The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Education Watch, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Recipes, Australian Politics, Tongue Tied, Immigration Watch, Eye on Britain and Food & Health Skeptic. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). See here or here for the archives of this site.


Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

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



31 July, 2012

British  Labour Party delighted at Games 'socialist' opening ceremony

Labour politicians yesterday hailed the Olympic opening ceremony as a ‘socialist’ event and ‘the best advert for the party for years’ – as the row over its political message intensified.

Artistic director Danny Boyle has  been widely praised for Friday’s  opening spectacular.  But some Conservatives questioned the political undertones of a ceremony which at one point made a feature of the symbol popularised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Tory MP Aidan Burley was slapped down on Friday night for describing the ceremony as ‘leftie, multicultural c***’.

But several Tory Cabinet ministers, including Education Secretary Michael Gove, were yesterday reported to have voiced concerns privately.

Government sources acknowledged that some ‘suggestions’ had been made to Mr Boyle, but denied that a private screening of rehearsals for Cabinet ministers had  provoked major controversy.

Some Labour politicians struggled to  contain their glee about the ceremony’s message, congratulating Mr Boyle for ‘smuggling in wonderfully progressive socialist sentiments’.

Carl Sergeant, a minister in the Welsh government, took to Twitter to describe Friday’s opening ceremony as ‘the best Labour Party political broadcast I’ve seen in a while’.

Taunting David Cameron, he added: ‘Working class history, multicultural, NHS, CND, gay kissing. Well done, comrade Boyle! Bet Dave is wriggling!’

Mr Burley was widely criticised at the weekend for remarks on Twitter in which he attacked the political message of the opening ceremony.

The Cannock Chase MP, who lost his job as a ministerial aide after attending a Nazi-themed stag party last year, described the event as ‘the most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen – more than Beijing, the capital of a communist state! Welfare tribute next?’

Mr Burley added: ‘Bring back red arrows, Shakespeare and the Stones!’ He later said that he had not been criticising multiculturalism but thought its portrayal was ‘rather trite’.

London’s Tory Mayor Boris Johnson dismissed his comments, saying: ‘People say it was all leftie stuff. That is nonsense. I’m a Conservative and I had hot tears of patriotic pride from the beginning. I was blubbing like Andy Murray.’

Downing Street also distanced itself from Mr Burley. A spokesman said: ‘We do not agree with him.’

The Prime Minister called the opening ceremony ‘a great showcase for this country’.

But Labour MP Paul Flynn said: ‘Boris has been spewing wild meaningless superlatives hoping to obliterate the eloquent messages of Danny Boyle on NHS, CND, and the futility of war.   Wonderfully progressive socialist sentiments and ideas were smuggled into the opening romp. The Tory Olympic twosome were tricked into praising the Trojan Horse.’

Mr Boyle, now widely tipped for a knighthood, dismissed suggestions of political bias, saying the theme was ‘this is for everyone’.

But reports surfaced yesterday of concerns among some Cabinet ministers about the political  content.  One report said Mr Gove had given the ceremony just four marks out of ten following a private screening of rehearsals.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also reported to have raised concerns, although Home Secretary Theresa May is said to have backed Mr Boyle’s vision.

A spokesman for Mr Gove last night denied he had voiced heavy criticism of the ceremony and said he thought the event was ‘marvellous’.

Downing Street dismissed suggestions of Cabinet concern as ‘nonsense’. A source said ministers had been kept updated by Mr Boyle, adding: ‘If there had been disquiet about the themes of the opening ceremony, we wouldn’t have doubled the budget’.

The brother of comedian Rowan Atkinson, who played a starring role in the ceremony, also criticised the event’s political message, saying it had ‘strong strands of the parochial Left’.

Rodney Atkinson, a Eurosceptic academic, said the ceremony’s ‘assumption that the industrial revolution was oppressive’ was simply wrong.

But a survey by pollster Survation yesterday found that only 15 per cent of viewers thought the ceremony was ‘too political’.

SOURCE





Off sick for a decade... with acne or a cough! The astonishing cases among 885,000 British sickness claimants

Thousands of people have been on sickness benefits for a decade or longer because they suffer from conditions including acne, bad backs and persistent coughs.

Official figures show that 885,100 have been signed off as being too sick to work and given incapacity benefit for ten years or more.

They have a bewildering array of conditions. Nearly 70,000 have been signed off due to bad backs while a further 140,000 have been away from the work place because of ‘depressive episodes’.

Ten people have been on incapacity benefit for a decade or more because of acne, while 670 have been signed off because they are obese.

Some 1,020 have been claiming incapacity since at least 2001 because of headaches.  Figures for the more debilitating migraines are collected separately.

It has also taken 30 people more than a decade to recover from fractured forearms.

More than 12,800 have been claiming benefit for their alcoholism since at least 2001, according to the figures, which cover claims up to the end of last year.  Another 9,800 have been on benefits for their drug problems.

Twenty have been signed off because of conjunctivitis, an eye condition that can usually be cleared up within days.

A further 20 have been off work and on benefits with a cough listed as their main illness and 20 more claimants have been suffering from rashes.

Some 1,300 have been claiming incapacity benefit for a decade or more because of diarrhoea and gastro-enteritis.

Malaise and fatigue – something many workers can claim they suffer from – is the main condition listed for 4,390 long-term sickness claimants.

Most of the 885,000 who have been on long-term sickness benefit for a decade or more had not had any contact with the Department for Work and Pensions since signing on.

The department is halfway through reassessing the 1.5million incapacity benefit claimants to see whether they can be moved into work or need extra help.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said: ‘Reform of the broken incapacity benefit system is about saving lives, rather than writing people off to a life on benefits as used to happen.

‘The reassessment of 1.5 million people on incapacity benefit and the work capability assessment we use means we can take account of conditions that change over time. If you can work you will get all the help and support you need to do so.’

He added: ‘These figures show the scale of the problem and the ludicrous situation that used to exist and why we are right to reform the system.’

It has also emerged that a record 3.2million Britons are now claiming Disability Living Allowance – treble the amount only two decades ago.  This is a benefit paid to disabled people because of the extra costs they face, and many who receive it are also working.

Some 33 new claimants are signing on for Disability Living Allowance every day. The shocking figure of 3,226,790 claiming DLA is more than the entire population of Wales, or six times the population of the city of Manchester.

Taxpayers are now shelling out £13.4billion a year for DLA claimants, the same amount as the budget for the Department for Transport.  DLA can be worth up to £131.50 a week depending on the severity of the condition. A care component of up to £77.45 a week can be claimed and a separate mobility payment can be worth up to £54.05.

SOURCE







The nanny state is responsible for all business success

Comment from Australia

President Barack Obama seems to share Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s fairly low opinion of entrepreneurship. In a recent campaign speech, Obama said: ‘If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that – somebody else made that happen.’

As someone with a tendency towards ‘foot in mouth’ disease myself, I’m always reluctant to pick on a somewhat off the cuff comment, but Obama’s statement is extraordinary. The implication that government support is crucial to the success of a business is at odds with basic economic principles. One commenter even described the notion as illogical.

Immediately before decoupling entrepreneurs from their business success, Obama talked about business owners not being smarter or working harder than others, as if business success is the reward for being intelligent or industrious.

Success in business is primarily about ideas and risks – entrepreneurs taking the risk of combining the factors of production to make a new or better product that meets a demand in the market. No one who actually understands business thinks working hard or being smart guarantees success; intelligence and industriousness only increase the chances of your idea making it and your risk paying off.

Obama’s view of business provides a rare insight into the underpinnings of today’s ugly entitlement mentality. If you believe that all businesses owe their success to government (funded by your tax dollars), it’s a short step to believing those businesses owe it to you to hand over their profits (hello, mineral resources rent tax).

That Obama seemingly doesn’t understand (or care) why entrepreneurship is important at least explains one area of contention. It seems the reason why progressives focus on redistributing existing resources rather than ‘growing the pie’ is that they don’t think businesses grow the pie – ‘somebody else’ makes that happen.

I’m glad they cleared that up though – it seems I’ve been wrong in believing that one of the greatest benefits of free society is that it rewards people for their good ideas. Apparently, business success is willed into existence by the sustainable low carbon, organic, government-supported collective hive mind chanting kumbaya.

SOURCE







Muslims are taught to be Insecure and Intolerant

The research and writings of Nicolai Sennels may have crucial, albeit exceptionally controversial and politically incorrect implications for understanding both the likely similarities as well as possible crucial differences between many Muslims and Westerners as far as politics, economics and religion are concerned. It is also important to include these postulations (even if clearly only imperfect generalizations) in any discussion as to how these cultural implications, where relevant, would affect the chances for a Muslim Reformation and the evolution of Islamic moderation.

Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who developed an unorthodox therapy at Sønderbro, theDanish youth prison. He taught the young prisoners about mindfulness meditation and developed a special program on anger management, focusing on teaching criminals with a low understanding of emotions and empathy, how to take responsibility for their own behavior. In 2008, the prisoners of Sønderbro voted the facility as the best prison in Denmark.

Seven out of ten inmates in the Danish youth prisons have immigrant backgrounds, and almost all of them are Muslims. Sennels was threatened by his superiors that if he were to discuss his experiences, he would risk losing his job.

Sennels decided in spite of the evident risks, to publish a book on his experiences, Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist's Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality. Hereafter are selections from his interviews, which may be one-sided, may be hard-hitting, yet do open the door somewhat to issues often ignored:

Sennels: There are many differences between people brought up as Muslims and those who are brought up as Westerners. I identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims. They concern anger, self-confidence, the so-called "locus of control" and identity.

Westerners are brought up to think of anger as a sign of weakness, powerlessness and lack of self-control. "Big dogs don't have to bark," as we say in Denmark. In Muslim culture, anger is seen as a sign of strength. To Muslims, being aggressive is a way of gaining respect. When we see pictures of bearded men hopping up and down and shooting in the air, we should take it for what it is: the local madhouse passing by.

In Western culture, self-confidence is connected with the ability to meet criticism calmly and to respond rationally. We are raised to see people who easily get angry when criticized, as insecure and immature.

In Muslim culture it is the opposite; it is honorable to respond aggressively and to engage in a physical fight in order to scare or force critics to withdraw, even if this results in a prison sentence or even death. They see non-aggressive responses to such threats and violence as a sign of a vulnerability that is to be exploited. They do not interpret a peaceful response as an invitation to enter into a dialogue, diplomacy, intellectual debate, compromise or peaceful coexistence.

"Locus of control" is a term used in psychology, and relates to the way in which people feel that their lives are controlled. In Western culture, we are brought up to have an "inner locus of control,"

meaning that we see our own inner emotions, reactions, decisions and views as the main deciding factor in our lives. There may be outer circumstances that influence our situation, but in the end, it is our own perception of a situation and the way we handle it that decides our future and our state of mind. The "inner locus of control" leads to increased self-responsibility and motivates people to become able to solve their own problems. Muslims are brought up to have an "outer locus of control." Their constant use of the term inshallah ("Allah willing") when talking about the future, as well as the fact that most aspects of their lives are decided by outer traditions and authorities, leaves very little space for individual freedom.

Independent initiatives are often severely punished. This shapes their way of thinking, and means that when things go wrong, it is always the fault of others or the situation. Unfortunately, many Westerners go overboard with their self-responsibility and start to take responsibility for others' behavior as well. The mix of many Westerners being overly forgiving, their flexible attitude, and Muslim self-pity and blame is the psychological crowbar that has opened the West to Islamization (and consequent sympathy towards Shariah Law and Madrassas). Our overly protective welfare system shields immigrants from noticing the consequences of their own behavior and thereby learning from their mistakes and motivating them to improve.

Finally, identity plays a big role when it comes to psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners. Westerners are taught to be open and tolerant toward other cultures, races, religions, etc.

This makes us less critical, impairs our ability to discriminate, and makes our societies open to the influence of other cultural trends and values that may not always be constructive. Muslims, on the other hand, are taught again and again that they are superior, and that all others are so bad that Allah will throw them in hell when they die.

While most Westerners find national and cultural pride embarrassing, Muslim culture's self-glorification achieves the opposite with their culture and identity.

In general, Westerners are taught to be kind, self-assured, self-responsible and tolerant, while Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure and intolerant.

