31 August, 2021

Replacing table salt with substitute reduces rates of stroke, heart attack, death, study finds

Here were go again: The old certainty that salt (NaCl) is bad for you. All the evidence that we simply excrete any excess is simply ignored.

<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2105675">The study below</a> was mainly of elderly existing stroke victims and even there the effects were only of borderline significance. There are no lessons in it for people in general

The study, which was led by researchers from Sydney's George Institute for Global Health, has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"I think this study has something for everyone, and I mean literally everyone, in the world," George Institute executive director and study co-author Bruce Neal told ABC RN's Health Report.

"Almost everyone in the world eats salt, and almost everyone in the world eats more salt than they should.

"If salt was switched for salt substitute worldwide, there would be several million premature deaths prevented every year."

So what's the problem with salt?

The recommended amount of salt for adults is about one teaspoon a day — equivalent to 2,000 milligrams of sodium.

High salt intake is linked to raised blood pressure, kidney damage, strokes and heart attacks.

It may even raise the risk of Alzheimer's disease and autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, by increasing tissue damage through oxidative stress and inflammation.

The director of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Tom Marwick, says there is "no doubt" that consuming too much salt is associated with cardiovascular disease.

"We know that salt is a major driver of disease," he said.

"Getting community salt intake down has been an ongoing issue for decades."

Shouldering part of our salt intake is something Professor Neal terms "discretionary salt" — salt added for seasoning when you're cooking and eating, or when you're preserving foods.

The salt substitute he and colleagues developed comprised 75 per cent sodium chloride — so 75 per cent regular salt — and 25 per cent potassium chloride.

"It's the sodium that's the bad bit in salt," Professor Neal said.

"So the particular combination, the 25/75 mix, we chose in large part because we knew it gave a blood pressure lowering effect, but we also knew it tasted very similar to regular salt."

What happened when salt was switched

Between April 2014 and January 2015, 21,000 adults from 600 rural villages in five provinces across China were recruited for the study.

Participants all had a history of stroke, or poorly controlled blood pressure.

"We went to rural China, because it's relatively easy to replace the salt in a rural Chinese diet," Professor Neal said.

"We gave half of the people a salt substitute [and] the others continued to use 100 per cent sodium chloride, so just regular salt."

Study recruits were followed for five years. Strokes, heart attacks and deaths in each of the two groups were recorded and compared.

"We wanted to try and answer the question once and for all: if we reduce the amount of [table] salt that people ate, could we reduce clinical events?" Professor Neal said.

For those using the salt substitute, researchers found their stroke risk was reduced by 14 per cent; total cardiovascular events — that's strokes and heart attacks combined — reduced by 13 per cent; and premature death by 12 per cent.

The salt substitute group also ended up with lower blood pressure than the table salt group, Professor Neal added.

"It's not that far off what you get with a drug, and the effects [on reducing cardiovascular events and death] are perhaps not that far off what you get with the drug as well."

Professor Marwick said while the research was "a very significant achievement", it was conducted among a high-risk group.

"Stroke is a particular problem in China, but nonetheless, [the researchers] have shown a benefit," he said.

"The relative risk reduction of stroke was 14 per cent, and the absolute reduction was five per thousand – it's not nothing, but it's not huge.

"But what they have shown is that a relatively small reduction of salt intake does have an impact."

Are salt substitutes safe?

Salt substitutes may not be suitable for everyone due to the use of potassium.

Professor Neal said that high levels of potassium in your blood, known as hyperkalemia, could make you prone to cardiac arrhythmias and sudden death, particularly in people with chronic kidney disease.

As a result, people with serious kidney diseases were excluded from the trial, as were people using medicines that already raised their potassium.

"We saw no evidence of any increased risk of events caused by hyperkalemia. And we saw no evidence of any increased risk of sudden death either," Professor Neal said.

And while salt substitutes are a "pretty cheap" change to make, they are still more expensive than salt — about $2.20 per kilogram in China, compared to $1.48 per kilogram.

Professor Neal said he was concerned this price difference might put people off using salt substitutes.

"I think we're going to need to consider subsidising the cost of salt substitutes to the cost of regular salt in lower income settings if we're going to get the benefits," he said.

Professor Marwick said salt substitution was "a significant step, but not the only solution to a community-wide problem with salt".

"We can look at changing food intake, rather than substitution alone," he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-08-31/salt-substitute-reduces-stroke-heart-attack-death-potassium/100420326

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

Withdrawal of planned guidance on chronic fatigue syndrome upsets patients

I once contracted this but thanks to my good immune system, I recovered after a month

It was years in the making, involving thousands of scientists, medics, patients and campaigners all with a vested interest in the first landmark guidance on ME of its kind for 14 years.

After much wrangling, the contentious document about myalgic encephalomyelitis (also known as chronic fatigue syndrome) had finally been seen by all stakeholders – but it was not to be.

Earlier this month, hours before publication, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) withdrew the planned guidance and pressed pause on changes that could have affected up to a quarter of a million sufferers and those who treat them, saying: “It has become apparent that a number of professional groups are unwilling to support the guidelines.”

The move has not only left patients distraught but has worsened the already sharp discord within the scientific community over approaches to the poorly understood condition.

On the surface, the delay appeared to pit vulnerable patients – who for decades have suffered prejudice, disbelief and stigma surrounding their illness – against what critics consider to be bad doctors and faulty science.

But a closer look at the controversy points to distinct differences of opinion about the nature of evidence underpinning contested behavioural approaches to ME, and how it has been assimilated and interpreted.

ME is thought to affect up to 250,000 people in the UK. Characterised by debilitating pain and fatigue, it hits one in four sufferers so severely that they are housebound. A constellation of other symptoms, from gastrointestinal issues to nervous-system disorders and sleep problems, can accompany the fatigue.

But what causes the disease remains unclear and consequently no specific treatment exists, although graded exercise therapy (Get) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) have been used in an attempt to manage symptoms.

Nice last issued recommendations on ME in 2007. The new final guidance, seen by the Guardian and broadly in line with a draft published last November, would have abandoned the recommendation to use Get, which involves incremental increases in physical activity to gradually build up tolerance. It also advised that CBT, a talking therapy commonly used to treat anxiety and depression, is not curative for ME.

Charities and patient groups fighting for greater recognition of ME as a medical illness rather than a psychological problem had welcomed these changes. But a number of professional medical groups did not.

At the heart of the dispute is the Pace trial, which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions for ME, including Get and CBT. The results, published in 2011, suggested that both approaches were moderately beneficial for some ME patients, based on patient reports.

Critics, however, say the trial, the biggest of a range of similar studies, was riddled with shortcomings. Trial design concerns included the symptom criteria used to recruit patients in the trial, which critics say was too broad and could have led to people with milder disorders being included.

Another cited drawback is the lack of objective measures to measure outcomes – an activity tracker should have been used to cement subjective measures such as patient reports, said Jonathan Edwards, emeritus professor of connective tissue medicine at University College London and an expert witness for Nice.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/uknews/withdrawal-of-planned-guidance-on-me-upsets-patients/ar-AANT9eb

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

If We Soak the Rich, Will Everyone Get Wet?

President Joe Biden describes his $3.5 trillion spending scheme as a way to improve the economy and "build back better."

The intention is a good one, but at its core, this plan isn't so much about growing people's wealth as it is redistributing it. The goal is to make the economy not more prosperous but more equitable -- fairer.

The multi-trillion dollar spending plan offers lower-income and even middle-income people truckloads of free things: health care, dental care, food, pre-K, child care, rental assistance, student loan forgiveness and free community college. And we know that Americans love freebies.

But nothing the government doles out, including the proverbial "free lunch," is ever really "free." So to pay for the giveaways, the rich will pay more taxes under the Biden plan -- a lot more. Tax rates would rise to 50% or more, and death taxes would increase by a record amount. As one liberal commentator recently put it, "It's time to divide the spoils of the American economy."

But our tax code already is highly progressive, and far more than most people have been told.

If you believe the media, you would think there are country clubs full of millionaires and billionaires who pay little or no taxes. Some invest a lot of money in tax accountants and tax avoidance, but that isn't because tax rates are not high enough. If someone has a zero tax liability, raising the tax rate to 50% still means paying 50% of zero, which is zero. Tax avoidance happens because Congress has affixed so many special interest loopholes onto the tax code, like barnacles on the hull of a ship.

But as a group, the top 1% carry a surprisingly hefty portion of the income tax burden on their backs, much more so than in the past. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, the top 1% in income paid a little less than 20% of all federal income taxes. Amazingly, back then, tax rates were a lot higher than now.

Today, according to IRS data collected by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the top 1% pay roughly 40% of income taxes. The Tax Foundation has found that this is close to a record share of taxes paid by the rich, and far higher than in most other nations. Even in the more socialist European nations, the rich don't pay that large a share.

Here's another way to think about it. The wealthiest 1% now pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90%. But as rich as Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Jay-Z and Bill Gates are, they don't make anywhere near the combined income of the tens of millions of people with incomes below $100,000 a year.

The Biden plan seeks to force the top 1% to pay almost half of all income taxes. But, even if that were possible, is that a good thing for a democracy? Is it good that one out of 100 people bear the burden of half of all the taxes? These are highly successful people for sure, and most are small-business owners and investors. Still, since when in America do we have an explicit policy of punishing success?

The other troubling trend in federal tax policy is that since the coronavirus hit, the share of people who pay no taxes at all has skyrocketed. The Tax Policy Center shows that six of 10 households paid no federal income taxes during pandemic-stricken 2020. That's right. Zero.

Suppose the Biden plan, which dramatically expands tax credits for children and offers other loopholes, is passed. In that case, this percentage could rise to two-thirds of households avoiding income taxes altogether.

It is a dangerous trend. Do we really want nearly 200 million people receiving free government services but not paying any income tax to support the government? If the government becomes essentially free for most people, then these citizens will tend to vote continuously for more free goods and services. It is an outcome for which our forefathers issued warnings. They worried that if voters come to believe they can vote for spending policies that line their own pockets and make other people pay, our democracy will perish.

The temptation to plunder the wealth of the rich legally is called "the tyranny of the majority." It is why every worker and voter should have skin in the game in how our government spends money. One way to ensure this is to have a tax system that requires everyone to contribute, even if it is only a few hundred dollars of taxes a year.

A simple flat tax rate of 19% without all the loopholes would force almost everyone to pay some tax each year. Moreover, it would preclude the millionaire and billionaire crowd from sheltering the bulk of their income in loopholes and exotic deductions.

The Democrats love to talk about how "we are all in this together," and they are right. This is why we must not tolerate an income tax system with more than half of the public paying nothing. If only the rich pay the taxes, then a common lesson of history is that there are fewer and fewer rich people to soak over time.

https://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2021/08/31/if-we-soak-the-rich-will-everyone-get-wet-n2595034

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

The Prince of Prussia's Nazi problem

Perched on a mountain top overlooking the Swabian Alps, Hohenzollern Castle, with its picturesque towers, seems like something out of a fairytale. It is a relic from a bygone era. When the proud owner is at home, his flag waves defiantly in the wind, but it bears the colours of a kingdom that no longer exists: the black-and-white of Prussia.

Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, is the current head of the House of Hohenzollern. It is strange to look at the smiling businessman in the tailored suits and think of him as a Kaiser. But the 45-year-old father of four would be exactly that had the German monarchy not fallen.

His dynasty can trace its roots back to the 11th century. They became the first, last and only royal family to rule over a unified German nation state, but were forced to relinquish their power after the last German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was held responsible for the calamity of the first world war. Germans have since found it difficult to find a place for the Hohenzollerns in the national narrative.

While Georg Friedrich has always maintained that he has no ambition to carve out a political role for himself, he has been keen to restore his family’s estate, much of which was confiscated in the wake of the second world war. According to the prince, this affects around 10,000 pieces of art as well as usage rights for palaces. In total, the disputed property amounts to hundreds of millions of euros.

Since reunification in 1990, the German state has generally been sympathetic towards those whose property was nationalised or seized after the second world war. While this happened in West Germany too, in the East land redistribution became an official policy. The former ‘elites’ were seen as fair game as they were unanimously regarded as Nazi sympathisers. Property above 100 hectares was confiscated and redistributed, which affected the Hohenzollerns particularly badly as their power base lay in the north east of Germany.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Georg Friedrich’s grandfather, Louis Ferdinand, began proceedings to claim the Hohenzollern estate back — but he quickly ran into problems. The first was public outrage. Many German commentators saw the prince’s efforts as sheer greed, especially as many of the objects were on public display and most of the palaces used as museums.

A separate (if related) issue is a legal hurdle designed to prevent families from claiming compensation for property that was confiscated because their ancestors had been been ‘substantially involved in furthering the Nazi system’. The key figure here is Georg Friedrich’s great grandfather, son of the Kaiser: Crown Prince Wilhelm. He publicly declared his support for the Nazis and Adolf Hitler in the early 1930s. But whether this amounted to ‘substantial’ support — whether this had a direct effect on the takeover — remains the question to be decided.

Crown Prince Wilhelm was a complex character. He could be charming and funny, loved parties and was a successful competitive showjumper. A particular passion of his was football long before it became a popular spectator sport. He sponsored his own cup in 1908, the first of its kind and still ongoing as the Länderpokal today. But he took his role as heir to the throne seriously. Wilhelm was a loyal son to his father Kaiser Wilhelm II and commanded troops at the Battle of Verdun, both in the full expectation that he would be Kaiser one day. But he was also the darkest character in the Hohenzollern family — a Nazi sympathiser who pledged his support to Adolf Hitler vociferously both before and after the latter became chancellor of Germany in 1933.

The nature of Wilhelm’s exact role in Hitler’s rise to power is more than family history to his great-grandson Georg Friedrich. It has a bearing on the dynasty’s presence and future, morally and financially. He has therefore commissioned the renowned historian Lothar Machtan, professor of modern history at the University of Bremen, to look into the matter — aided by a five-figure sum and full access to the family archives. Machtan’s findings have now been published in a comprehensive biography, The Crown Prince and the Nazis: The Hohenzollern’s Blind Spot.

In an interview with the Weltnewspaper last week, both men, historian and prince, showed themselves to be pleased with the results of the research. Machtan has concluded that there is no denying that ‘there was a phase during which one can speak of a collaboration with the rising Nazis’. But he is also certain that ‘the Hohenzollerns were not involved in the transition of power in the winter of 1932/1933, neither directly nor indirectly’. He characterised Wilhelm as a misguided and ‘erratic’ man who was dispensable in the eyes of the Nazis. The ‘terrible proclamations of loyalty’ he offered Hitler were neither demanded nor particularly useful to the future dictator, Machtan argues.

What the German courts will make of this new analysis remains to be seen. The Prince of Prussia is also still engaged in direct negotiations with cultural organisations in the hope that he might reach compromise solutions outside the courtroom.

But the wounds in German collective memory are still deep, as evidenced by the heated tone of the public debate. The Hohenzollerns have been called a ‘family clan which has haunted central Europe for over 1,000 years with its wars, nepotism and catastrophes’ by one commentator; others have called the claims ‘an insult to the republic’, ‘greedy’ and even an ‘erosion of democracy itself’. Georg Friedrich is clearly trying to rationalise the debate by employing the services of a respected expert in the field but he is fighting an uphill battle.

It is unlikely that press appearances, no matter how sleek and professionally conducted, will allay the collective historical anxiety that still holds sway in many areas of German public life. Even the professional research of a well-respected historian is unlikely to make a difference. Whether Crown Prince Wilhelm helped the Nazis to power or not may be the legal question. But the moral question for many Germans is still whether the Hohenzollerns deserve the return of their riches.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/08/the-prince-of-prussias-nazi-problem/

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

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)

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

30 August

Journalist Alex Berenson is permanently suspended by Twitter over anti-vax COVID-19 tweets

I have myself had a vaccination against Covid so I clearly think it is a good idea. I have in fact had vaccinations against everything available. But I cannot agree with a Fascist suppression of other views

Former New York Times journalist and writer Alex Berenson has been permanently banned from Twitter after posting an anti-vaccination COVID-19 related tweet.

'The account you referenced has been permanently suspended for repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules,' a Twitter spokesperson told Fox News.

Berenson, who has long been a skeptic over the exact risks of the coronavirus, has previously called the pandemic an excuse for the government to overstep its boundaries in terms of rules and authority.

The 48-year-old posted a screenshot of the tweet to his Substack, in a post he titled 'Goodbye Twitter' shortly after tweeting it on Saturday.

'This was the tweet that did it,' Berenson wrote alongside a the screenshot of the tweet that got him permanently banned from the social media platform.

'Entirely accurate. I can’t wait to hear what a jury will make of this.'

The tweet itself appears to fall in line with Berenson's past remarks when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, and more specifically, government mask and vaccine mandates.

'It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission,' the tweet read, in reference to the coronavirus vaccine.

'Don’t think of it as a vaccine.' 'Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS.'

Meanwhile, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention report that said COVID-19 vaccines are 'safe and effective,' backed by results from thousands of clinical trials.

Berenson began his anti-mask and vaccine mandate crusade last year, when an Op-Ed he penned for the Wall Street Journal claimed the pandemic had caused 'a new age of censorship and suppression.'

'Information has never been more plentiful or easier to distribute. Yet we are sliding into a new age of censorship and suppression, encouraged by technology giants and traditional media companies,' Berenson told the outlet.

'As someone who’s been falsely characterized as a coronavirus ‘denier,' he wrote at the time. 'I have seen this crisis firsthand.'

The controversial journalist and writer also revealed an ongoing dispute of his with Amazon, who Berenson alleges tried to suppress his self-published books on the subject of COVID-19 and the ensuing response.

'Since June, Amazon has twice tried to suppress self-published booklets I have written about Covid-19 and the response to it,' he continued.

'These booklets don’t contain conspiracy theories. Like the scientists who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, I simply believe many measures to control the coronavirus have been damaging, counterproductive and unsupported by science.'

Berenson began writing for the New York Times in 1999 before leaving the newspaper in 2010 to pursue a career as a full-time author and novelist.

The Yale-educated novelist was dubbed 'the pandemic's wrongest man' by The Atlantic over his predictions about the virus. He had originally predicted that the US would not surpass 500,000 deaths due to COVID-19. The country was at 637,000 deaths as of today.

Berenson had previously enjoyed a large social media following, with over 200,000 followers prior to his permanent Twitter ban

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9937751/Journalist-Alex-Berenson-permanently-suspended-Twitter-anti-vax-COVID-19-tweets.html

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

'I pledge allegiance to the queers': California teacher sparks outrage by getting students to pledge allegiance to gay pride flag

A California high school teacher is being investigated by the school board after she revealed she'd got her students to pledge allegiance to the gay pride flag instead of the American one.

Kristin Pitzen, of Newport Mesa School District in Orange County, posted a video to TikTok, where she admitted she'd removed the American flag because it made her 'uncomfortable'.

When one of her English class students pointed out it was missing during the Pledge of Allegiance, she told them to recite the pledge to the only flag she did have hanging in her classroom - the gay pride flag.

The TikTok has since gone viral, sparking a backlash from many parents who were angry she was teaching children to 'disrespect' the American flag.

'How can the words "for liberty and justice for all" bring such hate in people? How can anyone have (an) issue with those words?' one user replied.

Some even questioned why she lives in America, calling on the school to fire her and parents to homeschool their kids.

While others praised her, even going as far to say they wished she taught their own children.

In the controversial TikTok, Pitzen reveals that the Pledge of Allegiance is read during third-period announcements.

She said she always tells her class: 'Stand if you feel like it, don't stand if you feel like it. Say the words if you want, don't have to say the words.' 'So my class decided to stand but not say the words - totally fine,' she said.

'Except for the fact that my room does not have a flag,' Pitzen added. 'It used to be there,' she said in the video as she pivots the camera and points to the wall in the front of the classroom.

'But I took it down during Covid,' she said, whispering that she did it 'because it made me uncomfortable'.

She said she 'packed it away' but doesn't know where, laughing in a way that implied otherwise, prompting the school district to open an investigation. 'And I haven't found it yet,' Pitzen added, as she put her hand over her mouth to stifle a laugh.

When a student asks her where the flag is, saying it's 'kinda weird that we stand and then we say it (the Pledge of Allegiance) to nothing,' the teacher shrugged it off and told them: 'I'm working on it, I got you.'

The TikTok then cuts to Pitzen then silently mouthing 'no' while shaking her head.

In the meantime, she told the student: 'We do have a flag in the class that you can pledge your allegiance to.'

'And he goes: "Oh, that one"?' she added as she shows the gay pride flag hung in the classroom.

The original TikTok has since been taken down - along with all of Pitzen's social media accounts - but has been viewed on Twitter more than 1.2million times.

