was treated with a single phage, called Muddy, which had been discovered in a sample taken from the underside of a decomposed aubergine. After a few weeks his skin lesions cleared and after two months he tested negative for the bacteria on a biopsy. He was treated for more than eight months in total.

The cases are described in the journals Cell and Nature Communications.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/may/13/phage-therapy-fight-against-drug-resistant-infections-antibiotics

*************************************************


May 13, 2022

The rejected soulmate lady again



I commented on this story here on 9th. But the Daily Mail has now picked it up. And they have added a whole lot of comments from readers about the story. The opening of their story:

"A mother-of-two has gone viral on social media after writing a memoir about leaving her husband of 14 years to pursue a stranger who she thought could be her 'soulmate'.

Amanda Trenfield, from Sydney, explained that she spent 20 years building a 'somewhat predictable life' with a career in the financial services alongside caring for two young children and her marriage.

In an extract from her new book, published by The Sydney Morning Herald, Amanda said that she was hoping to reconnect with her husband during a three-day conference in Margaret River but found herself drawn to another man, Jason, at the event due to the 'strong and raw' electricity between them"


None of the comments showed much understanding of what the woman reported so I am glad that I was able to add a supportive voice to the discussion.

At one level what she reported was a teenage "crush" very late in life but I thought that there was more in it than that. I have actually had similar experiences at a somewhat lower intensity. So I thought it might be appropriate for me to tell a bit about how it once went for me quite recently -- in 2020 -- with me in my 70s

In my story the lady is the one who was conflicted. We both felt right to one-another from the beginning but a circumstance made a relationship impossible. She knew that she should see nothing of me after our first meeting but for a while she just could not let me go.

We got on very easily during our initial meeting over morning tea but there was a large age gap between us. I was 77 and she was 64. We both saw that as a problem so all I could offer her was friendly dinners.

It turned out that my offer was attractive to her. And we did subsequently enjoy one another's company a lot over many dinners -- mostly on Saturday nights. Except for the age problem we would have formed a lasting relationship to see us through our remaining years.

Despite recognizing that we were not going anywhere together, she still wanted to see rather a lot of me. She too saw us as being of a related "type"

We never did have stable arrangements. A couple of times my physical unsuitability would get to her and she would email me breaking it off between us. Come the next Saturday night, however, she would relent and ask me to take her to dinner. I was happy to oblige. A friendship is less demanding than a sexual relationship.

Saturday is of course the big "going-out" night in our culture so that was significant. You usually see your "significant other" on that night

So on one such occasion we went to a nearby Burmese restaurant where we had a very good dinner and where we got on well. We watched some operetta back at my place after dinner.

Later on on a Sunday I had a breakfast at my usual haunt with her. She picked me up from home in her large Toyota Camry hybrid. We got on famously. Our breakfast lasted 3 hours, the latter half of which we spent back at my place! We discussed a remarkable range of things, including some quite intimate details of our pasts.

On a later date, she said she had been celebrating her 64th birthday with her family all the week so needed a special dinner on Saturday night. So I took her to the Persian restaurant, which always impresses. As I usually do, I ordered the the platter for two, which is actually two large platters plus a smaller platter, all three covered with enticing food. She was suitably impressed.

I had intended to bring a bottle of champagne but forgot. So she offered to walk down to the nearby drive-through to pick up a bottle. I gave her a $20 for the purpose. She asked me what I wanted and I said: "Just some cheap champagne". She was quite tickled by that. She kept repeating "cheap champagne"! She knows I am well-off so was surprised that I would drink such a thing. I just smiled. Anyway she came back with a rather impressive-looking $30 bottle of French champagne. French wine has got a lot cheaper in recent years. She said "I don't do cheap champagne". She is the ex-wife of a well-off professional man so is probably a bit spoilt. What she bought was a reasonable drop.

She and I normally dined together on Saturday evenings. Last Saturday, however, she was away for the long weekend ending on Monday. She obviously missed our Saturday, however, as she texted me on Tuesday morning (6th), asking if we could have breakfast together. I got the text a bit late for that so I took her to the "Buncha Buncha" North Vietnamese restaurant at Stone's corner that night.

On the way home, we picked up a dessert from Aldi-- Mango sorbet. We took it back to my place. First we had a cup of tea then the dessert. After that we watched part of an operetta on DVD. We were both a bit tired before we had watched much of the operetta so called it a night at that stage: a very pleasant night

Later: I had a particularly nice time with her at my place that night. She brought over champagne and some excellent pizza and drank rather a lot of the champagne. We mostly talked about relationships. We have both had a few

So for a while she and I had been having some good Saturday night dinners. And we got steadily closer as dinner followed dinner. We found a lot in common in our thinking.

So on another Saturday we had another good dinner together at a local restaurant, followed by dessert at my place, which was as pleasant as usual. But this time there was a sequel

Next day she turned up to meet me for breakfast as well. Dinner only with me was not enough this week. And after breakfast we did a Sunday drive to Wynnum. So I now seemed to have a definite new friend, which pleased me greatly. We did have lots of laughs while we were together

But something came up in her life that alerted her to where we were going and she knew that the age gap between us would be a long-term problem for her so she finally broke it off with me.

My present relationship is in some ways similar. I rapidy got on well with Zoe but there was not the compelling initial feeling like I had with the lady above. There does seem to be a strong draw to me for her, however. We both are aware of great differences between us and she often comments on them. She is for starters a Serb with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Belgrade. So much for a common culture! And she has often declared it "off" between us because of our differences. But she kept coming back to me and we now have arrived at a warm relationship between us. I think she is gorgeous. See her below -- JR

image from https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgEr5FsxZxjs_Bh2x2VD_JxySwjJV-0gjtmy4E5ilXqCiJ5oOa0inHPkd6NCx1iTmzUw60sfWNeNcmRZkXOMr915wW7d6Cve0huHcQLHHRhvshbMCcrYmrL_9OQSlLiT3mqbGX0xAl_TSTFohZq9MgDEu1E5KzgqXc9RMxZMp0aSXByMHG3hBrVZarH0w=s600

***********************************************

Boston's ignominious record of disrespecting free speech

by Jeff Jacoby

THE SUPREME COURT'S 9-0 decision Monday in Shurtleff v. Boston, the City Hall Plaza flagpole case, marked the third time in recent memory that the high court ruled unanimously that free speech rights in Boston and Massachusetts had been suppressed in violation of the Constitution.

In the 1995 case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the private organizers of the city's annual St. Patrick's Day parade turned down an Irish gay-pride group that wanted to carry a banner in the parade. The group, known as GLIB, sued for the right to march, arguing that the parade's organizers had no legal right to exclude them. Every Massachusetts court, up to and including the Supreme Judicial Court, ruled in GLIB's favor and said the parade organizers were obliged to accommodate them.

But when the case reached the nation's highest court, all nine justices agreed that Massachusetts was wrong. Under the First Amendment, the organizers of a private parade could not be compelled to admit a group whose message they chose not to promote. Fundamental to "the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say," wrote Justice David Souter. Massachusetts, the court held, "is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one."

Then there was the case of McCullen v. Coakley, which challenged a Massachusetts law requiring opponents of abortion to stay at least 35 feet away from the entrance to any abortion clinic. The law made it a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment, to speak, pray, or hold a sign within that "buffer zone" — even on a public sidewalk. Once again the Massachusetts courts, applauded by much of the state's political and media establishment, upheld the violation of free speech. Once again the US Supreme Court unanimously overruled them. All nine justices agreed that the Massachusetts law was repugnant to the First Amendment. Even the court's staunchest defenders of abortion rights — three of them women — emphasized that citizens have a right to express their views on public sidewalks.

Now, in yet another unanimous decision, the high court has admonished public officials in Boston for contravening the free speech rights of a group whose message they didn't care for.

For a dozen years, city officials had routinely allowed private organizations to hold hundreds of ceremonies on City Hall Plaza, always permitting them to raise any flag they wished on a flagpole that Boston had explicitly designated a "public forum." But when Harold Shurtleff, who heads a civic group called Camp Constitution, tried to schedule an hour-long ceremony to "commemorate the civic and social contributions of the Christian community" while flying a Christian flag, the city said no. This was the only time the city had denied a flag request, and its reason for doing so was clear: City Hall rejected Camp Constitution's application, wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in his opinion, because of "the fact that it was the Christian flag." In so doing, Boston "discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause."

Any one of these cases might have reflected honest confusion among Boston or Massachusetts officials about their constitutional obligation to protect freedom of expression. Three such cases point to a more serious problem. All three times, the power of the state, either legislative or judicial, was deployed to suppress a conservative and/or religious point of view. The parade organizers didn't want to celebrate LGBT pride. The prolife protesters wanted to recommend alternatives to abortion. Camp Constitution wanted to honor the role of Christianity in Boston history. Each time, the muscle of the government was flexed to keep the viewpoint from being expressed. And members of Boston's influential liberal elite, with rare exceptions, either said nothing or endorsed the infringement of the conservatives' First Amendment liberties.

Perhaps the most egregious occurred in August 2017, when a small group of little-known libertarians and eccentrics secured a permit to hold what they billed as a "Free Speech Rally" on Boston Common. The group posed a threat to no one. But their rally took place a week after the "Unite the Right" march of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., degenerated into deadly violence and there was a rumor something similar was planned for Boston. At a press conference with other elected officials, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh amplified the rumor and denounced the organizers of the minuscule rally. "Boston does not want you here," he declared, vowing to do everything he could to shut down the event.

In the end, the rally took place but the handful of speakers on the Parkman Bandstand were prevented from being heard. They were segregated behind a 225-foot buffer zone and uniformed officers made sure no one got close enough to listen to them. A directive from the Boston Police Department barred even reporters from approaching the speakers.

As a result, the members of the little rally "spoke essentially to themselves for about 50 minutes," the Globe reported. The city's "security measures denied them an audience as well as press coverage of what they had to say." When the city's police commissioner, Bill Evans, was later asked if it had been right to treat them that way, he unapologetically pronounced it "a good thing," adding: "Their message isn't what we want to hear."

The whole episode was shameful — another case in which the free-speech rights of a disfavored Boston minority were trampled underfoot by local government.

For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, the phrase "banned in Boston" evoked the right-wing Puritanism of the city's political leadership. Today Boston and Massachusetts are left-wing bastions, yet the willingness to stifle unpopular expression persists. All that has changed is that those censored now are likely to be politically or religiously conservative. That — and the fact that the justices of the Supreme Court, liberals and conservatives alike, are far more vigilant about upholding freedom of speech. How many more times must Boston be spanked by all nine members of the nation's highest court before it learns to treat the First Amendment with respect?

*************************************************

New Zealand's minority problem

Political corruption may always be endemic, but moves by our powerful, now immensely wealthy neo-tribal corporations have become so blatantly cynical they are arousing resentment throughout New Zealand.

When the constant, opportunistic claim comes that anti-Maori discrimination is such that Maoris are over-represented in all areas of disadvantage throughout New Zealand, few ask to see the actual evidence by asking who is actually Maori? These claims are routinely made by wealthy individuals – such as one former Maori MP earning hundreds of thousands of dollars annually sitting on Maori boards and trusts – reportedly owning close to $5 million in property and other assets, while constantly complaining colonisation has failed Maoris.

However, those making the most strident complaints seem in no hurry to repudiate the advantages which accrued as a result of European settlement – comfortable housing; heating; medical care; European clothing; supermarkets; cars; deep-freezers; cellphones; computers and so on.

European scientific discovery and technological wizardry gave Maori, too, the ability to fly anywhere in the world, to share in all innovations. So little was discrimination practised that no full-blooded Maoris can be found in New Zealand.

Every race has its villains – as any history of co-settlement makes plain. But New Zealanders became proud of being One People – as Captain William Hobson wished. History records many Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi being greatly relieved to now be under the protection of the British Crown, sharing the same legal rights as all other New Zealanders – as were the slaves and those aware that the vagaries of internecine warfare had them in line to be eaten, according to the barbaric and brutal practice of cannibalism.