Integration in the West is dependent on motivation and freedom. Immigrants have to want to integrate, be allowed to by their family and friends.

People coming from cultures that are aimed mainly at physical survival, and in which religious practice and adherence to cultural traditions give more social status than having a good education and being self-supporting, usually are not very productive if they can live on the state. If on top of that, they can live in closed communities among others with the same culture and language, there is very little reason for them to get involved in our society. The only solution is to make the lack of integration so impractical and economically non-beneficial that the only attractive choice is to integrate or receive our offer of state-sponsored repatriation.

Through communal fear and coercion, the majority "voluntarily" prefer Sharia to integration.

Handling intellectually demanding jobs in our high-tech societies, it is not easy for people brought up to believe that the Qur'an and Hadith, not school and science, has the answers. Our workplaces demand that the employees are able to take initiative and be creative, difficult among people who are first of all expected to blindly submit and who live in surroundings that punish independent thinking and behavior, sometimes even with death.

Adams' and Maslow's views describe the goals and aims of the Western society as the full development of an individual's potential - this does not apply to Islam or the Muslim tradition. The aim of Islam and Muslims is dominance, not self-realization. Islam and Muslim culture is an aggressive movement, and giving space to female qualities such as sensitivity and empathy would be a hindrance.

Diplomacy, compromise, tolerance, democracy, compassion, sensitivity and empathy have to be locked away both on an internal and external level. On the outside, the oppression of women limits their influence, and their aversion against femininity in the outer world helps Muslims to also repress it inside themselves on the psychological level.

Oppression of women is thus a psychological method of hardening a culture on the outside and people on the inside.

The other reason why Muslims oppress women and female sexuality, is the fact that women are simply stronger when it comes to sex. And it does not work for omnipotent, jealous and insecure Muslim macho-men that they in the most naked and vulnerable situation of all are the weaker party. Muslim men compensate for this by oppressing their women and locking them up in apartments and ugly clumsy garments. In many Muslim societies, a women's ability to enjoy sex is simply destroyed by clitorectomy via a knife or a piece of glass.

True love can only exist on the basis of respect and equality. The emotional and sexual frustration that results from the inequality of the sexes and being forced to marry a partner that one does not love surely contribute to the aggression and emotional immaturity. As one said, "forced marriage is the earthquake and what follows is a tsunami of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, child protection issues, suicide and murder."

Muslim culture's degrading view of non-Muslims functions in the same way as war propaganda. By hearing again and again how evil, disgusting and unworthy the enemy is, empathy is removed, aggression is strengthened, and the step towards harming the perceived enemy becomes smaller.

Islam does not strive for freedom, happiness and love. Islam strives for the submission of Muslims to Allah and of non-Muslims to Muslims - a dark, cold and humorless world where men are forced to mistreat their women and everybody is a slave to a god whose only wish is the enforcement of Sharia down to the very last comma. They do what they can to reach their final solution, and we must do what we can to prevent it from happening.

We in Denmark are worried about the freedom of our women and the future of our children, and about our constitutions. And we know that the first and in many cases also the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims.

Our politicians and media aim for the soft middle in society in order to be reelected and to sell newspapers and ads, and it is therefore up to ordinary people to protect our values, society and constitution and not fear to lose a few politically correct friends on the way.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



30 July, 2012

The Olympic opening ceremony

Below is an email received from an Australian reader

When are you going to say something about the outrageous Olympic Opening Ceremony.  I have to say I hated it and it's PC values more than anything I've watched in recent times.

* tribute to the NHS (Over here we'd have a tribute to the carbon tax probably).

* Mary Poppins kissing a black kid

* Black people dressed up in top hats pretending to be Isambard Kingdom Brunel. (Historical Revisionism at it's best).

* No whites carrying the olympic flag.

* A white woman coming home to her black husband.

* A Pakistani kid dancing with another mixed racial person in the death scene

Why raise this stuff...

Because it is designed to write white Anglo culture out of history and made me feel sick.

And no-one can say anything about it without left leaning fruitcakes throwing out the racism card.




The government is asking Britons to behave like Soviets

I'm married to a former Moscow correspondent. He is incandescent at what he considers the Sovietisation of Britain. Most obvious, during these Olympics, are the Games Lanes: just as in Soviet Russia, the nomenklatura can roar down a specially-designated lane to their destination (be that the women's volley ball finals or the five bedroomed house in Notting Hill); while ordinary people (or peasants) inch their way to and from work through traffic.

We have yet to see what is routine in Moscow (the illicit purchase of fake sirens, which for a small fortune drivers can place on top of their cars, in order to get preferential treatment on the road), but already, the "special lanes" send out a clear message: our time is of no importance; theirs is precious.

Far more sinister, though, is the news that HMRC are trying to encourage our children to snitch on tax-evaders. Setting child against parent is another old trick of the Soviets. It resulted in inter-generational misery, as children programmed to inform on their family were left as orphans when mummy and daddy were banished to the Gulag, suspected of unpatriotic behaviour.

We don't have the Gulag, and Dave doesn't model himself on Stalin (just on Obama, according to US Republicans), but HMRC has set up special modules to teach children as young as 11 about paying their fair share of tax. It also asks:  “What do students think of those who refuse to pay tax or try and defraud the benefits system? Can they think of any example they may have heard of in their local area?”

The revenue doesn't actually spell out, "tell Uncle Joe if you know anyone who's not paying taxes" – but that may be in a forthcoming module. In the meantime, parents everywhere, beware: your little treasure is being taught to spy on you, and hand you over to the authorities.

SOURCE





Half of recipients of British sickness benefit return to work if ruled fit

Ministers have claimed a success for a key plank of their welfare reforms after new figures showed that more than half of claimants who are found to be fit for work go off benefits.

Some 52 per cent of those assessed as able to work under a new medical tests regime do not claim another benefit immediately after receiving their ruling.

An independent report for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) showed that 10 per cent of claimants went back to their old job, while 18 per cent found new employment or began working themselves.

Others retired or were supported by their family – adding up to more than half who no longer claimed state benefits.

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, said the figures were proof that a "significant number" of people who claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) – the main incapacity benefit – are in fact able to work.

The assessments are a key part of the Work Programme introduced by Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, a scheme costing up to £5 billion under which private-sector providers are paid to help the long-term unemployed find work.

More than 2 billion people who previously who previously claimed Incapacity Benefit are gradually being assessed to determine whether they are eligible for ESA.

They have to undertake a Work Capability Assessment which tests their physical fitness as well as their mental skills.

After the tests, some receive unconditional support because they are too unwell to work while others are found not fit to work at the moment, but are given support to "move them towards the workplace" in the future.

The largest group, around 57 per cent, is declared fit for work and therefore is unable to claim any sickness benefit. Anybody in this category who is unemployed is able to claim the less generous Jobseekers Allowance – but the new figures, in a report by the Institute for Employment studies buried on the DWP's website, suggest most people in this category are not doing this.

Mr Grayling said: "Many people claiming Employment and Support Allowance have genuine need for it, but we know there are a significant number of people who are able to work who apply for it as well.

"Our reforms to the incapacity benefit system are vital – it's right that those who are not well enough to work get unconditional support, but those who are able to work should do so.

"Sitting at home on benefits when you're fit to work must not be an option."

The overall aims of welfare reforms are to make work pay and to simplify the current complex mass of different payments in the new universal credit system.

Ministers estimate that around 500,000 people could lose incapacity benefit payments once all have been assessed under their new regime.

Labour introduced the ESA when it was in power – but the party has launched a series of attacks on what it is says is the unfair way the new system is implemented for certain categories of claimant.

SOURCE






Can We Still Call Men Heroes?

If just one man had given his life by throwing himself atop his girlfriend to shield her from bullets in that Aurora, Colo., theater, it would have been cause for amazement. That three apparently did so is deeply affecting. People earn the Medal of Honor for such courage and self-sacrifice in the military. There is no equivalent in ordinary life -- or what should be ordinary life.

Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves all reacted instantaneously when the horror began to unfold at the theater. The mother of Jansen Young, Blunk's girlfriend, said that Blunk, 26, pushed Jansen under the seat. "He was 6-feet-2, in incredible shape ... He pushed her down on the floor and laid on top of her and he died there."

Alex Teves, 24, did the same, pushing his girlfriend, Amanda Lindgren, about whom he was very serious after a year of dating, to the floor to protect her. His aunt told the Daily News: "He pushed her to the floor to save her and he ended up getting a bullet. He was gonna hit the floor himself, but he never made it."

Matt McQuinn, 27, dove in front Samantha Yowler and took three bullets --one to the chest, one to the back and one to the leg. Yowler was hit in the leg as well, but survived.

What makes men such as this?

Just in January, we were treated to the spectacle of men behaving like louts on board the stricken Costa Concordia. In contrast to the chivalrous "women and children first" code that, contra the James Cameron movie, really did characterize the conduct of the men aboard the Titanic, the stories from a shipwreck almost exactly a century later were hardly uplifting. An Australian lady aboard recalled, "We just couldn't believe it -- especially the men, they were worse than the women." A grandmother who was on board agreed, saying, "I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls." A third passenger said, "There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats."

Those are the sorts of men who tend to make the news. We speak so often of men as problems to be solved. They are the vast majority of rampage killers and criminals in general. They abandon their kids at much higher rates than women. They have more traffic accidents and die younger. Boys cause more classroom disruption, have higher rates of learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We have endless complaints about the male sex.

In America, for decades now, we've been focused on promoting and supporting the interests of women and girls. Their job prospects, their classroom participation, their self-esteem, and their needs have dominated the agenda.

That attention to women has had consequences. It hasn't been a good half-century for men. They've become a shrinking minority in colleges and universities; their role in the family has become attenuated; young women are beginning to out earn them; and they've dropped out of the labor force in greater numbers than ever before. In 2007, writes Charles Murray in "Coming Apart," more than a quarter of men (27 percent) without a college degree were failing to earn a living, "more than triple the proportion in 1973."

We've pretty thoroughly devalued the traits that have traditionally been considered manly virtues -- protectiveness, responsibility, courage. In what we like to think of as our highly civilized culture, such traits are regarded as primitive and/or obsolete.

But as studies on family structure demonstrate, men aren't just useful to have around in an emergency. Stopping bullets is not the only thing they are for. When men cease to perform their roles as husbands and fathers (because they've been invited not to by the feminist movement), the result is social decline. Children are clearly worse off when they grow up without a dad at home. Every social pathology is more pronounced in the children of single mothers than in two-parent homes. But women, too, have paid a steep price. Women are not as happy as they used to be. Every year since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked a representative sample of Americans about their happiness. And every year the reported happiness of women has declined.

Though the cultural arbiters have devalued the unique protectiveness of men, it seems that it takes more than a few decades of disrespect to drain the heroism from them. Now seems like a good time to rediscover the other unique virtues of manliness -- it would be a fitting tribute to Blunk, Teves and McQuinn.

SOURCE





Australia:  Racist child welfare  bureaucrats forcing little girl back to neglectful family

Living with foster parents since she was 36 hours old, two-year-old could soon be forced to leave only family she knows

A LITTLE girl cherished by her "mum and dad" has been ordered to leave the only family she knows and live with strangers.

In a few short weeks, bureaucrats will force this loving family to separate, and will break the heart of a girl they are meant to protect.

Since she was 36 hours old, the "little one" has lived with her foster parents, but now, almost three years later, Child Safety Services has ordered she live with her Pacific Island relatives, who were found late last year.

The foster parents, who cannot be named under Queensland law, are fighting to keep their "big brown-eyed girl".

The carers have doted upon the girl since she was abandoned by her birth mother, and when she was 18 months old, Child Safety asked them if they would become permanent guardians.

"(That's when) your whole mindset changes, (you think) she's going to be part of the family for the next 18 years and beyond," the central Queensland foster mum said.

But when the girl was 22 months old, a university student on work experience with Child Safety Services tracked down an aunt in north Queensland - a task that seasoned staff could not achieve.   The family did not know the girl existed.

Child Safety arranged for the girl to meet with her aunt 14 times over several months and then ordered she move in with her on June 1.