An earlier video she posted on her account, where she goes by @MrsGillingsworth, the teacher celebrated Pride Month on June 1 and showed off how she is celebrating by hanging a variety of pride flags in her classroom.

'I pledge allegiance to the queers,' she said in the video while wearing rainbow glasses, earrings and suspenders.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9936963/School-district-investigates-teacher-video-encouraging-students-pledge-allegiance-gay-pride-flag.html

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

‘He’s a liar’: Sarah Palin lowers boom on Biden, calls him a ‘marionette,’ VP Harris a ‘giggly lightweight’

Former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lowered the boom on President Joe Biden for his historic failures in Afghanistan that led to the tragic deaths of 13 American military members who were murdered by terrorist suicide bombers on Thursday.

Palin appeared on the Fox News program “Watters’ World,” where she blasted the nation’s 46th president as a liar, a failure, and a “marionette” as well as a career blunderer who only serves as the “mouthpiece” for those who are really running the country.

She also had unkind words for Vice President Kamala Harris who could replace the doddering wax dummy in the Oval Office, dismissing the veep as “a giggly, girly lightweight.”

The former governor of Alaska captivated conservatives when she was unexpectedly tabbed as the running mate for Senator John McCain in the 2008 election that in retrospect, dramatically and perhaps permanently, altered the future of America by handing the keys the country over to the devious and destructive Barack Obama, a man who after two terms, still exerts a tremendous amount of influence over the White House.

Fox News host Jesse Watters asked, “Did you foresee this coming at all? I mean we know Biden’s track record’s atrocious, but this is in his honeymoon period and we’ve got a border crisis, a hostage crisis, a humiliating defeat on the battlefield, dead marines, it’s barely not even September.”

Palin replied, “Well we should have seen it coming, based on Biden’s track record, nearly fifty years in government, blunder after blunder,” she said, “people in his own party, his quote, unquote, supporters, letting Americans know, letting voters know before the vote was taken against Trump, that he gets everything wrong.”

She continued, “You know Jesse, I looked the other night for the first time ever at debate clips where I was debating Biden back in 08 and I’m sitting there listening to this going man, the more things change the more they stay the same,” referring to the vice presidential debate when the career politician was Barack Obama’s running mate.

“He was a liar back then, he is a liar today.” Palin said, “His track record should have allowed all of us to anticipate nothing but negative, nothing but bad, nothing but tragedy would happen under this man’s watch.”

Watters said “the media wanted him because he wasn’t Trump,” pointing out the extremely slanted coverage that gaslighted a large portion of the American public into believing that Biden was fit to run the country despite ample evidence to the contrary, before posing the question “How do you see Joe’s presidency going forward? His credibility shot on pretty much everything.”

Palin responded, “Those of us kind of in that arena at least at one time or another, knew that he didn’t have any credibility back then so you can’t just have some kind of credibility transplant overnight,” she said. “He isn’t a credible human being, he lies, he plagiarizes, I mean all the things we already know and you’re right, the media did want him to win and the media clobbered anybody who was challenging him.”

She should know a thing or two about being “clobbered” by the corrupt and dishonest media; few other than Trump have undergone the type of cruelty and ridicule that Palin was subjected to when she was Sen. McCain’s running mate against Obama, a man who the majority of liberals viewed as the messiah, especially those in the press.

She also threw shade at congressional Republicans who are calling for Biden’s impeachment.

“I think Republicans in Congress are wasting their time with their rhetoric about impeaching him because they will never do it, because most politicians, as you notice I’m sure, they’re a bunch of windbags and they’ll talk about it but they won’t do it,” said the outsider who captured the hearts of conservatives in 2008.

Turning her focus to the proverbial elephant in the living room, Palin asked “I wish that I knew, and I’m sure you say the same thing, I wish that we knew who was really in charge, it’s not the marionette Joe Biden, who is the mouthpiece for whatever the heck is going on down there.”

When asked by Watters about the potential of a palace coup by Harris, Palin replied, “She’s probably all giddy thinking oh goody, here’s my chance but really, she is a giggly, girly lightweight.” She added that Harris “doesn’t have a whole lot of support, even within her own party” other than inside that “inner circle of the real movers and shakers in the Democrat party” who have always viewed the inexperienced former senator as a female Obama.

It’s possible that Palin may be reentering the political arena, she has teased a possible Senate run against the embattled anti-Trump incumbent Lisa Murkowski and would surely have the support of the former POTUS, as well as millions of patriotic Americans, were she to choose to do so.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/08/29/hes-a-liar-sarah-palin-lowers-boom-on-biden-calls-him-a-marionette-vp-harris-a-giggly-lightweight-1126194/

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

The Metropolitan Police - Britain's biggest force - is considering plans to introduce gender-neutral uniforms, it has been reported

Cops in skirts?

The force is consulting its 30,000 officers on the current uniform and what changes should be made in future.

Sources claim the force could be in breach of the 2010 Equality Act by not providing separate uniforms for non-binary and gender-fluid officers, the Sun reports.

The newspaper states that an officer, who goes by Alex Blue, believes not providing separate uniforms could be indirect discrimination.

The officer suggested that the Met should provide uniform items that are neither male nor female.

Meanwhile, equality campaigner Peter Tatchell suggested there should be one uniform for all, telling the newspaper: 'Separate uniforms for officers is a legacy of the sexist past.'

The current uniform features helmets, flat caps and ties for men while women are expected to wear cravats and bowler hats.

The Met said the contract with its current uniform supplier is due to expire in 2023 and that they are reviewing what changes needed to be made when a new contract is signed.

The decision could have wider implications on other organisations including the armed forces and other public bodies.

Last year, a gender-fluid engineer who was branded 'IT' by colleagues at Jaguar Land Rover was awarded £180,000 after winning a landmark discrimination case.

Rose Taylor, 43, was teased and harassed at the car manufacturer after she began identifying as gender fluid/non-binary in 2017.

An employment tribunal heard how she suffered insults and abusive jokes at the hands of co-workers after she started wearing women's clothes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938679/Britains-biggest-police-force-Met-considers-plans-introduce-gender-neutral-uniforms.html

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

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)

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

29 August

They Are About To Make It ILLEGAL To Protest Against Vaccinations!

We live in a world that is totally upside down and it is terrifying to be a part of it. We were once a country that applauded individualism and being our own person, but now that is shunned for the good of the collective. We once were a country that protected peaceful protests and speaking out against tyranny, but now that is called insurrection and must be punished.

So much for the land of the free.

Now, in one state they are going one step further to ensure that there is any dissent as they push the new world order upon us all.

In fact, in this state, they are proposing a bill that would make it a jailable crime to protest a vaccine site and you know that once this passes in one state, it will sweep across our nation popping up in more.

It should not be a huge surprise to know that the state that is proposing this particular draconian bill is in California.

Senate Bill 742 threatens to jail anti-vaccine protesters for up to six months, as well as stick them with fines, for making their voices heard about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Big Pharma injections, including those for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

Here is more from Natural News:

Freedom protesters have been seen as of late gathering outside of clinics and other facilities where the jabs are being administered. These gatherings are peaceful, but they are apparently “triggering” pro-vaccine fanatics who believe that all vaccines are “safe and effective.”

On August 19, SB 742 was placed in the California legislature’s “Suspense File,” meaning it will be considered at a later date “in a rapid-fire process” alongside other bills that have also been lumped into this category.

The purpose of the Suspense File, it would seem is to hide controversial legislation under the radar until it can be sprung up and resurrected suddenly in order to be quickly passed without too many people knowing what happened.

Included in the bill: “(a) It is unlawful to knowingly approach within 30 feet of any person while a person is making the approach within 100 feet of the entrance of a vaccination site and is seeking to enter or exit a vaccination site, or any occupied motor vehicle seeking entry or exit, for the purpose of obstructing, injuring, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with that person or vehicle occupant in connection with any vaccination services,” Section 594.39 of Section 1 of the bill would add to California’s Penal Code.

“(b) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.”

“Intimidation,” as defined by the bill, includes making “a true threat” towards a person or group of people that put that person or group “in fear of bodily harm or death.”

Since some deranged vaccine lovers actually believe that not getting vaccinated, or not allowing a child to get vaccinated, is a form of “violence,” this section of the bill could be applied in such a way as to criminalize merely publicly voicing opposition to vaccines.

The bill goes on to define a “true threat” as “a statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular person or group of persons regardless of whether the person actually intends to act on the threat.”

This, too, could easily be redefined to include free speech that calls into question the safety and efficacy of an injection. As you may recall, this has long been the excuse as to why vaccine studies never include a true control group: because to deprive one group of the experimental injection would be “inhumane,” we are told.

The real kicker in the bill is the “obstructing” section, which is defined as “rendering ingress to or egress from a vaccination site, or rendering passage to or from a vaccination site, unreasonably difficult or hazardous.”

So much for free speech my friends.

The country that we once were so blessed to live in is spiraling out of control and I am not entirely sure it will ever be back.

https://dailyheadlines.net/they-are-about-to-make-it-illegal-to-protest-against-vaccinations/

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

Too many Americans are dependent on government

In 2012, then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was pilloried by the press for his comment that 47 percent of Americans pay no income taxes.

That was then. This is now.

According to a new report from the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, “The COVID-19 pandemic and the policy response to it led to an extraordinary increase in the number of American households that owed no federal individual income tax in 2020.”

Specifically, in 2020, “nearly 107 million households, or about 61 percent, owed no income tax or even received tax credits from the government,” the report states.

What’s more, the percentage of Americans who did not pay a single penny in federal income taxes “increased by roughly 40 percent from the pre-pandemic year of 2019, due to a combination of a poor economy and multiple rounds of tax-based assistance to hard-pressed households,” the authors note.

To date, the federal government has allocated $4.6 trillion in COVID-19 relief funds.

This gargantuan amount of spending includes multiple rounds of stimulus checks, generous unemployment compensation, increased food stamp benefits, child tax credits and many more assistance programs.

Since 2020, the federal government has also suspended student loan repayments and instituted an eviction moratorium.

In other words, since 2020, the federal government has made it easier than ever for Americans to not have to work, let alone pay their debt and rent.

No wonder so many Americans didn’t owe a dime in federal income taxes last year. They were paid not to work.

But, back to Romney.

When he correctly observed that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, he also correctly noted that many are “dependent upon government,” “believe that they are victims,” “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them” and “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Romney’s observation was prescient in light of the surge in government dependence since the pandemic.

Interestingly, the surge in Americans’ not paying federal income taxes and taking more benefits coincides with a surge in support for socialism throughout the country.

Just a few weeks ago, Fox News released a poll showing that 59 percent of Democratic voters favor socialism over capitalism.

Yet, much more telling, one year ago – before the COVID-19 pandemic and the federal government’s $4.6 trillion COVID-19 relief spending spree – only 40 percent of Democratic voters said they had a favorable opinion of socialism.

Obviously, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But it stands to reason that as the federal government (and many state governments) has expanded the welfare state in response to the pandemic, more Americans are growing comfortable with a political philosophy based on government control of the economy.

History shows that once entitlement programs are in place, it is almost impossible to curtail, let alone eliminate, them. History also shows that entitlement programs typically beget more entitlement programs.

We cannot afford this, especially when fewer Americans than ever are paying federal income taxes.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/569160-mitt-romney-was-right-too-many-americans-are-dependent-on-government

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

Big Tech Censorship Is an Assault on Individual Liberty

Most state legislatures are actively considering laws to protect their constituents’ online free speech from Big Tech censorship. In response, Big Tech increasingly advances an argument designed to appeal to libertarians and other supporters of limited government. Big Tech claims state policymakers should not safeguard their constituents’ free-speech rights because doing so would be an assault on free markets and Big Tech’s property rights. Big Tech’s reasoning is seriously flawed and undermines, rather than promotes, individual liberty.

Big Tech’s Ideological Hypocrisy

Before addressing the serious flaws in Big Tech’s arguments, it is worth noting the hypocrisy of Big Tech’s decision to assert libertarian, free-market principles in defense of censoring Americans’ speech. Big Tech often claims it has property rights and free-market rights that should be immune from government intervention. In particular, these businesses claim the government has no right to meddle in the choices private companies make regarding their businesses, including decisions about the kinds of material permitted on social media platforms.

Less than a decade ago, however, Big Tech threw a major public relations temper tantrum when state legislators refused to force other businesses to do what Big Tech wanted. Specifically, Google, Facebook, and other tech companies publicly berated the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and pulled their funding from ALEC after the group passed model legislation opposing renewable power mandates on electricity providers and consumers. (See, for example, “Google cites climate change as tech titans quit ALEC.”)

Big Tech had no qualms then about using government to force other businesses to engage in specific practices that it found politically favorable and other companies opposed or found cumbersome. Yet Big Tech is now claiming that it has inviolable “free-market property rights” to avoid government safeguarding free speech on its platforms. This is the very definition of hypocrisy, and it serves as proof that Big Tech does not truly care about free-market principles—except, of course, when those principles may be twisted in ways that benefit large technology companies

The Primary Purpose of Limited Government

To assess whether state governments may rightfully protect online free speech from tech censorship, it is imperative to look at first principles. The founders mapped out the central purpose and role of government in a free society: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . ”

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that we have unalienable rights preceding the existence of government, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech is certainly among those rights. The founders emphasized that no entity may justly take away those rights, as they have been provided by God or nature.

To be sure, the founders were deeply concerned about unchecked government, which often poses significant threats to people’s rights. That is why the founders created the First Amendment, which explicitly safeguards free speech from government suppression.

But the Declaration also acknowledges and clearly implies that non-government entities may threaten the rights of the people as well. To secure our unalienable rights from private-actor threats is the primary reason why governments are instituted among men. That is why the founders insisted “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . .”

Government exists to protect the people’s rights from all abuses, not just those posed by authoritarian governments and threats from foreign countries.

Big Tech Embodies the Threat the Founders Feared

Big Tech censorship is precisely the kind of infringement on our unalienable rights that the founders feared and desired to prevent.

Free speech is one of Americans’ most vital and sacred rights. Social media is the primary means by which Americans today engage in free speech and share political, cultural, and religious views with one another. Social media has replaced the physical town square, neighborhood pubs, and even the telephone for this purpose.

Over the past decade, a few large entities have gained monopoly control over social media platforms. As of July 2021, Facebook and its popular subsidiary Instagram control 80 percent of social media traffic in the United States. The top three social media companies control 97 percent of social media traffic in the United States.

Being a large and market-dominant entity does not necessarily equate to being a bad actor, of course. Indeed, a primary reason companies become large and market-dominant is because they are better than their competitors at providing a product or service that consumers value. Companies marked by this kind of success typically offer a net societal benefit, not a net societal harm. A very serious problem emerges, however, when a market-dominant company, or cartel of companies, wields its power in a manner and with the purpose and impact of suppressing Americans’ unalienable rights.

It is incontrovertible that Big Tech is wielding its power with the purpose of suppressing open sharing of political, cultural, and religious views of citizens with whom it does not agree. Nor is it possible to question whether Big Tech companies have been successful in that endeavor. Big Tech has censored and blocked scientists from presenting evidence that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory, medical doctors from discussing the medical benefits of hydroxychloroquine, pastors from presenting online church services, climate scientists from making the scientific case against an asserted climate crisis, media outlets from sharing their reporting about well-documented scandals involving Hunter and Joe Biden, and everyday Americans from sharing their own views or forwarding the views of others to their friends, family, and acquaintances.

The Enforcement Arm of Government Narratives

Big Tech has become the enforcement arm of government-sanctioned and government-disfavored speech. Big Tech eagerly restricts free speech on behalf of the government, often following calls by politicians to engage in such activities.

Big Tech suppression of speech questioning government policy is no accident. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted in a July 15 press briefing that the Biden Administration “is in regular touch with the social media platforms” and is “flagging posts for Facebook.” Psaki added that Big Tech should coordinate censorship efforts so that when a person is censored and banned by one social media platform, all social media platforms censor and ban that person.

Similarly, when Big Tech censors online speech and bans a person from posting speech in the future, it often justifies this censorship and banishment based on the user posting material questioning or contradicting a government narrative. Big Tech has explicitly justified censorship decisions based on the speech in question contradicting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc. Facebook, for example, acknowledges removing more than 18 million posts that contradict government narratives regarding COVID-19.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/08/25/big-tech-censorship-is-an-assault-on-individual-liberty/

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

U.S. Supreme Court Puts An End to Biden's Unconstitutional Eviction Moratorium

It's been a particularly bad day for President Joe Biden. On Thursday night, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Biden's unconstitutional eviction moratorium. Justice Stephen Breyer was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in his dissent.

The challenge was led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, which had also won a victory from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ruling noted that the District Court stayed its judgment, which the Supreme Court on Thursday vacated, making the judgment enforceable. "The District Court produced a comprehensive opinion concluding that the statute on which the CDC relies does not grant it the authority it claims," the ruling wrote. "The applicants not only have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits—it is difficult to imagine them losing," it later noted.

The ruling went on to critique the authority the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claimed to have:

The case has been thoroughly briefed before us— twice. And careful review of that record makes clear that the applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority. It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened. Instead, the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.

There were also words about the harm faced by landlord:

The equities do not justify depriving the applicants of the District Court’s judgment in their favor. The moratorium has put the applicants, along with millions of landlords across the country, at risk of irreparable harm by depriving them of rent payments with no guarantee of eventual recov- ery. Despite the CDC’s determination that landlords should bear a significant financial cost of the pandemic, many landlords have modest means. And preventing them from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property owner- ship—the right to exclude.

The ruling also emphasized that it is the role of Congress to act, pointing out that "Congress was on notice that a further extension would almost surely require new legislation, yet it failed to act in the several weeks leading up to the moratorium’s expiration."

"It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends," the ruling reminded in closing. "It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/08/26/us-supreme-court-puts-an-end-to-bidens-unconstitutional-eviction-moratorium-n2594837

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

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)

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

28 August 2021

Size DOES matter! Study into sexual pleasure reveals that an extra inch can make all the difference

I am reasonably well endowed and I have had grateful reactions to that from women over the years so I am glad that reality is at last being acknowledged

Men are often told it's not how big their sexual organ is that's important, but where they put it.

But unfortunately for guys with a small penis, a new study suggests that size really does matter.

Researchers at King's College London recruited willing couples to find out more about how length affects sexual pleasure for the lady.

The experts artificially reduced the depth of penetration by providing different sized silicone rings to put around the base of each man's erect penis during intercourse.

According to the results, just an extra inch made all the difference in terms of sexual pleasure for the women.

This might be due to the greater ability of a longer penis to stimulate the entire length of the vagina and the cervix for the female.

Researchers wanted to explore whether artificially reducing the depth of penetration during intercourse matters to women.

They said men can worry or be ashamed about the length or girth of their penis, and that many also wish it was longer.

'We started with the premise that depth of penetration would not matter to most women,' the experts say in their paper, published in BJU International.

For each ring worn, there were either three, four or five episodes of intercourse.

Reducing the depth of penetration by an inch led to a statistically meaningful drop in the amount of pleasure experienced.

'The longer the erect penis, the less likely the rings had an impact on sexual pleasure,' they write.

Lead study author Professor David Veale has stressed the results 'should not be misinterpreted as meaning that increasing penile length in a normal man will increase sexual pleasure in women'.

'That would be a completely different study,' he said.

Rather, decreasing the length of the penis available for vaginal penetration during sex decreases sexual pleasure in women – a subtle difference.

To learn whether size does matter, they recruited 12 sexually active heterosexual couples with no problems in the bedroom.

There were four rings in total – 0.2-inch, one inch, 1.5-inch and two-inch – that the guy had to separately place at the base of his penis during sex to reduce the depth of penetration.

Couples were told to have sex either three, four or five times for each ring the guy was wearing on his penis.

Female partners, who didn't know which ring was being used throughout any of the sessions, had to rate, from one to 100, her levels of sexual pleasure and 'emotional connection to the male partner'.

On average, reducing the depth of penetration led to a 'statistically significant' 18 per reduction of overall sexual pleasure with each average 15 per cent reduction in length of the penis, the researchers found.

'There was a range of individual responses, however, with a minority of women reporting that reducing the depth of penetration was more pleasurable on some occasions, the study authors say in their paper.

According to the authors, the average (mean) penis length when erect is 5.1 inches (13.1cm), with an average girth of 4.59 inches (11.66 cm).

But for the sample size in this study, the average (median) self-reported erect penis length of the male partners was 6.6 inches (17cm).

'Participants did measure themselves – but we don’t know if they were but bigger than normal or actually over-egging it,' Professor Veale told MailOnline.

Experts concluded that further replication of the study to confirm its results will need a more diverse range of penile length.