Most part-Maori today share the same values as all other New Zealanders, anxious for their families to be cared for and to prosper, working to achieve success in the trades, professions, and on the land – as so many do. But not activist extremists and neo-tribal hierarchies, who, in spite of achieving multi-million dollar settlements for past grievances – some justified, others arguably fraudulent – don’t desist from demanding more and more ‘compensation’ from other New Zealanders.

Their constant complaints are that the supposedly detrimental effects of colonisation on the original Polynesians still persist today. It does not lead them to surrender the taxpayer-funded Maori television channel – risibly contrived by claiming entitlement to this by the signing of the treaty – nor to surrender priority placings reserved in our universities, our medical and law schools and elsewhere for those claiming even a smidgen of part-Maori inheritance. And although Maoris caused widespread ecological disasters – such as burning forests to hunt the last great moas to extinction, as with the giant Haast’s eagle, with its habitat destruction and the extinction of its prey – their neo-tribal descendants are now claiming special consultation rights throughout New Zealand on the grounds that Maori have superior conservation insights in these areas.

These same hierarchies manipulatively claim to represent ‘our people’ – the majority of whom they demonstrably don’t. So where did all this start? Undoubtedly, indoctrinating young Maoris in neo-Marxist orthodoxies coincided with removing the definition of a Maori, restricted until the mid-Seventies to those with 50 per cent Maori genetic inheritance. It then became claimed that if one felt Maori, one was Maori – with today’s neo-tribes anxious to incorporate those with as little as 1/16 or 1/32 genetic inheritance, or even less, to swell the numbers of a particular iwi, and gain more political influence. However, I well recall the well-respected Whetu Tirikanete-Sullivan, MP, of Ngai Tahu descent, pan-M?ori in her approach, arguing against this emphasis on tribal affiliation as divisive.

And what of a moral compass lacking not only among these iwi leaders but of lawyers representing them? In some instances the latter have apparently been incredibly ignorant of the fraudulent nature of the claims of tribes engaging them in litigation against the Crown.

In others, has a factor been the perennial problem of competitive lawyers seeking at all costs to win against the opposition?

The Ngai Tahu settlement of 1998, for example, has been described as a swindle – much evidence presented blatantly untrue – much of it a misrepresentation or twisting of actual facts. It has been well claimed this third ‘full and final settlement’ – with arguably unwarranted top-ups such as sole right to whale-watching in Kaikoura or to South Island greenstone (long carried north for barter by a prior, established tribe) – should never have been ratified by the government. Since its last supposedly final settlement, Ngai Tahu have contrived more handouts – even the right to plant their trees on Crown land which should belong to all New Zealanders.

However, most memorable are statements made at the time by the leaders of both Ngai Tahu and its powerful competitor, the Waikato/Tainui tribe. Robert Mahuta, known as Bob, the principal negotiator of its multi-million dollar settlement, was the father of Nanaia Mahuta, Jacinda Ardern’s highly controversial spokesperson on foreign affairs and local government issues – including the quite shocking Three Waters attempt to wrest assets from local ratepayers for basically iwi control.

When it was pointed out to Bob Mahuta at the time of the settlement how much this would be able to advantage needy tribal members, his reply was that the money would go instead to the young of the tribe, these who were committed to learning Maori and enrolling in university, law, and media courses – for the ultimate benefit of tribal advancement. The Ngai Tahu leader’s response to the suggestion that their poor and disadvantaged could now be taken care of was to the effect that they were no-hopers – it was up to the government to take care of them.

With the Maori economy now worth an estimated $70 billion, the affluent corporatised iwi, largely exempt from even paying taxes, still constantly claim disadvantage – for example, that the New Zealand health system discriminates against Maoris – against plenty of evidence it has long worked hard to treat all, irrespective of race, now even prioritising those of Maori descent.

However, the Ardern government’s attack on our democracy to give more and more advantages to part-Maori, even planning for their votes to count more, has at last become the tipping point for New Zealanders.

And above all, an important question needs addressing: when is the constant lying going to stop?

******************************************************

How Safe Haven Laws Help Make Abortion Unnecessary

A “distressful life and future” threatens women unless they have the ability to avoid the burden of unwanted parenthood via abortion. So reasoned Justice Harry Blackmun in his 1973 Roe v. Wade majority opinion, which deemed elective abortion a newfound constitutional right.

Yet, decades after the Supreme Court’s grim assessment of the options available for those facing an unexpected pregnancy, nationwide “safe haven” laws add another important choice for women outside of Blackmun’s false dichotomy.

First enacted in Texas in 1999, safe haven laws now exist in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Hospitals, fire stations, or other designated emergency locations serve as 24/7 drop-off points for those seeking both immediate care and long-term parenting support for an infant.

State laws prioritize privacy and legal protection for women surrendering a baby, with complete anonymity possible throughout the drop-off process in a growing number of states. Many jurisdictions now utilize so-called baby boxes, climate-controlled locking devices accessible from the exterior of buildings, which send an alert to the facility within seconds to allow the safe surrender of a child with no in-person interaction with health care workers or public officials.

Monica Kelsey, founder of the national organization Safe Haven Baby Boxes, emphasizes the “100% anonymous options for parents in need” offered by the fixtures.

Increasingly, states have extended the time period in which a parent may relinquish parenting duties. Over half of states now have policies allowing a baby to be surrendered through at least 30 days post-birth.

In Virginia, recent bipartisan legislation extended from 14 to 30 days the time in which a baby can be delivered discreetly into community care through the state’s safe haven law.

Recognizing the need to raise awareness of the little-known policy, legislators also charged the Virginia Department of Social Services with launching a 24/7 hotline and a statewide marketing campaign to help women know how to access this critical option after birth.

The postpartum time period, aptly dubbed the “fourth trimester” by health professionals, can be especially overwhelming for single parents navigating the physical and emotional transition following birth. Safe haven policies give these women time and choice about their family’s future even after birth, relieving the fear that a parenting burden is inescapable.

Making women aware of safe haven policies during pregnancy can also help women avoid feeling pressured or coerced into an abortion decision in the early weeks of a pregnancy.

Expectant mothers commonly report ambivalence regarding plans for an unexpected pregnancy. Many of the 600 women that our free clinic serves each year share their conflicting emotions about a surprise pregnancy as they discuss their desire for their child alongside their own perceived parenting limitations.

The concerns they voice reflect worries about caring for a child beyond birth, not the actual experience of pregnancy. Indeed, finances, relationship fallout, and career consequences are among the main reasons for abortion cited in various qualitative studies conducted by the abortion industry. Yet, even as women often recognize the future challenges of parenting a new baby, they also report complex emotions about the abortion decision itself.

Many women see abortion as an imperfect resolution to unwanted parenthood. It’s time we listen to their voices and emphasize a broadened framework for choice that includes parenting with community support services (like those freely offered by the nearly 3,000 nonprofit pregnancy help centers similar to the one I lead), open adoption, and also safe surrender options beyond birth.

In Roe v. Wade’s companion case Doe v. Bolton, Justice William O. Douglas stated in his concurring opinion: “Elaborate argument is hardly necessary to demonstrate that childbirth may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired future.”

Yet, more conversation is necessary. Fears and reluctance to raise an additional child can be very real for women, but a “radically different and undesired future” shaped by forced parenthood is no foregone conclusion.

Safe haven policies give women an additional option to spare themselves the heartache of ending the life of a child they do value, while also providing a private and secure transition of care for that child post-birth.

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it is imperative that the justices reject the Supreme Court’s anachronistic view that only unfettered abortion access can prevent a dismal future for women.

**********************************************

I Am a Soviet Writer Now

Roger L. Simon

In recent weeks I have been canceled by Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, all without explanation.

I tried in each case but was unable to get one. In fact, I was even blocked on Facebook from any explanation other than the most generic “community standards“ blather. I never used Instagram much in the first place.

In the case of Twitter, I was attempting to make my return after many months—I had left on my own in disgust at the bias, not to mention the mysterious disappearance of my followers—hopeful that it might be a more collegial space with Elon Musk in the process of purchasing the company and promising free speech.

No such luck.

What I got for my troubles was something extremely bizarre. I was asked to authenticate myself by identifying one of six squares that contained an inaccurate shadow. I had to do this fourteen times, but on the fifteenth, I was told I was in error and sent back to one again. This happened several times. It was an obvious shell game set up by someone at Twitter. I was never admitted—or told anything, for that matter.

I have no idea how many others were receiving the same treatment, but so much for Twitter—with or without Musk.

This is no joke. We are living deep in an era of thought control. For writers even slightly on the right, it is extending into many areas. I am someone who once wrote for the likes of Simon & Schuster, Random House, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. It is highly unlikely—almost impossible—that I could do so now.

And, of course, those are the big players with the big audiences and mass distribution, the major access points to middle America, those few that are left not on one side or other of our great divide and who might be persuaded of something.

Those of us anywhere to the right of Trotsky are not allowed to talk to them. (That’s an exaggeration, but not by much.)

So every day when I get up, I have a moment of anxiety when I turn on my computer. It is supposed to open automatically on The Epoch Times where I now write as well as get a substantial amount of my news? I am worried that it will still be there, whether I and/or it will be branded “misinformation” and “disappeared”?

Long may The Epoch Times—and those few others like it—thrive. And thank you so much to the readers who keep them alive!

Nevertheless, this is all starting to remind me of the Soviet Union that I visited twice on cultural exchanges during the early glasnost (in the late ’80s). In fact, the America of today has for some time.

I remember visiting two apartment buildings that were named Screenwriter I and II. They housed favored writers, screenwriters or not, and were sought after because, I was told, they contained the best medical clinics in Moscow on the ground floor.

In the Soviet Union, decent medical care was only available to party officials and others—scientists and cultural workers—who played along.

Writers who didn’t had to find other access. The greatest writing of Soviet times was the clandestine samizdat (literally “self-publishing” in Russian), those who obviously had the courage to buck a vicious system—the Solzhenitsyns, the Mandelstams, and so forth. Financial remuneration, not to mention the best medical care, was not for them.

Of course, we are building our own more open-minded structures, some in publishing, others in film. They all have good intentions. But for the most part, we are only allowed to preach to the choir. We are kept off in a corner, segregated.

Somehow this must be overcome. We must be able to reach the masses because we are the masses, not them.

What is going on in our country today is a full-on attack on free speech under a duplicitous, fascistic facade of making sure the public is correctly informed, that there is no “misinformation” (the big lie word of our times).

So when I say I’m a Soviet writer now, I hope you know I mean those great writers who wrote samizdat in opposition to a totalitarian state. I have nowhere near their courage. I have nowhere near their depth. But I identify with them because my country is on the verge of being turned into theirs.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Thursday, May 12, 2022


Why Do Men Date Younger Women?

Jillian Richardson says below that men are keen to date younger women because older women are more inflexible. She puts a kinder spin on it but that is what it amounts to.

And she is right. Young women leap into relationships with greater alacrity than older ones do. But it is only a matter of degree. Women of all ages want relationships, with women in their 30s being pretty keen too. That biological clock promotes great flexibility.

And my current girlfriend and I have formed a warm relationship despite meeting in our 70s. And it certainly took a lot of flexibility for us to get there. We both made large compromises to form our relationship. So flexibility is undoubtedly a help but it is not a monopoly of the young.

I am afraid that it is all simpler than Jillian admits. It's about looks. Youth is beautiful. And men, like everybody else, go for that. Women battle it energetically but their looks deteriorate as they get older.

And I am not at all disrespecting older women. I in fact appreciate older women. I once married a lady 11 years older than me and two others of my significant relationships were with women 5 year older than me. Though most of my relationships have been with women younger than me.

So I personally think that age has little to do with the matter. I have found fine women of all ages. If the woman is good enough she will find a good partner. Looks do matter but age need not be a barrier. Looks are only one factor in attractiveness.