The foster parents, who won a stay to keep the girl until a decision is made in September, told The Sunday Mail the girl would be emotionally scarred if she had to leave them, and her life would dramatically change.  "She's so heavily attached (to us). To pull the rug from under her . . . she will feel abandoned," they said.  "We pour all our love into her (and) the only identity is the one we created for her. It's almost like we gave birth to her."

They said they were concerned that the aunt may not be a permanent Australian citizen.

The foster parents, who have two other foster children and their own adult children, said they tried to encourage a relationship with the girl and the aunt's family, but the culture shock and forced overnight visits had proved traumatic.

They said the girl screamed, "No aunty" and had been diagnosed with a separation anxiety disorder. Their GP believes the girl may have been so stressed by the forced contact that she broke out in hives.

They've been told they are in for a tough fight because they are white and the girl's relatives can teach her about her heritage.

The girl's mother, who originally told Child Safety she did not want her family to know about her baby, still does not want a relationship with her daughter. She is not the primary carer for any of her four children.

The foster parent said the aunt told them the girl "belongs to us, to our family".

The Child Protection Act requires a child's security and emotional wellbeing be taken into account, and if possible, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children be with their own. There is no mention of people of Pacific Island heritage.  [But she's black and that's good enough for them]

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



29 July, 2012

Hollywood's War on Chicken

The latest solid proof that Hollywood really can't stand traditional Christianity has arrived in an unfolding boycott of Chick-fil-A, a Georgia-based fast-food chain that's rapidly spreading franchises across America.

Chick-fil-A demonstrates a public faith by closing all its stores on Sundays and on Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's something the left ridicules but something anyone of any faith respects.

It's the company's donations through its WinShape Foundation that have launched the intolerant gay left into action. Chick-fil-A has dared to donate their profits to groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (Horrors!) and the Marriage and Family Foundation (No!).

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that, "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." This man just has to cut it out. Who does he think he is?

But what really infuriated the left was Cathy's comments on a radio show that "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'"

One of Hollywood's first moves came from The Jim Henson Co., the iconic family entertainment group that invented the Muppets. They issued a statement on Facebook proclaiming they were withdrawing any association through kid's-meal toys with the chain. "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors," they declared. "Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-fil-A to GLAAD."

In other words, they're suggesting that they'll be better corporate citizens by giving their Chick-fil-A kiddie-meal money to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a group that fervently seeks to censor all traditional Christians from being allowed to say anything "anti-gay" on television news or entertainment programs. Even the Muppet people are in thrall to speech-squashing political correctness.

Other critics emerged on Twitter. "Chick-fil-A doesn't like gay people? So lame," actor Ed Helms (of "The Hangover" movies) tweeted. "Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan." Several other bold-type Hollywood moralists -- Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian -- also backed a Chick-fil-A boycott.

But few can compare with the undiluted spite of Roseanne Barr, who grabbed all the attention with her death wishes on Twitter: "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ."

This came after she had called them "chick filet- nazi chicken f---ing pricks." She also cracked she was "off to grab a s--it fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran." When people attacked her for saying people "deserved" cancer, she lectured, "Giving (your kids) Cancer from processed fast food is child abuse." To think that this genius just tried to run for president of the United States on the Green Party ticket is mind-boggling.

Chick-fil-A put out a corporate response making the obvious point (at least to their customers) that you will find no disrespect at their restaurants. "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

The statement added, "Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena." That's exactly what Hollywood wants to hear. On the Internet, they photograph themselves with taped mouths and paint "No H8" on their cheeks, but they display more hate and more desire to shut people up than the wackiest of right-wing yahoos.

The left will always go further. Steven Kurlander, a blogger on the Huffington Post "Gay Voices" site, is mastering Orwellian speech: "Chick-fil-A's continued support of anti-gay groups and Cathy's discriminatory comments cross the line of decency." In the 21st century, we're told it's indecent to be a Bible-believing Christian. He added that Chick-fil-A should be banned from taxpayer-supported facilities and should not be allowed to "work with public school children."

Dan Cathy is right. We really are shaking our fist at God. Giving him the finger, too. Do we deserve forgiveness?

SOURCE







DOJ attacks Catholic-owned busniess over religion

William, Paul and James Newland and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who together own Hercules Industries, have no right to conduct their family business in a manner that comports with their Catholic faith.

The federal government can and will compel them to either surrender their business or to engage in activities the Catholic faith teaches are intrinsically immoral.

This is exactly what President Barack Obama's Justice Department told a U.S. district court in a formal filing last week.

Never before has an administration taken such a bold step to strip Americans of the freedom of conscience -- a right for which, over the centuries, many Christian martyrs have laid down their lives, and which our Founding Fathers took great care to protect in a First Amendment that expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion.

As the Founders understood, no government has legitimate authority to take this right away, because it does not come from government. It comes from God. The very purpose of government is to protect this right. A government that seeks to strip it away from the people is by that very process stripping away its own legitimacy.

What we are seeing from the Obama administration today -- in its attack on religious liberty -- is simply evil. When government seeks to compel individuals to act against their consciences and to engage in activities that, if willfully done, would imperil their immortal souls, there is no other word for it.

The Newland family owns and operates Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based corporation that manufactures heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. Through their hard work and dedication, and through their willingness to reinvest their own money in building their family business, they have managed to create jobs for 265 people while exerting a positive influence on the communities they serve.

The Newlands believe the morality the Catholic faith teaches them must animate their lives not only within the walls of the churches they attend, but literally everywhere else, as well -- in the way they deal with their families, their neighbors and, yes, their business.

The Newlands sued to protect their free exercise of religion in this regard because Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a regulation, under the Obamacare law, that requires virtually all health care plans to cover -- without cost-sharing -- sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients.

Under Obamacare, businesses that employ more than 50 people must provide their employees with insurance or pay a penalty, and the required insurance must include the mandated cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients.

At Hercules Industries, the Newlands provide a generous self-insured health-care plan to their employees. It does not cover sterilization, artificial contraception or abortifacients.

"The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils," says the Newlands' lawsuit.

"Consequently, the Newlands believe that it would be immoral and sinful for them to intentionally participate in, pay for, facilitate or otherwise support abortifacient drugs, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling as would be required by the Mandate, through their inclusion in health insurance coverage they offer at Hercules," says the suit.

The Catholic Bishops of the United States endorse this view. At a meeting in Atlanta last month, they unanimously adopted a resolution calling the HHS regulation an "unjust and illegal mandate" and a "violation of personal civil rights." They declared that the regulation created a class of Americans "with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.

"They, too," said the bishops, "face a government mandate to aid in providing 'services' contrary to those values -- whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves -- without even the semblance of an exemption."

In a letter read during Sunday Mass in most dioceses around the country earlier this year, many of the nation's bishops flatly said: "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law."

In response to the Newlands' complaint that ordering them to violate the teachings of the Catholic Church in the way they run their business is a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, the Obama administration told the federal court that a private business has no protection under the First Amendment's free exercise clause -- especially if the business is incorporated.

"The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church," said the Justice Department. "Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer."

"By definition," said the Justice Department, "a secular employer does not engage in any 'exercise of religion.'"

"It is well established that a corporation and its owners are wholly separate entities, and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or its employees," said the Justice Department.

This is just as if the Justice Department were to tell a family owned newspaper that it must publish editorials calling for a confiscatory estate tax, basing its coercion of the newspaper on the supposition (which lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom argue DOJ is by analogy making) that as a for-profit secular and incorporated employer, the paper has no First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

SOURCE





Fury as Polish scrap metal thief caught red-handed is NOT prosecuted because 'he didn't realise it was a crime' in Britain

What happened to "ignorance is no excuse"?

Police are refusing to prosecute a Polish immigrant caught on camera stealing scrap metal, because he didn't realise he was committing a crime.

Businessman George Pasparakis caught the culprit red-handed after fitting CCTV outside Wessex Industrial Doors in Yeovil, Somerset - following a number of raids on the company.

Officers quickly tracked down the thief and he even admitted his actions - but police chiefs decided not to prosecute him, because he claimed taking scrap metal is legal in Poland.

Mr Pasparakis, 37, is 'gobsmacked' by the decision.  He said: 'I’m not sure how bad a crime has to be where you can claim ignorance before they take action.  'We’re so frustrated at what we were told. I was gobsmacked and I think the police officer was too.  'He almost seemed embarrassed. Is Polish law operating in Yeovil?'

The price of scrap metal has skyrocketed in recent years from £80 per skip to between £300 and £400 per skip.

Mr Pasparakis had six skips emptied in the last few months and spent more than £500 on 24-hour CCTV surveillance system.

The company has also spent hundreds of pounds building a large retractable container to protect a skip outside the premises used to store metal off-cuts.

So when the CCTV picked up a good shot of the Polish man and his vehicle in June they thought they would be able to bring a successful prosecution against him.

On the first occasion the thief even brought his young daughter with him.  Mr Pasparakis said: 'The first time he took scrap metal he bought his little girl along.  'We watched on CCTV as she ran around looking bored as emptied the skip. It was dumbfounding.'

But police decided it was not in the 'public interest' to charge the man, who has not been named.

Sergeant Richard Downing said: 'We received two reports of theft from a skip. These incidents were fully investigated.  'A man was arrested and questioned. The man fully admitted the incidents and was unaware it was a crime.  'On consideration it was decided it was not of public interest to prosecute this man.'

A police spokesman added that to prosecute the man they would have to prove there was an intent to commit a crime.

SOURCE





Shopkeeper visited by two British Trading Standards officers and six policemen for refusing to remove Games-themed bunting

A shopkeeper has defied Olympic killjoys who tried to force him to take down his Games-themed bunting.

Hamdy Shahein, who runs Hamdy's News in Stoke Newington, London, had decked out his store with balloons, banners and bunting.

But council killjoys - and six police officers - told him to tear down banners outside his store because it breached LOCOG's strict branding rules.

The newsagent has refused to remove them - leaving his store adorned with national flags of nations competing, the Union Jack and the London Games logo.

The shopkeeper said: 'I told them that if it was breaking the rules then they will have to come and take it down themselves.

Mr Shahein says two Hackney Council trading Standards officers approached him last Saturday, the day the Olympic Torch was set to pass directly outside his shop.

He says they accused him of having unofficial branded products in and outside the shop on Stoke Newington High Street - even though he has a letter informing him he is an official Olympic retailer.

Mr Shahein added: 'I wanted to make the shop look nice for the community.  'But a lady came up to me and almost grabbed my hand. She started shouting, "stop, stop, you can't do this."  'I had no idea why I couldn't have the bunting up.

'People who had started gathering to see the torch come past tried to change her mind and told her I was doing something nice for the community, but it made no difference.'

Mr Shahein, who spent £250 out of his own pocket decorating the shop, continued: 'About an hour later a police van with six policemen stopped outside and the lady came over and said, "that's him."

'They forced me to take down some balloons and flag bunting I'd placed at street level.  'But I told them if they wanted the big banners down, they'd have to do it themselves.  'They haven't been back yet.'

The 60-year-old claims the heavy-handed approach was over the top - and almost forced him to shut up shop for the day in protest.

But locals convinced him to stay open and try to enjoy the celebrations. He has since made a stand, keeping the Olympic bunting up above his shop.

Local solicitor Kristin Heimark believes Mr Shahein was ill-treated.  She said: 'Hamdy is one of the lynchpins of our community. He likes to get in the spirit of things.

'I don't know if people realised when the Olympics laws were passed that it would mean this, and that we would have people from trading standards coming round requiring bunting to be removed.'

Mr Shahein's situation is by no means an isolated incident. Colin Thorne was forced to take Olympic-themed decorations down in the Devon estate agents, Webbers, back in May.

Even London Mayor Boris Johnson has warned of the 'insanity' of overzealous policing of Olympic brands.

Mr Shahein, 60, who is a runner himself having competed in 48 half marathons, said: 'They say I'm selling and displaying unofficial merchandise, but I've got a letter that says I'm an official retailer of Olympic products. I don't sell fakes.

'I told them to educate me, not get heavy handed. 'I've been here 33 years and never known a farce like it.  'I'm a runner myself and love the Olympics. I wanted to celebrate them being in town with the community. 'That's all the bunting was - a celebration. We had no problems putting it up for the Jubilee. 'I won't back down.'