'We did not ask about the effect on sexual pleasure in the men in reducing their depth of penetration and how this altered their self-confidence and behaviour, and this may be important in replication of the study,' they said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9932217/Penis-length-makes-difference-sex-study-finds.html

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

Scientists plan to change the common names of plant, insect and animal species like the gypsy moth and Scott's oriole due to their 'racist history'

Many common names for species of plants, animals and insects, including the gypsy moth and Scott's oriole, have been dubbed 'racist' by scientists who want a change.

In July the Entomological Society of America (ESA) removed the term 'gypsy' from the names of a moth and ant due to the fact it is seen as a slur for Romani people.

The association have since launched a public call for alternative common names for the moth Lymantria dispar and ant Aphenogaster araneoides.

Many species were named by early naturalists and explores for the things around them, people making a mark at the time and using terms acceptable to them.

'We can choose language that reflects our shared values,' Jessica Ware, president-elect of ESA told ScienceNews, speaking of the Better Common Names Project.

It already prohibits new names that 'perpetuate negative stereotypes' and is asking for public input on which existing names should be changed in the future.

So far over 80 'insensitive names' have been noted by the Better Common Names Project.

Ware says the goal is to have 'everybody included' in the new naming system and remove offensive names from the list.

In the case of the 'Gypsy moth', says it is encouraging people to refer to the insect by its Latin name, Lymantria dispar, until it can review the more than 100 proposals for a new moniker.

Species have a given scientific name, stylised in Latin, but from the early 20th Century scientists started giving plants, insects and animals a common name.

This was done to bridge the communications gap with people who don't study the species, to bring more attention to them.

However, according to ESA 'not all common names accepted over the past 120 years align with the goal of better communication,' due to racist connections.

Some of the names given to species have already been changed, like the jewfish, renamed to the Goliath grouper in 2001 after a petition citing its offensiveness.

ESA says their library includes names that contain derogative terms, names for invasive species with inappropriate geographic references and names that 'inappropriately disregard what the insect might be called by native communities.'

'These problematic names perpetuate harm against people of various ethnicities and races,' a spokesperson for the association said.

Adding that they 'create an entomological and cultural environment that is unwelcoming and non-inclusive, disrupt communication and outreach, and counteract the very purpose of common names.'

For example, a number of scorpion, fish, birds and flowers have the label Hottentot, which is a term of abuse for the Khoikhoi people of southern Africa.

Other names venerate people who, by modern standards wouldn't be considered viable candidates to give their name to a common species.

Bachman's sparrow, endemic to the southeastern US, is named after Lutheran minister and naturalist John Bachman.

McCown's longspur - named for Confederate general John P McCown was changed to thick-billed longspur in 2021, named for its thick bill.

The jewfish - was renamed in 2001 to the Goliath grouper after a petition drew attention to its offensiveness.

Squawfish - was once the name given to four species that are now known as Pikeminnow, changed in 1998 as squaw is an offensive term given to Native American women.

However, despite ministering to slaves as a clergyman and declaring black and white people are the same species, he was a slave owner who defended the practice.

'Blacks and Native Americans would have always been opposed to these names,' Hampton told ScienceNews.

In fact, bird names in general seem to be among the most problematic with a specific campaign called 'Bird Names for Birds' launching in 2020 to switch to more descriptive common names.

'It's not a be-all-end-all solution,' Robert Driver from East Carolina University told ScienceNews, but said that beyond removing difficult names, would be a useful 'consideration for everyone who's out there with binoculars.'

The killing of George Floyd and subsequent protests, seems to have spurred change, with the American Ornithological Society now considering someone's role in 'reprehensible events' a valid reason to revise the name of a bird.

One example of this change already happening is in the form of the McCown's longspur, named for Confederate general John P McCown originally, and now simply known as the thick-billed longspur, after its thick bill.

Hampton says the Scott's oriole should be next, suggesting it should instead be known as the yucca oriole as they are the plants it is most associated with.

But the process of changing bird names is on hold while the ornithological society considers a new name-changing process.

Mike Webster, Cornell University ornithologist and president of the society said they were 'committed to changing these harmful and exclusionary names.'

Ware says it is important to get it right, adding it 'uncomfortable now,' but doing it correctly ensures it 'only happens once' and names are built to last.

Details about the Better Common Names project are available from the Entomological Society of America.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9928809/Scientists-plan-change-common-names-plant-insect-animal-species.html

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

GOP Rep on Religious Minorities in Afghanistan: Christians Are Being ‘Hunted’ by the Taliban

On Tuesday, Georgia Rep. Jody Hice (R) appeared on EWTN News Nightly to discuss the treatment of religious minorities in Afghanistan, particularly Christians, now that the Taliban has recaptured the country and will implement Sharia law.

Speaking to host Tracy Sabol, Hice explained how the Biden administration has let down the American people and our allies, how Christians are being targeted by the Taliban, and how American leadership should not be negotiating with terrorist organizations – all as a result of President Biden’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“This administration is letting down the American people, letting down our allies, letting down those who have helped America for the last 20 years. This could not, absolutely, could not be a worst-case scenario than what we are witnessing right now,” Hice said in the segment. “This is absolutely a numbskull kind of decision that has been made by this administration and now we’re watching the consequences of it.”

Since the Taliban takeover, a spokesman for the terrorist group stated that women and girls in Afghanistan will have rights “within the framework of Islam,” or Sharia, under their rule. Lawmakers in the United States voiced concern over this, as they predict women will lose the years of progress made when the United States had a presence in Afghanistan.

Another group at risk under Taliban rule is religious minorities, including Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs – all of which have a history of persecution under the Taliban. Sabol inquired what dangers Christians in Afghanistan are facing while waiting to be evacuated from the country.

“The environment, obviously, under Sharia law, creates an extremely dangerous situation for anyone who is of any other faith, probably, the top of which, is Christians. And of course, not only us but many offices have been in contact with many Christians who are being literally hunted by the Taliban right now. Every effort possible is underway to try to evacuate those individuals and I’m sure those efforts will continue with unceasing resolve until we get those people to safety,” Hice said to Sabol. “[T]heir lives are our biggest concern.”

Hice then slammed the Biden administration’s negotiations with the Taliban and believes the withdrawal would have unfolded differently under our previous presidential administration.

“It is Americans and American leadership – not terrorists – who ought to be setting the standards as to how we are going to evacuate our citizens and others from the country. It is not something that we should be taking orders from terrorists, they should be hearing from us what we’re going to do,” Hice argued. “And it is concerning that this administration continues to go to a terrorist organization for instructions as to what we can and cannot do. It certainly should be the other way around. And I’m very much confident that had we – at this point – had different leadership, such as what we had under President Trump, none of this would be taking place.”

Sabol wrapped up the interview by asking Hice how he predicts our withdrawal from Afghanistan is going to conclude.

“We’re in a very serious fight for the clock right now. The clock is ticking. We are being told the doors are going to be closing in a matter of days. There are threats emerging, it seems, by the hour as we go through this,” Hice said. “I don’t know how it’s going to end, but we’re not going to quit until it’s over.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2021/08/25/jody-hice-on-christians-in-afghanistan-n2594726

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

Ashli Babbitt’s Shooter ‘Defends’ Himself

Another impulsive black

The first impression one gets from listening to Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd, the man who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol building on January 6, is that he isn’t too bright. During his interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Byrd comes across more like an unimpressive mall cop than the sort of professional we’d entrust to protect Nancy Pelosi and all those other important lawmakers.

On second thought, maybe we’re being unfair to mall cops. What kind of law enforcement professional, after all, shoots an unarmed woman in the chest? And what kind of officer says of himself, during a national TV interview, “I believe I showed the, uh, utmost courage on January 6th”?

Michael Byrd is a hero, he’ll have you know. And he has no doubt he did the right thing when he stepped toward that window, aimed for “center mass,” and boldly blew away 110-pound Ashli Babbitt. “I know that day I saved countless lives,” Byrd said. “I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And that’s my job.”

His lawyer, Mark Schamel, is even more nauseatingly effusive. “The bravery shown by the lieutenant in organizing and coordinating the defense of the House and its members and staff was nothing short of heroic,” he said. “The lieutenant’s conduct saved lives and helped to end the violent insurrection.”

“There should be a training video on how he handled that situation,” added Schamel, as if he hadn’t already said enough. “What he did was unbelievable heroism.”

It should be noted that in February 2019, Byrd was investigated “for leaving his department-issued Glock-22 firearm unattended in a restroom on the House side of the Capitol, even though the potent weapon, which fires .40-caliber rounds, has no manual safety to prevent unintended firing. The abandoned gun was discovered by another officer during a routine security sweep.”

We wonder: Is there a training video for that deeply embarrassing incident?

Byrd said he shot Babbitt as “a last resort,” but if he and the people he was protecting were in such mortal danger, why didn’t one of the numerous armed law enforcement officers directly behind Ashli Babbitt simply grab her and stop her from going through that window? Perhaps they sized up the tiny, unarmed Babbitt and didn’t think she was the sort of threat that calls for deadly force.

Indeed, as one veteran Capitol officer put it, “I’m not sure how he was justified shooting her when there was a SWAT team right behind her,” referring to the three heavily armed USCP officers who’d positioned themselves between the doors and the mob. “They saw no immediate threat.”

As for the shot Byrd fired, the footage of which begins at around 2:20 of the video, we can see that he has his weapon trained toward the middle of the doors, then, in a single movement, he shifts his aim up and leftward and fires a single shot. It’s hard to believe that he even processed his target during that split-second between whirling and firing.

“She was posing a threat to the United States House of Representatives,” Byrd said. Uh-huh. This was reportedly the first time during his 29 years on the force that Byrd had ever fired his weapon, and so perhaps he simply choked. Perhaps he’s simply never sighted down a real threat before. And, to be fair to Byrd, he’s certainly never found himself in a surreal situation like that before.

Further, when interviewer Holt asked him whether he could tell if Babbitt was armed, and whether it would’ve made any difference in his decision to shoot her, Byrd said, “It did not.”

Perhaps Holt’s best moment came when he asked Byrd, “What should we make of the fact that there were other officers in other potentially life-threatening situations who didn’t use their service weapons that day?” Byrd’s answer was less than convincing.

As for Holt’s most disgraceful moment, that would be when he described Babbitt as “35 years old, an Air Force veteran, Trump supporter, and QAnon follower,” as if the 14-year veteran’s affinity for a fringe political group somehow makes Byrd’s actions more justifiable.

The Babbitt family’s attorney has described the incident as an “ambush,” claiming that Byrd gave no warning before he pulled the trigger. Here, the two sides utterly disagree. Byrd, in fact, told Holt “he felt pain in his throat for days afterward from yelling at the protesters to stop and step back as they pounded on the glass doors.”

As our Mark Alexander, himself a former cop, has pointed out: “What’s clear from the videos is that there were four uniformed officers within feet of Babbitt, at least four additional heavily armed riot police, and one or more plain-clothed officers — none of whom made an effort to prevent her attempt to climb through the broken window of the door where she was shot. There is no apparent justification for [Byrd’s] actions.”

Ashli Babbitt’s family clearly agrees, and they’ve signaled their intention to file a $10 million wrongful death civil suit against the Capitol Police. Their attorney, Terry Roberts, didn’t respond to NBC’s request for comment.

In the end, what we have here is the exoneration of a black male Capitol cop for the killing of an unarmed white female Trump supporter. Had these demographics been reversed, we can’t help but believe the outcome would’ve been different. As it stands, this seems like the embodiment of two-tiered justice.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/82301-ashli-babbitts-shooter-defends-himself-2021-08-27

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

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)

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

27 August 2021

YouTube Yanks Over 1 Million COVID-19 Videos It Deems ‘Dangerous’

The Google-owned company announced the figure in a blog post Wednesday, “Perspective: Tackling Misinformation on YouTube,” written by Neal Mohan, YouTube’s chief product officer.

“Since last February, we’ve removed over 1 million videos related to dangerous coronavirus information, like false cures or claims of a hoax,” he said. The company focuses on removing content that can directly lead to “egregious real world harm,” according to Mohan.

YouTube also said it was addressing misinformation by optimizing search results to prioritize “quality” news and information from “trusted sources.” For information related to COVID-19, the company relied on “expert consensus” from health organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

“In the midst of a global pandemic, everyone should be armed with absolutely the best information available to keep themselves and their families safe,” Mohan said.

YouTube received criticism for its enforcement of its COVID-19 misinformation policies after it suspended Sen. Rand Paul’s account, and removed several of the Kentucky Republican’s videos, over claims that cloth masks were not effective at stopping the spread of the virus. The tech company also removed Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis’ video of a press conference announcing her lawsuit against New York City over vaccine mandates.

YouTube’s announcement comes amid pressure from the Biden administration on tech companies to more aggressively police content for alleged COVID-19 misinformation. The White House announced it was flagging posts for Facebook to remove last month and said that spreaders of misinformation should be banned from all social media platforms.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/25/youtube-yanks-over-1-million-covid-19-videos-it-deemed-dangerous

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

YouTube Bans Forced-Vaccination, Big Tech Critic Naomi Wolf

Liberal author Naomi Wolf’s DailyClout channel was abruptly deleted by YouTube after she posted an interview with a prominent critic of mandatory masking policies in schools.

“This censorship highlights the extreme clampdown on free speech and public discourse prevailing in the United States,” Wolf said in an Aug. 24 statement after the channel was eliminated.

Wolf, a co-founder of the DailyClout website, is a widely published journalist and bestselling author of books such as “The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women” (1990) and “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot” (2007). She was an adviser to then-President Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign and to then-Vice President Al Gore, both Democrats.

Twitter banned Wolf, who has been critical of vaccine passports and media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, earlier this summer, as The Epoch Times reported at the time. Twitter said Wolf had disseminated vaccine misinformation in violation of the microblogging website’s policies, a claim she denies.

Wolf said she can’t state with certainty why YouTube suppressed the DailyClout channel.

“I can’t possibly know what YouTube’s motives are. There’s no appeal, as with Twitter, there’s no appeal process. There’s no one I can call,” she told The Epoch Times in a follow-up interview.

The DailyClout website’s mission “couldn’t be more pure and altruistic—to explain democracy,” Wolf said.

“We’re not partisan. We don’t support one side or the other. We literally exist to explain legislation and the legislative process and what’s in a bill. We read the stimulus bill and point out what’s in it. We read the health care bill and bullet point what’s in it,” Wolf said.

“We do the hard work of making civic engagement easy and accessible for everybody.”

YouTube sent DailyClout an email that advised that a video titled “Dr Naomi Wolf and Leslie Manookian speak about her award-winning documentary ‘The Greater Good,’” had been removed for violating YouTube’s “medical misinformation policy.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/youtube-bans-forced-vaccination-big-tech-critic-naomi-wolf_3965730.html

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

FBI finally admits lack of evidence that capitol attack was coordinated

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported that there is "scant evidence" that the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 was coordinated. And it only took the corrupted government organization seven months to determine that fact.

Federal officers and officials have arrested over 570 alleged participants since then, but they have recently released reports that the attacks were not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of President Donald Trump.

Four current and former officials have stepped forward to note that it was not an organized plot to overturn the loss of President Trump's results in the 2020 election.

A former senior law enforcement officer noted that "there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones." Despite all of the major news outlets and mainstream media reporting that, that was the case for months, the FBI has now confirmed that the attack was not coordinated. Now, all we have to wait for is those who have been arrested and charged to be released from jail and have their records cleared. After all, if there was no planned attack, what is there to charge them with?

Reuters reported,

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described “dirty trickster”, and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/fbi-finally-admits-almost-no-evidence-that-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-it-was-all-a-lie/

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

Fury as Australian health bosses erase the word 'women' from official Covid vaccine guide - using the 'inclusive' phrase 'pregnant people' instead

Federal health chiefs have rewritten a Covid-19 vaccination pregnancy guide that bizarrely erases all mention of 'women' and replaces it with 'pregnant people'.

The guide was originally published in February as 'COVID-19 vaccination – Shared decision making guide for women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or planning pregnancy'.

But it was republished last week under its new subtly-tweaked title: 'COVID-19 vaccination decision guide for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding or planning pregnancy'.

Some campaigning groups say using 'women' excludes non-binary or transgender people who may not identify as a woman but can still be pregnant or a mother.

The word 'women' has been replaced by 'pregnant people' in the new version of the official health guide. Federal health chiefs have rewritten a Covid-19 vaccination pregnancy guide that bizarrely erases all mention of 'women' and replaces it with 'pregnant people'.

The document does not mention woman or women anywhere except in links to other websites or in the title of footnote references to other publications.

The word 'mother' is used just twice in the entire eight page booklet.

In all, more than 50 different mentions of women have been deleted from the original version and replaced by 'people' or 'those who are pregnant', sparking fury among some women.

Included in the changes are non-specific sentences like: 'Pregnant people are a priority group for Covid-19 vaccination' and 'Those who are pregnant have a higher risk of severe illness from Covid-19'.

Sky News commentator Rita Panahi blasted the rewrite as nonsense and added: ‘We cannot allow this craziness to be normalised. 'Women get pregnant - that shouldn't be a controversial statement.'

She accused the federal health department of 'buying into radical gender theory' with the rewrite. 'It's seeping in everywhere,' she added. 'It started in academia but now it's the Department of Health.'

Commercial litigator Caroline di Russo added: 'If you asked the everyday person in the street they would be pretty sure that only women could get pregnant.

'This here frankly is silliness, except that there's an undercurrent to it. It's dressed up like inclusivity and caring and whatever. 'But actually, it just has the effect of cancelling women.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9925749/Coronavirus-Australia-Health-chiefs-replace-women-pregnant-people-Covid-19-vaccine-guide.html

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

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)

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

26 August 2021

Judge Rules Against Christopher Columbus Statue Removal in Philadelphia

A Philadelphia, PA judge ruled that a Christopher Columbus statue may remain in place after city officials pushed to have it removed. Judge Paula Patrick said that the push to remove the statue had no legal basis and lacked sufficient evidence.

According to reports from The Washington Examiner:

“It is baffling to this court as to how the City of Philadelphia wants to remove the Statue without any legal basis,” she wrote in her decision. “The city’s entire argument and case is devoid of any legal foundation.”

The city’s Board of License and Inspection Review had initially upheld a July 2020 decision by the Philadelphia Historical Commission to remove the statue.

However, the city did not provide an adequate opportunity for the public to weigh in on the statue’s future, Patrick said.

“While we are very disappointed with the ruling, we’re reviewing it now and exploring all potential options — including a possible appeal,” said a spokesperson for Mayor Jim Kenney. “The statue remains in Marconi Plaza and will continue to be secured in its existing box.”

https://trumptrainnews.com/2021/08/22/judge-rules-against-christopher-columbus-statue-removal-in-philadelphia/?wmg=1

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

In Shift, Israel Quietly Allows Jewish Prayer on Temple Mount

Jewish activists say they are exercising their right to free worship at a site holy to Jews and Muslims

But the change upsets a longstanding compromise aimed at staving off conflict.

The Israeli government has long forbidden Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, a site sacred to Jews and Muslims, yet Rabbi Yehudah Glick made little effort to hide his prayers. In fact, he was livestreaming them.

“Oh Lord!” prayed Rabbi Glick, as he filmed himself on his phone on a recent morning. “Save my soul from false lips and deceitful tongues!”

Since Israel captured the Old City of Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967, it has maintained a fragile religious balance at the Temple Mount, the most divisive site in Jerusalem: Only Muslims can worship there, while Jews can pray at the Western Wall below.

But recently the government has quietly allowed increasing numbers of Jews to pray there, a shift that could aggravate the instability in East Jerusalem and potentially lead to religious conflict.

“It’s a sensitive place,” said Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister. “And sensitive places such as this, which have an enormous potential for explosion, need to be treated with care.”

Rabbi Glick, an American-born, right-wing former lawmaker, has been leading efforts to change the status quo for decades. He characterizes his effort as a matter of religious freedom: If Muslims can pray there, why not Jews?

“God is the master of all humanity,” he said. “And he wants every one of us to be here to worship, every one in his own style.”

But the prohibition of Jewish prayer on the 37-acre plateau that once held two ancient Jewish temples was part of a longstanding compromise to avoid conflict at a site that has been a frequent flash point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Under the arrangement, the Jordanian government has retained administrative oversight of the Temple Mount, known to Arabs as the Noble Sanctuary or the Aqsa compound. The Aqsa Mosque and the golden Dome of the Rock, a shrine that Muslim tradition considers to be the spot where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven, are situated on its limestone plaza.

Israel has overall security authority and maintains a small police station there.

The government officially allows non-Muslims to visit the site for several hours each morning on the condition that they not pray there. Though no Israeli law explicitly bars Jewish prayer there, Jewish visitors who attempt to pray there have historically been removed or reprimanded by the police.