I prioritize brains myself. And that has a perhaps surprising benefit. High IQ women also tend to be better looking. Life is not fair. All three of my ladies that I mentioned above have been good looking. And Zoe, my present partner, is readily taken for much younger than she is



This week on Instagram, I saw a video where actress Paulina Porizkov said that most men don’t want to date a woman in her 50s or 60s.

Her comments really hit my heart. Recently, I’ve been feeling very connected to the Jillian who is in her 40s and 50s. I think about how, if she is single, most of my male friends of the same age wouldn’t date her. (Context for people who are reading this and don’t know me — I’m in my twenties.)

I shared this in my Instagram stories, along with this commentary: “To every man reading this, if you’ve never dated a woman your own age, why? If you almost always date younger women, why?

Because here’s my knowing (trigger alert):

Whether you recognize it or not, older men usually date younger women because they have fewer boundaries and expectations. They’re easier to control. And you as a man cannot handle the power of a woman your age.

This is something I have been talking about and reflecting on a lot, but never posted on social media because I want everyone to like me. And this is something that men probably don’t want to hear. But I’m working on being ok with people not liking me so… I said what I said.”

What happened next absolutely blew my mind. I’ve never received so many DMs from people. Almost 100 women said that they would join for a conversation on this topic.

Clearly, this discussion stirred people’s emotions. You can see it in my stories highlights here. I include (with permission) tons of messages that people sent me.

This morning I was doing a guided meditation, and the voice asked: “What gift do you want to give people?” I thought about it and started to cry. Because this week, I want to give women the gift of knowing that they’re lovable, desirable, and worthy at any age — regardless of the feedback that they’re given. I want women to feel that in their soul.

************************************************

Abortion bill fails to pass in US Senate, as Supreme Court weighs overturning Roe v Wade

Legislation to make abortion legal throughout the United States has been defeated in the US Senate, amid solid Republican opposition and support from one Democrat representative. One lone Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin, joined 50 Republicans in voting to block the bill

The push to protect abortion rights comes as a draft opinion suggests the US Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v Wade
Democrats had sought to head off an impending Supreme Court opinion that is expected to overturn the nearly 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision, which established the national right to abortion.

Wednesday's effort was a protest gesture that never stood much chance of success.

With 49 votes in support and 51 against, the Women's Health Protection Act was 11 short of the 60 votes needed to be fully debated in the 100-member Senate.

Before the vote, more than two dozen House Democrats, mainly women, marched from the House of Representatives to the Senate, chanting: "My body, my decision".

They then entered the Senate chamber and sat quietly along a back wall while senators debated abortion rights.

US President Joe Biden expressed his disappointment in the outcome of the vote via Twitter and urged voters to elect more pro-choice senators.

"As fundamental rights are at risk at the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans have blocked passage of the Women's Health Protection Act," he wrote.

"They have chosen to stand in the way of Americans' rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives," Mr Biden wrote.

"To protect the right to choose, voters need to elect more pro-choice senators this November, and return a pro-choice majority to the House. If they do, Congress can pass this bill in January, and put it on my desk, so I can sign it into law."

Although the Senate defeat was widely expected, Democrats hope the vote will help propel more of their candidates to victory in the November 8 mid-term elections, as public opinion polls show deep support among voters for abortion rights.

************************************************

Conservatives mock Kamala Harris’ ‘How dare they!’ abortion speech

Conservatives on Twitter mocked Vice President Kamala Harris' speech in defense of abortion on Tuesday.

Harris spoke at a fundraising gala for the pro-abortion political action committee EMILY's List and weighed in on the leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion signaling the end of Roe v Wade.

During her speech, Harris stressed the urgency of the moment and claimed it presents a danger to women’s "rights" and "freedoms" to choose abortion.

In a viral clip of her statements, Harris asked defiantly, "How dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can do and not do with her own body? How dare they? How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future?"

"How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?" she added.

Conservative Twitter users blasted Harris for her pro-abortion speech with many noting Harris' use of the term "woman" after Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn't define the term and said, "I'm not a biologist."

Washington Times columnist Tim Young mocked the vice president as a less authentic Greta Thunberg and drew comparisons to the young Swedish climate change activist's infamous "How dare you!" speech.

"Greta Thunberg is better at pretending to be outraged than Kamala Harris," he tweeted.

In another tweet Young wrote, "’How dare they tell a woman what she can do and not do with her own body!’ - Kamala Harris

"Wait... when did Kamala become a biologist?"

"Kamala Harris takes a page out of [Greta] Thunberg's playbook in her reaction to Roe v. Wade being overturned," tweeted GOP strategist Greg Price.

"I can't believe Kamala pulled a Greta on her audience," tweeted conservative author Kyle Becker.

"Harris isn’t a biologist," conservative radio host Dana Loesch also noted.

The Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh wrote, "Kamala Harris is a despicable transphobe. Stop invalidating the lived experiences of pregnant men."

YouTuber and conservative Viva Frei provided a sarcastic critique of the vice president’s speech. "Kamala Harris, in a wanton act of bigotry and misogyny, callously presupposes the gender - and definition - of ‘woman’. Or worse, she deliberately denies the existence of non-woman birthing persons. She’s cancelled, right? Them’s the rules?"

Similarly, Daisy Cousens, contributor at Sky News Australia, tweeted, "Outrageous. Leftists must IMMEDIATELY cancel Kamala Harris for this blatant transphobia. ‘Women’? ‘She’? ‘Her’? Doesn't she know people of any gender can get pregnant? That's what leftists have been telling us for the past few years while trashing anyone who disagrees...right?"

***********************************************

Disinformation Governance Board Comes as No Surprise

On April 27, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced a “disinformation governance board.” As politicians, scholars, and journalists of various persuasions noted, such a board is more characteristic of Communist dictatorships than a constitutional democracy. On the other hand, in current conditions, the board should come as no surprise.

Saule Omarova, Biden’s choice for comptroller of the currency in the Treasury Department, was an advocate of Soviet-style banking, with the government running the show. The former Komsomol from Kazakhstan is on record that the “market doesn’t always know best,” and she is essentially uncritical of the “old USSR” where there was “no gender pay gap.”

Omarova failed to get the post, but her selection in the first place is revealing. What Omarova wanted to do with the currency, the new DHS board will do with information. That raises more than a few issues.

Chief White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci is a non-practicing physician and his bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry. Dr. Fauci has reversed himself many times but now claims to represent science. Will the new government Disinformation Board now brand criticism of Dr. Fauci as disinformation?

U.S. Agency for International Development boss Samantha Power recently went on record that a global food shortage crisis would push farmers toward more green energy. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” proclaimed Power. Will the government board now attack criticism of Power‘s misguided notions as disinformation?

Joe Biden recently claimed that during the Six-Day War in 1967 he served as a liaison between the Israelis and Egyptians. If some journalist dares to point out that in 1967 Joe Biden was still in law school, and could not have served as a liaison between the Israelis and Egyptians, will the government board target the writer for disinformation? And what will be the penalty?

The new Disinformation Board is a project of the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2002 to prevent 9/11-style terrorist attacks. The vaunted DHS failed to prevent terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009 (14 dead, more than 30 wounded); San Bernardino, California, in 2015 (14 murdered, more than 20 wounded); Orlando, Florida, in 2016, with 49 murdered and more than 50 wounded. In 2013, the DHS failed to stop the bombing of the Boston Marathon, which claimed three lives and inflicted hundreds of crippling injuries.

Back in 2002, the late P.J. O’Rourke said the Department of Homeland Security sounded like a failed savings and loan. In 2020, the DHS is a failed security agency now menacing freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press in America.

*****************************************

Losing the People? Then Change the Rules

Court-packing—the attempt to enlarge the size of the Supreme Court for short-term political purposes—used to be a dirty word in the history of American jurisprudence.

The tradition of a nine-person Supreme Court is now 153 years old. The last attempt to expand it for political gain was President Franklin Roosevelt’s failed effort in 1937. FDR’s gambit was so blatantly political that even his overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress rebuffed him.

Yet now “court packing” is a law school cause celebre. It is hailed as a supposedly quick fix to reverse the current 5-4 conservative majority.

Recently, a rough draft of an opinion purportedly overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion in all 50 states was leaked to the media by someone inside the court.

That insider leak of a draft opinion was a first in the modern history of the Supreme Court. It violated all court protocols. Yet it was met with stunning approval from the American left.

The leaker either intended to create a preemptive public backlash against the purported court majority in the hope that one or two justices might cave and switch under pressure—or to gin up the progressive base to fend off a likely disaster in the November midterm elections.

The recent leak, however, is consistent with a left-wing assault on the court that has intensified over the last five years. Democrats have gone ballistic ever since former President George W. Bush’s and especially former President Donald Trump’s appointees solidified a conservative majority.

During Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings in 2018, protesters stormed the Senate chambers in protest. The left rallied behind the now-convicted felon Michael Avenatti, who publicized crazy, wildly untrue charges about a teenaged Kavanagh.

Later in spring 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., whipped up a protest crowd right in front of the Supreme Court. He directly threatened Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

What exactly did Schumer mean by “you will pay the price” or “you won’t know what hit you”?

Who or what would hit the two justices—and how exactly?

But it is not just the court the left is targeting. Long-standing institutions and even constitutional directives are now fair game.

At the 2020 funeral of Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., former President Barack Obama crudely proposed bringing in Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states—and with them likely four left-wing senators.

Obama’s “eulogy” also damned the 180-year-old Senate filibuster. Yet as a senator, Obama himself resorted to the filibuster in an effort to block the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

The Electoral College is under continued assault, especially since Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 were elected without winning the popular vote.

The Founders’ arguments for the Electoral College are never mentioned. But the drafters of the Constitution felt it forced candidates to visit rural areas. They believed it would discourage European-style multiple splinter parties. It made voter fraud more difficult on a national scale. And it emphasized the United States of America. That is, America today is 50 unique states that are represented as such in presidential elections.

The Biden administration also narrowly failed to push through a national voting law. Such legislation would have superseded the states’ constitutional rights to set most of their own balloting protocols in national elections.

So what is behind leaking Supreme Court drafts of impending opinions, or seeking to pack the Supreme Court with 15 justices, or ending the Senate filibuster, or adding two more states to the 60-year-old, 50-state union, or curtailing states’ rights to set their own balloting procedures, or trashing the Constitution’s Electoral College?

The answer to those questions also applies to President Joe Biden’s promise to cancel millions of contracted federally guaranteed student loans simply by a pre-midterm election executive fiat.

And how can Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas openly negate federal immigration law? How can he welcome millions to cross illegally the southern border?

The answers are obvious.

The hard left had detoured from the mainstream of American voters onto a radical trajectory. So it will never find 51% public approval for any of its current extremist and crackpot initiatives.

Instead, it sees success only through altering the rules of governance or changing the demography of the electorate—or both.

Still, leftists should be careful about what they wish for.

Latinos are historically transforming en masse into conservative voters.

Leftists are also greenlighting powerful precedents for the next Republican president. He may follow their lead by simply changing any rules, laws, customs, and traditions anytime he deems them inconvenient.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Wednesday, May 11, 2022

An angry black lady

The author below could probably win a prize for overgeneralization. She generalizes about "men", with minimal awareness that there are all sorts of men. If most of her experience is with black men, however, I do to an extent understand her anger. An awful lot of impulsively destructive behaviours do seem to emanate from black men in NYC

The article is basically a lecture to the men she deplores. It aims to get them to see themselves as the losers they are. It is unlikely that any of them will read it, though. And will her anger ever be cured? I doubt it. She needs a warm relationship with a good man for that. But it is compromise and giving, not anger, that is needed to create it


If you don’t know by now I live in NYC. While, this city is the city of dreams for outsiders, I’m from here and I hate this city. I’m moving out in a few months once and for all and the universe knows I cannot wait. Part of what I hate about this city is that this city is a major representation of how a lot of men in the world are. Every income bracket and every male mindset can be found here in NYC.

I have grown up here, moved to other parts of NY, moved out of NY and moved back. When I write about men and how they are, I know from both personal and professional experience having lived and still live in the city where every type of man can be found, as well as having experienced them outside of the city and state. Oh and the internet just helps to confirm what I write about because men tell on themselves here.