Under the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act and the Trade Marks Act, Trading Standards officers have the power to enforce the removal of products, and have enforced this in Mr Shahein's case.

A Hackney Council spokesman said: 'Offices determined that unofficial Olympic-branded bunting was on display and for sale in the shop and on nearby railings.

'The store manager was asked to remove it and advised to withdraw it from sale on that basis.  'Hackney Council is adhering to LOCOG's guidance on Olympic branding and merchandise.'

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



28 July, 2012

Sabbath



27 July, 2012

British cab drivers being forced by town halls to spy on customers by recording all conversations in their taxis

Town hall bosses have been forcing taxi drivers to record all conversations in their cabs, it emerged last night.

In an alarming extension of the Big Brother state, CCTV and microphones had been installed in all cabs under the control of Southampton City Council – but yesterday the Information Commissioner ordered it to end the policy, claiming that its official snooping had ‘gone too far’.

Southampton began forcing local taxi drivers to record conversations between themselves and passengers in 2009, claiming it would provide greater safety for both parties.

Embarrassing footage is certain to have been captured of passengers worse for wear or making intimate phone calls.

In other parts of the country, including London, it is recommended that cabs either install CCTV systems without audio recording functions due to privacy concerns, or use a system which triggers audio recording only in specific circumstances for a short period, such as if the driver has pressed a panic button.

Southampton’s officials claim they view the footage or download recordings from cabs only if a complaint is made against a driver or when police request it while investigating a crime, and other town halls had been intending to copy the scheme.

However, Information Commissioner Christopher Graham, responding to a  complaint by a passenger, said most people expect privacy in the back of a cab, and that while CCTV can still be used, recording conversations must stop.

He added: ‘By requiring taxi operators to record all conversations and images while the vehicles are in use, Southampton City Council has gone too far.

‘We recognise the council’s desire to ensure the safety of passengers and drivers but this has to be balanced against the degree of privacy that most people would reasonably expect in the back of a taxi.’

Southampton officials said they may challenge the decision. If successful, it would raise the prospect of passengers being snooped upon across the country.

The watchdog also revealed a similar scheme in Oxford would have breached the Data Protection Act, and that the local authority has now suspended the policy.

Nick Pickles, director of the civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘Recording every minute of every passenger’s conversations in taxis is an unjustified and intrusive measure.

'What is deeply concerning is that two councils have made huge errors of judgment in pursuing audio recording in taxis and that is an issue the commissioner needs to urgently address.
Southampton City Council began enforcing taxi drivers to record their passengers - claiming it would protect both parties

Southampton City Council began enforcing taxi drivers to record their passengers - claiming it would protect both parties

Mr Graham said that images should be recorded only where it is ‘clearly justifiable’ while audio recordings should be made only ‘on very rare occasions, for example where there are a high number of serious incidents and where recording is triggered due to a specific threat’.

Jacqui Rayment, Southampton City Council’s deputy leader, said: ‘We are disappointed with this decision, as it is about safety for both the drivers and passengers.

‘Data is encrypted, kept very securely and only downloaded if there is a specific complaint against a driver or if the police request access in order to investigate an alleged offence. We are currently taking legal advice on the next steps to take, including appeal.’

SOURCE




More diversity not a fix for disparity

There's not a shred of evidence that discrimination is behind gross statistical disparities

Walter Williams

Academic intelligentsia, their media, government and corporate enthusiasts worship at the altar of diversity. Despite budget squeezes, universities have created diversity positions, such as director of diversity and inclusion, manager of diversity recruitment, associate dean for diversity, vice president of diversity and perhaps minister of diversity. This is all part of a quest to get college campuses, corporate offices and government agencies to "look like America."

For them, part of looking like America means race proportionality. For example, if blacks are 13 percent of the population, they should be 13 percent of college students and professors, corporate managers and government employees. Law professors, courts and social scientists have long held that gross statistical disparities are evidence of a pattern and practice of discrimination.

Behind this vision is the stupid notion that but for the fact of discrimination, we'd be distributed proportionately by race across incomes, education, occupations and other outcomes.

There's no evidence from anywhere on earth or any time in human history that shows that but for discrimination, there would be proportional representation and an absence of gross statistical disparities, by race, sex, height or any other human characteristic. Nonetheless, much of our thinking, legislation and public policy is based upon proportionality being the norm. Let's run a few gross disparities by you, and you decide whether they represent what the courts call a pattern and practice of discrimination and, if so, what corrective action you would propose.

Jews are not even 1 percent of the world's population and only 3 percent of the U.S. population, but they are 20 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners and 39 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates. That's a gross statistical disparity, but are the Nobel committees discriminating against the rest of us? By the way, in the Weimar Republic, Jews were only 1 percent of the German population, but they were 10 percent of the country's doctors and dentists, 17 percent of its lawyers and a large percentage of its scientific community. Jews won 27 percent of Nobel Prizes won by Germans.

Nearly 80 percent of the players in the National Basketball Association in 2011 were black, and 17 percent were white, but if that disparity is disconcerting, Asians were only 1 percent.

Compounding the racial disparity, the highest-paid NBA players are black. That gross disparity works the other way in the National Hockey League, in which less than 3 percent of the players are black. Blacks are 66 percent of NFL and AFL professional football players, but among the 34 percent of other players, there's not a single Japanese player. Though the percentage of black professional baseball players has fallen to 9 percent, there are gross disparities in achievement. Four out of the five highest career home run hitters were black, and of the eight times more than 100 bases were stolen in a season, all were by blacks.

How does one explain these gross sports disparities? Might it be that the owners of these multibillion-dollar professional basketball, football and baseball teams are pro-black and that those of the NHL and major industries are racists?

There are some other disparities that might bother the diversity people. Asians routinely get the highest scores on the math portion of the SAT, whereas blacks get the lowest. Men are about 50 percent of the population, and so are women, but there's the gross injustice that men are struck by lightning six times as often as women.

The population statistics for South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their population is black. On the other hand, in states such as Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, blacks are overrepresented.

Finally, there's a disparity that might figure heavily in the upcoming presidential election. Twenty-four out of the 43 U.S. presidents have been 5 feet 11 inches or taller, above our population's average height. That is not an outcome that would be expected if there were not voter discrimination based upon height. Mitt Romney is 6 feet 2 inches tall, and Barack Obama is 6 feet 1 inch.

SOURCE





How Jewish anti-Israel activists are gaining influence among Christian groups

At the Pittsburgh General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) earlier this month, a motion to adopt a boycott of three companies for doing business with Israel was hotly debated and narrowly defeated. At this Christian gathering, a group of "young Jewish activists" provided important "testimony" supporting the motion to isolate and demonize Israel.

These were the "Jew-washers" - very visible actors in many such political attacks on Israel, particularly in Christian frameworks. They are influential beyond their actual numbers, providing a convenient means for cleansing such actions from the stains of double standards, demonization and sometimes anti-Semitism against the Jewish state of Israel, and even Judaism itself.

According to one media report from Pittsburgh, "These activists were mostly affiliated with Jewish Voice for Peace, a small but vocal left-wing advocacy coalition that many describe as a 'fringe' group... Commissioners said their personal testimony helped undercut prevailing rhetoric on the mainstream Jewish perspective."

In fact, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is far from the Jewish mainstream. It is a fringe of a fringe - a small anti-Zionist group, whose finances are unclear, but are almost always found at events where Jew-washing is used, particularly when boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns (BDS) are at stake. Their motivations, like their financing, are unclear and irrelevant - the fact that they provide a useful cover for non-Jews to justify gratuitous Israel-bashing is what counts.

A few days after the PCUSA vote, the Church of England met and voted to support a leading anti-Israel activist group, with the misleading name of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme for Palestine and Israel. EAPPI, a World Council of Churches project, supports BDS and - in line with BDS tactics - consistently demonizes Israel using accusations of "apartheid" and "war crimes." EAPPI calls the security barrier - which has saved countless lives - "evil" while ignoring the wave of suicide terrorism that murdered and maimed thousands of Israeli civilians.

In this case, the Jew-washers included the marginal UK group Jews for Justice for Palestinians, which publicly supports EAPPI and the Church's action.

How does Jew-washing work? The EAPPI example is telling. Prior to the Church's vote, the BBC hosted a debate on July 8 between the motion's sponsor, John Dinnon, and a representative of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush. Dinnon said, "Jonathan is just one individual as well as is the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Chief Rabbi. But then you have, there are many Jews who are contacting us and saying that they think [EAPPI] is a good organization. In fact it was founded by Jews and Christians in Geneva, about five Jews were involved in setting it up."

It is in this manner that Jew-washers provide cover for Israel-bashers. Dinnon's undefined "many Jews" and his "five Jews" that he claims helped establish EAPPI somehow outweigh the millions of Jews who would find EAPPI and its activities both immoral and dangerous. Jew-washers help Dinnon make the absurd claim that the Board of Deputies, with its 183 constituent member organizations, are but a few unrepresentative "individuals."

In many cases, Jew-washing is also used to whitewash the blatant theological anti-Semitism that accompanies the church-based BDS attacks on Israel. One example is Sabeel, a Palestinian Christian group that is very influential in those mainline churches active in the BDS wars. Its theology includes supercessionism - a reading of the New Testament that considers the Church to have superseded the Jewish people in God's promises - and deicide - the charge that "the Jews" killed Jesus - that served as the basis for centuries of anti-Jewish persecution.

Giving Sabeel a thorough Jew-wash is JVP's Rabbinical Council, which in its "Statement of Support for the Sabeel Institute" acknowledges "the more radical incarnations (sic) of some of [Sabeel's] theological images."

Yet, Sabeel's frequent denigration of Judaism as "tribal" and "primitive" and comparisons of Palestinians to Jesus on the cross put there by the Israeli government's "crucifixion machine," does not seem to affect JVP's rabbis, who assert that it is "a mistake to dismiss Palestinian Christian theology wholesale."

While the Presbyterians' two-vote defeat of the BDS motion did not give credence to the fringe Jew-washers, many church delegates apparently did. As one participant noted, "The young Jewish voices were the voices that stuck with me..... I understood that they represented a minority. But sometimes small minorities tell us uncomfortable truths."

Perhaps, but small minorities also tell gross untruths. There is nothing heroic or brave about Jews giving a "kosher hechsher" to movements and ideologies such as BDS that seek to undermine the right of the Jewish people to sovereign equality. Let us call this activity by its rightful name: Jew-washing, and give priority to countering strategically and consistently its deceitful methods and destructive intent.

SOURCE






Public discourse, without the 'hard zinger'

by Jeff Jacoby

WILLIAM RASPBERRY, who died of cancer last week at age 76, was a Washington Post columnist for 40 years, 35 of them on the op-ed page. It was a long a career, over the course of which, as he wrote in one of his final columns, he had lost his early appetite for "delivering the hard zinger" and come to value persuasion over polemic.

"I found myself trying to write," he said, "in such a way that people who didn't agree with me might at least hear me." As public discourse grew increasingly shrill, Raspberry worked to understand the views of those he disagreed with.

Fairness didn't mean humorlessness. Some of Raspberry's best -- and funniest -- columns were those recounting his arguments with an imaginary cabdriver, through whom he voiced plausible objections to his own positions.

Often these dealt with touchy subjects. A 2000 column headlined "Separate but Equalizing" opens with the cabby needling his famous columnist passenger -- both of them black -- about how civil rights liberals who once fought for color-blind integration now advocated loudly for color-conscious "diversity." Raspberry tells him that while black institutions in generations past were the product of segregation -- "we started them because white people wouldn't let us in theirs" -- black organizations today, such as the National Association of Black Journalists, were vehicles of minority empowerment.

"Let me see if I get this," Raspberry's cabby says. "If white people start white organizations, that's segregation. If minorities start minority organizations, that's diversity. That it?" Back and forth they tangle, and by the column's end Raspberry has conveyed his stand on a divisive racial issue, while simultaneously making it clear that people of goodwill could see the issue very differently.

One of the lessons a life of opinion-writing had imparted to him, Raspberry observed in 2006, was that "it is entirely possible for you to disagree with me without being, on that account, either a scoundrel or a fool."