When this balance of power has appeared to teeter, it has often led to violence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/world/middleeast/israel-temple-mount-prayer.html

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

Eviction Moratorium Likely To Create More Homelessness

Hint: It’s about incentives

In September of 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that they would implement an eviction moratorium that would last through the end of the year. It is now almost a full year since the start of this “temporary” program, and it has recently been renewed, scheduled to expire at the start of October.

After making the decision, the CDC wrote, “The eviction moratorium allows additional time for rent relief to reach renters and to further increase vaccination rates. In the context of a pandemic, eviction moratoria—like quarantine, isolation, and social distancing—can be an effective public health measure utilized to prevent the spread of communicable disease.”

The Self-Defeating Economics Of The Eviction Moratorium

Aside from the shaky (and possibly non-existent) legal basis for the eviction moratorium, it may also have the opposite of its intended effects in the long run. In fact, it could easily lead to more homelessness than there was before it was put in place due to the incentives it creates in the housing market.

According to Pew Research, “more U.S. households are headed by renters than at any point since at least 1965.” Young people and low-income families are the most likely to rent.

For these groups to be housed, there must be adequate supply. To keep up with demand, new housing must continually be put on the market—either through new units being built or existing units being transitioned into rental properties.

But goods generally—and specifically housing in this case—do not simply appear on the market out of nowhere. Individuals or businesses must conclude that it is in their financial self-interest prior to adding units to the market.

In an unhampered market, a landlord and a tenant would make an agreement as to the rent the tenant would pay in exchange for the landlord allowing them to use their private property. If the tenant does not live up to his end of the bargain—by, for example, not paying the agreed-upon rent—then the landlord can evict him. If the landlord does not live up to his end of the bargain—by, for example, failing to perform agreed-upon maintenance—then the tenant can end the lease without an obligation to pay for its remaining duration.

But the eviction moratorium is a sharp move away from this market characterized by a mutually agreed-upon contract that both sides have an obligation to uphold. Under this policy, the tenant has no obligation to live up to his end of the bargain. He can fail to pay rent—meaning he is using and occupying someone else’s private property without paying for that right—and the landlord cannot do anything about it.

As a result, the eviction moratorium sets a dangerous precedent. The policy requires that landlords pay for other people to occupy and use their privately owned land, thus precluding them from earning any money. Even though this is a supposedly “temporary” measure, the incentive to build new housing is diminished when the prospect of the government voiding a voluntary agreement between two people with no real warning becomes a reality. One of the determinants of supply is producer expectations. If there is complete uncertainty—and producers know that government can simply take away their ability to earn money one day—that will clearly inhibit supply growth. People may opt to sell their unit rather than putting it on the rental market, for example.

Sticking it to landlords for the sake of renters is as short-sighted as the fool in the fable who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs to get at the gold inside.

This becomes doubly true when one takes into account the fact that there are over 22.5 million rental units owned by individuals—not businesses. These people are not rich or greedy. They are mostly middle class and just trying to make a little more income. Among single-property landlords, more than half of them did not even originally buy the property in order to rent it out and make money, but rather just to use it as their residence.

For some of these people, the eviction moratorium has put them in financial ruins. As a result, the future incentive for individuals to put housing units on the market has shrunk dramatically—and that, in the end, will cause one of two things to happen. One: it may result in a housing shortage, in which case there are more people who want housing than there are units on the market. This results in homelessness. Or, two: there is no shortage because prices rise to a level that precludes a sizable number of people from renting. This, too, results in homelessness.

Mises’s Lesson: A Tragic Cycle

Other interventionist housing policies have the same flaw of disincentivizing new housing from being put on the market. Rent control, for example, does the same thing through a price ceiling.

Such policies engender a self-perpetuating cycle that leaves ordinary people—especially low-income people—far worse off while awarding the politicians who push the policy with far more clout.

The cycle goes like this: There is first a small population either homeless or at risk of being evicted. As a result, politicians campaign to make housing more “affordable” through price controls, eviction moratoria, and other such policies. But, the policy stifles the profit motive, and therefore the incentive to build new housing. In consequence, there is either a shortage of housing, the price of housing goes up, or both. The result of that is a greater homelessness problem. And the cycle then restarts, with politicians using the bitter fruits of the previous intervention as a justification for further intervention.

The people living on the streets in big cities that have implemented bold rent-control policies such as New York are often seen as the victims of capitalism. But, in truth, they are actually the victims of government intervention into the housing market.

In Ludwig von Mises’s book, Middle-of-the-road Policy Leads to Socialism, he points out that this cycle is endemic to interventionism. And if pursued to the bitter end, the cycle culminates in outright nationalization of the regulated industries and ultimately in a total command economy. As he wrote:

[The policy] produce[s] effects which from the point of view of the government are even worse than the previous state of affairs which the government wanted to alter. If the government, in order to eliminate these inevitable but unwelcome consequences, pursues its course further and further, it finally transforms the system of capitalism and free enterprise into socialism.

As massive government economic interventions—and their disastrous consequences—continue to mount under the cover of COVID-19, this cycle is spinning out of control: not only in housing, but throughout the whole economy. If we are to avoid a totalitarian future, we must break the cycle before it is too late.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/08/24/eviction-moratorium-homelessness/?omhide=true

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

'Profound abuse': Judge disciplines pro-Trump lawyers over election lawsuit

A U.S. judge on Wednesday sanctioned Sidney Powell and other lawyers who sued in Michigan to overturn Democratic President Joe Biden's election victory over Donald Trump, and suggested they might deserve to lose their law licenses.

In a highly anticipated written ruling, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker in Detroit said the pro-Trump lawyers, including Powell and prominent litigator Lin Wood, should have investigated the Republican former president's voter fraud claims more carefully before filing what Parker called a "frivolous" lawsuit.

Parker, who dismissed the Michigan suit last December, formally requested that disciplinary bodies investigate whether the pro-Trump lawyers should have their law licenses revoked. The judge also ordered the lawyers to attend classes on the ethical and legal requirements for filing legal claims.

"This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process," Parker said in her decision, adding that the case "was never about fraud - it was about undermining the People's faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so."

The judge said Powell, Wood, and other lawyers who worked with them "have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way."

Powell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Wood said on the social media platform Telegram that he "had nothing to do with" the lawsuit and would appeal.

Powell represented Trump's campaign when he tried to overturn last Nov. 3's presidential election in the courts. His campaign distanced itself from Powell after she claimed without evidence at a Nov. 19 news conference that electronic voting systems had switched millions of ballots to Biden.

In a written decision last December, Parker said Powell's voter fraud claims were "nothing but speculation and conjecture" and that, in any event, the Texas lawyer waited too long to file her lawsuit.

Powell asserted in a court hearing last month that she had carefully vetted her election fraud claims before suing, and that the only way to test them would have been at trial or a hearing on evidence gathered. Her co-counsel repeatedly called for such an evidentiary hearing.

Starting in January, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and other government lawyers asked the judge to discipline the pro-Trump lawyers, saying they had filed a frivolous lawsuit full of typos and factual errors and should be held accountable.

"I'm pleased to see that the Court has ensured there is accountability for the attorneys who perpetuated meritless arguments in court," Nessel said in a statement on Wednesday.

"I appreciate the unmistakable message (the judge) sends with this ruling - those who vow to uphold the Constitution must answer for abandoning that oath."

Parker on Thursday also ordered the pro-Trump lawyers to reimburse election officials for the cost of defending the lawsuit. The amount will be determined by the judge in the coming months, said David Fink, a lawyer for the City of Detroit who requested sanctions, in an interview.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/politics/profound-abuse-judge-disciplines-pro-trump-lawyers-over-election-lawsuit/ar-AANKkjJ

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

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)

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

25 August 2021

Caller blasts Iowa rep for requiring 'White nationalist' Pledge of Allegiance in schools

Iowa State Rep. Carter Nordman shared a voicemail message from an anonymous caller who condemned the Pledge of Allegiance as "White nationalism," blasted America's "racist roots," and suggested that "blond-haired blue-eyed" children have more rights in a profanity-laced tirade. Nordman told Fox News that he called her back and she refused to discuss the subject with him further.

The caller began her message by noting that Nordman is "the Iowa State representative who included language that requires all Iowa schools to lead the pledge of Allegiance once a day in grades one through twelve."

"When did we start teaching White nationalism in schools? Because that's exactly what the f**k you're doing, sir, and you have absolutely no right to require something like that," the caller added. "Our children aren't proud to be American. Maybe the White suburban kids in Adele are proud to be American because their rights are afforded to them every day and they don't have to fight for them. But for the rest of us, who are women, the poor, the elderly, the minorities, we're not f***king proud. What are we proud of? We're proud of our racist history? We're proud of our racist roots?"

"Is that what we're proud of?" she continued. "We're proud of the fact that not all citizens of the United States are afforded the same rights and the same privileges as the blond-haired blue-eyed ones? That's a bunch of colonizer bulls**t, Carter. And the fact that you're f**king perpetuating that is disgusting."

"Keep that s**t in the suburbs. You want to teach your kids to be a White nationalist, you can f**king do it. But you and [Iowa Gov.] Kim Reynolds are f**king disgusting, and you have absolutely no right to require that public schools teach children to be U.S. nationalists. F**k you and f**k this legislation," the caller shouted.

The caller went on to pledge that she would "make sure" that Nordman loses his re-election campaign next year. She condemned him for supporting "the shame bulls**t that the Trump administration stood for," and she claimed that he and Reynolds "still have your head so far up his a** that you can't f**king tell where one of you ends and the other begins."

"Absolutely disgusting, despicable, and deplorable the s**t that you f**king peddle," she added. "There's so much more important s**t that we could be worried about right now and you're focusing on the f**king Pledge of Allegiance? Get the f**k out of here, pull your head out of your a** Carter, Jesus f**ing Christ."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/caller-blasts-iowa-rep-for-requiring-white-nationalist-pledge-of-allegiance-in-schools

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

New York shop owner who called cops on BLM protesters ordered to pay $4.5K

A former ice cream shop owner in Upstate New York who was accused of calling police and falsely claiming to be threatened by non-violent Black Lives Matter protesters last year was ordered Wednesday to pay them a total of $4,500 for violating their civil rights.

The judge's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit by state Attorney General Letitia James against David Elmendorf, former owner of Bumpy’s Polar Freeze in Schenectady, about 167 miles north of New York City.

Under the ruling, Elmendorf must pay $500 each to nine protesters he harassed, totaling $4,500.

Elmendorf's defense attorney, James Mermigis, said the allegations were "categorically false" and that his client's name was being smeared. Mermigis said Elmendorf was never properly served a summons, so no defense was made in court.

James' lawsuit was the first to rely, in part, on a new law that makes it illegal to submit a false "race-based" police report. The law was passed last year after a White woman called 911 on a Black birdwatcher in New York City’s Central Park and falsely claimed he was threatening her, reports said.

Elmendorf is accused of violating state law by making "multiple armed threats, including death threats, using derogatory racist language, against peaceful Black protestors and made false reports to the police regarding those protestors," the suit alleges.

The protesters went to his business in June 2020 to demonstrate after racist text messages Elmendorf allegedly wrote were shared on social media.

Elmendorf was also accused of calling 911 to falsely report that there were "20 armed protestors who were threatening to shoot him," according to the lawsuit. He allegedly referred to the Black protesters as "savages," the suit added.

"There is zero tolerance for harassment, intimidation, or violence of any kind against anyone in New York," James said. "As this nation continues to be plagued by division and hate, this decision sends a critical and clear message that those who perpetuate racism and discrimination, including filing false, race-based police reports, will be held to the fullest extent of the law."

"This is an important step forward, but our work isn’t over — we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that every New Yorker feels safe and protected," James added.

Elmendorf is permanently barred from making future threats against people because of their race. He's also barred from brandishing a deadly weapon within 1,000 feet "of any person or group of persons peacefully protesting."

Elmendorf is now working in a different state.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-shop-owner-called-cops-blm-protesters-ordered-pay-4-5k

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

US Capitol cop who shot dead Ashli Babbitt is EXONERATED in internal investigation of the shooting

The Capitol Police officer who fatally shot Ashli Babbitt during the January 6 Capitol riot has been exonerated following an internal investigation, according to reports.

Babbitt, 35, was the only person killed on January 6 when the officer - who hasn't been named - opened fire at a mob of Trump supporters as they stormed through the Rotunda.

The commander of the Capitol Police's Office of Personal Responsibility says 'no further action will be taken in this matter,' according to a memo obtained by NBC News.

In April, the Department of Justice said it wouldn't be filing charges against the officer, so the conclusion of the internal probe ends the official investigation.

Babbitt's family told The Washington Examiner earlier this month that they plan on filing a $10million wrongful death lawsuit, claiming a plainclothes officer didn't issue a verbal command.

The family's lawyer, Terry Roberts, alluded to a video of the Air Force veteran being shot and said the fact that no one appears to be ducking for cover in the moments before Babbitt was killed also suggests that the cop gave no verbal warning.

The cop's lawyer denied this in previous interviews and said his client issued multiple verbal commands but that they weren't audible on the video because he was wearing a mask.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9913239/US-Capitol-cop-shot-dead-Ashli-Babbitt-EXONERATED-internal-investigation-shooting.html

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

Scottish leader faces anger over proposed gender legislation

Gender critical feminist campaigners in Scotland have attacked the SNP’s plans to make it easier for people to legally change gender.

As part of the party’s new power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens, the SNP have agreed to introduce a bill within the next year to reform and simplify the Gender Recognition Act, which governs how trans people can legally change gender.

Currently, the Act requires people to prove to a Gender Recognition Panel they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived in their new gender for at least two years already and then make legally-binding declaration they intend to live as this gender for the rest of their life.

The Scottish government has already held several consultations in recent years on amending the law to allow people to simply self-identify their new gender with a form which would automatically be recognised by the panel.

Their agreement with the Greens, who are supporting an SNP minority government in a formal confidence and supply deal, commits them to reforming the Act in the next 12 months.

The text of the agreement stats: “We will reform the Gender Recognition Act in a Bill introduced in the first year of this parliamentary session.

“This will ensure the process by which a trans person can obtain legal recognition is simplified, reducing the trauma associated with that process.”

But For Women Scotland, a lobbying group which formed in opposition to self-identification in 2018, has accused Nicola Sturgeon’s government of ignoring the views of women and trying to push through changes out of step with the public’s views.

“As usual with the SNP, it is not listening to the wider general public,” Marion Calder, the director of For Women Scotland, told The Daily Telegraph.

“This is the SNP forging ahead with its Bill without any consultation – it’s a farce – and it will try to rush this through as fast as it can.

"The general public have an understanding there’s only two sexes and they will be confused and astonished.

“Of all the things we could be looking at – economic recovery, drug deaths, falling education standards – the Scottish Government has decided it’s so important it’s got to be done in the first year."

For Women and other campaigners argue simplifying and speeding up the process of gender transition could open the door to men pretending to be trans women to gain access to female changing rooms or other spaces in society reserved for women.

Trans activists dismiss this as fear-mongering, and have said the current gender recognition process is overly bureaucratic and interfering with trans people’s private lives.

Under Theresa May, the government in Westminster held its own consultation on reforming the Act and introducing self-identification, but concluded last year the current process was fair and scrapped plans to change the law.

However, a spokesperson for the Scottish government insisted reforms to the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland posed no threat to women or their rights.

"This reform will be undertaken in a way that ensures women’s rights are preserved and protected,” they said.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/uknews/nicola-sturgeon-faces-anger-over-proposed-gender-legislation/ar-AANG7Cm?ocid=chromentpnews

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

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)

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

24 August, 2021

Having separate bedrooms can work for couples

We read below:

"That which we desire most in a relationship (read: security and comfort) rarely coexists with that which keeps us attracted to a partner (read: passion and sexual intimacy).

It’s a frustrating contradiction some sex therapists refer to as the ‘intimacy-desire paradox’. In short, this hypothesis proposes the more comfortable we are with someone, the more our sexual desire for them is likely to decline.

Which makes sense, given desire is essentially the result of wanting something we don’t already possess"

I have certainly experienced that in some of my relationships. I have got on so well with my partner that she seems like a sister to me. And there is a big taboo -- of probably biologocal origin -- which says you don't have sex with your sister. It is in fact the crime of incest. So my sex life rather petered out on those occasions, I am sorry to say

I’m not sure if my parents knew, but I often overheard them arguing at night. Regardless of how heated the quarrel got, they always emerged from the same bedroom when the sun came up.

While I knew fighting among couples was normal, it wasn’t until a decade later – when a friend confessed she’d relegated her boyfriend to the couch for forgetting her birthday – it occurred to me sleeping separately from a partner was, too.

We’re told, after all, never to let our heads hit the pillow on an unresolved row; that occupying different beds is the surest sign a couple’s relationship is on the rocks.

Our sleeping quarters hold huge cultural and social significance.

In the construct of monogamy, the bed symbolises fidelity and togetherness. The bible instructs us to “let the marriage bed be undefiled”, and in modern vernacular, we tell each other to put disputes “to bed” and be especially wary of who we “get into bed with” in business.

Though drifting off together began as an economic necessity rather than a romantic inclination (it wasn’t unusual for entire families to share a mattress to conserve finances until the 1800s), today, most of us get into bed with a partner because we want to.

There’s also an indisputable social pressure attached to sleeping beside a significant other. The stigma tied to admitting you inhabit separate beds, or more rebelliously – discrete bedrooms, is so great, most of us regard it as something to be handled with shame and secrecy.

An engaged friend recently admitted, with a hint of embarrassment, she and her fiance have their own bedrooms.

“The thing is, our sex life is amazing, and I sleep like a baby. Plus, we have enough space from one another to avoid unnecessary arguments. But I rarely tell anyone because of the judgement I get,” she sighed.

However, despite our preconceived notions around the sanctity of bed-sharing, research suggests this unconventional arrangement holds water.

For starters, science is pretty clear on the fact we overwhelmingly sleep worse with someone else in the bed.

A study published in PubMed found people suffered more sleep disturbances when their partners were next to them than when they caught their Zs alone.

Though ironically, when asked to rate how well they slept, the same study participants reported having a better night’s shut-eye with their bae.

This may be because, the annoyance of navigating duvet-hogging and snoring partners aside, we’re ultimately creatures of attachment.

Physical intimacy and closeness not only feel good to us – we crave someone to curl up beside and unpack our day with as much as we do sleep itself.

But here’s the real kicker: that which we desire most in a relationship (read: security and comfort) rarely coexists with that which keeps us attracted to a partner (read: passion and sexual intimacy).

It’s a frustrating contradiction some sex therapists refer to as the ‘intimacy-desire paradox’. In short, this hypothesis proposes the more comfortable we are with someone, the more our sexual desire for them is likely to decline.

Which makes sense, given desire is essentially the result of wanting something we don’t already possess.

Add to this, research that shows sleeping beside someone not only impacts the quality of our slumber, but reduced sleep is a leading cause of lowered libido, and you have a recipe for a lacklustre sex life.

So, what’s the remedy then?

Admittedly, having separate bedrooms isn’t going to be for everyone, but it may be worth considering a middle ground, especially if your sex life is experiencing a plateau.

One partner taking to the couch after an argument may not be the worst thing to happen to your relationship, nor would the odd vacation in the spare room.

You’ll probably get a more restful night’s sleep and be in a better mood toward your significant other the next day, and you’re also likely to experience a renewed sense of desire as a result of recreating space between the two of you.

While it’s an awfully romantic notion, never sleeping apart isn’t a guarantee for relationship success, or a sign your love is superior to couples with less conventional arrangements.

It certainly didn’t pan out for my parents, who, after many restless, resentful nights sharing the same bed, are now (very happily) divorced.

In truth, the secret to maintaining your passion isn’t adhering to a social protocol around how you should go to bed each night.

It’s ending the day in a way that’s innately true to you and your partner – whether that looks like completely separate bedrooms, or curling up together with the knowledge you certainly won’t get your best night’s sleep, but it will be your most content.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/nadia-bokody-the-bedroom-trick-that-leads-to-better-sex/news-story/6f4be95f80538fb471ea1654ed7352d7

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

Will Liberty Win Out Over Mask Mandates?

In the next couple of weeks — if not already — it’s back to the classroom for most of America’s school children.

Thanks to the Biden administration and willing governors in Democrat-run states, many of them will be wearing masks despite scientific evidence indicating that the masks most people wear don’t prevent the transmission of COVID-19 or its variants.

Some states are giving into Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci’s medical tyranny, but others are pushing back.

Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and Georgia, among others, have banned mask mandates. (They’re not “banning masks in classrooms” as The New York Times falsely reported before a stealth correction; they banned mask mandates.) In Texas, mixed judicial rulings resulted in the state temporarily dropping enforcement of its mandate ban.