Why I Hate NYC

The other day a delivery worker got killed because the customer did not get enough duck sauce. He was killed by an out of control male customer. Over the weekend another man was killed when he accidently dropped a prize in front of another man’s foot inside of the Times Square arcade. That man was also killed by an out of control man. An Asian woman was randomly attacked by a male and chased down the street for no reason. A man sitting inside of his Mercedes was found dead Saturday afternoon, shot in the head following an argument with another man about a woman.

What do all of these have in common? They are all examples of men, of all races losing their tempers over the stupidest and most random shit. What happened to the self-control? Why do men nowadays have no self-control? All men should be embarrassed that themselves and their fellow brethren have little to no self-control.

I’ve written in the past how many women, of all races, are choosing not to deal with men any longer. A lot of women are choosing to stay single, not date, not get married and certainly not have children. While men having bad hygiene is definitely a part of that, the other part is that most of these same men have absolutely terrible tempers and no self-control.

Men with tempers as wild and out of control as rabid dogs!

I’ve listed men getting killed by other men in my above examples and one woman but the fact is that these men have out of control tempers for both men and women. Statistics are currently showing that crime is up 60% in every crime category around compared to 2021, with the majority of the crime in each category being done by males. Everything from assault to hate crimes, which is up 79%, the majority is done by males. NYC is also statistically the epic center of what goes on in other big and small cities.

Out of control, savage ass males! You men should be embarrassed!

A woman wrote an article recently asking for advice on Reddit because her husband who isn’t working threw a temper tantrum after she moved his gaming equipment out of the only spare room in the house because her job went remote. A temper tantrum. If men aren’t throwing temper tantrums for not getting sex, they are throwing temper tantrums over video games now. He threw a tantrum like a three-year-old over a video game system. Grown ass man with children, threw a tantrum like a child.

Y’all men should be embarrassed!

The world is well aware of how you men have absolutely no self-control over yourselves. If y’all aren’t making the news, y’all are being recorded on other people’s phones or women are getting on the internet complaining about y’all and asking people for advice on how to deal with y’all out of control asses. Y’all are grown ass men losing your minds for no damn reason. Getting mad quicker than a Porsche can go from 0 to 60. It’s ridiculous.

Forget just poor men deserving no pussy, out-of-control men deserve no pussy!

I don’t understand how y’all think that watching this, reading about this or making the news about this is a turn on for women. It’s not! Men nowadays have to have personality and be decent human beings to get women and most of y’all have absolutely no personality and its obvious to the blind that y’all aren’t decent human beings.

Here’s the thing, y’all are grown ass fuck. This is not something that one’s mother or parents can be blamed for. While one can’t control their childhood, they can control their adulthood and as an adult if you’re constantly flying off the handle or going from 0 to 60 faster than a luxury car, you have a problem and need to see someone about that.

This stupidity of getting a criminal record because you’re too lazy and trifling to see someone about your temper is dumb as fuck. At this point, I think most men want to be in jail. They want to be criminals because nothing else makes good sense. I don’t understand why one knowing they have a temper and knowing what the consequences are for having that temper would not want to get therapy and learn techniques on how to deal with that temper and lack of self-control.

Also, why are you a grown ass man still throwing tantrums and are okay with that?

I don’t understand how y’all men have a tantrum and then when you’ve calmed down knowing you threw a tantrum just go on about your day like it was nothing. You go out play golf, go to the store, watch a football game as if you didn’t just behave like a three-year-old child and are okay with that. I do not understand how you men are okay with yourselves knowing that you just acted like a child.

No wonder women don’t want to deal with y’all. Y’all can’t deal with yourselves!

No way y’all should be okay with that but it seems that y’all are and that is why women who are single wish to remain as such. No woman with good sense after seeing this foolishness wants to keep dealing with that. Once is more than enough. It is a complete turn off. No woman with good sense wants to watch the news and see men acting like out-of-control dogs and says, “Ooh that’s sexy.” Not. At. All. They are turned off by the lack of self-control.

There is absolutely no excuse for a grown ass man to have a temper, lack self-control and be throwing tantrums. None. Y’all all should be embarrassed. If you have self-control, not a temper and aren’t throwing tantrums, then you should be checking your male friends and family members for their behavior instead of just saying what y’all usually say, “That’s just …..” No. Absolutely not. Y’all all look terrible.

The “good” men are suffering with the bad because there are so many men acting like savage beasts. Too many and it is embarrassing or at least it should be. Y’all gonna keep suffering with singleness too because y’all just accept mediocrity amongst yourselves and your brethren. It’s disgusting. It’s ridiculous. It’s pathetic and it should be embarrassing. Sadly, for too many of you, it is not. Ugh.

*******************************************************

The Right Resistance: Ohio GOP primary proved Donald Trump’s still got the golden touch

The leader of the charge may not be in power any longer, but the movement’s not dead.

This much was evident last week in the Ohio Republican Party primary, where former president Donald Trump endorsed candidates cleared the board on Tuesday night. While the vast majority of the establishment media’s attention remained focused on the Supreme Court and the possibility/likelihood of Roe v. Wade being tossed into the dustbin of history (along with the corpses of tens of millions of aborted babies) -- and the Democrats’ over-the-top reaction to the realization that their precious federal abortion “right” might not be around much longer -- the Buckeye State results were pushed to the side.

The biggest headline grabber was 37-year-old J.D. Vance of “Hillbilly Elegy” fame prevailing in the race to replace longtime Ohio GOP establishmentarian Rob Portman in the U.S. Senate. Vance still has to win in November’s general election, but he’ll be a heavy favorite to do so over Democrat Tim Ryan, whose main claim to fame was a short-lived 2020 presidential run and rumored challenge to Nancy Pelosi for the Speaker’s gavel last decade.

Vance had lingered in semi-obscurity until Trump opted to throw his considerable name recognition and sway with the grassroots behind the man who’s barely old enough to hold the senate office. J.D. certainly talks a good game and appears to push all the right anti-establishment buttons, but many conservatives felt more comfortable going with a more proven political commodity, second place finisher Josh Mandel, in the primary.

The Yale Law educated “Hillbilly” author has a lot to live up to when and if he goes to Washington. All eyes will be watching to see whether the one-time Never Trumper really changed his views or if he’s merely an opportunist who looks the part (full beard and Appalachian pedigree) but suddenly and unexpectedly morphs into a DC swamp creature.

Trump had a great night overall, with all of his endorsements coming through with victories, including those in the Indiana primary next door. For those establishment media sources who’d crowed about Trump being finished and the muscle of his name doesn’t mean as much any longer, they should take a good look at Ohio, which revealed just the opposite.

*******************************************************

Utah Was Warned Racial Rationing of COVID Drugs Was Illegal. It Did It Anyway

More disgusting racism from the Leftist establishment

Utah public health officials were warned that allocating COVID drugs based on race violated federal law, but did so anyway with the backing of the Biden administration, emails and documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.

Utah’s points-based system for prioritizing COVID patients, which allocated more points for being non-white than for having congestive heart failure, troubled two law professors specializing in bioethics. They informed the doctors who designed the system in September 2021 that it was probably illegal.

"The use of non-white race really set off alarm bells," Teneille Brown, a professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law, said in an email.

The "consensus among legal academics," Brown's colleague Leslie Francis added, is that a system like Utah's would "violate federal law."

This piece is based on materials obtained via a third-party public records request and shared with the Free Beacon.

The doctors Brown and Francis emailed were part of the state's Crisis Standards of Care workgroup, assembled by the Utah Hospital Association at the behest of the health department. When COVID surged in November 2020, the health department asked the group to develop a system for allocating scarce therapies. The group conceded its approach hadn't been "reviewed legally." But, they assured the law professors, it did have the blessing of the Biden administration.

The Department of Health and Human Services "has lauded our approach," said Mark Shah, the director of Utah's Disaster Medical Assistance Team and a member of the group. In February 2021, Shah's colleague Brandon Webb presented the race-based allocation system to HHS, according to power point slides reviewed by the Free Beacon. HHS subsequently listed the system as a "promising practice" for other states to consider.

Such race-conscious policies proliferated throughout the pandemic, sparking both moral outrage and legal scrutiny. Like Utah, Minnesota and New York prioritized non-white residents for monoclonal antibodies. Vermont did the same for vaccines. Some states, including Utah and Minnesota, scrapped their policies in the wake of political backlash—and amid threats of legal action from conservative nonprofits.

The emails suggest Utah was ground zero for many of these schemes. The state initially defended its system by invoking guidance from the Food and Drug Administration, which lists race as a risk factor that can qualify patients for monoclonal antibodies. But according to the emails, it was Utah that inspired that guidance in the first place.

"The FDA reviewed our Utah Risk Score and used it as precedent for including ‘race and other risk factors' as qualifiers," Shah told the group in June 2021. Minnesota in turn used that precedent to justify its own allocation system.

The emails reflect the race-conscious consensus that has taken hold of medical bureaucracies across the country. As that consensus has consolidated at every level of government, it has emboldened public health officials to flout anti-discrimination law, which they assume won't be enforced.

The gap between law and policy widened with the pandemic, which provided an emergency pretext for suspending civil rights. Nondiscrimination, the emails suggest, was seen as an obstacle to crisis management.

"I'd prefer just using the ‘we're too busy trying to save lives during the surge' excuse," Webb, an infectious diseases specialist at Intermountain Healthcare, emailed his colleagues after some back and forth with the law professors.

That utilitarian mindset extended to Utah's Republican governor Spencer Cox, who in January 2022 told health officials to modify the allocation system, a spokesperson for the governor said—but only after it became clear that the drugs weren't reaching minorities. The problem wasn't that the system discriminated by race; it was that the discrimination didn't work.

"Despite the inclusion of race and ethnicity," the spokesperson told the Free Beacon, "communities of color did not receive monoclonal antibodies proportionate to their share of COVID-test positives."

"I'm frankly surprised that this has not yet been subject to a legal challenge," Webb wrote the law professors. He added that in 2020, the group asked "the Office of Civil Rights" for guidance on the use of race but didn't receive a response.

It is unclear to which office Webb was referring. A draft copy of the group's inquiry includes no date or letterhead, and Roger Severino, HHS's director of civil rights at the time, said it never came across his desk.

"Had this been brought to my attention," Severino told the Free Beacon, "I would have told them they risked violating Title VI and would have merited my office investigating them had they gone through with such explicit race based rationing."

Reached for comment, Webb said Shah was the one who sent the inquiry. Shah did not respond to a request for comment.

The group, which developed the system in November 2020, took for granted that all racial minorities should receive special treatment. It borrowed heavily from an allocation system used by the Cleveland Clinic, which prioritized African Americans for monoclonal antibodies. The "only knock" against that system, Webb wrote the group, is that "it only gives disparity weighting to black race rather than recognizing elevated risk associated with other race/ethnicities."

Utah's system was based on an analysis of 20,000 COVID patients between March and October 2020. Though some minorities are at higher risk than others, according to the state's own data, the analysis lumped all of them together, comparing hospitalization rates between "white" and "non-white" Utahns.

The result was a "risk score calculator" that gave "non-white race or Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity" two points—more than it gave hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or shortness of breath. Utahns needed to score a certain number of points to be eligible for monoclonal antibodies.

The calculator was first used by the Intermountain hospital system, which employed many members of the group, including Webb and Shah. By September 2021, it was causing controversy among COVID-stricken patients.

"We have been forced into a defense of the scoring system as now constituents are reaching out to elected leaders asking why they are not eligible," lamented Kevin McCulley, the Preparedness and Response director for the health department.

As pushback mounted, the department's main concern was semantic rather than substantive. Officials spent days wordsmithing an online "self-screening tool" based on the calculator, in part to ensure it didn't run afoul of progressive sensibilities.

"Latinex should have the ‘e' removed (Latinx)," Matthew Plendl, a member of the health department, said of an early draft.