But that's a lesson Americans find it harder than ever to grasp. What Raspberry called "the open warfare that now passes as political debate" has grown ubiquitous. Every development must be given a politicized, partisan spin, preferably with an assumption of the other side's bad faith. News cannot break without being instantly deployed as a weapon in the culture war. Forest fires break out, and partisans start sniping over climate change. An oil spill befouls the Gulf Coast, and the talking heads swiftly hurl recriminations about government regulation.

Nothing and no one is immune from exploitation. On Monday evening came word of the death of astronaut/physicist Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. Within an hour, Daily Kos writer Dante Atkins, a Los Angeles Democratic Party Central Committee member, had taken to Twitter to attack US House Speaker John Boehner and the National Organization for Marriage. "Just so everyone knows," Atkins wrote, they "don't think Sally Ride deserved to marry the person she loved." Did she deserve to have news of her passing instantly recycled into political ammunition?

No sooner had the death of NASA astronaut Sally Ride been reported than her memory was being exploited for political ammunition.

The most recent obvious illustration of the rush to politicize tragedy was, of course, the political grandstanding that followed the carnage in Aurora, Colo. Particularly egregious was ABC newsman Brian Ross's slanderous speculation on "Good Morning America" -- on the basis of nothing more than a common name on a website -- that the theater massacre might be the work of a Colorado Tea Party member. Ross's recklessness was inexcusable (and ABC later apologized). But I found it nearly as dismaying that when I heard from five conservative friends about the atrocity in Aurora, the very first words each spoke to me were not an expression of horror or grief, but some version of: "Did you hear what Brian Ross said? The mainstream media is despicable!"

Politics is important. Without the peaceful clash of political ideas in the public realm, our democratic liberties couldn't be sustained. Like anyone who makes a living commenting on public affairs, I understand that our political beliefs and our moral self-image are entwined, often quite emotionally.

But there are limits, or should be. "Sometimes There's Nothing Wrong with Politicizing a Tragedy," Time magazine's Michael Grunwald wrote the other day. But when human sorrow becomes just another reason to impugn the politics of those we disagree with, how are we a better or healthier society? There is more to public dialogue than "delivering the hard zinger." Bill Raspberry understood that. If only more of us did.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



26 July, 2012

Government liquor shops in Canada break the law to pander to Muslims

Three liquor stores recently sold booze to a 14-year-old boy whose identity was hidden because he was wearing a full-length burka and face veil at the time, a Sun News Network exclusive has found.

The teenager, clad in an Islamic female's traditional garb of a burka, headscarf and facial covering, shopped in three different LCBO stores north of Toronto last Wednesday.

In each location, the Grade 8 student paid cash for a bottle of sambuca liqueur.

Ontario's Liquor Licence Act requires that before liquor is sold, government-issued photo ID -- a drivers licence, for example -- must be inspected if the buyer is suspected of being under the legal drinking age of 19.

Under the LCBO's Check 25 program, employees can ask for ID from people who appear under age 25 -- a policy implemented in 1997 to prevent young people who appear older than their actual age from purchasing alcohol.

The stunt was co-ordinated and video recorded by Sun News Network host David Menzies, who has made a career out of lambasting Canada's politically correct institutions.  Menzies said the unopened bottles -- totalling just over $80 -- were promptly taken from the teen.

But Menzies suggested the fact the boy was never asked to uncover his face or show photo identification at multiple store locations reveals a deeply ingrained reluctance on the part of Canadian institutions to challenge cultural practices, even when they conflict with broader societal goals such as preventing underage drinking.

"The reason why you have to unveil is that is photo ID is absolutely useless if you don't see the actual face of the person," Menzies said, adding he came up with the idea after an acquaintance told him he had seen this happen at various LCBO locations.

"They didn't ask for an unveiling, and they didn't even ask for (photo identification) ... You say you're socially responsible, you have the policy codified ... but nobody follows it," Menzies said Monday.

LCBO spokesman Chris Layton said in an e-mail that employees have a responsibility to view customers' faces as part of the age-verification process, and if a customer's face is covered, "Staff are required to ask the customer to remove the covering." 

This includes religious face coverings, as well, Layton later said in a phone interview.  "Maybe we need to remind our staff of their obligations under the Liquor Licence Act," Layton said, insisting the employees may have been trying to be "culturally sensitive" in each situation.

"The last thing we want is minors purchasing alcohol ... That would be something we would certainly want to look into."

In his earlier e-mail, Layton mentioned past examples of customers attempting to buy booze with their faces covered, such as "a customer wearing a full-face helmet," and another wearing a Halloween mask. These customers, however, were told to reveal themselves.

Menzies, long a critic of the LCBO's "monopoly" over liquor sales in the province, attempted to meet with liquor board officials early Monday morning to ask why they were not enforcing their own policy but was sent an e-mail from Layton stating that stores "comply with the requirements of the Liquor License Act," and that they were not interested in discussing the matter on camera.

Menzies added it is ironic the LCBO places a strangle hold on the sale of liquor because it considers it a potentially dangerous and addictive substance, but that a 14-year-old burka-wearing teen can easily purchase booze at three of its stores, on the same day.

SOURCE





Quotas and Political Correctness: The Vice-Presidential Follies of 2012

Two weeks ago, before Matt Drudge roiled the waters by announcing that presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney would name former Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as his Vice-Presidential running mate, quiet news reports began to circulate that Romney was actively seeking a female to run with him on the Republican ticket. The Associated Press reported on July 5th, “Mitt Romney’s wife has confirmed a tidbit about the Vice-Presidential search…he’s considering choosing a woman.” (Drudge may have been reading these tea leaves before making his prediction) Despite speculation that Romney was vetting Kelly Ayotte, the conservative U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, Condi Rice won these mythical sweepstakes based on name recognition.

Despite the Rice boomlet and her expressed disinterest in the position, the fact remains that the Romney camp seems transfixed at the idea of a woman on the ticket. The question remains: Why this scramble for a female running mate? The simple answer is that we are now seeing the ill effects of the 2008 gambits with 20/20 clarity. The historic nature of an African-American candidate heading one national ticket, and a woman holding the Vice-Presidential slot on the other side set an unspoken, but ironclad precedent. From 2008 forward, a national ticket would be deemed illegitimate if a woman or a minority did not occupy one of the two slots, as a candidate for President or Vice-President of the United States.

This shift may be subtle in practice but it contains disturbing portents for the future, as it reflects a sea change in official attitudes on this subject. Traditionally, a Vice-Presidential running mate was nominated with an eye toward providing geographical balance or for shoring up a candidate’s perceived weakness in a particular area. Most Americans of a certain vintage remember Walter Mondale’s 1984 choice of the spectacularly mediocre Geraldine Ferraro as the publicity stunt that it was. Now, little more than a quarter-century later we have arrived at a point where the lords and ladies of political correctness demand a minority set-aside on presidential tickets.

In order to illustrate this new paradigm it is necessary to revisit 2008. From the beginning of the primary season that year most observers knew that the Democrats would set a precedent with an African-American or a woman at the top of the ticket. John Edwards never had a real chance of winning the nomination even before the truth concerning his evening devotions became common knowledge. The Republicans stuck to their formula of nominating a center-rightist, John McCain, who also happened to have compiled an outstanding military record. This stratagem failed with George HW Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996, but no matter. The fact that Senator McCain presented a tired, haggard image and excited no one caused a certain disquiet in GOP circles. The figures who ran the McCain effort decided that their campaign needed a good dollop of energy and zest. They got these things when they nominated Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and they got an initial burst of good press, as well. The mainstream media, however, soon decided that it was more important to elect a left-liberal as President than to give Palin a fair hearing. The comely Governor Palin was quickly ridiculed, vilified, and smeared. Who didn’t see that one coming?

Now we transition to 2012. The post-racial President is going racial. Most Democrats, and their allies in the media are peddling their “GOP is anti-woman” campaign nonsense and some Republicans seem to sense a certain degree of vulnerability. These campaign strategists see Condi Rice as an immunization elixir, simultaneously protecting them from the racism charge and the sexism charge. The fact that Ms. Rice represents no natural electoral bloc matters little to the campaign bean counters. She brings “legitimacy” to the ticket because she is a woman who also happens to be of African-American heritage.

Every Republican candidate since 1976 has been forced to run with the racism and sexism charges thrown in their path. The charge, created by Democratic strategists and advanced by their media allies, has proven to be a tiresome constant in American politics for the last full generation. Some Republican presidential candidates chose to defuse this charge by pandering, while others did not. The defamation didn’t hurt the Party in 1980, ’84, or ’88. Now, however, the world has changed and the GOP is attempting to build a foundation on the shifting sands of popular cultural standards. A national Party ticket containing a woman or a minority candidate is certainly legitimate, while a ticket consisting of two white men is somehow compromised. This explains the Republican enthusiasm for potentially good minority candidates like Senator Marco Rubio, and potentially poor ones like Condi Rice. It also explains the continually baffling Democratic Party love affair with Hillary Clinton.

It remains to be seen in the coming weeks who Mr. Romney will tab as his running mate. If it is a white male we can expect a cascade of booing, jeering and caterwauling from those who now believe that a woman or a minority must have a place on a national ticket. That we find ourselves in this position is disturbing and ominous. We can blame popular culture and big media for our predicament, but we must also remember the fateful decisions our parties made back in 2008.

SOURCE





Evangelical Christians more in tune with African values

The "human rights" campaigners are pissing into the wind if they think they can get Africans to approve of  homosexuals

CHRISTIAN evangelical groups in the US are attempting a "cultural colonisation" of Africa, opening offices to promote attacks on homosexuality and abortion, according to a study by a liberal think tank.

American religious organisations are expanding across the continent, lobbying for conservative policies and laws and fanning homophobia, says the Boston-based Political Research Associates.

The groups include the American Centre for Law and Justice (ACLJ), founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson, which has bases in Kenya and Zimbabwe. "The religious right [in effect] claims human rights activists are neocolonialists out to destroy Africa," the report states. Groups named in it vehemently rejected the claims.

Entitled Colonising African Values: How the US Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa, the study analysed data from seven African countries and employed researchers for several months in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

It identified three organisations it believes are targeting the continent: Robertson's ACLJ, the Catholic group Human Life International and Family Watch International, led by Mormon activist Sharon Slater.

Each "frame their agendas as authentically African, in an effort to brand human rights advocacy as a new colonialism bent on destroying cultural traditions and values", the report says.

In the past five years, the report alleges, all "have launched or expanded Africa-based offices dedicated to promoting their Christian right world view. A loose network of right-wing charismatic Christians called the transformation movement joins them in fanning the flames of the culture wars over homosexuality and abortion by backing prominent African campaigners and political leaders."

SOURCE





“Danish Girls Must Learn to Behave Differently”

Our Danish correspondent Signe sends a summary of the latest news on culturally enriched rape in Denmark:

    "It makes you want to laugh or cry.

    Danish media are overflowing with Utøya memorials today. However, on page 23 in BT the following story surfaces (I’ve translated the salient parts):

        Every other convicted rapist is foreign.  Iraqis, Iranians, Turks and Somalis are dramatically overrepresented in Danish rape verdicts.

        More than every other time that judges in 2010 found a felon guilty of rape, the convict was an immigrant or Danish-born to immigrant parents, reveal the official numbers from Statistics Denmark. Specifically, 32 with Danish background, 27 immigrants and 7 children of immigrants were convicted in 2010.

    Karina Lorentzen from the Socialist People’s Party is shocked and appalled: “It is wildly concerning that immigrants and refugees are so overrepresented […] it would seem that some immigrants have not learned that in Denmark a short summer dress is not an invitation to sex.”

    She offers a socialist solution:

    “It is worth considering if Danish sexual morality should be taught in the course that immigrants and refugees take when they reach Denmark.”

    Adding insult to injury, Karin Helweg-Larsen, senior researcher at the National Institute of Public Health (and also, naturally, a socialist — she is regionally elected for the Red-Green Alliance), explains the numbers thus to BT:

    “Judges might have a subconscious tendency to acquit the fancy Hellerup-boy [Hellerup is a rich town with few immigrants – translator] and convict the young lad from Nørrebro. And Danish girls must learn that they should behave differently in relation to people from different cultures.”