In these states, and some others, there’s a real discussion about balancing the need for public health while protecting constitutional liberties and commonsense freedom. There’s also debate about whether masks even really advance public health. Asking such questions has outraged some in the medical community and, unsurprisingly, in the Biden administration.

None other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, the witch doctor of American medicine, recently demanded that we “put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus.”

Put aside liberties? How does the nation’s highest paid bureaucrat get away with this? Of course, we know how: Democrats in power and their media mouthpieces always view our constitutional rights as an inconvenience. Anything that stops them from total power is dispensable.

(And as for Fauci, it seems that no matter how many times he flip-flops, his contradictory pronouncements are always considered gospel.)

Power grabbing is one reason why conservative, freedom-loving states are in the Democrats’ crosshairs, but it’s not the only reason. Texas and Florida are both populous states clinging to the concept of individual liberty, and they just happen to be in the sights of Democrats hoping to turn them blue in the next few years.

It’d be one thing if Biden and the CDC were playing fairly, but recently the CDC made the convenient “mistake” of combining several days’ worth of Covid infection rates into one day. The fake numbers resulted in an unjustified upswell of criticism directed toward the governor and the Florida Department Health.

DeSantis, who accused Biden of trying to turn Florida into a “biomedical security state,” isn’t backing down.

“if you’re trying to deny kids a proper in-person education, I’m gonna stand in your way and I’m gonna stand up for the kids in Florida,” he stated. “If you’re trying to restrict people, impose mandates, if you’re trying to ruin their jobs and their livelihoods and their small business, if you are trying to lock people down, I am standing in your way.” The governor is warning Florida schools who ignore his anti-mandate order.

Not willing to let states handle their own affairs — and hoping to distract from Biden’s Afghanistan debacle by picking a fight with these governors — the Biden administration is looking to bypass governors and order all school children to wear masks. And he’s threatening legal action against governors who don’t comply.

It’s no wonder Florida Governor Ron DeSantis thinks President Biden is obsessed with Florida during a time when the president should be focused on larger issues.

Meanwhile, the Leftmedia will say and write anything to spin the rest of us into accepting mandates of masks and vaccines.

For example, a Yahoo! News headline suggests that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who took the vaccine and yet recently came down with COVID, got sick because he opposed vaccines and mandates. “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who opposes vaccine and mask mandates, tests positive for COVID-19,” it said.

Then there’s YouTube taking down a video of a real doctor, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, for daring to counter the official narrative around masks. Indeed, Facebook and Twitter are deleting the accounts of anyone who offers a different take on masks or vaccines. To bypass Big Media, some people seek out local media to express their concerns. According to NBC News, so-called experts call this practice “information laundering.”

So that’s what it’s called when Americans don’t click their heels and salute to Biden and Fauci.

Over the past year-and-a-half, we’ve been told to trust the science, but the science is on the side of those who choose freedom. If you want to get your children vaccinated and have them wear masks in school, God bless you. But not everyone has to live under Biden’s never-ending medical tyranny or sacrifice constitutional rights in the process.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/82099-will-liberty-win-out-over-mask-mandates-2021-08-20

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

A Court Victory in Texas Against Obamacare’s Transgender Mandate

The long march of gender ideology through our laws and government institutions lately seems more like a mad dash. But that advance hit a high hurdle last week in Texas.

A federal district court judge blocked an Obama-era measure that forced medical professionals to participate in gender transition surgery and similar measures, even against their medical or moral judgment.

This “transgender mandate” saga began in 2016. That’s when the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services manipulated the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

The mandate coercing medical professionals to toe the line on this expanded definition of “sex” provided no exemption for religious conscience or professional opinion based on medical training and experience. As a result, it also trumped the conscience rights of doctors and hospitals who still recognize that the biological differences between males and females can’t be bridged with pill and scalpel.

In 2020, the Trump administration reversed course, but the Biden administration promptly revived the Obamacare rule.

Fortunately, District Judge Reed O’Connor, a 2007 appointee of President George W. Bush, issued a permanent injunction Aug. 9 against the mandate. The lynchpin of the victory was O’Connor’s reliance on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he said was violated by the transgender mandate.

Ruling Based in Law

The mandate forced a Catholic hospital association “to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures” or face fines and civil liability, O’Connor wrote in his decision.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed with the opposition of only three senators and signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, ensures protection of the rights of conscience against an overreaching federal law or policy that impinges on someone’s religious beliefs or practices, requiring the federal government to satisfy a “strict scrutiny” standard.

This means that the federal government may interfere with the exercise of someone’s religion only if it can establish that such interference is the least restrictive means available to achieve a compelling purpose.

O’Connor’s ruling in Texas is a key victory for doctors, other health care providers, and their supporters and defenders. As a result, medical workers may continue to follow their moral, religious, and professional convictions in treating patients when gender issues are involved.

Right to Conscience

Policy should concern itself with the well-being of patients and providers. And a basic moral principle is at stake for health care providers: their central duty to do no harm.

Our society long has recognized that medical care involves two parties—the patient and the doctor. Patients should be free to seek treatment, and doctors should be free to exercise their judgment about the right treatment for patients.

The transgender mandate violates this principle. Using it, the state may force doctors to offer treatment they oppose.

Many doctors, for instance, reasonably believe that to remove healthy organs, or to give young people puberty-blocking drugs, would harm their patients—whatever the subjective wishes of the patient. Healthy organs are not deadly tumors, and puberty is not a disease.

O’Connor’s ruling protects such medical judgment, whether it’s based on scientific evidence, religious conviction, or plain common sense.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/19/a-court-victory-in-texas-against-obamacares-transgender-mandate

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

Woke Nonsense Warps Everyday Life

Victor Davis Hanson

Americans are growing angrier by the day, but in a way different from prior sagebrush revolts such as the 1960s silent majority or the tea party movement over a decade ago.

The rage this time is not just fueled by conservatives. For the first time in their lives, Americans of all classes and races are starting to fear a self-created apocalypse that threatens their family’s safety and the American way of life.

The border is not just porous as in the pre-Trump past. It is arguably nonexistent. Some 2 million people may cross illegally in the current fiscal year, according to reports—with complete impunity. There is zero effort to stop them. Officials hector Americans daily to get vaccinated and tested for COVID-19. But they are mute about illegal entrants, some of them no doubt infected with the virus.

Have we ever had a president who made no pretense about destroying federal immigration law and asking of Americans what he does not ask of those entering the country illegally?

President Joe Biden has also conceded that his moratorium on housing evictions defied a Supreme Court ruling. He added that he probably didn’t have the legal authority to ignore the court but didn’t really care.

As in the case of demolishing immigration law, the president seems either unaware or proud that he is insidiously dismantling the Constitution.

America has also never before seen such overt and multifaceted efforts to undermine the foundations of free market capitalism.

At a time of resurging gross domestic product, low unemployment, and record worker shortages, Biden has announced that renters can continue to avoid paying what they owe their landlords—even after a prior year of free housing.

In a rebounding economy amid record debt, the government is still sending workers unemployment benefits that are more remunerative than the paychecks they would earn if employed.

Such insanity not only means that labor-short employers can’t provide goods and services to American consumers; the new ethos also institutionalizes the pernicious idea that it is smarter to stay home and be idle than to get a job and be productive.

Biden is also considering further extending exemptions for the repayment of $1.7 trillion in student loans. That amnesty will only further mainstream this growing notion that borrowing money entails no legal or moral obligation to pay it back.

No one seems to acknowledge that both students and the universities that lured them to borrow knew the risks they were taking. Meanwhile, millions of American youth, the working classes who choose not to attend college, and those who paid off their loans or whose parents saved enough over the years to cover their tuition obligations will subsidize the debt evaders by paying higher taxes.

Inflation is roaring back. Soaring prices are a direct result of incentivizing the unemployed not to work, while discouraging manufacturers and producers of food, gas, oil, timber, mineral, and metals.

Rising crime rates are likewise not accidental. Increasing crime is the logical result of releasing thousands of criminals from prison, defunding and defaming the police, and empowering woke mayors and prosecutors to contextualize crime as the fault of society, not the criminal.

In response, millions of Americans now simply avoid the mayhem of big cities in blue states.

Race relations have regressed 50 years. Under the fad of critical race theory, the color of our skin is now deemed essential to who we are.

Most Americans still integrate and assimilate, and many intermarry. But the current woke revolution is an elite, top-down effort to smear a self-critical and always improving nation as some sort of contemporary racist hellhole.

George Orwell would say of these cultural Marxists that they grab power in the present to reinvent the past in order to control our futures.

All this multifaceted chaos is not just faculty lounge stuff. We are beginning to see the collective craziness filter down to disruptions in our everyday lives.

Airliners cannot take off due to fuel shortages. Automobiles, houses, gas, and lumber are in short supply.

Consumers can’t get their roofs fixed, their houses painted, or their trees trimmed, as employers plead with their idle, government-subsidized employees to come back to work.

Many Americans have lost faith in the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and most of the other federal bureaucracies, which are as politicized as they are incompetent.

What started out as elite woke nonsense now warps daily life. If we don’t wake up from wokeness, we will continue on our sure trajectory to self-inflicted, systemic paralysis—followed by civilizational collapse.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/17/woke-nonsense-warps-everyday-life

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

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)

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

23 August, 2021

Some Key Mental Abilities Seem to Improve as We Get Older, Proving Aging Isn't All Bad

The human mind is more resistant to the march of time than conventional wisdom suggests. Like a fine wine, some parts even get better with age.

As our brains inevitably grow older, some of our mental power is destined to fade, like spatial visualization or our mind's processing speed. Yet research has found there are other mental abilities that can improve with time, such as vocabulary and verbal comprehension.

New research among 702 participants aged 58 to 98 has now identified two fundamental brain functions that seem to get stronger as we get older.

The study had participants complete an Attention Network Test (ANT), whereby volunteers are shown a central arrow and two flanking arrows on a computer screen and asked to press a button corresponding to the central arrow's orientation as fast as they can.

A variety of cues were flashed on the screen before each arrow was shown. These included either no cue, a cue for an oncoming arrow, and a cue that hints as to where an oncoming arrow should be.

Comparing the response times of all their participants and controlling for a variety of confounding factors, researchers found older volunteers were not as good at staying vigilant in the task. They didn't respond as well to the time cue, which meant they were less prepared for the next arrow.

That said, when it came to cues that shifted the brain's attention to look at a particular point on the screen, older people seemed to be better at orienting their attention as they aged, and this was true right up until quite old age.

The older the individual, the better they also tended to be at canceling out distracting or conflicting cues that appeared on screen – a skill that improved at least until a person's mid-to-late 70s.

The researchers were testing participants' brain processes associated with alerting (being prepared to adapt to new information), orienting (shifting the brain's resources to specific locations in space), and executive inhibition (blocking out distractions to focus on something).

"We use all three processes constantly," explains psycholinguist João Veríssimo from the University of Lisbon, Portugal.

"For example, when you are driving a car, alerting is your increased preparedness when you approach an intersection. Orienting occurs when you shift your attention to an unexpected movement, such as a pedestrian. And executive function allows you to inhibit distractions such as birds or billboards so you can stay focused on driving."

The current research suggests older individuals might be slower to respond to novel situations while driving a vehicle, but they are better at staying focused and orienting their attention where needed on the road.

This ability to control one's attention is considered a higher-order brain function, and while the authors are not suggesting all executive functions remain intact or even improve in a person's 70s, it seems at least some do.

Nor is it just in the car where these forms of attention are useful. Researchers say orienting and executive control of attention are also critical aspects of memory, decision making, self-control, navigation, math, language, and reading.

"These results are amazing, and have important consequences for how we should view aging," says neuroscientist Michael Ullman from Georgetown University.

"People have widely assumed that attention and executive functions decline with age, despite intriguing hints from some smaller-scale studies that raised questions about these assumptions. But the results from our large study indicate that critical elements of these abilities actually improve during aging, likely because we simply practice these skills throughout our life."

The findings run contrary to a dozen or so other tests that have found aging impacts all three aspects of attention.

But as the authors of the current study point out, these previous trials had relatively small sample sizes and often failed to control for other factors, like sex and education.

What's more, almost all of them compared younger and older adults to each other, as opposed to focusing on the age range of interest.

Some researchers argue this is a mistake, as it means we could be overlooking variability within the age group of interest, especially since most cognitive changes don't come about until middle age rolls around.

The new research seeks to make up for these limitations. Its findings will need to be further explored, but it suggests not all forms of attention fade with age.

Because orienting attention and inhibiting attention are skills that can improve with lifelong practice, it makes sense that they would get stronger as we age.

Meanwhile, staying vigilant is a state that can't exactly be improved with practice, meaning it is more likely to decline over time.

The way that our minds change with age is clearly not as simple as we once assumed. The very same sample of participants in this study was also found to show strong declines in working memory in another study, which the authors say underscores the clear complexity of the aging brain.

"The findings not only change our view of how aging affects the mind, but may also lead to clinical improvements, including for patients with aging disorders such as Alzheimer's disease," says Ullman.

The study was published in Nature Human Behavior.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/some-key-mental-abilities-seem-to-improve-as-we-get-older-proving-aging-isnt-all-bad/ar-AANyKDP?ocid=chromentpnews

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

Greece extends border wall to deter Afghans trying to reach Europe

Greece said it has completed a 25-mile (40km) wall on its border with Turkey and installed a new surveillance system to prevent possible asylum seekers from trying to reach Europe after the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s sweeping advance last week has sparked fears that Europe could face a migrant crisis similar to that in 2015, with people fleeing persecution or further conflict.

Greece’s citizens’ protections minister, Michalis Chrisochoidis, said the country had taken action to stop a repeat of scenes six years ago. A fence of almost eight miles had already been in place.

“We cannot wait, passively, for the possible impact,” Chrisochoidis said. “Our borders will remain safe and inviolable.”

The Greek government said last week it would not allow refugees to cross into Europe through and would turn people back. “Our country will not be a gateway to Europe for illegal Afghan migrants,” the migration minister, Notis Mitarachi, said in a statement.

The issue was raised by the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, on Friday in a discussion with the Greek prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Erdo?an said Afghanistan and Iran – a key route for Afghans into Turkey – should be supported or a new migration wave was certain, according to a statement from his office.

More than 1 million people escaping war and poverty in the Middle East crossed over from Turkey into the EU in 2015 – including in boats over the Aegean Sea. About 60,000 stayed in Greece as more travelled north into other countries.

Turkey struck a deal in 2016 to stem the flow of migrants in exchange for financial support. Any arrivals who did not apply for asylum or had claims rejected would be sent back to Turkey.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/greece-extends-border-wall-to-deter-afghans-trying-to-reach-europe/ar-AANzgwj?ocid=chromentpnews

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

Austria's Kurz says he opposes taking in any more Afghans

Austria's conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz opposes taking in any more people fleeing Afghanistan now that the Taliban have seized power, he said in remarks published on Sunday.

Austria took in more than one percent of its population in asylum seekers during Europe's migration crisis in 2015 and 2016, and Kurz has built his career on taking a hard line on immigration, winning every parliamentary election since 2017.

While the European Union grapples with what to do with Afghans who assisted it over the past 20 years, Kurz said coming to Austria was not an option.

"I am clearly opposed to us now voluntarily taking in more people and that will not happen during my chancellorship," Kurz said in an interview with TV channel Puls 24. Excerpts of the interview were released before it was broadcast later on Sunday.

Austria has more than 40,000 Afghan refugees, the second-biggest number in Europe after Germany, which has 148,000, according to data https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/download/?url=Gsn90q from the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR for 2020. Austria's population is nine times smaller than Germany's.

Austria is also a neutral country and not a member of NATO. It sent only a very small number of troops to Afghanistan. NATO's website https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/2/pdf/2021-02-RSM-Placemat.pdf lists it as having sent 16 troops for the Resolute Support Mission, an effort to train and advise the Afghan security forces.

"I am not of the opinion that we should take in more people. Quite the opposite," Kurz said of Afghans fleeing their country.

"Austria has made a disproportionately large contribution," he added, referring to the large number of Afghan refugees and asylum seekers already in the country.

He said people fleeing Afghanistan should stay in the region, adding that neighbouring Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan had only taken in 14 and 13 Afghan refugees respectively, which matches the UNHCR data.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/austrias-kurz-says-he-opposes-taking-in-any-more-afghans/ar-AANAtxX?ocid=chromentpnews

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

Patagonia pulls products from ski resort that hosted MAGA event

Outdoor clothing company Patagonia has pulled out of supplying a Wyoming ski resort after it hosted an event starring firebrand congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, according to reports.

Patagonia, a California-based company known for supporting progressive issues, confirmed on Tuesday that it would no longer sell its products at three stores in Teton Village, an area of the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, according to Wyofile.

It follows an event on 5 August featuring Ms Greene and members of the so-called “Freedom House Caucus”, who are supportive of former US president Donald Trump, and further a number of conspiracies popular with “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) crowds.

Admission to the event allegedly cost as much as $2,000 (£1,467), and included Mr Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and congressman Jim Jordan, of Ohio. It was thought to have raised funds for the group.

A Patagonia spokesperson said the company was joining “with the local community that is using its voice in protest” against Justin Hole for hosting the group of Republicans, after a handful of locals protested the MAGA event earlier this month.

“We will continue to use our business to advocate for stronger policies to protect our planet, end hate speech and support voting rights and a strong democracy,” the spokesperson added.

Jackson Hole said it was "proud to be the largest mountain resort operating on 100 per cent wind today, and that “we will remain focused on operating a world-class mountain resort and protecting the health and safety of our guests and employees”.

All three Republicans who appeared on 5 August have been accused of following the former president by claiming the US election was “rigged”, and of failing to protect the environment or voting rights for Americans.

Members of congress including Ms Greene have also furthered Covid-related conspiracies.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/patagonia-pulls-products-from-ski-resort-that-hosted-maga-event/ar-AANykfd?ocid=chromentpnews

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

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)

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

22 August, 2021

Afghanistan flourished as a monarchy

Monarchies are endemic to the region

The way the Biden Administration chose to withdraw from Afghanistan is undoubtedly a major public policy failure, not only for the United States and the people of Afghanistan but also for the free world.

Equally lamentable is the fact that despite the long American involvement, and notwithstanding American military hardware and training, there was no Afghan institution able to show leadership and strength. Or to coordinate the slightest resistance to this band of evil and dangerous Islamic extremists reassuming their tyrannical dictatorship.

Further, the world may now be looking at the initial development of a base from which terrorism will be launched worldwide, adding Kabul to the emerging Beijing-Moscow-Tehran axis of hostile dictatorial powers.

For many years now, whenever I have talked to an Afghan immigrant and commiserated with the developments in their country, I ask whether there was ever a time when Afghanistan was at peace and great hope reigned.

Without exception, each immigrant referred to the time when King Mohammed Zahir Shah introduced democratic rule, when the country was at peace, when there was economic progress, when women were increasingly liberated, and when education was becoming more accessible. Without hesitation, many referred to this as a golden age.

This reform period began in 1963 when the King dismissed the authoritarian prime minister, his first cousin and brother-in-law, Sardar Muhammad Daoud Kahn.

But ten years later, when the King went to London for an eye operation and was recuperating in Italy, the same Daoud had his revenge, seizing power and proclaiming a one-party republic.

Daoud was killed soon after in a 1978 military coup, and what followed was a Soviet invasion, a communist puppet government, civil war, and eventually a Taliban dictatorship.

Meanwhile, under Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda engaged in attacks on various targets, including US embassies, culminating in the tragedy of 9/11.

In justifiable retaliation, an American-led international coalition ousted the Taliban regime.

When it came to a new Afghan government, a Loya Jirga or grand assembly was held in Kabul in 2002.

But the United States put all its hopes on Hamid Karzai, even though King Mohammed Zahir Shah had strong support from the Afghan delegates. According to one report, he was obliged to publicly renounce any monarchical leadership at the behest of the United States.

Hamid Karzai’s writ never went far, and he was later often referred to derisively as the “Mayor of Kabul.”

He was succeeded by Ashraf Ghani, who vacated the presidential palace as the Taliban advanced and fled the country.

In blocking the return of the King in 2002, the Bush administration rejected the best chance of unifying the country and providing for stability and progress not known in the history of Afghanistan except for his earlier reign.

Although the King was old (he passed away in 2007), as a monarch, he would have instinctively realised that one of his most important tasks would have been to ensure his succession.

What is most commendable about his son, the Crown Prince Ahmad Shah Khan, is that he has never shown any ambition for power, a good prerequisite for a constitutional monarch.

But America, with its failure to back the King and its most recent move to pull out of Afghanistan, has exposed a serious lack of strategic thinking. In fact, it has approach Afghanistan in ways similar, yet different from predecessor, Great Britain.

A benign English-speaking power and a nation under the rule of law, America never hungered for a world empire, if only because she already enjoyed an enormous landmass.