Some exchanges read like parodies of progressive racecraft, with officials attempting to sort out who would count as "non-white."

The calculator lets "someone select more than one race category," noted Jenny Johnson, a member of the health department's communications team. "Would this mean anyone who marks ONLY White would not meet the criteria? And those who mark at least one race category that is not White does meet the criteria?"

Particularly vexing was the status of Hispanics.

"Someone with a high level of cultural competence should help us wordsmith this," McCulley wrote his colleagues. "Is your race Non-white or Hispanic/Latinex Ethnicity? I don't think Hispanic is a race."

*****************************************************

The usual Leftist war on reality

image from https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAX3tx0.img?w=534&h=355&m=6&x=334&y=162&s=334&d=135

When your child has a birthday party and you send their friends home with a party bag or small gift, you will occasionally get a message from a parent thanking you for your generosity.

That was not this mum's experience - instead she had a fellow parent accuse her of 'enforcing gender norms' with her gift for young guests.

Posting to Reddit, the mum explained that she had decided to purchase some "cute lunchbox sets" for her six-year-old's birthday party, after finding the bargain items on sale.

"Instead of having plates of food set out and the kids grabbing stuff, I thought it'd be fun if each kid got a lunchbox filled with food and juice in the bottle, and they could take the box/bottle home," she wrote in her post.

The options available were Frozen-themed lunchboxes, which she intended to give to the girls, and Spiderman-themed lunchboxes, which she intended to give to the boys.

"The day came, all the kids had a blast and when it was time for lunch I gave them the lunch sets.

"I did grab a couple extras in case the kids wanted the other lunchbox (so if a girl wanted spider man, vice versa) but no one said anything and they all seemed over the moon with it," she adds.

But the lunchboxes became an issue when one of the mums arrived to pick up their child.

"She went on to say that I was 'enforcing gender norms on impressionable young children' and 'stuck in the 1900s'," the mum recalls.

"At this point, I was a bit baffled and said that it was not my intention at all, and if her daughter wanted the Spiderman set I would be more than happy to give it to her since I had extras," she adds.

"She said that's not the point and I shouldn't have been giving out things based on gender in the first place."

The mum has appealed online to ask if she really was in the wrong, but most seem to be on her side.

"You even bought extra to accommodate a boy who wanted Frozen or a girl who wanted Spiderman, so I don't get where you are "enforcing" anything," wrote one user.

"I'm a mum of two and would have no issue at all with this and think you had a really cute idea," they added.

"I mean obviously, you should have just given them all plain grey lunchboxes to represent the void of future reason, but what can ya do..." another person joked.

Another person agreed that the mum hadn't done anything wrong, but did point out that pop culture has had an impact on members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

*********************************************

Middle class but sinking economically

Middle-class U.S. families have been treading water for decades—weighed down by stalled income growth and rising prices—but the runaway inflation that has emerged from the pandemic is sending more than a ripple of frustration through their ranks. The pandemic seemed at first as if it might offer a chance to catch up; they kept their jobs as the service sector laid off millions, their wages started climbing at a faster rate as companies struggled to find workers, and they began saving more than they had for decades. About one-third of middle-income Americans felt that their financial situation had improved a year into the pandemic, according to Pew Research, as they quarantined at home while benefiting from stimulus checks, child tax credits, and the pause of federal student- loan payments.

But 18 months later, they increasingly suspect that any sense of financial security was an illusion. They may have more money in the bank, but being middle class in America isn’t only about how much you make; it’s also about what you can buy with that money. Some people measure it by whether a family has a second refrigerator in the basement or a tree in the yard, but Richard Reeves, director of the Future of the Middle Class Initiative at the Brookings Institution, says that what really matters is whether people feel that they can comfortably afford the “three H’s” —housing, health care, and higher education.

Over the past year alone, home prices have leaped 20% and the cost of all goods is up 8.5%. Families are paying $3,500 more this year for the basic set of goods and services that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) follows than they did last year. Average hourly earnings, by contrast, are down 2.7% when adjusted for inflation. That squeeze has left many who identify as middle class reaching to afford the three H’s, especially housing. In March, U.S. consumer sentiment reached its lowest level since 2011, according to the University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers, and more households said they expected their finances to worsen than at any time since May 1980.

“The mantra has been: work hard, pay your dues, you’ll be rewarded for that. But the goalposts keep getting moved back,” says Daniel Barela, 36, a flight attendant in Albuquerque, N.M., who is exquisitely aware that his father had a home and four kids by his age. Barela and his partner made around $69,000 between them last year, and he feels as if he’s been jammed financially for most of his adult life. He lost his job during the Great Recession and, after a major credit-card company raised his interest rate to 29.99% in 2008, he had to file for bankruptcy. “No matter what kind of job I’ve held and no matter how much I work, it never seems to be enough to meet the qualifications to own a home,” he says.

Even if people Barela’s age, who make up much of the middle class today, earn more money than their parents did, even if they have college degrees and their choice of jobs, even if they have a place to live, an iphone, and a flat-screen TV, many are now sensing that although they followed all of American society’s recommended steps, they somehow ended up financially fragile. “Our income supposedly makes us upper middle class, but it sure doesn’t feel like it,” says Swope. “If you’re middle class, you can afford to do fun things—and we can’t.”

TIME talked to dozens of people across the country, all of whose incomes fall in the middle 60% of American incomes, which is what Brookings defines as the middle class. For a family of three, that means somewhere between $42,500 to $166,900 today. Here’s what we heard:

Many mentioned resentment toward their parents or older colleagues who don’t understand why this younger generation don’t bear the hallmarks of the middle class, like a single- family home or paid-offcollege debt. “Boomers could literally work the minimumwage job, they could experience life— go to national parks or have children and own homes. That’s just not possible for us,” says Julie Ann Nitsch, a government worker in Austin who, when the home she rents goes up for sale in May, will no longer be able to live in the county she serves.

They have a point. Homeownership has become more elusive for each successive generation as real estate prices have outpaced inflation. More than 70% of people ages 35 to 44 owned a home in 1980, according to the Urban Institute, but by 2018, fewer than 60% of people in that age group had bought a place to live. The soaring value of owner- occupied housing, which reached $29.3 trillion by the end of 2019, has created a divide, enriching the older Americans who own homes and shutting out the younger ones who can’t afford to break into the market.

Millennials and younger generations came of age in the worst recession in decades, entered a job market where their wages grew sluggishly, and then weathered another recession at the beginning of the pandemic. Through it all, costs continued to rise. Median household income has grown just 9% since 2001, but college tuition and fees are up 64% over the same time period, while outof- pocket health care costs have nearly doubled. Just half of all children born in the 1980s have grown up to earn more than their parents, as opposed to more than 90% of children in the 1940s. Both millennials and Generation X have a lower net worth and more debt when they reach age 40 than boomers did at that age, according to Bloomberg.

Their worries matter for the larger American economy. As Joe Biden said in 2019, “When the middle class does well, everybody does very, very well. The wealthy do very well and the poor have some light, a chance. They look at it like, ‘Maybe me—there may be a way.’”

If the middle class is feeling left out of one of the strongest economies in decades, when the unemployment rate is at a historic low, it’s a grave sign that social discord is coming. Right now, there’s no Great Recession, no tech meltdown, no collapse of complex real estate investment products to explain away why things are tight. On the surface, the economy looks buoyant. But like Swope’s slowly cooking frog, lots of middle-income earners are realizing that they’re in hot water and going under.

“It’s not like this volcano came out of nowhere,” says Reeves, the Future of the Middle Class Initiative director. “To some extent, we’ve seen these longterm shifts in the economy like sluggish wage growth and downward mobility. It can take some time for the economic tectonic pressure to build sufficiently— and now the volcano is erupting.”

The costs of all three H’s have soared over the past few decades, but it’s the cost of housing—usually the largest and most crucial expenditure for any family—that is fueling so much of the current discontent. Housing prices have climbed steadily for decades, with the exception of a dip from 2007 to 2009, but growth reached a fever pitch in the past year. Few places are immune; more than 80% of U.S. metro areas saw housing prices grow at least 10%. In the Atlanta metro area, where Swope and Greene live, the median listing price is $400,000, up 7.5% from last year. (They think they could afford a house that costs $300,000.)

The rising prices are driven by a legion of forces, including a lag in building in the wake of the Great Recession, a rise in short-term rentals, speculation by institutional investors who own a growing share of single-family homes, a shortage of construction materials, and labor and supply-chain issues. They’re exacerbated by growing demand from families looking to spend the money they’ve saved, boomers who are aging in place rather risking life in a facility during the pandemic, and millennials anxious to start a family.

The recent scramble to buy homes has been well documented, but in many places, renters are in a worse position than buyers. Rents rose almost 30% in some states in 2021, and are projected to rise further this year. David Robinson, 37, was born and raised in Phoenix and now lives with his girlfriend and three children in a modest three-bedroom apartment in Maryvale, which he considers a low-end part of town. In September, their rent went from $1,200 a month to $2,200, with extra fees, after, he says, “some property- management company based out of Washington [State]” bought the building. His rent now represents about 50% of his income as a utilities surveyor.

“It’s kind of hard to do anything with your family,” he says. “After buying clothes, food, and [paying] the other bills like electricity, water, stufflike that, the financial cushion wears really thin. I’m pretty much working to pay someone else’s bills.” He crosses his fingers that their cars hold out a little longer, not to mention their health.

More here:

https://time.com/6171292/middle-class-falling-behind-economy/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************





May 10, 2022

Donald Trump Holds Screening Of '2,000 Mules' Documentary At Mar-a-Lago

Some of the most high profile Donald Trump supporters, conservative figures, and conspiracy theorists gathered at the former president's Mar-a-Lago resort to watch a screening of the 2020 Election documentary, 2,000 Mules.

The film, created by right-wing political commentator Dinesh D'Souza, claims to reveal evidence that the last election was rigged due to widespread voter fraud.

The allegations made by the documentary, which fact checkers at The Associated Press and Politifact have ruled misleading or flawed, suggests that people were allegedly paid to drop off large amounts of ballots in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which could have swayed the election.

The main thrust of the claims made by the film are based on surveillance footage of ballot boxes and analysis of cellphone location data.

2,000 Mules was played in selected theaters on May 2 and May 4, with Trump also hosting an event at his Florida resort where guests watched the documentary which he believed backs up his false claims of election fraud.

Among those who were in attendance at the screening were some of the most prominent and frequent pushers of the so-called "big lie" that the last election was rigged, including Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

******************************************************

A lucky escape from abortion

image from https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/47915b0cff4e7378b1cecd6ea7648895

Brisbane mother was told during pregnancy that her little Brianna had a terminal brain condition and was advised to terminate

“I was devastated, but I am her mum and it is my job to look after her, so there was no way I was terminating. Whatever the future held for her, we would deal with it together. From then I was referred to a palliative care team to plan for her death,” she said.

“There was a chance that Brianna would live only a few hours, so in that moment when she was reached to me, I wanted to hold on to her forever and freeze the moment.”

The mother of six says that every time she looks at the photo she can’t control her emotions and tears flow.

“The doctors were wrong. Brianna had been misdiagnosed with Pontocerebellar hypoplasia. She is perfectly healthy and is the cheekiest, bossiest little girl you could meet.

Ms De Regt has been pregnant eight times and has lost two babies, one just before her pregnancy with Brianna.

“I went into that pregnancy having lost baby Noah at 20 weeks. I had to deliver him in a ward that had mothers who had just birthed healthy babies. That was tough,” she said.

Even with the dire prognosis she was given for Brianna, the mother vowed to keep positive and did everything possible to have a healthy baby. I put affirmations on the wall of the hospital when in labour that said You are Loved and You are Strong. During pregnancy I meditated, did acupuncture, saw a naturopath and changed my diet to green juices and healthy foods. I tried so hard for her to be born healthy.”

Following Brianna’s miracle turnaround Ms De Regt was pregnant with twins, Sadly, one of those twins died early in the pregnancy.