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



25 July, 2012



Despite all the Leftist attempts to crush it, old-fashioned chivalry lives on in America

Would feminists have preferred it if the women had died?  Probably.  They are deranged enough for that

Besides all being in the wrong place at the wrong time on the morning of July 20, Jansen Young, Samantha Yowler and Amanda Lindgren have one other thing in common: each was saved from James Holmes’ murderous rampage by their loving, heroic boyfriends.

Young, Yowler and Lindgren all survived the Batman Movie Massacre this past Friday because their boyfriends jumped on top of them and used their own bodies to shield them from the gunfire. That act of courageousness came at a cost, though, as Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves all wound up losing their own lives in the process.

SOURCE



Effects of homosexual parenting

"It's Time for Mark Regnerus to Get Collectively Dumped," read one online headline. The outrage was in response to a study that Regnerus, a professor in the department of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin, released earlier this summer. His crime? Doing research on the effects of same-sex parenting on children. The shamelessness of the blogosphere's eruption turned outrageous when an activist in New York wrote to the university, accusing Regnerus of "using misinformation in an attempt to hurt others," prompting the university to open an ethics investigation.

Reading the whole of Regnerus' work, one doesn't get the impression he wants to hurt people. As a social scientist, he looks at the evidence. His New Family Structures Study, while supported and welcomed by advocates of traditional marriage, wasn't exactly made to order. Though the study's findings suggest that young-adult children of parents who have been involved in same-sex relationships are may have a heightened susceptibility to emotional and social problems, Regnerus took pains to be fair. "The political take-home message of the NFSS ... is unclear," Regnerus writes.

"On the one hand, the instability detected in the NFSS could translate into a call for extending the relative security afforded by marriage to gay and lesbian couples. On the other hand, it may suggest that (instability) ... is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital" on supporting them, he writes. Sounds more like a scientist than an activist.

But therein lies the reason for the anger this study has roused: The evidence, incomplete and imperfect as it is, points to the stability of a male-female, married model. And that's a threat to certain parties.

The marriage-overhaul movement asserts that there is a scientific consensus that doesn't quite exist. "One argument propelling the judicial activism to redefine marriage is that it makes no difference whether a child is raised by same-sex parents instead of a traditional, married mother and father," Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic-policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, points out.

Obviously, there is not a strong body of research on same-sex parenting, given it's a social experiment in an embryonic stage. Some would like to keep investigation and reflection away from the march of ideology into the lives of children.

The fury this study has elicited from the left hits on a key question: In a culture that claims to so often value tolerance above all other values, do we tolerate non-sexual-revolutionary values when it comes to issues of marriage and family?

This is all part of a trend toward the marginalization of religion that we have seen most notably in the debate over that pernicious Department of Health and Human Services mandate, wherein religious institutions and employers are being told that practicing their faith is illegal if it involves not purchasing or offering insurance plans that include contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drug coverage.

At a time when a trilogy about sadomasochism is all the literary rage, surely there's room for a little love and marriage and the baby carriage" somewhere in our culture? And for asking whether there might be sociological advantages to this approach?

Let's take a deep breath, and really look at some of the most heated rhetoric accusing Catholics or Republicans or a social scientist in Texas of waging a "war on women" or some other kind of supposedly hurtful or hateful cause. These are the questions we should be raising. Do we tolerate questioning the effects of our sexual choices, and even about the purpose of sex, in the public square? Do we care enough about the welfare of children to have a robust scientific, cultural, moral and political debate?

In a recent interview, Elton John talked about his son, born of a surrogate in California and conceived with a donated egg, that he has with his longtime male partner. Said John: "It's going to be heartbreaking for him to grow up and realize he hasn't got a mummy."

Thank you, Sir Elton, for opening a door. Now can we let Professor Regnerus get back to work?

SOURCE




President Obama's Covert Zeal for Abortion

Abraham Lincoln faced a similar problem in 1854 when he spoke of the “covert zeal” of President Franklin Pierce and Sen. Steven A. Douglas for the spread of slavery. These leading Democrats never said they were in favor of slavery. They simply viewed the right of whites to choose slavery for blacks as a “sacred principle of self government.”Lincoln abhorred this subterfuge.

President Obama doesn't talk about abortion much. He famously tried to avoid the question in 2008 when Pastor Rick Warren asked him what rights, if any, unborn children have. "The answer to that question is above my pay grade," he said then. With his strong election victory,Barack Obama was promoted to the office where the buck stops, where such questions demand an answer. His answer has been clear: None. The unborn have no rights at any time, in any context.

President Obama has been the most pro-abortion president in history. That was a distinction not easily won, especially after eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton. They famously said abortion should be "safe,legal and rare." That seemed to be a middle path. But the only place they made abortion rare was in Antarctica. President Clinton sent out the Red Cable to all U.S. Embassies ordering them to press their host countries to make abortion on demand legal and paid for by the state.

Yet, Hillary told Newsweek abortion is "wrong."(October 31, 1994 issue). She only said it once in her entire career. Still,she said it.

Barack Obama has never said that. From his first public office, he has been an advocate for abortion on demand. He led the fight in the Illinois State Senate to deny protection for newborn children who survive abortion attempts. These children are U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. And just as too many states denied "equal protection of the laws" to black Americans under a century of unjust Jim Crow laws, Barack Obama denied protection of Illinois laws to newborns in the Land of Lincoln because they had been targeted for abortion. It is tragically ironic that a disproportionate number of these late term botched abortions are performed on minority women.

As president, Bill Clinton twice vetoed the ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. Elena Kagan strongly urged him to veto the law. President Obama elevated Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This outspoken advocate of Partial-Birth Abortion, not surprisingly, voted to approve Obamacare--the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. We can have little doubt as to how Kagan will rule if the lawsuits filed by dozens of Catholic dioceses make it to the Supreme Court. She is unlikely to surprise and shock any liberal abortion advocates as Chief Justice John Roberts shocked and appalled millions of pro-lifers with his last minute shift of position. For pro-lifers, the shocks and the surprises only come one way with the Supreme Court. Liberal pro-abortion advocates never find one of their own jumping the traces. They vote in lockstep to uphold the Culture of Death.

Like the Clintons, President Obama opposed the ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer described what she saw in a Partial-Birth Abortion. It requires re-reading now: "I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the sci he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."

Just reading about such a horror led pro-choice liberal columnist Richard Cohen to oppose it.

    "...the fact remains that the anti-abortion people are on to something. Late-term abortions may be necessary, but you cannot read about them without feeling diminished as a human being. Something awful has happened, and simply as a matter of principle we ought to be opposed. We ought to say, in short, that this procedure cannot be used--that late-term abortions cannot be permitted at all--unless we absolutely have no choice." ["Reason to Shudder," Washington Post, July 4, 2000].

Cohen said then that people who don't shudder at this nightmare make him shudder. President Obama does not shudder. Nor does Justice Elena Kagan. They have a cool and detached view. To them, the fetus has no rights, ever. And "the right to choose" can mean the right to a dead child.

From his first day in office until now, President Obama has quietly but vigorously pushed the abortion agenda. He records promotional videos for Planned Parenthood. This group kills 340,000 of the more than1,200,000 unborn children killed each year by abortion. Under Obamacare, they will be able to kill millions more.

My Family Research Council colleague, Jeanne Monahan is the Director of FRC's Center for Human Dignity. She has documented the unrelenting push for more abortion here and throughout the world under the Obama administration. Her carefully researched report can be downloaded here.

Another famous pro-choice journalist, Joe Klein, concedes in TIME magazine that ultrasound has changed our understanding of the unborn. It is impossible to deny, he writes, that "that thing in the womb," he writes, "is a human life." From the earliest stages. Joe Klein is haunted. Richard Cohen shudders. We must decide if we shall proceed down the road toward a Culture of Death. That decision is not above our pay grade.

SOURCE




Crime rates in liberal cities shockingly higher than in conservative cities

A few years ago, the Bay Area Center For Voting Research listed the most conservative and most liberal cities in the United States. They did this by looking at how every American city with a population of at least 100,000 voted in the 2004 presidential election. Every vote for George W. Bush was counted as a "conservative" vote, and every vote for John F. Kerry counted as a "liberal" vote. Ballots cast for third party candidates were counted similarly, with votes for the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party nominees counting as "conservative" votes, and votes for the Green Party nominee, the Peace and Freedom Party nominee, and Ralph Nader counting as "liberal" votes.

Cities with more conservative votes than liberal votes are considered conservative cities, and cities with more liberal votes than conservative votes are considered liberal cities. Cities with the highest percentages of conservative votes were deemed the most conservative cities, and cities with the highest percentages of liberal votes were deemed the most liberal cities. Simple enough.

The 15 most conservative and 15 most liberal cities are listed below, along with their violent crime rates.

The 15 most liberal cities in the US:

- Detroit, Michigan - 24 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Gary, Indiana - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Berkeley, California - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Washington, DC - 13 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Oakland, California - 16 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Inglewood, California - 8 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Newark, New Jersey - 11 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Cambridge, Massachusetts - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- San Francisco, California - 7 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Flint, Michigan - 24 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Cleveland, Ohio - 14 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Hartford, Connecticut - 13 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Paterson, New Jersey - 11 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Baltimore, Maryland - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- New Haven, Connecticut - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

The national average is four violent crimes/1,000 residents. Every one of the 15 most liberal cities in the US has a higher violent crime rate than the national average. Twelve of the 15 have a violent crime rate that is at least double the national average. Two of them have a violent crime rate that is six times the national average.

The 15 most conservative cities in the US:

- Provo, Utah - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Lubbock, Texas - 9 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Abilene, Texas - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Hialeah, Florida - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Plano, Texas - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Colorado Springs, Colorado - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Gilbert, Arizona - 1 violent crime/1,000 residents

- Bakersfield, California - 6 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Lafayette, Louisiana - 8 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Orange, California - 1 violent crime/1,000 residents

- Escondido, California - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Allentown, Pennsylvania - 6 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Mesa, Arizona - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Arlington, Texas - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Peoria, Arizona - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

Again, let's note that the national average is four violent crimes per 1,000 residents. You'll notice that eight of the 15 most conservative cities have violent crime rates at or below the national average. Only two of the 15 have violent crime rates that are twice as high as the national average. The most dangerous conservative city (Lubbock, Texas) is safer than all but four of the liberal cities.

So there is a clear correlation here: Cities with a lot of violent crime tend to vote Democratic, while cities with relatively low levels of violent crime tend to vote Republican. But what is behind this discrepancy? Is it that conservative cities have tougher anti-crime laws than liberal cities, which work to deter violent criminals? Is it that conservatives are more likely to be armed than liberals, so cities full of conservative citizens act as a deterrent against violent crime?

Or is it simply that Democratic voters themselves are just more likely to commit violent crimes than Republican voters?

SOURCE

The author is only pretending to be mystified.  Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat and blacks have a huge crime-rate.  The statistics above just show the black influence

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



24 July, 2012

Race, IQ and wealth:  A preliminary reply

In  The American conservative,  Ron Unz has written  what I think is the only plausible attack on the Lynn & Vanhanen thesis that national prosperity is tied to average national IQ.  As he himself remarks, it is amusing that the Leftists who oppose the thesis have never even attempted a dissection of the evidence for it.  A conservative had to do the job for them. 

The person best equipped to reply to Unz is of course Richard Lynn, and I imagine he will do so in due course.  In the meanwhile, however, I hope I may be able to add a few notes that will be helpful towards developing the debate. 

I don't intend to "fisk" what Unz has written  but I cannot help noting my amusement at this statement:  "Greeks and Turks have a bitter history of ethnic and political conflict, [but] modern studies have found them to be genetically almost indistinguishable".  He would be crucified if he said that in Greece!

So for a start, let me say that I adopt a middle way.  I think some IQ differences are important but don't think we can take all the Lynn statistics at face value and generalize from them.  Why?

1). As even Lynn would admit, the sampling underlying most of them is poor to nonexistent.  They are simply what is available and may therefore not be representative.

2). As a libertarian conservative, I see the prevalence of free markets as the key to prosperity so cannot see an overwhelming influence for IQ.  Lynn might argue that smart people create market-dominated societies but there are too many instances of that not happening for that the be a good reply.  Nobody disputes the high IQ of the Chinese and the Russians, for instance, but both are still tyrannies, although now more market-oriented than they were.