But the shadow of King George III—who lost the colonies during the War of Independence—still curiously hangs over American foreign policy.

U.S. General Douglas MacArthur was wise enough to see that Japan would be ungovernable if the monarchy were not retained after World War II. Accordingly, he refused to order the trial of the Emperor for war crimes.

However, the U.S. has tended at times to reject the concept of a monarchy when helping nations democratise.

This is despite the American constitutional model falling to authoritarianism on several occasions when exported to lands outside the unique, and liberty-loving environment of the U.S.

One example of this goes as far back as France in 1851, which, despite its flirtation with an executive presidency and the second republic, was still converted by Napoleon III into authoritarian rule until he was overthrown in 1870.

But the constitutional monarchical model of democracy, which has been exported globally, has worked well.

All the other Five Eyes partners, the inner circle of America’s allies—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?are constitutional monarchies with the one sovereign, Elizabeth II.

Of similar importance, the two most stable Arab countries are monarchies, led by Morocco and Jordan.

Thus it is necessary to ask if America’s bias against a monarchical system has clouded its decisions in the international environment, one that would perhaps have made a nation like Afghanistan stronger.

It is hard to imagine that under such a system, Afghanistan would have seen an unknown and completely untested Hamid Karzai elevated to power.

Nor would the retreat from Kabul be so mishandled that it became a mere surrender to the Taliban.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/afghanistan-response-does-the-shadow-of-the-american-revolution-still-hangs-over-us-foreign-policy_3955604.html

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

Taliban Fighters Now Well-Equipped for Decades

As if it were not enough that the Taliban took complete control of Afghanistan—imposing its will and murderous tactics on innocent citizens; endangering Americans still present in the country; and complicating efforts to extract Afghans who provided important support, such as translators—it gets worse.

The Taliban has also seized tens of billions of dollars of military equipment and supplies, which were formerly under the control of Afghan security forces. More than $28 billion was spent equipping the Afghans between 2002 to 2017. Expenditures after that are harder to come by, but since deliveries were continuing until just last month, it is safe to assume that the total amount is much more.

Indeed, the Taliban captured essentially all the necessary ingredients to fully equip both an army and an air force, spanning the gamut from 600,000 rifles and machine guns; 76,000 vehicles, such as high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, armored trucks, and pickups; radios, night vision googles, and drones; and 208 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

Of equal significance are the amounts of supplies it acquired in the process: millions of rounds of ammunition, spare parts, grenades, uniforms, boots, meals, fuel, and rockets—enough to sustain Taliban military efforts for years.

While some have been concerned about the Taliban’s use of the aircraft left behind, Heritage Foundation senior fellow of defense John Venable recently explained that should not be much of a worry. About 25% of Afghanistan’s air force fled to nearby countries, taken there by fleeing Afghan pilots. The fate of those aircraft is uncertain. “For the aircraft left behind,” said Venable, “lack of spare parts, contract support, and maintenance means few flyable platforms.”

For the same reasons that the Afghan air force was crippled when the Biden administration removed all the contractors who were performing maintenance for these aircraft, the Taliban will also struggle to keep even a few flying. And that assumes it has trained pilots.

Nor do we really need to worry about the capture of this equipment revealing any American military secrets. No advanced technology was captured, like F-35 jet fighters or Patriot missile systems. What the Taliban got was basic stuff—but it was better than what it had—and it got a lot of it.

There are plenty of pictures of Taliban fighters now holding the U.S. military’s latest small arms, such as the M4 carbine or the M16A4 rifle. These are far superior weapons to the AK-47s they had before, many of which dated back to the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Also worrisome is the reported capture of 16,000 night vision googles, enabling Taliban fighters an equal ability to operate at night, canceling the normal advantage U.S. forces possess in operating during hours of darkness.

There has been some speculation that the U.S. might try to destroy at least some of the high-value equipment left behind, like the helicopters or the attack aircraft. Given, however, the timidity of the administration’s response displayed thus far to the unfolding situation, that seems unlikely. It’s not that it can’t—the U.K., for example, sent 300 elite troops into Kabul to extract its citizens while U.S. forces remain caged up at the Kabul airport.

While the Taliban and other adversaries won’t learn any secrets from the equipment, the seizure means that the Taliban is a vastly better-equipped fighting force than it was two months ago. If the U.S. or any other nation in the future seeks to conduct military operations against it, they would face modern equipment in a firefight, a prospect no soldier relishes.

There is also the distasteful prospect that the Taliban could sell or transfer some of this equipment to transnational terror groups, such as ISIS or al-Qaeda, for them to use against U.S. citizens or partner countries.

Once the Taliban started sweeping across the country, it was too late to do anything to secure this equipment. It was found in hundreds of Afghan military units, depots, and warehouses spread across Afghanistan. Indeed, the die was cast when the decision was made to precipitously remove all U.S. military forces and contract support from the Afghan army—support that previously enabled its air force and Afghan soldiers realized that no help was going to be forthcoming from Kabul.

President Joe Biden ignored human nature when he predicted it was “highly unlikely” the Taliban would overrun everything. Of war, Napoleon said, “The moral is to the physical as three to one.” Meaning, even though there were supposedly more than 300,000 members of the Afghan security forces, without morale and confidence, those numbers were meaningless against a determined enemy.

When the contractors keeping Afghan planes in the air and the small but significant presence of U.S. forces were abruptly removed, it created a crisis of confidence that spread like wildfire.

Now, with this mass transfer of military equipment, the Taliban will be a more capable force for years to come. It didn’t have to happen.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/20/taliban-fighters-now-well-equipped-for-decades/

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

Christian Seattle homeless mission turns to Supreme Court after ruling strips away employment discretion

Christian group claims it will be unable to continue if it must hire people outside its faith

While homelessness plagues the city of Seattle, one Christian group that looks to help those in need is fighting for the ability to hire those who share its faith and message.

Seattle's Union Gospel Homeless Mission declined to hire an applicant for a staff attorney position who was bisexual and in a relationship with a man – going against the mission's religious lifestyle requirements. It is now turning to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Washington Supreme Court ruled that it violated Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The mission says it is protected by the law's religious exemption.

"Even though Washington’s Title VII analogue expressly excludes nonprofit religious organizations from its definition of ‘employer’ and has done so since the law was passed over 50 years ago, the court held the statutory exemption unconstitutional as applied to a nonprofit that seeks to hire coreligionists – effectively rewriting the law," the mission argued in a petition to Supreme Court filed earlier this month.

The Washington Supreme Court's ruling had narrowed the applicability of the exception for religious nonprofits to a "ministerial exemption," ruling that this does not apply to attorneys. As a result, the mission would not be legally allowed to discriminate against someone for being in a homosexual relationship (the mission also prohibits employees from having premarital sex or engaging in extramarital affairs). The mission argued that it is important even for attorneys who work for it to adhere to and represent its religious message.

"Staff attorneys are the primary contact and form ongoing relationships with Mission clients, collaborating with Mission caseworkers," the petition said. "Like all employees, staff attorneys talk about their faith, often pray with clients, and tell them about Jesus. … They also participate in regular Mission worship services, prayer meetings, staff meetings (including prayer and devotionals), trainings, and other events."

Meanwhile, the mission claims that the applicant, Matthew Woods, only applied in protest after being told of the lifestyle requirement, asking the mission in his cover letter to "change" its practices. Woods said in his application that he was not active in any local church and did not, as the mission required, provide the information for a pastor.

Woods had volunteered for the mission while in law school and signed its statement of faith at the time. When he inquired about the staff attorney position, he disclosed his same-sex relationship and was told that it was a problem. Woods claims that legal work is "wholly unrelated to [the mission's] religious practices or activities" and that the mission is therefore illegally discriminating against him due to his sexual orientation.

The mission argues that requiring it to hire someone who does not share its faith hinders its exercise of religion by taking away its ability to have a consistent ideology.

"The exemption is crucial for free exercise to thrive; after all, a religious nonprofit’s purpose will be undermined if it is forced to hire those who subvert the group’s religious beliefs," it said.

Without the freedom to hire exclusively from its religion, the mission argues it would no longer be able to serve its stated purpose.

"For Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission – which is first and foremost a ‘gospel’ mission – the Washington Supreme Court’s rejection of the coreligionist doctrine is an existential threat," it said. "If the Mission cannot hire coreligionists, it must make the untenable choice of disavowing its faith or ending its evangelization of its homeless neighbors."

As of May, Seattle's homeless population was estimated at roughly 12,000 people.

The issue of religious organizations' ministerial exemption from discrimination lawsuits was at the center of two cases the Supreme Court heard last year. The decision, which covered both cases, broadened the exemption to cover not just clergy members but also other employees who serve religious functions, like teachers at religious schools.

The Supreme Court specifically did not define which jobs were covered by the exception, stating that "what an employee does" matters more than their title.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/seattle-union-gospel-homeless-mission-supreme-court-employment-discretion

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

A New Heyday for Left-Wing Fascism in Latin America

In the 1970s, the Latin American Left played a key role in the destruction of liberal democracy, which it attacked as an instrument of bourgeois domination. In many cases the leftists were so “successful” they helped bring about right-wing military dictatorships.

Half a century later, the Latin American Left has not yet learned the advantages of liberal democracy under the rule of law. Almost everywhere, the Left practices the fascist methods it routinely denounces in others. The Biden administration needs to pay attention.

For example, in recent weeks the Nicaraguan dictatorship has jailed several presidential candidates who sought to challenge Daniel Ortega in the November elections. In Cuba, hordes of thugs have been sent out by President Miguel Díaz-Canel to crush the protests of thousands of Cubans who have been crying for “freedom” on the island.

In Venezuela, FAES, a special unit of the national police accused of torture and executions, has detained Freddy Guevara, a close associate of Juan Guaidó—whom the international community recognizes as Venezuela’s interim president—and raided the latter’s house, threatening to take him prisoner.

In Argentina, not a day goes by without the government of President Alberto Fernández throwing trumped-up accusations against former President Mauricio Macri and other critics of the current regime.

In Mexico, leftist President Andres Manuel López Obrador’s plans to tighten his grip on power, so he could carry out what he calls his “transformation project,” were thwarted by his party’s poor showing in the recent midterm elections. López Obrador’s hope was to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Chamber of Deputies that would allow him to modify the Constitution and seek reelection. His poor performance and the resistance of many Mexicans to his plans have stood in the way.

Even in countries where leftists are not in power, the Left seems incapable of accepting liberal democracy.

In Colombia, President Iván Duque is miraculously alive after an attack on the Black Hawk helicopter in which he and other government officials were traveling. Leftist guerrillas affiliated with the so-called National Liberation Army (ELN) are suspected.

In Chile, savagely violent protests that began in October 2019 and have included the burning of subway stations have forced President Sebastián Piñera to accede to demands for a new Constitution. The objective is to end the liberal democracy and market economy that has made that country the most successful in the region. The Constituent Convention that will draft the new Constitution has 155 members, of which at least 79 are seen as far to the left of the moderate center-left coalition that has guided Chile’s success since its transition to democracy. The first aim of the leftists will be to kill a requirement that it takes a minimum two-thirds vote of Convention delegates to approve each article of the new Constitution. That way the leftists can ram through their illiberal regime.

And in Peru, my native country, the government of President Francisco Sagasti has thrown its support behind Marxist Pedro Castillo, who is preparing to take power on July 28 despite allegations of widespread voting fraud in the recent runoff election against Keiko Fujimori. Castillo has announced that on day one in office he will demand that the Peruvian Congress call a Constituent Assembly to “reform” its Constitution, even though the Constitution requires Congress itself to approve any constitutional reforms. Castillo’s aim, of course, is to install a long-term socialist regime to replace Peru’s liberal democracy.

For the most part, this heyday of left-wing fascism is occurring with the overt and hypocritical complicity of the moderate, social-democratic Left. The only exceptions are the countries where leftist fascists already control government. There, the revolutionaries are actively persecuting members of the moderate, “soft” Left who once supported them.

Elsewhere, there is nothing in Latin America today to block the revolutionary Marxists from seizing power. The liberal, democratic Left, out of opportunism or moral cowardice, has given up confronting the extreme, fascist Left.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13663&omhide=true

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

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)

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

21 August, 2021

Why Black and White Relations Hit a New Low

The division we’re seeing is driven by Democrats and their Leftmedia mouthpieces.

On a daily basis, we’re told that race relations are worse than ever.

But in the real world outside of the media bubble, millions of black and white Americans work, play, study, worship, and live together in peace. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any issues or problems to be resolved, but today’s media have created an alternate universe that doesn’t reflect reality.

Indeed, in that alternate universe, it sure does feel like something is wrong. And that’s thanks entirely to the divisive efforts of Democrats and their media mouthpieces. Given the 24/7 propaganda, it’s no wonder we’ve seen a shift in the way everyone perceives race in America.

A recent Gallup poll, for example, reveals that as recently as 2013, 70% of U.S. adults viewed race relations in a positive light. Today, that number is only 42%.

No, America hasn’t become more “systemically racist” in the past eight years. We’ve just been led to believe it. The division plays right into the hands of the Marxist Democrats who benefit from a nation in chaos, even if the chaos also hurts people of color in the process (as it almost always does.)

It’s shameful that some of our fellow citizens seek to tear apart the fabric we’ve worked so hard to mend throughout our history. But like anything else that comes from radical leftists, it’s not that hard to figure out their long-term objective.

Leftist race-baiter B. Duncan Moench penned an article, titled “Americans Hate Each Other,” in which he concluded that the only answer to this problem is to dissolve the United States and “start an American Union that works more like its European counterpart.”

As they say, the devil lies in the details.

Moench doesn’t think we’re smart enough to see that the breakdown of our society and institutions is the objective of the radical leftists champing at the bit to take power when it all comes tumbling down. As the inimitable Thomas Sowell wrote a few years back: “Mob rule is not democracy. It threatens democracy, as it threatens lives — black or white.”

Race hustlers like Ibrim X. Kendi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders hope America dissolves so they can create a new world built on Marxist lies. And let’s not forget that it was Barack Obama who promised a post-racial America only to spout identity politics from the White House.

But this is about much more than dividing us along racial lines; it’s about a broader effort to turn America against its history, institutions, and traditions. Americans are now taught to hate those things and seek their remaking, revising, or outright destruction.

The poll isn’t surprising. For too long we’ve been told America is a country built on lies and designed to oppress anyone who isn’t white. Every instance of real racism is exaggerated, while progress is swept under the rug by journalists and politicians.

As Sowell biographer and Wall Street Journal columnist Jason R. Riley writes: “The political left has a stake in overstating both the existence and effects of racism so that it can advocate for more and bigger programs to combat it. And the media has long been willing to do the left’s ideological bidding. Social media allows for wide publicity of statistically rare incidents.‘”

Consequently, the media have the power to frame opinions and conversations and influence the way we think and interact with one another. But we can’t afford to let them divide us any longer.

We’re truly at a crossroads. Americans can either let the powerful media and political elites convince us that we hate each other, or we can ignore them and continue the progress we’ve made toward building a colorblind society.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/81752-why-black-and-white-relations-hit-a-new-low-2021-08-06

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

Texas House Speaker Signs Arrest Warrants for 52 Absent Democrats

Extended rent moratoriums and the slow distribution of billions in federal rent assistance are driving many small landlords to call it quits.

“Nobody wants to become a landlord anymore,” said Diane Baird, executive director of the Lake Erie Landlord Association, which represents landlords in northern Ohio, southern Michigan, and western Pennsylvania.

“And we have very few new people entering into the business.”

“Multiple landlords have told me they are selling out,” Jon Frickensmith, president of the South Wisconsin Landlord Association, told The Epoch Times. “They ask us how to get out of the business and how to get the tenants out of their houses. These are mom-and-pop operators, the kind of landlords that are willing to take tenants with bad credit or a criminal history. This will only add to the housing crisis.”

The vast majority of landlords in the United States are individuals, with most owning one or two rental houses.

In Michigan, more than $500 million in federal pandemic emergency assistance funds remain unspent, with thousands of applications for aid mired in state and municipal bureaucracies.

“Everyone in the process agrees the application process is flawed. The problems created by the system are intensified for private owners,” Greg Stremers, an attorney in Port Huron, Michigan, told The Epoch Times.

“Many property owners are selling off their properties, creating an even deeper shortage of rental properties. When I process an eviction, the tenants are having difficulty finding a new place to live, which is driving rents higher.”

Stremers said the system is “undeniably deficient,” pointing out that, of the $46 billion allocated by Congress in emergency rental assistance, only $3 billion has thus far been distributed to applicants nationwide by state and local agencies.

According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, states and municipalities have until Sept. 30 to disburse the funds or they may be reallocated.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eviction moratorium is set to expire on Oct. 3.

The National Equity Atlas estimates that landlords across the United States are owed more than $21 billion in overdue rent.

Don James, president of the Florida Landlord Association in Coral Gables, believes the moratorium is detrimental to renters as well as landlords.

“We as landlords cannot enforce our rental contracts and, this being a seller’s market, [it] is forcing landlords to sell their properties. This is going to cause shrinking of rental facilities, thus hurting renters,” he said.

Mike Bodeis, president of the 450-member Port Huron Area Landlord Association and owner of 40 rental houses, told The Epoch Times: “It’s a myth that 3.6 million Americans may soon be made homeless. Two-thirds of them could be paying their rent, but are not because they choose not to. They didn’t choose to pay their rent or utility bills with all the stimulus money they received.

To illustrate, Bodeis said: “In one eviction, in which I personally participated, we took six flatscreen TVs out of the house. It’s all about priorities.”

President of the Flint, Michigan-area Genesse Landlord Association, Ed Constable, said that the rent moratorium has had little effect on some of the members, but has been “devasting” for others.

“Maybe a quarter of residential tenants have signed the eligibility affidavit for the emergency pandemic rent assistance,” Constable said.

“Some instances can be horrible. One woman was in debt to me for a year’s back rent. Rather than go through the process, I ended up writing her a check for one month’s rent. That’s what it took to finally get her out. After that experience, I have zero interest in more residential rentals.”

The terms of the emergency rent assistance application are supposed to preserve the right of a landlord to evict a tenant for committing a criminal act on the premises, damaging property, threatening the health and safety of other tenants, or violating building codes and health ordinances, and for breach of contract other than non-payment of rent.

“Everything depends on the judge,” Constable said. “We had one landlord with a beautiful, high-end rental home. His tenants moved in, along with six dogs and a potbelly pig! The case came before a liberal judge. It was delayed forever. Ultimately, the landlord could not get a writ to evict.”

In Michigan, emergency rent assistance checks for up to 12 months of back rent, and even three months of future rent, are made out directly to the landlord for the benefit of qualifying tenants, but the tenants must apply for the aid.

While that may sound like a win-win proposition, Stremers said that only a small percentage of tenants apply.

“In fact,” Stremers said, “even the tenants typically don’t apply, and if the owner wants them to, we have to encourage them. The vast majority of the tenants rarely show up for the eviction pretrial, and rarely submit the proper CDC paperwork to start the moratorium process.”

Included in the paperwork is a requirement for the tenant to provide a government-issued identification card.

Stremers said the reason for the card is that “under a prior federal stimulus for renters to purchase homes, there was fraud by the tenants—the money went to tenants, who did not make the payments.”

Baird said that in the Lake Erie region, “tenants are not signing up for help.”

“They don’t seem to care about paying their bills. They have no reason to care. There are no consequences. The government is letting them get away with it,” she said.

One Wisconsin landlord stated in an email: “I don’t know why the government thinks landlords can afford to pay bills when not collecting rent, or why we should be responsible for the tenant’s inability to pay. I think they are taking advantage of the moratorium to not pay on time.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/protracted-rent-moratorium-forcing-small-landlords-out-of-business_3944101.html

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

The virtue-signaling stock exchange

The world’s second-largest stock exchange is now officially in the quota business.

The Securities and Exchange Commission this month approved Nasdaq’s new rule requiring the more than 3,000 companies listed on its exchange to meet specific diversity mandates in the makeup of their boards of directors. Henceforth, the companies will be required to have at least “one director who self-identifies as a female” and a second who “self-identifies” as “Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or . . . as any of the following: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or as a member of the queer community.” Companies that fall short of the quota will not be delisted but are required to provide a public explanation for their failure to meet the new requirement.

Nasdaq first proposed this rule last December, in an SEC filing that contained a half-dozen references to “the social justice movement” or “the racial justice movement.” The purpose of a stock exchange is to maintain an efficient marketplace for trading securities and raising capital, but Nasdaq seemed more interested in virtue signaling and identity politics.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/14/opinion/virtue-signaling-stock-exchange/

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

It’s Time to Purge the ‘Experts’

The United States’ military mission in Afghanistan has collapsed in chaos and ignominy. The catastrophe has many parents. But surely “the experts” upon which our leader relied bear much blame.