Ms De Regt is a warrior mum, never having had any pain relief for any birth. “My pregnancy song with Brianna was Bob Marley’s Every Little Thing’s Going To Be All Right and that is how I try to live.”

*********************************************************

Hate-filled Leftist Jews

In a Wall Street Journal piece, Elliott Abrams and Eric Cohen, respectively chairman and CEO of Tikvah and co-chairmen of the Jewish Leadership Conference, reveal that Manhattan’s Museum of Jewish Heritage canceled a planned JLC event because Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was an invited speaker.

Write Abrams and Cohen: “We were working closely with the museum on the details for the June 12 event — until, out of the blue, we were told by the museum staff that Mr. DeSantis didn’t ‘align with the museum’s values and its message of inclusivity.’ Either we disinvite the governor, they said, or our event was unwelcome.”

The museum gingerly pushed back. On its Twitter account it said this wasn’t a “free speech or censorship issue” but “simply a contractual and logistical decision,” which doesn’t actually contradict what Abrams and Cohen are alleging.

Yes, the museum made the “contractual and logistical decision” to deny rental space to Tikvah, an organization that has hosted many events at the museum, because DeSantis was to be a speaker. It’s not a “free speech or censorship issue” since that implies government is stopping the speech, and that is clearly not happening here.

Thinking it’s smarter than everyone else, the museum added a carefully worded tweet saying, “We welcome Governor DeSantis and elected officials from across the spectrum to visit the Museum of Jewish Heritage – A Living Memorial to the Holocaust for a tour of our new exhibition, The Holocaust: What Hate Can Do, when it opens this summer.”

So it won’t block the door if DeSantis buys a ticket for a tour, but no one is welcome to host the governor for an event at the museum. Got it.

Abrams and Cohen write that they chose DeSantis because a “remarkable Jewish renaissance is under way in Florida.”

It is. Our family is part of that renaissance. We moved from New York to Florida in January in large part because of the governor’s leadership. COVID policies were at the forefront of our decision, but DeSantis fighting woke nonsense in schools and putting parental rights at the top of his agenda have also been positive.

In 2019, I wrote in these pages again and again and again that Jews were being assaulted in New York and our elected officials barely mentioned it. Then-Mayor Bill de Blasio kept blaming imaginary Donald Trump supporters, who apparently exist in far larger numbers in New York City than anyone had ever known. Then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo would also offer lip service after every attack. Both men, however, enjoyed ratcheting up the rhetoric against Jews when they blamed the Jewish community for COVID spread in 2020.

But my governor simply does not play when it comes to the safety of Jews in his state. Last June, legislation assigning millions of dollars in funding for various Holocaust memorials included, he noted, “$4 million in security funding for Florida’s Jewish Day Schools, including for the first time ever funding for professional security.”

Meanwhile, the museum allowed a 2018 event with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about a month after she was famously forced to dial back her support for a two-state solution in Israel as leftist thought does not allow for Israel’s existence at all. Does that “align with the museum’s values”? Is this the ideology we must all be forced to adhere to before renting space at the museum?

When a Jewish museum bars DeSantis for having the wrong opinions, they bar me and so many other Jews, conservative or otherwise, too. We know that if he is unwelcome, we are also unwelcome.

“What Hate Can Do” is driving Americans apart. Anyone still funding the Museum of Jewish Heritage should think long and hard about whether that’s something worth support.

****************************************************

Several books on the U.S. Navy’s Professional Reading Program that provoked outrage last year were absent in an updated reading list released Friday

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Gilday’s updated list includes 12 books in the genres of fiction, non-fiction, military, strategy, management, and technology.

Missing from the list were the titles Ibram X. Kendi’s "How to Be an Antiracist," Michelle Alexander’s "The New Jim Crow" and Jason Pierceson’s "Sexual Minorities and Politics" – all of which were included on the Navy’s 2021 reading list.

Several Republican members of Congress had raised concerns about these titles being included, with one telling Gilday in a letter that the views expressed in "How to Be an Antiracist" were "explicitly anti-American."

Gilday responded at the time that the Kendi’s book was included because "it evokes the author’s own personal journal in understanding barriers to true inclusion, the deep nuances of racism and racial inequalities."

Gilday said the goal of the program is to foster the continued education and growth – both personal and professional – of sailors.

"We are driving a fleet-wide campaign of self-improvement," Gilday said in a statement published Friday. "We must foster an organization that supports and empowers Sailors to have an independent quest for knowledge through reading and information sharing. What you know and how fast you learn is relevant in this era of strategic competition."

**********************************************

New York Times ‘hit piece’ on Elon Musk’s South Africa past gets blowback

The New York Times was blasted on Thursday for running a “hit piece” suggesting that Elon Musk’s childhood in apartheid South Africa made him indifferent to racism and that it could impact his content moderation policies once he takes control of Twitter.

Musk, who has vowed to allow more expression on the social media platform once his takeover is complete later this year, was a child when South Africa was “rife with misinformation and white privilege,” according to the Times.

Times correspondents John Eligon and Lynsey Chutel reported that Musk benefited from an “upbringing in elite, segregated white communities” in suburban Johannesburg, “where black people were rarely seen other than in service of white families living in palatial homes.”

The Times story surmised that Musk’s being “insulated from the harsh reality” of the system of apartheid may dull his sensitivity to racist hate speech that could be allowed to flourish on Twitter should he take over and institute his desired changes.

The Times article quotes experts as saying that Musk’s upbringing in South Africa may have affected his views on racism and could offer a glimpse into how he will run Twitter.
Musk “came up in a time and place in which there was hardly a free exchange of ideas, and he would not have had to suffer the violent consequences of misinformation,” a Johannesburg-based legal analyst, Eusebius McKaiser, told the Times.

Twitter users blasted the Times story as a “hit piece” and said that the billionaire’s childhood during apartheid — when the South African government imposed a system of race-based segregation and discrimination — shouldn’t reflect poorly on him.

The Times story notes that Musk was “bullied” in school when he “chided” a white student for using an anti-black slur.

Critics blasted the Times for “insinuating” that Musk was racist because he grew up white during apartheid.
Independent journalist Saagar Enjeti hit out at the Times for “insinuat[ing] [Musk] is racist” even though the story notes that the Tesla boss “had non-white friends growing up in apartheid South Africa.”

Enjeti also cites Times reporting that Musk’s father was an “anti-apartheid politician” and that Musk “literally left [South Africa] so he didn’t have to serve in apartheid military.”

Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, was scathing in his criticism of the Times, accusing the Grey Lady of casting aspersions on Musk because of his commitment to free speech.

“This is the kind of punishment the corporate media doles out to anyone whom they perceive as their enemy and, especially, who opposes the censorship regime on which they rely,” Greenwald tweeted.

“Reporting on Musk is obviously valid: necessary,” he wrote. “This isn’t reporting. It’s deceit and punishment.”

“Very strange piece of reporting,” Thomas Chatterton Williams tweeted. “People must be judged as individuals and on their own actions, not the cultures they happen to be born into.”

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************


Monday, May 09, 2022

Millennial men want 1950s housewives after they have kids




This is written from a feminist perspective so does not even consider the possibility that many women may not want a career.  She may be in the workforce to meet her financial needs but may center her ambitions on having children and maintaining a good relationship with a man she feels close to.

I married such a woman.  I was financially in a position where I could give her a good life without any need for her to go out to work and she greatly appreciated that.  I also became a full time house husband who could and did  give the children lots of time and attention.  So she had a pleasant social life and children who were no burden.  She became an expert at  keen shopping and international cookery, much to my benefit and to the benefit of the whole family

So that is an alternative ideal to the one described below

Even if the man is not as successful a breadwinner as I was, there are other arrangements that can provide a successful alternative to the simplistic scenario described below. The basic point is that the couple should have explicit or implicit agreements between themselves about what each expects of the other.  It is is where such an agreement does not exist that there can be a problem.  The scenarios described below are an example of where such agreement does not exist.

The rather moronic scenario promoted below is one where both working partners share all household tasks equally.  But there can instead be arrangements which are more respecful of traditional sex roles and they may focus not on a sharing of labour but on specialization.  The man may have cetain agreed jobs and the woman different agreed jobs.  A classic if usually trivial example would be the where the man takes out the garbage and the woman looks after the washing.

And what division of labour suits best is entirely one for the parties concerned.  Some services can be semi-invisible.  An example of that would be where the man undertakes to look after the security of the home. And that can partly be done solely by him  being there at night.  He may be doing nothing active or visible but what he provides may still be greatly appreciated, depending on the neighborhood.

So the sort of unhappy scenario decribed below is probably mostly to be found where there is no explicit or implicit agreement between the parties about what the role of each one  in the family is.  Explicit negotiations should solve that but if they do not the relationship is a bad one that may well end in divorce



The ambition of millennial women has long been lauded, from their girl-power childhoods to their PhDs.

Women are now the backbone of the workforce — in 2018, 74 men earned bachelor degrees for every 100 women. Some 64 per cent of women are now breadwinners or equal earners in their households. And no wonder — they’ve grown up being told that women are able to do and be anything.

Until they become mothers.

At that point, many of their partners apparently expect them to turn into June Cleaver on Leave it to Beaver. Lara Bazelon’s new book Ambitious Like a Mother, explores how working mothers get tasked with a “second shift” — i.e., all the domestic and family work that occurs after paid work ends for the day, NY Post reports.

Even among households where partners initially split chores equally, childcare ends up falling to mothers.

Seventy-five per cent of mums are the ones who assume responsibility for appointments like children’s check-ups.

They’re also four times more likely than their partners to miss work to take care of sick children — a statistic that became all too clear during the Covid pandemic. Even in normal times, women spend approximately two hours more per day tending to domestic work than their partners.

A 2013 research paper by economics professors Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn claimed that “modern men do not adjust the amount of time they dedicate to housework based on their wives’ employment status”.

In other words, putting in long hours at the office doesn’t mean your husband is necessarily going to pick up the slack and wash out the baby bottles. Women are exhausted, and many of their partners just aren’t helping.

One mother in Bazelon’s book explained that, even though she out-earned her husband, she was still responsible for “anything related to schoolwork, doctors’ appointments, [my child’s] IEP plan … my husband didn’t make any effort to understand it”.

“Professional working mothers who find themselves with partners who are unwilling to make that shift in perspective and allocation of time and resources have a tough choice,” writes Bazelon.

“Radically compromise who they are and what they want to stay in the marriage, or leave.”

Plenty of women opt for the latter — according to a 2015 study by the American Sociological Association, women initiate 69 per cent of divorces, and among college-educated women, it’s 90 per cent.

Breegan Jane, whom Bazelon interviewed for the book, initially tried to tell herself that she was “okay with traditional gender roles”.

However, she found that her contributions around the home were never fully valued. Her husband gave people the impression that she was “his spoiled wife”. She divorced him, started flipping homes and became an HGTV host who helps rebuild homes for families in need.

Her kids could not be more excited about her work. Another woman Bazelon spoke to spotted the problem early on when her fiance told her she would have to “lower her ambitions” if they were going to have children.

She broke off the engagement instead.

Bazelon experienced this choice herself. In addition to author, she is also a lawyer.

Following the birth of their children, her own husband hoped she would “stop chasing after bigger, harder projects so that I could be more present”. She felt certain her children would understand her need for fulfilling work and would benefit by knowing that “mum is out there making the world a better place”.

She had a great point. Studies show that children of working mothers are just as well adjusted and have no more behavioural problems than their peers.

Her husband, however, did not understand. The couple divorced — not an easy solution by any means, but working mothers who get divorced report that they are happier.

In Bazelon’s case, she found that sharing custody of her children “creates protected time pockets where I can be productive” and focus on her work with fewer distractions, and with full knowledge that childcare duties are truly being divided equally.