3).  The correlation between IQ and prosperity is supposedly .80, which is extraordinarily high.  For comparison, the contribution to IQ from genetics is usually held to be around .60.  I am inclined to think that should set an upper bound for the contribution of IQ to prosperity.  A very clear reason why the Lynn correlation is so high, however, is that it is an "ecological" correlation:  A correlation between sets of pooled data.  Such correlations are often very high and, as such, tend to exaggerate the underlying relationship.

4).  The IQ figure that seems to matter  in national development is not the mean (average) but rather the "smart fraction"  -- i.e. the average IQ of the top 5%.  This may not always track the national mean  -- particularly in societies of mixed ethnicity. 

An outstanding example of that is Israel. The brilliant contribution that Israel makes to knowledge generally (science, technology and even culture) cannot be denied yet Israel has on the latest Israeli army figures an average IQ of only about 100 -- which is typical of Western European societies that have nothing like the per head intellectual productivity of Israel. How come? It is because Israel is ethnically mixed (to put it mildly). The largest slice of the Jewish population came from Muslim lands, where IQs tend to be low, but there is also a substantial Ashkenazi (Western) element in the population that is generally brighter and which, more importantly, creates a smart fraction that is very smart indeed. That very bright smart fraction at the top of Israeli society is what accounts for Israel's outstanding intellectual accomplishments and the high level of Israeli civilization generally.

So it is only insofar as the smart fraction tracks the average IQ that average IQ is important to an understanding of economic development.  It probably does do so in ethnically homogeneous populations but such populations are becoming increasingly rare.

5).  And that leads me on to my next point: I admit to being a latecomer to the study of history but it has nonetheless been the focus of most of my studies for the last 20 years (See here, here  here and here) and one thing that no student of European history can deny is the vast population movements and interminglings that have occurred in Europe for at least the last 2,000 years.   European populations  have been put through such a blender that it is rather a wonder that there are still different languages in Europe.  That being so, I would not expect great differences between the innate abilities of different European nations.   The considerable economic differences observable are therefore attributable to politics:  How market-oriented have their political systems been?

So I would argue that Unz was studying precisely the wrong population subset in looking at predominantly European populations.  If West Germany had not had the Adenauer/Erhardt combination immediately after the war might not Germany now be among the poorer countries of Europe?  The rather dismal East German experience would certainly suggest so.  So I am arguing that it is politics, not IQ, that accounts for differences in prosperity among European nations.

So what IQ differences do I take seriously?  One that I am still  doubtful about is Hispanics.  I long ago challenged the validity of the figures that suggested a lower Hispanic IQ.  It seemed to me that the great civilizational achievements of the pre-conquistador Meso- and South-Americans cast such figures into doubt.  But this study of poor educational progress among Hispanic children is hard to get around. So it is rather interesting that  Unz has pulled out some recent GSS figures that  show Hispanics as having a much higher average IQ than was thought.   But how many Hispanics participate in the GSS survey?  Maybe only the brighter ones.

Another  doubt concerns the poor assimilation of Hispanic youth.  The children of just about any immigrant group that has come to America have usually assimilated completely to the host society.  Your surname may be Krikorian, which means that your parents came from Armenia, but you yourself will be so assimilated that you may even  head an American think-tank.  But such a complete assimilation seems to be missing from the children of Hispanics.  Anyone famililiar with Hispanic gangs will not be surprised to hear that the children of Hispanics born in the USA are highly crime-prone, though not as crime-prone as blacks.  Crime is strongly associated with intelligence (negatively) so this would on face value suggest a low average IQ in the group concerned.  In this case, however, the very fact that most are the children of people who broke the law may account for their criminality.  

In summary, I think the old Scottish verdict of "not proven" is best applied to all claims about Hispanic IQ.  The indicators are conflicting.

One IQ difference that I have no doubt about, however, is the most incendiary and "incorrect" one of all:  The black/white difference.  It is at once multiply replicated and multiply validated.  To put that another way,  it always emerges in any examination of it and blacks behave exactly as you would expect a low IQ group to behave, with appallingly low levels of occupational, economic and educational achievement and appallingly high levels of criminality.  They are so bad at getting what they want by legitimate means that they very frequently resort to crime to get some semblance of what they want.  And that applies not only to African-Americans but also to Africans in Africa, Africans in Britain and Africans everywhere.

And American academics and educators have run themselves ragged trying to get black educational achievement up to white levels. They have tried everything conceivable for many years without success.  IQ and educational achievement are highly correlated but among blacks the IQ required for a high level of educational achievement is usually just not there.




   
How the nationalisation of parenting stoked the British summer riots of 2011

‘We have nationalised child-raising’, claimed Shaun Bailey, head of the charity My Generation, during an autopsy of the riots and looting that swept England in summer 2011. Bailey continued: ‘People think that the government is responsible for their children - that weakens the family structure. One of the worst things as a parent is having nothing to teach your children; one of the worst things as a child is to believe that authority lies outside your parents.’ (1)

Now, I am spontaneously prone to questioning the pronouncements of Big Society worthies such as Shaun Bailey. I have no idea what My Generation actually is; according to the Charity Commission records, it has now ‘ceased to exist’. And it was striking that, having denounced the ‘nationalisation’ of parenting by the state, Bailey’s proposed solutions seemed to involve yet more of the same: for example, that school pupils should be taught about ‘parenting’ from an even earlier age.

But Bailey’s diagnosis of the dangers inherent in eroding parental authority was absolutely spot on. By attempting to ‘nationalise’ childrearing, whether by providing classes to instruct parents in officially approved childrearing methods or by using schools to inculcate children in a heightened awareness of the failings of their mothers and fathers, in recent decades, government parenting policy has stripped parents of their directly authoritative role.

Instead of being the boss of their own homes, parents are situated as mediators in the relationship between the child and the state, and told that their primary responsibility is not to do right by their child but to show that they are doing the right thing according to the current parenting orthodoxy. The effect of this, as Bailey suggested last year, is to disorient both parents and children, as both question the basis for parental authority.

Was this what caused the riots last summer? Not on its own. The behaviour of those young people engaged in the mayhem was profoundly shocking - but so, too, was the response of the adult population, from the middle classes cowering in their living rooms and boasting about that in the press, to the failure of the police to intervene decisively. What underpinned the chaos was the open collapse of adult authority, and this should have provided a wake-up call to our society about the need to grow up and take responsibility for the younger generations.

But the problem of parental authority forms an important part of the generalised crisis of adulthood, and it is worth reflecting on the relationship between the two.
Nationalised parenting and the problem of discipline

My book Standing Up To Supernanny is largely a critique of ‘parent bashing’, where parents are held singlehandedly responsible for everything that might go wrong with their kids, from a decayed tooth to teenage angst, to failure to achieve top grades in their numerous (and increasingly, apparently meaningless) school exams. The widespread acceptance of parental determinism is one of the most limited and cowardly ideas of our time. It seeks to find a simplistic personal cause to every social problem, and has the effect of absolving society at large from doing anything other than nagging parents about how to behave (see: Parental determinism: a most harmful prejudice, by Frank Furedi).

For all the reasons that officials like to bash parents, it was not surprising to see this technique emerge as part of the response to last summer’s riots - for example, in prime minister David Cameron’s opportunistic scapegoating of 120,000 ‘troubled’ families as the cause of the modern malaise. But what was, if anything, worse than the parent-bashing was the outpouring of fatalism that situated ‘poor parenting’ within a comprehensive list of the ills of the modern age.

On 14 August 2011, for example, the Independent claimed that the riots were the product of ‘a perfect storm of school holidays, rising living costs, warm weather, cautious police tactics, rolling TV news and social media, [alongside] deep-seated social and cultural problems, including poverty, failing schools, gangs, joblessness, materialism and poor parenting’.

In some sections of the press, this generalised sense of angst quickly morphed into the idea that the riots were merely an understandable - even tacitly condonable - reaction to the naff consumerism of modern life, economic problems, the behaviour of bankers, and anything else that the liberal intelligentsia might not like about twenty-first-century Britain (including the weather). As such, the more interesting critiques of the problem of contemporary parenting culture were deftly sidelined when they could have been directly addressed and debated.

For example, parent-bashing tends to assume that parents don’t care enough about their kids. Yet evidence of recent decades suggests that, whether they live in leafy Surrey or inner-city Tottenham, parents are putting more time, energy and anxiety into trying to do right by their kids than any previous generation. The problem is that they increasingly seem to lack the authority to mould their kids into an image of responsible adulthood; meaning that when 18-year-olds start having toddler tantrums and trashing their own neighbourhoods, nobody knows quite what to do.

The problem of parental authority in the immediate aftermath of the riots was most clearly expressed in parents’ complaints about how they felt disempowered in their ability to discipline their children. Having been told by social services and other official agencies that the only permissible forms of discipline were those associated with ‘positive parenting’ - in other words, praise and persuasion, which are not forms of discipline at all - they felt helpless to control their kids when their behaviour started to get out of control.

Some, including London mayor Boris Johnson and the Labour MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, have engaged with this problem, and made some welcome arguments as to why restrictions on parents’ disciplinary methods have gone too far and why parents should be able to smack their children when necessary. However, the recognition of the need for parental discipline needs to be underpinned by a broader sense that it is adults who make the rules, and that it is right for them to impose sanctions when things go wrong.

For parents to exercise authority, there has to be a presumption of parental authority. This presumption has been in decline for some time, but it is now becoming clear just how comprehensively it has been eroded by two decades of ‘nationalised’ parenting policy.

The slow demise of adult authority

The anxiety about out-of-control youth is not new. Historians have noted a particular peak in this anxiety in the immediate postwar period, when anxieties about the emergence of the ‘teenager’ developed as a particular law-and-order problem in the form of ‘juvenile delinquency’. John R Gillis’s 1974 book, Youth and History, describes the concerns like this:

‘The notion of a period of life freed from the responsibilities of adulthood was too easily distorted by the more restive members of the younger generation into the frightening image of the rebel without a cause. And if rising rates of delinquency were not enough to give second thoughts, there was also the realisation that even the more benign features of adolescence, including its political passivity and social conformity, mirrored other well-known weaknesses of adult society.’ (2)

Alongside anxieties about delinquent youth, there were also concerns about the decline of the authoritative adult, and the consequences of this for failing to contain problems. For example, John Barron Mays wrote, in his 1961 article about ‘Teenage Culture in Contemporary Britain and Europe’: ‘The majority of those who rebel in this period would, given adequate support and firm but sympathetic leadership, adjust to their growing-up problems in socially acceptable ways. But the failure of older members of the community, especially of parents and educators, to give them adequate support, makes them temporarily easy victims for the illegal promptings of a handful of seriously maladjusted and emotionally disturbed instigators.’ (3)

Even though, in the 1950s, there was a fear that adults weren’t quite up to the job of keeping all the young people in check, there remained a sense that the ‘rebels without a cause’ were a minority who could, and should, be brought under control. Despite the often bleak view of adult society at that time, there was still a clearly understood distinction between adults and children, and a view that adult society needed to sort its own problems out, rather than indulge the lashing-out of its youth.

By the time Christopher Lasch wrote his bleakly prescient 1977 book Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged, the decline of authority within the adult community at large was both mirrored and exacerbated by the erosion of parental authority within the family. Part of this problem, according to Lasch, was the extent to which agencies and cultural influences external to the family were taking on increasing aspects of the socialisation process.

In consequence, argued Lasch: ‘Relations within the family have come to resemble relations in the rest of society. Parents refrain from arbitrarily imposing their wishes on the child, thereby making it clear that authority deserves to be recognised as valid only insofar as it conforms to reason.’ This resulted in a ‘growing gap between discipline and affection’ in the American family at that time, where discipline was outsourced. (4)

Lasch’s argument about the distinctiveness of parental authority from that imposed by other agencies is important to address. For Lasch, it is problematic when the authority of mum and dad appears just like the authority of a teacher, a politician or a boss, in that it has to be earned, and that it can and should be questioned. That is because relations within the family are different from relations within the rest of society. Family relations are implicit, affective, emotional, physical; parental authority is all-encompassing in a way that official diktat never can be.