They were the ones who often failed to comprehend the power of religious belief and the role pride in Islam played in the Taliban’s unyielding commitment to victory. They were the ones who thought we could remake Afghanistan into a western liberal image. They were the ones who failed to comprehend the intractable tribal nature of Afghan society.

To say the least, Afghanistan has vividly exposed the utter stupidity of our vaunted foreign policy and national security experts. Our hapless Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, for example, assured us that Kabul would not fall from “Friday to Monday.” He was right. It fell from Friday to Sunday.

And what are we to make of the vaunted internationalists at the United Nations? After President Biden’s godawful speech signifying nothing, the State Department held a press briefing, during which spokesman Ted Price reiterated an unintentionally hilarious United Nations Security Council statement urging the Taliban government to be “inclusive and representative—including with the full, equal and meaningful participation of women.” I’m sure the barbarians will get right to including women as soon as they are finished raping them.

The hubris of these whizzes might be tolerable if they were adept at technocracy. But they stink at it. Indeed, every American debacle in my lifetime has “the experts’” fingerprints all over it. There was the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Vietnam. The farce of the missing Iraq WMDs. The list goes on and on.

What’s that you say? The Cuban Missile Crisis worked out very well? Indeed, it did. But that was because JFK ignored the advice of military experts to bomb Cuba.

What about the collapse of the Soviet Union? Once again, that salutary event was hastened because President Reagan ignored experts’ widespread disdain of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) program and forged ahead anyway, which helped break the communists’ treasury.

Look at China. Our China-hand experts were sure that if we boosted the country’s economy the Chinese people would demand increased freedom to go along with their improved standard of living. Not only did that demand not materialize—except in the now crushed Hong Kong citizens’ reaction to the loss of their once existing freedoms—but we are looking increasingly like China instead of it looking more like us.

Worse, we are now dependent on that tyranny for much of our manufacturing and mining of crucial natural resources like rare earth metals. Great job, experts!

Foreign policy is far from the only field afflicted with debilitating expertitis. The public health failures during COVID could—and no doubt will—fill several books. But the botched investigations and repeated mendacity surrounding the question of whether the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, are particularly enraging—not to mention the U.S. funding of “gain of function” research conducted there championed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Speaking of the hubris of the expert class, Fauci wrote last year that WHO and the UN should be empowered to “rebuild the infrastructure of human existence” in order to avoid future pandemics. Considering their repeated record of abject failure, putting the international experts in charge of such an all-encompassing project would probably return us to the caves

And look what has happened in the medical sector where our experts are helping drive the transgender moral panic. Major medical journals and associations even promote puberty blocking for children despite its being, at best, entirely experimental and potentially physically harmful to the patients. Good grief, the American Medical Association even urges that we stop listing the sex of children on birth certificates!

And we haven’t even yet mentioned the misbegotten California public policies recommended by climate change experts that have reduced the once Golden State to a third world environment of rolling blackouts, out-of-control wildfires, and inadequate water storage because no new reservoirs have been built for decades—this, even though the state’s population grew exponentially. Good grief, farmers in the Central Valley have begun plowing under their precious almond trees!

Failure after dismal failure has caused mass distrust in the expert class and a concomitant collapse of confidence in our institutions. This is a profound crisis. We need expertise. People who know what they are talking about and who can explain complicated issues to policy makers and the people are essential to the proper operation of sophisticated democratic societies.

But to do that job right, experts need to be apolitical. They need to provide as objective advice as they can when wearing their “expert” hats. Most of all, they need to put personal ideology aside in the performance of their duties and welcome heterodox opinions. For example, it wasn’t ideology that created the triumph of the moon landing. It was dispassionate excellence in rocket science and engineering.

The problem is that too many of our current “experts”—in foreign policy, law enforcement, science, education, the medical intelligentsia, the list goes on and on—have become highly politicized. Some even now think they should be deciders rather than advisers. That attitude doesn’t make policy more expertly based, it makes expertise more politically motivated, which is to say, it ceases being expert at all.

Creating a paradigm in which we can again safely rely on experts will require a great culling of the faux specialists now perched in powerful government and think tank sinecures. Frankly, mass resignations or firings may be the only efficacious remedy for what ails us. The time has come for that great sorting out to begin.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/its-time-to-purge-the-experts_3954833.html

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

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)

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

August 17, 2021

Chinese state media has declared the country the winners of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics after amalgamating their medal count to claim more golds than Team USA, according to pictures posted online.

This is not unreasonable. Hong Kong and Macau are physically and legally part of China and Taiwan is historically part of China

The official International Olympic Committee medal count named the United States in first place and China in second place overall.

The US took home 39 gold medals, 41 silver medals, and 33 bronze for a total of 113 medals.

China earned 38 gold medals, 32 silver medals, and 18 bronze medals for a total of 88 medals.

But a week after the end of the Olympics, images posted on Weibo, a Chinese social media platform, and China Central Television have circulated which show an altered medal count - with China also claiming medals won by Hong Kong and Taiwan.

By adding Hong Kong and Taiwan's medals, China's self-claimed medal count jumped to 41 gold, 37 silver, and 27 bronze for an accumulative 106 medals.

And although that still puts them second in terms of total medals overall, the "winner" of the Olympics is typically ranked as the country that wins the most golds.

Some modified images even show China claiming medals from Macau giving them 42 gold medals, according to Taiwan News.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/olympics/china-declares-olympic-win-after-altering-medal-count/ar-AANknhz?ocid=winp1taskbar

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

University of Wisconsin spends $50K to remove BOULDER dedicated to renowned geologist after woke activists claimed it was symbol of school's racist past

The University of Wisconsin removed a large boulder from its Madison campus on Friday at the request of woke activists who claimed it was a symbol of racism.

Chamberlin Rock, on the top of Observatory Hill, is named after Thomas Crowder Chamberlin, a geologist and former university president.

Students of color on campus say the rock represents a history of discrimination. The boulder was described using the n-word in a Wisconsin State Journal story in 1925.

The derogatory term was commonly used in the 1920s to describe any large dark rock. University historians have not found any other time that the term was used, but they said the Ku Klux Klan was active on campus at that time, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

University Chancellor Rebecca Blank approved removing Chamberlin Rock in January but the Wisconsin Historical Society needed to sign off because the boulder was located within 15 feet of a Native American burial site.

The rock will be placed on university-owned land southeast of Madison near Lake Kegonsa.

The university plans to erect a plaque in Chamberlin Hall to honor the former university president, school spokeswoman Meredith McGlone said.

The boulder is a rare, large example of a pre-Cambrian era glacial erratic that experts say is likely over two billion years old. It was carried by glaciers from as far north as Canada and dumped on Observatory Hill along with billions of tons of other debris when ice receded from the state about 12,000 years ago.

It was previously estimated to have weighed up to 70 tons, but an updated measurement shows it weighs 42 tons. It will continue to be used for educational purposes at its new site.

The Black Student Union led the call to remove the rock last summer. Crews began removing it just before 7am Friday, securing it with straps and lifting it with a crane before moving it to a flatbed truck. It cost an estimated $50,000, covered by private donations, to remove.

Juliana Bennett, a senior and a campus representative on the Madison City Council, said removing the rock signaled a small step toward a more inclusive campus. 'This moment is about the students, past and present, that relentlessly advocated for the removal of this racist monument,' she said. 'Now is a moment for all of us BIPOC students to breathe a sigh of relief, to be proud of our endurance, and to begin healing.'

Kenneth Owens, a Madison resident, said he was glad to see the rock go, 'It's not the rock's fault that it got that terrible and unfortunate nickname,' he said.

'But the fact that it's ... being moved shows that the world is getting a little better today.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9869041/University-Wisconsin-removes-rock-seen-sign-racism.html

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

Illinois Has Just Made It CLEAR To BLM They Don’t Mess Around!

A Galesburg, Illinois man by the name Matthew Lee Rupert, 29, has been sentenced to 105 months to prison followed by three years of supervised release after being charged with arson in Minneapolis during the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020 from the release from the District of Minnesota’s U.S. Attorney’s Office and for any BLM/Antifa rioter, this is the harshest sentence yet.

Breaking: Matthew Rupert, 29, of Galesburg, Ill., has been sentenced to nearly 9 years in federal prison after being convicted for his role in the Minneapolis BLM-Antifa riots last year. He handed out explosives & set a store on fire. This is the longest sentence for a BLM rioter pic.twitter.com/Waj0vt4kXf

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 10, 2021

According to the Star Tribune:

An Illinois man was sentenced to nearly nine years in prison for setting fire to a cellphone store during the civil unrest in Minneapolis following George Floyd’s murder.

Matthew Lee Rupert, 29, of Galesburg pleaded guilty to one count of arson in April.

On Tuesday he was sentenced in Minnesota U.S. District Court to 105 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for burning down a Sprint store, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Rupert drove more than 400 miles to Minnesota to “engage in violence and destruction,” Acting U.S. Attorney Anders Folk said in the release.

“Peaceful protest was not on his agenda.”

Last summer, Rupert was the first to be charged in the riots. He originally was charged with counts of civil disorder and riot as well, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office dropped all but the arson charge as part of a plea agreement.

Rupert live-streamed his riot trip to Minneapolis last summer, which included footage of him burning down the Sprint store.

He admitted to flying to Minneapolis on May 28 after hearing about disturbances breaking out at a previous plea hearing. He invited “goons” to join him on Facebook in a message.

It’s about darn time one of these domestic terrorists gets what coming to him.

Americans were forced to sit and watch the country burn for 3 months, while Dem politicians bailed out rioters and ignored all the damage and violence, and deaths.

Now, those same politicians want you to be “outraged” over a 3-hour event at the Capitol, where the only person killed, was an unarmed Trump supporter, and the worst thing that happened to any of these politicians was a stolen podium.

Talk about an out-of-touch ruling class, right?

It’s sickening.

https://thepatriotnation.net/illinois-has-just-made-it-clear-to-blm-they-dont-mess-around/

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

Federal Judge Orders Biden Admin to Bring Back Trump's Remain-in-Mexico Immigration Policy

It won't be heeded

A federal judge ruled Friday that the Biden administration must revive a Trump-era immigration policy that required migrants seeking U.S. asylum at the southern border to stay in Mexico while their applications are pending after a lawsuit from Texas and Missouri that claimed the termination of the policy was illegal and harmful.

U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk in Texas said that the Remain-in-Mexico policy must be reinstated and that the Biden administration "failed to consider several critical factors" of the policy that included the benefits of the program.

Friday's ruling came after the two Republican states requested a preliminary injunction against the administration's formal suspension of the policy, which is officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, according to FOX News. They claimed that ending the policy violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The MPP was suspended by President Joe Biden in January, shortly after he took office.

And while the Biden administration is required "to enforce and implement MPP in good faith" until it has been "lawfully rescinded" in accordance with the APA, and until the federal government has ample space in detention facilities to house all migrants that must be detained, the judge noted that the injunction does not mandate further deportations.

"Nothing in this injunction requires DHS to take any immigration or removal action nor withhold its statutory discretion towards any individual that it would not otherwise take," Kacsmaryk said in his ruling.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a June 1 memo that Trump's policy "does not adequately or sustainably enhance border management in such a way as to justify the program’s extensive operational burdens and other shortfalls."

But in his 53-page ruling, Kacsmaryk said Mayorkas had not shown evidence of a "reasoned decision" for ending the program. The Trump-appointed judge also ruled that the HHS secretary had not addressed "the problems created by false claims of asylum" or that many asylum seekers are "found non-meritorious by federal immigration judges."

Attorney generals in Texas and Missouri praised the ruling.

"We just won our second immigration lawsuit against the Biden Admin! They unlawfully tried to shut down the legal and effective Remain-in-Mexico program, but #Texas and Missouri wouldn’t have it," the Texas attorney general said in a tweet. "Together we sued, and just handed Biden yet another major loss!"

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement that the decision was "a big step toward securing the border."

Kacsmaryk has put the ruling on hold for a week to allow the Biden administration to appeal.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/landonmion/2021/08/14/federal-judge-orders-biden-admin-bring-back-trumps-remaininmexico-immigration-policy-n2594147

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

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)

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

15 August, 2021

'The Cops Started It': Head of Minneapolis Democrat Party Praises Rioters Who Burned Down Police Station

The chairman of the Minneapolis Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party wrote a column praising the rioters who burned down the Minneapolis Police Department's 3rd Precinct during the collapse of law and order following the murder of George Floyd last year.

As Townhall reported at the time, rioters had surrounded the 3rd Precinct and were trying to break into the building so they could set it on fire with the officers still inside. Mayor Jacob Frey (D) ordered the building to be evacuated instead of providing reinforcements. Once the officers were gone, the mob was able to set the building ablaze.

Once they achieved their long-desired goal, rioters and looters continued their rampage through the city at the expense of business owners and residents.

In a column published last Monday, Devin Hogan wrote all of this was the fault of the city's police department and falsely claimed police attacked protesters without reason on May 26:

"Friends and family were reaching out. How come words won’t satiate people? Why Minneapolis? The cops started it, I replied. They killed George Floyd and took every opportunity to escalate, agitate and make things worse. The cops are rioting and the people are responding. Like it or not, setting the Third Precinct on fire was a genuine revolutionary moment. An act of pure righteousness to open new worlds of understanding. The people declared themselves ungovernable and unilaterally took their power back. The largest international human rights movement in modern history had begun. The youth of Minneapolis carried all of this. The cops started it."

With Hogan's comments gaining attention, he released a statement saying "the truth hurts."

To those upset with my new column in Southside Pride who won’t say anything to my face: the truth hurts. To the TV station writing a story about the mad people: I’ll be writing a column every month. Accurately describing reality is not a call to violence. https://t.co/9xSkizh7A8

— Devin Hogan (@devinforparks) August 7, 2021

He also added on Facebook: "Accurately describing reality is not a call to arms. Explaining the conditions of violent repression with the reasons why and how people react to that oppression is not condoning violence."

"Fetishizing decorum over substance is a hallmark of white supremacy," Hogan continued. "If antiracism offends your sensibilities then please use this moment to examine the role you play in maintaining and upholding these systems. Which side are you on?"

The rioting in Minneapolis and St. Paul last year resulted in at least $550 million worth of damage to over 1,500 property locations, 150 of which were set on fire.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2021/08/10/the-cops-started-it-head-of-minneapolis-democrat-party-praises-rioters-who-burned-down-police-station-n2593892

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

Now the word CURRY is racist: Food blogger says it’s time to cancel the ‘British colonial’ term for south-Asian food

South Asian American food bloggers have called on people to cancel the word curry because of its ties to British colonialism.

In the latest fallout since the increased scrutiny over the country's imperial history, critics say the word curry is too often used to lump very distinct foods from different regions together.

Chaheti Bansal, 27, who lives in California and shares her home-cooking online, shared a video recipe where she called on people to 'cancel the word curry'.

In the video, which has since been viewed more than 3.6million times after it was shared by Buzzfeed Tasty, Bansal added: 'Not in all cultures but specifically in Indian cuisine because I don't understand what that word means.

'There's a saying that the food in India changes every 100km and yet we're still using this umbrella term popularised by white people who couldn't be bothered to learn the actual names of our dishes. But we can still unlearn.'

The 27-year-old has since told NBC Asian America it's not about 'fully cancelling the word' and said it's just about 'ending its use by people who don't know what it means'.

The outlet reports that South Asian American cooks say they've spent their lives confronting 'misconceptions' about their foods, and now, they just want to celebrate it.

Ms Bansal told NBC: 'Curry shouldn’t be all that you think about when you think about South Asian food.

'You can travel like 100km, and you can get a completely different type of cuisine.

'And it's a completely different language and a different culture. And it just goes to show that there's so much diversity in our food that doesn't get recognized.'

But she also said that the word is used regularly in South Asian countries.

She added: 'My partner is Sri Lankan, I have friends that are Malayali, friends that are Tamil, and yes they use the word curry.

'I enjoy their curry. Even their curry names have very specific traditional names paired with it, or it's referring to something very specific. But you shouldn't just lump all of our foods together under this term.'

While there are many different explanations for where the word curry came from, the most popular is that it was invented by the British who misheard the Tamil word 'kari' which means 'sauce'.

It's first use dates back to the mid-eighteenth century when members of the British East India Trading Company were trading with Tamil merchants in south east India.

Historically, food offered in British curry houses is Indian food cooked to British taste however, there has been an increasing demand for authentic Indian food.

Some of the most popular dishes in the UK, including chicken tikka masala, were inspired by Indian cuisine but adapted for western tastes, and as a result rarely reflect the traditional dishes made in India.

Instagram food blogger Nisha Vedi Pawar, 36, echoed Bansal's sentiment and told NBC: 'It's just like for American food. You wouldn't want everything dipped in like Old Bay right?

'You wouldn't want to put everything with good old American French's mustard. The same way, we don’t put everything in tikka sauce.'

Earlier this year, food delivery giant Just Eat revealed Indian was the third takeaway of choice for Brits during 2020, beaten only by Chinese and Pizza.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874633/Now-word-CURRY-racist-Food-blogger-says-time-cancel-British-colonial-term.html

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

Religious Victory: Judge Blocks Mandate Requiring Doctors to Perform Gender Reassignment Surgery

A federal court in Texas blocked a transgender mandate from President Joe Biden that would require doctors to go against their religious beliefs and perform gender transition surgeries.

Judge Reed O’Connor granted a permanent injunction and said that the doctors are "to be exempt from the government’s requirement to perform abortions and gender-transition procedures."

In a win for religious liberty, Monday's ruling prohibits Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra from requiring the Christian plaintiffs to "perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures or abortions, including by denying Federal financial assistance because of their failure to perform or provide insurance coverage for such procedures or by otherwise pursuing, charging, or assessing any penalties, fines, assessments, investigations, or other enforcement actions."

"Today’s ruling is a victory for compassion, conscience, and common sense," said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "No doctor should be forced to perform controversial, medically unsupported procedures that are contrary to their conscience and could be deeply harmful to their patients."

In 2016, under the guise of the Affordable Care Act’s nondiscrimination clause, the Obama administration issued a mandate that required doctors and hospitals to provide gender transition operations after receiving a referral from a mental health professional.

Doctors who refused to provide such surgeries would face financial penalties, private lawsuits and other consequences.

More than 19,000 healthcare professionals, several religious organizations and nine states contested the transgender mandate in court.

A North Dakota court shut down the mandate earlier this year, although Biden appealed the decision, and Judge O’Connor blocked it in Texas in 2019, emphasizing that the government "cannot force religious doctors and hospitals to perform gender transition procedures in violation of their conscience and professional medical judgment."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/landonmion/2021/08/09/cnns-brianna-keilar-suggests-travel-ban-on-states-with-spike-in-covid-cases-n2593862

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

America's new class divide

By David Brooks

The dispossessed set out early in the mornings. They were the outsiders, the scorned, the voiceless. But weekend after weekend—unbowed and undeterred—they rallied together. They didn’t have much going for them in their great battle against the privileged elite, but they did have one thing—their yachts.

Make your inbox more interesting

Each weekday evening, get an overview of the day’s biggest news, along with fascinating ideas, images, and people.

Email Address (required)

Thanks for signing up!

During the summer and fall of 2020, a series of boat parades—Trumptillas—cruised American waters in support of Donald Trump. The participants gathered rowdily in great clusters. They festooned their boats with flags—American flags, but also message flags: Don’t Tread on Me, No More Bullshit, images of Trump as Rambo.

The women stood on the foredecks in their red, white, and blue bikinis, raising their Pabst Blue Ribbon tallboys to salute the patriots in nearby boats. The men stood on the control decks projecting the sort of manly toughness you associate with steelworkers, even though these men were more likely to be real-estate agents. They represent a new social phenomenon: the populist regatta. They are doing pretty well but see themselves as the common people, the regular Joes, the overlooked. They didn’t go to fancy colleges, and they detest the mainstream media. “It’s so encouraging to see so many people just coming together in a spontaneous parade of patriotism,” Bobi Kreumberg, who attended a Trumptilla in Palm Beach, Florida, told a reporter from WPTV.

You can see this phenomenon outside the United States too. In France, the anthropologist Nicolas Chemla calls this social type the “boubours,” the boorish bourgeoisie. If the elite bourgeois bohemians—the bobos—tend to have progressive values and metropolitan tastes, the boubours go out of their way to shock them with nativism, nationalism, and a willful lack of tact. Boubour leaders span the Western world: Trump in the U.S., Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom, Marine Le Pen in France, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Matteo Salvini in Italy.