In 2022, for families to thrive, husbands may need to start supporting their wives’ careers the way wives have supported their husbands’ for generations. Women aren’t going to go backwards. If men want relationships to last, they’ll have to go forward into the 21st century.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/marriage/millennial-men-want-1950s-housewives-after-they-have-kids/news-story/0d8331d8cca4c7bfa510a6b0009471c1

***************************************************


Less than a month after I met my soulmate, I ended my 14-year marriage




The story below by Amanda Trenfield reads like chicklit but is apparently a factual report about something that happened to her.  It has aroused a lot of comment

I have some idea of what she is talking about.  On rare occasions I do encounter a woman whom I recognize immediately as one of "My" women. We may have only the slightest opportunity to communicate but I feel immediately that I know her of old and I in particular know that we would be completely at ease and happy with one-another in a relationship.  It is a wonderful experience

The obvious question has to be why such a recognition occurs. One posibility is that a lot of the things one likes in other people are suddenly there all in one person. But how do we know that? As far as I can tell it is a combination of very subtle behaviours, something to do with way the lady looks at me, particularly. But what is conveyed is for me a recognition of a common culture. This person has a range of beliefs and attitudes and reactions that remind me of people I have been most familiar and at ease with in the past. No real idea why.

In my case the recognition is usually reciprocal. The lady feels the same way about me. It may in fact be the lady who speaks to me first. I must sound like I am imagining things but for me as for the lady below it is quite a powerful feeling




I wasn’t expecting a formal dinner with cheerful conference attendees in the beautiful West Australian town of Margaret River to turn my life upside down. I had a good life. I wasn’t looking to upend it – or was I?

I had decided only the week earlier to attend the three-day event with my husband. It wasn’t in the family holiday plan and we had to arrange care for the children, but I saw it as a perfect opportunity for us to reconnect, as we had become quite distant. I believed that time away from the stress of everyday life was the perfect remedy to reignite our relationship.

We entered the magnificent oak-panelled dining room, taking our seats at a long, elegantly laid table. My husband sat to my left and quickly engaged another couple in conversation.

As I settled into my seat, I looked up and immediately lost my breath. When our eyes met there was an instant familiarity that ran deeper than water-cooler chat. These eyes had locked before. Twelve years earlier. His name was Jason. I hadn’t forgotten.

Throughout the dinner, I was my usual animated and conversational self. I was, after all, in sales. The group chatted happily, all of us enjoying an excellent degustation of West Australian delicacies cooked with attention and pride.

As the entrée was served, Jason offered me a sip of his wine to taste the robust old-vine shiraz. After a little banter and coaxing, I accepted.

Over the course of the evening, my attraction to Jason developed. I soon became aware of his every breath and I unconsciously mirrored his pace. I caught myself, embarrassingly, looking at his chest through his slim-fitted white evening shirt. Yes, he had a fit, toned and attractive body, but was it his chest I was drawn to?

When dessert was served, he offered me a sample of his decadent and oozy chocolate pudding. I declined, but he scooped up a generous spoonful and fed me across the table anyway. He displayed a level of familiarity normally reserved for close friends or lovers. If anyone had been watching us, they would have been at least curious as to the nature of our relationship.

By the time the group left the restaurant late in the evening, all my senses were on high alert. It was abundantly clear that the energy between Jason and me was somehow charged. I instinctively understood, though, that this was more than just lust, something I had felt many times before. I also understood that it was more than simply physical attraction, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it.

At the hotel bar, Jason bought me a glass of my favourite rosé. We looked into each other’s eyes – his dark and mysterious, mine big and brown – and clinked glasses. The electricity between us was strong and raw. It travelled to my core. It was so intense I needed to break eye contact. He. We. The energy. It was electric. My body was completely charged. I was completely “on”.

He displayed a level of familiarity normally reserved for close friends or lovers.

I had to determinedly fight the continual pull to his side that I felt. As we moved around each other throughout the evening in various conversations, though, we were always aware of one another’s location. When we locked eyes across the room, the intensity of our stares magnified, becoming bolder as the night progressed. We held our gaze longer. Our connection deepened.

I loved talking with him. I felt warm, relaxed and safe in his presence. I felt I could truly be myself, at a level I wasn’t familiar with. I realised that it was a feeling I hadn’t enjoyed in a long, long time – perhaps ever. Sure, we were laughing and joking like old friends but the deepening connection through our eyes was undeniable.

My behaviour that evening was uncharacteristic. I stayed out way longer than I normally would; I’m usually an early-to-bed, early-to-rise type. But this was no ordinary evening. I was in no hurry to lose our connection. In fact, I wanted time to stand still. I wanted to remain in the energy, our energy, forever.

The bar called last drinks, and the evening (now the early morning) came to an end. The goodbye was overt, open and revealing of our mutual affection. We enjoyed a body-hugging embrace where I whispered into his ear, “This isn’t over, I need to see you again.” He put his hands tightly on my waist and pulled me close. “Yes,” he replied. It was all I needed to hear.

As I danced back to my room feeling vulnerable but also unexpectedly whole, I couldn’t wipe the smile from my face. I had never felt anything like this before. I had never experienced this sensation. I didn’t understand the energy. It was like an out-of-body, or perhaps an “in-body”, experience.

I now know without hesitation, without question, without any doubt in my mind, my body or my heart, that the energy we experienced that evening was our souls connecting. I left Margaret River a different woman.

I knew in my heart, in my soul, in the very fabric of my being that I had profoundly changed. I couldn’t articulate the feelings, the sensations, the experience. The connectedness I experienced with Jason was at a level impossible to describe. All I knew for certain was that this one encounter, in the most unlikely of places, under the most unusual of circumstances, had dramatically altered my life.

The next few days were a complete blur. I couldn’t make any sense of my feelings. I couldn’t escape unrelenting thoughts of Jason. I certainly couldn’t fathom how I’d resume my normal life: a full-time career in financial services, the care of two young children, household chores, social engagements, being a wife. What I did understand was that the successful, comfortable and somewhat predictable life I had spent 20 years building was now of no consequence. I simply didn’t care.

I’d just met my soulmate. What could possibly be more important than that?

Less than a month after meeting Jason, having had no communication with him since our time in Margaret River, I ended my 14-year relationship with my husband.

The woman who had always been so careful, so planned, so organised and so clear about the path her life would take, had just made the most dramatic decision of her life, one affecting those dearest to her – her family.

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/less-than-a-month-after-i-met-my-soulmate-i-ended-my-14-year-marriage-20220419-p5aejj.html

****************************************************

Proof that beauty is not everything





Paige Spiranac has it all: An exceptionally pretty face in an extremely sexy body. Yet it took her a while to find a partner who suited her. She is now aged 29 and has been married for five years but before that she had a lot of boyfriends. I cannot imagine that any of those boyfriends would have let her go willingly so think that she must have been the one to break off the relationships concerned.

She does admit to being very tyrannical about how her men have to look and dress. And she does use CNB -- a Marijuana extract -- to get to sleep. So it would appear that she is fairly uptight. She has missed out on a relaxed personality, which must be stressful at times. She is exceptional physically but only about average mentally. Anyone with the gift of contentment -- which includes many conservatives -- would have a happier life than her -- JR



Ukraine war sees Swiss challenge their age-old neutrality


Protests against Russia's invasion of Ukraine have drawn crowds of tens of thousands across Switzerland
How does a European country stay neutral when war rages in Europe? Switzerland managed it during the first and second world wars, but now, watching Russia's attack on Ukraine, many Swiss are rethinking their long-established position.

Switzerland was granted "eternal neutrality" at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. It was a pragmatic, geopolitical move that was supported because the country was seen as a harmless buffer between Europe's big powers - France on one side, Austria and Prussia on the other - and it preserved Switzerland's safety while its neighbours slaughtered each other.

During World War Two, Swiss neutrality was more pragmatic than heroic. Switzerland mobilised all its able-bodied men to defend its borders, but it also banked gold looted by the Nazis and, in a shameful move designed to keep Germany at bay, turned away thousands of Jewish refugees - a policy it finally apologised for in the 1990s.

Nevertheless, gratitude for being spared two world wars is, says Markus Haefliger, politics correspondent with the Tagesanzeiger newspaper, "almost in our genes… that makes neutrality so important for Swiss people".

For decades, neutrality has enjoyed almost universal support among the Swiss - opinion polls have shown approval ratings of well over 90%. But now, says Mr Haefliger, the Swiss are soul-searching. "They ask themselves how can you stay neutral in a war like Ukraine? It's so clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy."

Democracy versus autocracy

When Russia invaded its neighbour in February, thousands of Swiss citizens took to the streets, condemning the aggression and demanding support for Ukraine. Thousands also offered their homes to Ukrainian refugees, for whom the Swiss government has offered visa-free collective protection.

For young Swiss in particular, the idea that their country could stay aloof in such a conflict seemed unthinkable.

Operation Libero is a young, non-aligned political movement which campaigns for closer ties with Europe - Switzerland is not a member of the EU - and a less isolationist strategy. Its president, Sanija Ameti, believes this new war has been a wake-up call.


Sanija Ameti sounds Indian but something seems to have gone wrong

"Swiss people are realising that they are part of this European family of liberal democracies. This is a fight between systems, the one that we are in, and the autocratic, kleptocratic system of [Russian President] Putin."

That's a view shared by most political parties and most members of the Swiss government, which moved after a brief hesitation to adopt all the EU's sanctions against Russia. It's a big change from just 40 years ago, when - to the enduring shame of many Swiss - Switzerland did not join sanctions against apartheid South Africa.

The adoption of sanctions was greeted with headlines around the world, suggesting that Switzerland had abandoned neutrality. In fact, when it comes to sanctions, neutrality has been fraying round the edges for some time, says Stefanie Walter, politics professor at Zurich University.

"Switzerland has actually changed position quite a lot in the last couple of decades," she points out. It joined United Nations sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, and those against former Yugoslavia. "And right now, as well as Ukraine, there are about 23 other sanctions in place."

Sanctions - but no tanks

But while sanctions may be supported by most Swiss, any military support appears at first out of the question. Switzerland's neutrality is legally defined by the Hague Convention of 1907, and forbids sending weapons to countries at war, as does Swiss domestic law on weapons exports, which was recently tightened.

And so when Germany asked Switzerland to permit the export of Swiss-made ammunition for tanks Berlin is sending to Kyiv, the Swiss said no. That move prompted criticism from a surprising source, when the leader of the centrist Die Mitte party tweeted that in his opinion it would be legitimate to send weapons in the defence of European democracy.

The type of ammunition manufactured for some Swiss tanks can also be used by tanks being sent to Ukraine by Germany
Other centrist politicians have suggested closer Swiss ties with the Nato military alliance, including a common air defence system and participation in the organisation's military exercises.

What is Nato and how has it responded to Russia's invasion?
Such opinions would have been unimaginable just a few months ago, and they will be fiercely resisted by the right, where the Swiss People's Party is threatening a referendum to make even sanctions illegal, and on the left, where the Social Democrats and the Greens are opposed to any military involvement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61320132


*********************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************






Sunday, May 08, 2022

Infidelity is not always a bad thing: How having a romance on the side can be considered 'self-care' that can actually prolong a marriage


This is all very well but it overlooks a major reason why infidelity is normally condemned: The person dating outside the marriage may find that they like the new lover better than their normal partner. It often happens. And that mostly leads to a marriage breakup

I did myself for a long time allow the lady in my life to do as she wished as long as it did not reduce her time with me. And she did have a number of affairs. And after living for 14 years under that arrangement, I thought we would continue on our customary way indefinitely.

But the unexpected (to me) did happen. She ended up deciding that she liked one of her alternative partners better than me and prioritized him thenceforth. So a romance on the side may be allowable for various reasons but it may lead to the loss of a valued partner

The old way has its reasons.

My policy of tolerance did however pay off in one way. The lady's new partner was disappointed when she informed him that she would continue to see me on a part-time basis. She has done so. She is a good catch so he puts up with that


Infidelity need not ruin a marriage and having a secret affair may be a form of 'self-care' that can benefit all participants and prolong the union.

That is the contentious viewpoints of Isabella Mise, the Communications Director at Ashley Madison - a dating platform created for married people who want to have discreet affairs, and believes.

The 36-year-old told Daily Mail Australia members are looking to form connections with other like-minded people.

'Monogamy works for a lot of people, but it doesn't always work for everyone long term,' Isabella said.

Isabella said Ashley Madison members usually feel happy in their marriage but seek something the relationship lacks.

Some are wanting to feel desired by someone new, while others are seeking an emotional connection rather than sexual pleasures.

'I've spoken to members who have been married for 20 years or people who married their high school sweethearts and haven't slept with anyone else; no two marriages are the same,' Isabella said.

Isabella said Ashley Madison members usually feel happy in their marriage but seek something the relationship lacks.

Some are wanting to feel desired by someone new, while others are seeking an emotional connection rather than sexual pleasures.

'I've slowly realised that infidelity is not always what you think and isn't what you see in movies.'

During lockdown married people reported feelings of boredom, isolation and loneliness

Some believe infidelity was a 'reliable form of self-care' as their overall mood improved

In most cases the dating platform 'has helped preserve marriages'

Over the past two years, Covid lockdowns and restrictions have put relationships to the ultimate test.

'No one anticipated they would spend 24 hours with their significant other handling working from home, home schooling and living in such close quarters,' Isabella said.

'Affairs aren't the key to happiness in a marriage, but an outlet for many couples or married people wanting to date again.

'It can be a form of self-care - something people do for themselves that allows them to return to their primary relationship feeling less stressed or anxious.'

****************************************************

The Age of the Absurd

The West has gone through many eras—the so-called Dark Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, and the Post-Modern. The present era is the Age of the Absurd.

In terms of the absurdities the cultural elites believe, and have convinced masses of people to believe, there has never been a time like today.

Here is a list of the most ridiculous that immediately come to mind.

No. 1: Men give birth.

Heading the list has to be the radical redefinition—indeed, denial of—sex and gender, leading to such reality-defying statements as “men give birth,” “men menstruate,” “birthing person” instead of “mother,” and to the Disney theme parks no longer greeting visitors as “ladies and gentlemen” or “boys and girls.”

No. 2: It is fair to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports.

We are supposed to believe that biological men do not have an innate physical advantage in competing against women. This is asserted as truth by every Ivy League university, virtually every other university, most high schools, and virtually all the elite media.

No. 3: Defund police and crime will decrease.

We are supposed to believe that with fewer police we will have less violent crime. Any 10-year-old recognizes the sentiment as absurd.

No. 4: Racial segregation is anti-racist. Opposition to racial segregation is racist.

Columbia University and many other universities have all-black dormitories and all-black graduations. They maintain that race-based segregation is not racist. Opposition to it is.

No. 5: “Latinx.”

Because human sexuality is “not binary,” languages with gendered nouns must be neutered, leading to labeling Latinos “Latinx.” That virtually no one from or living in Latin America uses this absurd word does not faze The New York Times or your local university.

No. 6: Your race matters.

One of the least important aspects of human beings is the color of their skin. It is no more important than the color of their shoes.

Its insignificance is easily demonstrated. If you know the color of a person’s skin, do you know anything about the person? The answer, of course, is no. If I know your race, I know nothing else about you. And if I think I can determine anything about you on the basis of your race, I am a racist.

No. 7: Diversity is strength—and the happiest countries in the world are Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland.

It is an axiom of the woke, the home of the absurd, that “diversity is our greatest strength.” Yet, The New York Times, the leading media voice of the Age of the Absurd, featured an opinion piece about the happiest countries in the world. The second paragraph began: “Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland led the 2018 ranking of the World Happiness Report.”

Not once did the Times or the writer note that the four “happiest” countries in the world are not at all diverse. In fact, they are among the least diverse countries in the Western world. They are almost entirely white, almost entirely Protestant Christian (or from a Protestant Christian background), and all their citizens speak the same language. America, on the other hand, is by far the most radical experiment in racial, religious, and ethnic diversity.

No. 8: Free speech does not allow for hate speech.

“I’m for free speech, but not for hate speech” is the view of almost half of America’s young people and virtually all its elites. So widespread is belief in the absurd that these people do not understand that the statement is self-contradictory. It renders the words “free speech” meaningless. By definition, free speech allows for hate speech. If it doesn’t, “free speech” means nothing more than speech with which one agrees.

No. 9: You’re not a human being until you’re born.

There is no need to believe in God or in any religion to understand the absurdity of this assertion. If we are not human beings until birth, what are we five minutes—or five months—prior to birth, when we have a heartbeat and brain waves? Non-human?

No. 10: Capitalism is evil.

Abject poverty has been the norm for nearly all people throughout history. Yet, in the last century alone, billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. And there is only one reason: capitalism.

No. 11: America is systemically racist.

The manifest absurdity of this claim is easily demonstrated. In the past decades, more than 3 million black people have immigrated to America from Africa and the Caribbean. And probably tens of millions more would like to. Are all these people fools—choosing to move to a systemically racist country? Are they ignorant—unaware that America is systemically racist?

The non-absurd know the answers: All these blacks are neither fools nor ignorant. They know how lucky they are to move to America—because this country is so tolerant and so overwhelmingly nonracist. People don’t move to countries that hate them. No Jews moved to Germany in the 1930s.

We live in the Age of the Absurd. The only question is, why? I think I know the answer and will discuss it in a future column. In the meantime, share these 11 absurdities with friends and relatives, especially with those who actually think they make sense.

*************************************************

Georgia’s successful passage of the "Parents’ Bill of Rights" law shows that Florida is not an outlier

I’ve got Georgia on my mind. On April 28, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law House Bill 1178, the “Parents’ Bill of Rights.”

This is a big deal. In addition to providing Georgia parents with strong legal protections to ensure that they are able to

1. know what their children are learning in public schools and

2. be involved in their children’s education, the Georgia Parents’ Bill of Rights boldly adds the following into Georgia state law:

No state or local government entity, governing body, or any officer, employee, or agent thereof may infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing and education of his or her minor child without demonstrating that such action is reasonable and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that such action is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by less restrictive means.

Georgia is now the 15th state in the nation to protect parental rights as a fundamental right in state code.

“Fundamental rights” is the legal term in our nation for those God-given rights that are the most precious and that receive the strongest protections by our nation’s laws. And the language in the Georgia Parents’ Bill of Rights about “a compelling state interest” that is “narrowly tailored” and “not otherwise served by less restrictive means” is known in legal circles as “strict scrutiny.”

This language ensures that any governmental action that could infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing and education of his or her child will face “strict scrutiny.” This is a very high bar for the government. An example of government action that would meet this high legal bar is law enforcements’ removal of a child from a home for physical abuse by a caregiver.

The passage into law of the Georgia Parents’ Bill of Rights is significant for another reason: It is a major legislative win for parents who have been ignored by the education establishment. Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic shut down public schools in the spring of 2020 and pulled back the curtain on what children were learning (or not learning), we have seen deepening frustration from parents across the nation.

And as parents were ignored by the education establishment, this frustration built. It helped propel Gov. Glenn Youngkin to victory in Virginia in November 2021. It led to the ouster of three school board members in deep-blue San Francisco earlier this year. But legislative wins have been elusive.

That started to change when Florida, where ParentalRights.org already helped pass a law in 2021 enshrining “the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of his or her minor child,” built on that success this year by passing the “Parental Rights in Education” law.

But even though this was a major win for Florida parents, Florida seemed to be an outlier in heeding the cries by parents who had been ignored by the education establishment. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers had recently vetoed a bill in his state that would have also enshrined parental rights as a fundamental right.

The South Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee killed a fundamental parental rights bill, even though the bill had earlier passed the South Dakota House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 63-5. A fundamental parental rights bill was killed by a Colorado House committee. Other bills championed by parents were stalled or weakened across the nation.

All of this has come despite the growing evidence that parental rights have wide bipartisan support. For example, a recent NPR/Marist poll showed that independents, Latinos, and, significantly, households with children under the age of 18 are inclined to vote Republican in wide margins.

I don’t think this is necessarily because these individuals now identify as Republicans. But I think it is the Youngkin effect again: Parents are frustrated that their concerns relating to their own children’s education is being ignored. And only Republican candidates and elected officials are listening to them.

That is why Georgia’s successful passage into law of the Parents’ Bill of Rights was so significant. It shows that Florida is not an outlier. It shows that parents are winning, and that the tide may be turning.

After Georgia, we are watching New Hampshire. House Bill 1431, which creates a parental bill of rights, has already passed the New Hampshire House and recently passed the New Hampshire Senate.

In Missouri, House Bill 1858, which provides curriculum transparency to parents of children in Missouri public schools, has also passed the Missouri House, and is poised to pass the Missouri Senate. Other curriculum transparency bills are moving across the nation.

Georgia shows us that elected officials are starting to listen to parents. It shows that parents are winning. And it should remind us, yet again, that parental rights are bipartisan. Elected officials across the political spectrum should sit up, take notice, and support the right of parents in the education of their precious children.

***************************************************

The left’s talk of ‘women’s rights’ exposes its gender hypocrisy

For the past few years, Democrats have worked tirelessly erasing gender in all its forms.

They tell us women who have babies aren’t mothers; they are “birthing people.” They insist men can get pregnant while giving parents of newborns the option of not designating the sex of their baby on his/her birth certificate, despite their infant’s obvious male or female genitalia and other biological gender traits before their eyes — and the eyes of their doctor.

The left has championed transgender men competing in women’s sports, putting biological women at a significant disadvantage, while the Biden administration’s latest addition to the US Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, refused to answer a simple question during her recent confirmation hearings when asked to define what a woman is.

The newly confirmed left-wing justice said she couldn’t do that because she isn’t a biologist.

But now that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark abortion case, which, if overturned, would leave abortion laws to be determined by the states, Democrats are up in arms accusing those who oppose abortion of not protecting “women’s” rights and “women’s” reproductive health. Huh? I thought women and gender no longer exist according to the left.

Nonetheless, it’s remarkable how quickly the Democratic Party has reversed course and gone back to defending women and women’s rights after systemically attempting to abolish gender from our collective conscience.

Talk about hypocrisy and glaring double standards.

Democrats and the radical left seek to erase womanhood in all its traditional forms — when it’s politically expedient — but swiftly pivot to defending women and women’s rights when access to an abortion on demand at any stage of a pregnancy is at stake. And they desperately need a wedge issue to mobilize their voter base come the midterm elections, in which Democrats are expected to get shellacked given the Biden administration’s disastrously low poll numbers.

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, what’s become apparent is that, at minimum, Democrats have a serious messaging problem when it comes to gender and culture wars. At maximum, they’ve lost the moral authority to lecture to the American people what a woman is or isn’t when they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Take liberal co-host of “The View” Whoopi Goldberg, who was outraged this week about the possible overturning of the controversial abortion case. On her show Tuesday, she railed, “This is my body and nobody . . . you won’t let me make my decisions about my body? You are not the person to make that decision.”

That’s liberal hypocrisy in a nutshell. Democrats pound the table when it comes to abortion rights, cherry-picking when to use the argument “my body and my choice” and saying how dare the government get in between a woman and her doctor. Yet when it comes to government-mandated COVID-19 vaccinations during the pandemic — it’s not your body nor your choice. Instead, they want unelected bureaucrats like Dr. Anthony “flip-flopping” Fauci or the discredited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention making those important health decisions for us.

Never mind if you’re a healthy child or young adult and at very low risk of dying or experiencing severe symptoms from COVID-19. The left still insisted you get vaccinated, regardless of the fact that it doesn’t stop transmission of the virus. They attacked any conservative who dared to mention the scientific existence of natural immunity after contracting COVID-19 and beating it or spoke out against harmful COVID-19 restrictions like oppressive lockdowns or other questionable government-imposed mandates. The left abandoned its “my body, my choice” stance and accused those who wanted to make health-care decisions for themselves of “killing Grandma.”

But in their worldview, killing unborn babies via abortion is apparently A-OK.

The hypocrisy and doublespeak are truly astonishing.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************