How could people with high-end powerboats possibly think of themselves as the downtrodden? The truth is, they are not totally crazy. The class structure of Western society has gotten scrambled over the past few decades. It used to be straightforward: You had the rich, who joined country clubs and voted Republican; the working class, who toiled in the factories and voted Democratic; and, in between, the mass suburban middle class. We had a clear idea of what class conflict, when it came, would look like—members of the working classes would align with progressive intellectuals to take on the capitalist elite.

But somehow when the class conflict came, in 2015 and 2016, it didn’t look anything like that. Suddenly, conservative parties across the West—the former champions of the landed aristocracy—portrayed themselves as the warriors for the working class. And left-wing parties—once vehicles for proletarian revolt—were attacked as captives of the super-educated urban elite. These days, your education level and political values are as important in defining your class status as your income is. Because of this, the U.S. has polarized into two separate class hierarchies—one red and one blue. Classes struggle not only up and down, against the richer and poorer groups on their own ladder, but against their partisan opposite across the ideological divide.

In June of last year, a Trump regatta was held in Ferrysburg, Michigan. A reporter from WOOD spoke with one of the boaters, a guy in a white T-shirt, a MAGA hat, and a modest fishing boat. “We are always labeled as racists and bigots,” he said. “There’s a lot of Americans that love Donald Trump, but we don’t have the platforms that the Democrats do, including Big Tech. So we have to do this.”

On a bridge overlooking the parade stood an anti-Trump protester, a young man in a black T-shirt carrying an abolish ice sign. “They use inductive reasoning rather than deduction,” he told the reporter, looking out at the pro-Trump boaters. “They only seek information that gives evidence to their presuppositions.” So who’s of a higher social class? The guy in the boat, or the kid with the fancy words?

The Rise of a Countercultural Elite

In 1983, a literary historian named Paul Fussell wrote a book called Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. Most of the book is a caustic and extravagantly snobby tour through the class markers prevalent at the time. After ridiculing every other class, Fussell describes what he called “X people.” These were people just like Fussell: highly educated, curious, ironic, wittily countercultural. X people tend to underdress for social occasions, Fussell wrote. They know the best wine stores and delis. They have risen above the muck of mainstream culture to a higher, hipper sensibility. The chapter about X people was insufferably self-regarding, but Fussell was onto something. Every once in a while, in times of transformation, a revolutionary class comes along and disrupts old structures, introduces new values, opens up economic and cultural chasms. In the 19th century, it was the bourgeoisie, the capitalist merchant class. In the latter part of the 20th century, as the information economy revved up and the industrial middle class hollowed out, it was X people.

Seventeen years later, I wrote a book about that same class, Bobos in Paradise. The bobos didn’t necessarily come from money, and they were proud of that; they’d secured their places in selective universities and in the job market through drive and intelligence exhibited from an early age, they believed. X types defined themselves as rebels against the staid elite. They were—as the classic Apple commercial had it—“the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers.” But by 2000, the information economy and the tech boom were showering the highly educated with cash. They had to find ways of spending their gobs of money while showing they didn’t care for material things. So they developed an elaborate code of financial correctness to display their superior sensibility. Spending lots of money on any room formerly used by the servants was socially defensible: A $7,000 crystal chandelier in the living room was vulgar, but a $10,000, 59-inch AGA stove in the kitchen was acceptable, a sign of your foodie expertise. When it came to aesthetics, smoothness was artificial, but texture was authentic. The new elite distressed their furniture, used refurbished factory floorboards in their great rooms, and wore nubby sweaters made by formerly oppressed peoples from Peru.

The bobos have coalesced into an insular, intermarrying brahmin elite that dominates culture, media, education, and tech.

Two years later, Richard Florida published The Rise of the Creative Class, which lauded the economic and social benefits that the creative class—by which he meant, more or less, the same scientists, engineers, architects, financiers, lawyers, professors, doctors, executives, and other professionals who make up the bobos—produced. Enormous wealth was being generated by these highly educated people, who could turn new ideas into software, entertainment, retail concepts, and more. If you wanted your city to flourish, he argued, you had to attract these people by stocking the streets with art galleries, restaurant rows, and cultural amenities. Florida used a “Gay Index,” based on the supposition that neighborhoods with a lot of gay men are the sort of tolerant, diverse places to which members of the creative class flock.

From the October 2013 issue: Richard Florida on the boom towns of the post–Great Recession economy

Florida was a champion of this class. I looked on them pretty benignly myself. “The educated class is in no danger of becoming a self-contained caste,” I wrote in 2000. “Anybody with the right degree, job, and cultural competencies can join.” That turned out to be one of the most naive sentences I have ever written.

The New Elite Consolidates

Over the past two decades, the rapidly growing economic, cultural, and social power of the bobos has generated a global backlash that is growing more and more vicious, deranged, and apocalyptic. And yet this backlash is not without basis. The bobos—or X people, or the creative class, or whatever you want to call them—have coalesced into an insular, intermarrying Brahmin elite that dominates culture, media, education, and tech. Worse, those of us in this class have had a hard time admitting our power, much less using it responsibly.

First, we’ve come to hoard spots in the competitive meritocracy that produced us. As Elizabeth Currid-Halkett reported in her 2017 book, The Sum of Small Things, affluent parents have increased their share of educational spending by nearly 300 percent since 1996. Partly as a result, the test-score gap between high- and low-income students has grown by 40 to 50 percent. The children of well-off, well-educated meritocrats are thus perfectly situated to predominate at the elite colleges that produced their parents’ social standing in the first place. Roughly 72 percent of students at these colleges come from the richest quarter of families, whereas only 3 percent come from the poorest quarter. A 2017 study found that 38 schools—including Princeton, Yale, Penn, Dartmouth, Colgate, and Middlebury—draw more students from the top 1 percent than from the bottom 60 percent.

From the September 2019 issue: Daniel Markovits on how meritocracy harms everyone

Second, we’ve migrated to just a few great wealth-generating metropolises. Fifteen years after The Rise of the Creative Class, Florida published a reconsideration, The New Urban Crisis. Young creative types were indeed clustering in a few zip codes, which produced enormous innovation and wealth along with soaring home values. As Florida noted in that book, from 2007 to 2017, “the population of college-educated young people between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-four grew three times faster in downtown areas than in the suburbs of America’s fifty largest metro areas.”

Illustration of person wearing pink shirt, red/black vest, blue pants, yellow socks, green slides kneeling behind tripod looking through camera

But this concentration of talent, Florida now argued, meant that a few superstar cities have economically blossomed while everywhere else has languished. The 50 largest metro areas around the world house 7 percent of the world’s population but generate 40 percent of global wealth. Just six metro areas—the San Francisco Bay Area; New York; Boston; Washington, D.C.; San Diego; and London—attract nearly half the high-tech venture capital in the world.

This has also created gaping inequalities within cities, as high housing prices push middle- and lower-class people out. “Over the past decade and a half,” Florida wrote, “nine in ten US metropolitan areas have seen their middle classes shrink. As the middle has been hollowed out, neighborhoods across America are dividing into large areas of concentrated disadvantage and much smaller areas of concentrated affluence.” The large American metro areas most segregated by occupation, he found, are San Jose, San Francisco, Washington, Austin, L.A., and New York.

From the August 2019 issue: Raj Chetty, the economist who would fix the American dream

Third, we’ve come to dominate left-wing parties around the world that were formerly vehicles for the working class. We’ve pulled these parties further left on cultural issues (prizing cosmopolitanism and questions of identity) while watering down or reversing traditional Democratic positions on trade and unions. As creative-class people enter left-leaning parties, working-class people tend to leave. Around 1990, nearly a third of Labour members of the British Parliament were from working-class backgrounds; from 2010 to 2015, the proportion wasn’t even one in 10. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the 50 most-educated counties in America by an average of 26 points—while losing the 50 least-educated counties by an average of 31 points.

These partisan differences overlay economic differences. In 2020, Joe Biden won just 500 or so counties—but together they account for 71 percent of American economic activity, according to the Brookings Institution. Donald Trump won more than 2,500 counties that together generate only 29 percent of that activity. An analysis by Brookings and The Wall Street Journal found that just 13 years ago, Democratic and Republican areas were at near parity on prosperity and income measures. Now they are divergent and getting more so. If Republicans and Democrats talk as though they are living in different realities, it’s because they are.

The creative class has converted cultural attainment into economic privilege and vice versa. It controls what Jonathan Rauch describes in his new book, The Constitution of Knowledge, as the epistemic regime—the massive network of academics and analysts who determine what is true. Most of all, it possesses the power of consecration; it determines what gets recognized and esteemed, and what gets disdained and dismissed. The web, of course, has democratized tastemaking, giving more people access to megaphones. But the setters of elite taste still tend to be graduates of selective universities living in creative-class enclaves. If you feel seen in society, that’s because the creative class sees you; if you feel unseen, that’s because this class does not.

Like any class, the bobos are a collection of varied individuals who tend to share certain taken-for-granted assumptions, schemas, and cultural rules. Members of our class find it natural to leave their hometown to go to college and get a job, whereas people in other classes do not. In study after study, members of our class display more individualistic values, and a more autonomous sense of self, than other classes. Members of the creative class see their career as the defining feature of their identity, and place a high value on intelligence. Usage of the word smart increased fourfold in The New York Times from 1980 to 2000, according to Michael Sandel’s recent book, The Tyranny of Merit—and by 2018 usage had nearly doubled again.

Without even thinking about it, we in the creative class consolidate our class standing through an ingenious code of “openness.” We tend to like open floor plans, casual dress, and eclectic “localist” tastes that are willfully unpretentious. This seems radically egalitarian, because there are no formal hierarchies of taste or social position. But only the most culturally privileged person knows how to navigate a space in which the social rules are mysterious and hidden.

Shamus Rahman Khan is a sociologist who attended and then taught at St. Paul, an elite New England prep school. As the meritocratic creative class displaces the old WASPs, he observes, what the school primarily teaches is no longer upper-crust polish or social etiquette, but “ease”—the knowledge of how to act in open environments where the rules are disguised.

A student who possesses ease can walk into any room and be confident that she can handle whatever situation she finds. She knows how to structure relationships with teachers and other professional superiors so that they are treated both as authority figures and as confidants. A student in possession of ease can comfortably engage the cafeteria workers with a distant friendliness that at once respects social hierarchy and pretends it doesn’t exist. A student with ease knows when irony is appropriate, what historical quotations are overused, how to be unselfconscious in a crowd. These practices, as Khan writes in Privilege, his book about St. Paul, can be absorbed only through long experience within elite social circles and institutions.

From the June 2018 issue: The birth of the new American aristocracy

Openness in manners is matched by openness in cultural tastes. Once upon a time, high culture—the opera, the ballet—had more social status than popular culture. Now social prestige goes to the no-brow—the person with so much cultural capital that he moves between genres and styles, highbrow and lowbrow, with ease.

“Culture is a resource used by elites to recognize one another and distribute opportunities on the basis of the display of appropriate attributes,” Kahn argues. Today’s elite culture, he concludes, “is even more insidious than it had been in the past because today, unlike years ago, the standards are argued not to advantage anyone. The winners don’t have the odds stacked in their favor. They simply have what it takes.”

I wrote Bobos in Paradise in the late Clinton era. The end of history had allegedly arrived; the American model had been vindicated by the resolution of the Cold War. Somehow, we imagined, our class would be different from all the other elites in world history. In fact, we have many of the same vices as those who came before us.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/09/blame-the-bobos-creative-class/619492/

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

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)

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

13 August, 2021

USMC Lowers Standards for Race and Gender ‘Equity’

Reducing training requirements for Marines is an egregious and dangerous error

In an era of an unprecedented susceptibility of Department of Defense (DOD) leadership to the whims of socialism’s drive for race and gender-based “equity,” the United States Marine Corps’ senior leaders have proven themselves no less susceptible than the rest.

Driven by a self-mandated “Diversity Accession” mission to contract a specific quantity of black, Hispanic, and “Other” officers per annum, the Marine Corps generated 231%, 213%, and 205% increases in the rate of new ethnically diverse second lieutenants (2ndLts) in 2020 than it did 10 years prior for those three ethnic subsets, respectively. Driven by a late Obama-era push for an increase in female officers in combat arms, the Marine Corps has also generated a 161% increase in the annual rate of new female 2ndLts since the Obama administration issued that mandate in 2015.

As one might expect, the rate of white male new 2ndLts has dropped from approximately 60.5% of all new 2ndLts in 2016 to approximately 55.8% in 2021. If one assumes no change in the relative total quality of each new 2ndLt from 2016 to 2021, then that assumes 4.7% of the new 2ndLts in 2016 would not have had a chance to become 2ndLts in 2021 in the name of “diversity.”

Clearly, the Marine Corps’ “Diversity Accession” mission comes at the expense of and discrimination against qualified white males seeking an opportunity to lead Marines and serve their country.

There are obviously outlying factors that contribute to these figures, such as propensity to join among each “diverse” community, selection rates on the Corps’ officer selection boards, and attrition rates at entry-level training. But if standards remain the same at entry-level training, then one would assume the Marine Corps’ newest leaders are still of the same high caliber as they have been in years past, regardless of race or gender.

Shockingly, however, leaders at the Marine Corps’ entry-level officer training institutions want even more diversity, and they are lowering training standards across the board in order to achieve it.

Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS), the first point at which the Corps can weed out the bad apples from among its officer candidates, has dramatically reduced physical fitness standards for graduation. The course used to include three mandatory forced marches under load, and any candidate who failed to complete those hikes would not be permitted to graduate.

The commanding officer recently eliminated the longest hike from the course and removed hike completion from the list of graduation requirements. The Obstacle Course, a hallmark of every Marine Officer’s training and once a right of passage for all Marine officers, is no longer a graduation requirement. Neither is the grueling Endurance Course, which begins with the Obstacle Course followed by a three-mile run. OCS leaders indicated that they made the change in 2020 in order to cater to shorter candidates (i.e., female candidates) who may have a harder time getting over tall obstacles. (Ask any female Marine Officer, who undoubtedly beat the Obstacle Course just like any other Marine Officer, what she thinks about the Marine Corps telling her she needs extra help. I doubt she’ll be grateful.)

That means an officer candidate could fail both hikes, fail the Obstacle Course, fail the Endurance Course, and still become a Marine Officer.

New 2ndLts then attend the Basic Officer Course (BOC) at The Basic School (TBS), whose mission is to “Train and educate newly commissioned officers in the high standards of professional knowledge, espirit-de-corps, and leadership to prepare them for duty … with particular emphasis on the duties, responsibilities, and warfighting skills required of a rifle platoon commander.” The school is unique among the other branches of service in that it is a requirement for all officers, regardless of their Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). Evidently, however, the “high standards” spoken of in the school’s mission are too high for some. TBS removed the requirement for students to complete the Obstacle Course (the same one that OCS no longer requires to graduate) unassisted in order to graduate, as students under 5'6" (read: females) can now receive assistance to complete the course.

Apparently, having the will to get over a wall, fence, or obstacle in combat without allowing your height to limit you from succeeding is no longer a skill required of a rifle platoon commander. Ask any rifle platoon commander what he or she thinks of that — don’t be surprised when you get hit in the face.

Army Major General John Evans recently said, “We’re trying to encourage our female officers and our officers that are ethnically diverse to choose combat arms branches to provide greater opportunities for them in the long term.” His words, no doubt, demonstrate the Army’s attempt to create more female and ethnically diverse general officers later on down the line. The Marine Corps evidently intends to accomplish the same, only not by “encouraging” its females and ethnically diverse officers to join combat arms, but instead by forcing them to do so. The commanding officer of TBS was recently proscribed diversity quotas for combat arms when assigning an MOS to graduates of the BOC. In other words, females or ethnically diverse officers who have zero desire to become a Combat Arms Officer can now be forced into those career fields based solely upon their gender or the color of their skin.

Pause for effect.

Depressing and utterly unacceptable as these changes are, they pale in comparison to the coup de gras of the Marine Corps’ mediocrity: In an effort to achieve more diversity in the Infantry Officer MOS, which eventually yields more generals in the Corps than any other MOS, TBS has dramatically relaxed graduation standards for the Corps’ infamous Infantry Officer Course (IOC). IOC is designed to forge stoic, hardened, tactically proficient infantry officers with an indomitable will through the rigors of some of the most mentally and physically demanding training in the DOD. That training includes numerous timed hikes under upwards of 150+ pounds of load over distances up to 10 miles in order to emulate the environment in which an Infantry Unit must operate in combat.

Apparently, that training is too hard for the DOD to achieve its diversity quota.

The commanding officer has removed the requirement for students at IOC to pass all of the hikes in order to graduate. Additionally, whereas the course director (a Marine Corps major) used to retain the right to dismiss a student from training for failure, the commanding officer of TBS (a Marine Corps colonel in line for promotion to brigadier general) now retains that right solely. That means a student could fail every single hike at IOC, receive a recommendation to be dismissed from the course by every instructor at the course, and still be forced to graduate by the TBS CO (who you’ll recall has been instructed to reach female and diversity quotas in Combat Arms MOS).

Though none of these figures or information are classified, the Marine Corps has kept them under wraps. Many Marine officers who are reading this are likely hearing it for the first time, and any enlisted Marines reading it should wonder why the Corps is deliberately lowering the standards of physical and mental toughness (once the Marine Corps’ hallmarks) for its leaders.

As taxpayers, all Americans should ask these questions: Are these decisions making the Marine Corps better? Is the Corps more lethal now? Are its junior officers in its most critical occupational specialties better leaders because of these lower standards? And can we trust the commanding officers of these schools, who deliberately lowered standards for the sake of race and gender, to make ethical, righteous, hard decisions in the future?

Those answers are all clearly “no.” Reducing training requirements for Marines is an egregious and dangerous error.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/81747-usmc-lowers-standards-for-race-and-gender-equity-2021-08-06

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

China’s Ban on Taiwan Pineapples Backfires as New Buyers Step In

China’s surprise ban on pineapple imports from Taiwan five months ago was widely viewed as an attempt to undermine President Tsai Ing-wen’s standing with a political constituency. Trade data show the move has produced anything but the desired effect.

First-half numbers collected by Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture show growers of the fruit on the island have fared better since China blocked imports starting March 1, as sympathetic Japanese shoppers stepped in to provide support. Shipments to Japan surged more than eightfold to 16,556 tons in the four months through June from a year ago. A domestic campaign to drum up demand also helped.

The helping hand from Japanese importers has come as a pleasant surprise for Taiwan’s rattled farmers who were bracing for a plunge in prices following the move by China, which termed it as a normal precaution to protect biosecurity. The spiky fruit is among a long list of products from Australian wine to coal and lobster China has targeted for sanctions to help gain leverage in trade disputes.

“The bleeding was stopped before it even began,” said Chen Li-i, an official at the Council of Agriculture in Taipei.

Japan has now replaced China as the major overseas destination for Taiwan’s pineapples. While it’s unclear how long the ban will last -- the shift may well reverse once the restrictions are lifted -- the humble tropical fruit has become an unlikely symbol of defiance in the region’s geopolitical intrigues. Amid all the sabre-rattling by Beijing, Japan and the island democracy have expressed a broad desire to forge closer ties. Leaders in Tokyo see their own security directly linked to that of Taiwan, which China asserts is its territory.

Pineapples are an important source of income for farmers in central and southern Taiwan. Around 11% of the tropical fruit harvested in Taiwan are sold overseas. Until the ban, they were almost entirely shipped to China.

“Export orders are looking unexpectedly good,” said Chiao Chun, chief executive officer of Harvest Consultancy Co. in Taipei. “This really was a crisis turned into an opportunity.”

Besides the help from Japan, an increase in domestic demand fueled by a “save the farmers” campaign on social media rallied local shoppers in support of growers. Even President Tsai pitched in a day after China’s ban took effect.

Farmers also received passionate backing from local businesses. Restaurants across the island rushed in to add a pineapple-infused sweet twist to all sorts of dishes ranging from shrimp balls, fried rice and even the classic beef noodle soup. Taiwan Railways Administration introduced special edition lunch boxes with pineapples as one of the side dishes.

As a result, domestic prices of the fruit jumped 28% to an average NT$22.1 (80 cents) per kilogram in the March-June period, a three-year high. The total value of the pineapples sold locally rose 17%, according to data provided by the farm council’s Chen.

“Higher prices driven by strong domestic demand led to more profit for the farmers,” Chen said.

One key question is whether the uptick in overseas demand is sustainable. Exporters cite concerns over Japan’s stringent quality requirements and consumer preferences for smaller, less-sweet varieties than the pineapples typically grown in Taiwan.

But the Chinese ban leaves Taiwan with little choice but to review its export markets for the fruit, according to Young Fu-fan, a grower in the southern county of Tainan.

“Farmers can’t expect to make ‘easy money’ from China anymore,” he said.

https://au.yahoo.com/finance/news/china-ban-taiwan-pineapples-backfires-210000757.html