That is why the phrases ‘I’ll tell your mum’ or ‘wait ’til your father gets home’ have historically had far greater import with children than being given detention at school or told off by a policeman for throwing stones at derelict buildings. Today, though, the phrase ‘you’re not the boss of me’ is as likely to be used in backchat to a mother or father as it is to a teacher. Adult authority has become so diminished that, culturally, no source of authority is assumed to carry weight over younger generations.

Why authoritarianism is no substitute for authority

One consequence of the undermining of parental authority, according to Lasch, is authoritarianism: ‘Law enforcement comes to be seen as the only effective deterrent in a society that no longer knows the difference between right and wrong.’ In contemporary Britain, one clear consequence of the undermining of tacit forms of authority - that of parents, primarily, but also that of adults within the community - has been that the only people who are ‘allowed’ to exercise discipline over children are those who have been specifically charged by the state with this task, and trained accordingly.

So teachers, probation officers, social workers and community co-optees who have undergone Criminal Records Bureau checks and attended certain training courses are presented with a badge of authority, which is supposed to signal that they are to be trusted and that they should be obeyed. Anyone who falls outside the sphere of official regulation - parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, neighbours, family friends, residents of a community - is warned, by a combination of cultural norms and the direct threat of sanction, to hold back.

This has important consequences for the sense of adult authority in general. If parents feel nervous about smacking, or shouting at, their own children, they feel 10 times more nervous about imposing their authority upon other people’s children. In this situation, the need for control over youth is either batted back to the parents, whose ability to do it is constrained by the orthodoxy of ‘positive parenting’, or it is handed over to the authorities, who, it turns out, cannot do the job either.

This latter point was starkly revealed during last summer’s riots, with the collapse of the police. In August 2011, Omar Malik, whose flat was caught up in what The Sunday Times describes as the ‘moral blaze’, called the police twice and the fire brigade three times, in vain. ‘We felt completely abandoned in our hour of need’, he said. When he asked his five-year-old son to draw a picture of the fire, as ‘therapy’, he recalled that, ‘the child drew his burning home with firefighters pointing their hoses in the wrong direction, while police stood by doing nothing’ (4).

The failure experienced by Malik’s family, and indeed by the communities affected by the riots, was not simply the police being too inept to do their job. It was a sense that all adult authority had suddenly disappeared. And if society loses that fundamental sense that the adults are in charge, then you can arm a body of men as much as you like but it won’t be able to contain the problem.

The British police force currently has a number of institutional problems, all of which contribute to its often apparent inability to act effectively; but its paralysis in the face of young people is intrinsically related to the wider anxiety about who is the boss in the adult-child relationship. Police officers, like teachers, social workers and others, are trained according to the idea that young people are supposed to be listened to, negotiated with, flattered and cajoled, but never criticised or forced to behave. So when they don’t behave, all hell breaks loose.

In this regard, the crisis of adult authority today goes far deeper than that described by Christopher Lasch in 1977. He warned that its absence would lead to law enforcement being seen as the ‘only effective deterrent’ to wrongdoing - in fact, when the distinction between right and wrong really does become lost, transgressors do not even consider the possibility that they might be held to account for breaking the law.

This was perhaps best summed up by the much-reported story of the female looter who was caught on a shop’s CCTV camera trying on shoes before she stole them: the surprise was less that she stole the shoes than that she never considered that she would be held to account for doing so. It was previously revealed in the arrogance of some of the students protesting against the education cuts, who did not bother to conceal their identities when causing damage, and were surprised when the cops come knocking at their door.

It should be stressed that the upshot of the police lacking authority over young people is not that we will have a kinder, more humane society. Rather, the inability to act in an authoritative way merely leads the police force to seek blunter technical means of enforcing social control - as with the bizarre discussion about the need to use water cannons and other violent tools in the face of any future riots.

Within the family as well, the erosion of adult authority does not mean that children enjoy more freedom of expression, or that they are raised to become happier beings. As Shaun Bailey said: ‘One of the worst things as a child is to believe that authority lies outside your parents.’ If there is one positive lesson that we can learn from last summer’s riots, it is that the nationalisation of parenting makes everything worse, and that reclaiming our kids would indeed make the world a better place.

SOURCE







What matters most... the right of the Rock Gods to make a racket - or YOUR right to a quiet life?

If a man burst into your house and started painting the walls, you’d throw him out and call the police. You wouldn’t care if he said: ‘But I really like this colour. So should you.’

If a stranger bustled into your kitchen and cooked a meal for you, then ordered you to eat it, you’d think he was mad, even  if he said: ‘But I really like this sort of food. So should you.’

The same would go for anyone who made you watch his choice of TV programme, or compelled you to read the books he liked.

Why is it, then, that some individuals are allowed to force their taste in noise not just on their neighbours, but on thousands of people? Lovers of rock music may think that everyone shares their liking for screeching electric guitar chords, shouted lyrics and a perpetual factory thump. They are mistaken. Millions actively loathe this form of entertainment.

But these days they have to listen to it. It throbs from passing cars. It pervades cinemas.  It is the chosen background of TV advertising and is almost universal in shops. I might add that the USA sometimes uses it as a form of torture, sorry, persuasion, and I can quite see why.

Increasingly, it also howls and roars from city parks. Thanks to a change in the law a few years ago, parks have ceased to be islands of peace and have instead become the frequent location for so-called concerts, often sponsored by local authorities who need all the money they can get to service the huge debts they have run up in 30 years of spendthrift excess.

Those living nearby must, on several nights of the year, endure someone else’s bad taste. You may have planned a peaceful evening or an early night. But you can’t have one, thanks to the monstrous selfishness of the rock cult.

Because of this problem, the authorities have been slowly fumbling towards an attempt to limit the invasion of noise into millions of private night-times.

So it was that last weekend, in London’s Hyde Park, Bruce Springsteen and Sir Paul McCartney, those omnipotent demigods of rock, were – amazingly – compelled to shut up. No doubt there were sighs of joy in thousands of homes nearby.

But the petulant, inconsiderate cult of rock didn’t get it. The audience booed. Members of Springsteen’s band moaned that Britain was a ‘police state’ because the freedom to enjoy peace was – for once – elevated above the freedom to make a loud noise.

London’s populist mayor, Alexander ‘Boris’ Johnson, a supposed conservative, sucked up to the guitar cult. He brayed: ‘If they’d have called me, my answer would have been to jam in the name of the Lord.’

Who then speaks for those who want a quiet life?

SOURCE





A do-gooder fraud

In Afghanistan it's mop-up time. As foreign armies eye the exits, a meeting in San Francisco last week was a different kind of mopping-up for a non-combat force that is likely to remain on the ground in central Asia.

Around the table were seven new directors of the Central Asia Institute, appointed by order of state authorities in Montana, hoping to instil badly needed management and accounting rigour in a multimillion-dollar charity better known globally through the titles of books written by its co-founder Greg Mortenson - Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools.

The mountaineer Mortenson's style and timing were exquisite. He might have remained an obscure and well-meaning aid-worker, were it not for the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001, which turned the world focus on central Asia. But this shy, former trauma nurse's Indiana Jones appeal made him a darling of philanthropists and the military and, very soon, his struggling charity was awash in millions.

Amid rising disillusionment over the war in Afghanistan, Mortenson's stories of schools for girls and his daring-do adventures in making them happen were heart-warming, inspirational - and utterly believable. Such was Mortenson's appeal, he was nominated for the Nobel peace prize. And when he was edged out of the running by Barack Obama, the US President thought it politic to donate $100,000 of his winnings to Mortenson's charity.

A cloud still hangs over the veracity of Mortenson's story telling.

By some accounts, his first published account of his first school project in Pakistan has none of the drama of more breathless subsequent accounts, which tell of him getting lost in the Himalayas while attempting to honour the death of his younger sister by placing her amber necklace atop the forbidding K2 peak - and his promise to reward his local rescuers by building a school in their village.

His tale of holding the hand of the dead Mother Teresa is problematic - apparently he times it three years after her actual death.

Likewise, a Pakistani academic is furious over Mortenson's depiction of his family as a bunch of Taliban fighters who kidnapped him and seemingly would have killed him. The academic says he was Mortenson's guide, his family are village notables and the American was their honoured guest in wild country on the Afghanistan border.

Mortenson's Stones into Schools includes a photograph of the 13 Kalashnikov-wielding Waziri tribesmen who "abducted him"; the academic produces another picture for The Sunday Times in London - Mortenson hamming it up for the cameras as he brandishes his own Kalashnikov.

The cloud remains, because numerous claims of Mortenson presenting fiction as fact and of bending fact to make it sexy have not been tested beyond being outlined in media reports. But the Montana investigation of CAI's financial operations is damning.

Published in April, the investigation paints Mortenson as a plunderer of the donations for schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - spending millions of dollars on charter jets, family holidays and personal items. Overseen by a board of himself and loyal associates, staff who challenged Mortenson's spending were resisted or simply ignored, the report finds.

At a glance, it might be argued that the man, the charity, the books and the schools were all the same project and that a blurring of the finances was inevitable. But the year-long investigation overseen by the Montana Attorney-General, Steve Bullock, suggests a more calculated bilking of the donors.

It reveals a deal worth $3.96 million for CAI to buy Mortenson's books from online dealers, which saw Mortenson benefit by earning his royalty, rather than CAI benefiting through a publisher's discount. And though an agreement was drawn up for Mortenson to donate the equivalent of the royalties he earned on the CAI-purchased books back to the charity, he did not.

Likewise, CAI paid $2 million for charter jets to haul him to some of his hundreds of speaking engagements. But the investigation found that Mortenson was "double-dipping" - while CAI paid for the travel, he pocketed travel fees and honorariums paid by the event organisers. Mortenson was paid as much as $30,000 for speaking fees, only $7500 of which went to the charity.

The investigation also identified more than $75,000 charged as personal items by Mortenson and his family to CAI credit cards, "including LL Bean clothing, iTunes, luggage, luxury accommodation and even vacations". In examining 10 years of CAI credit card activity, the investigation found receipts and support documents for just 38 per cent of the total amounts charged.

As early as 2002 - which, effectively was the first year of the Afghanistan war - the CAI board attempted to strip Mortenson of some of his duties as executive director but, the report says, tension grew and three board members "were effectively ousted".

Similarly, when audits turned up problems, the response was to stop auditing rather than to fix problems.

Bullock effectively sacked the board - and called for the new, expanded membership that gathered for the first time last week. Mortenson was allowed to continue as a paid employee of CAI, but he is banned from voting as a member of the board and he has been ordered to pay back more than $1 million to the charity.

Given that Mortenson is to remain CAI's public face, a letter he has published on the charity's website is disappointing. It points to the Attorney-General's report elsewhere on the CAI website, but at the same time it glosses over its findings, almost as though the author thinks he got away with it.

Mortenson blithely states CAI's one-by-one schools survey is continuing, without acknowledging why it is being undertaken - a charge by the American 60 Minutes program that some of the school projects did not exist.

Of 30 visited by the program, six did not exist. The others either were empty or in use as fodder stores; and had not been funded by CAI for years or had not been built by the charity.

The report reads as a morality tale for Washington. Just as few would doubt Mortenson's altruism, the liberties he took with funds, which donors believed were destined for educational projects, reflect the recklessness of a shabbily managed American venture in Afghanistan.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



23 July, 2012

Think of cost before bringing charges, British prosecutors told

I don't agree with Keir Starmer across the board by any manner of means.  He is well to the Left of me.  But this is the first sign of sanity I have seen from the British CPS in a long while:   Long overdue, if I may say so.  Wasteful and foolish prosecutions have been all too common in recent years.  See the article immediately following this one for a glimpse at the existing robotic mentality

Suspects may in future escape prosecution if lawyers calculate it would be too expensive to bring them to trial.  For the first time Crown prosecutors will be told to consider the cost of bringing home a conviction before they lay charges.

A guide produced by Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer warns that there should be no criminal charges brought when a suspect is likely to face only a light or token punishment.  The new rule, which says that prosecutions should be proportionate, raises the prospect that junior gang members could be let off rather than brought into a complex trial alongside their criminal leaders.

It could also have been used by prosecutors to avoid bringing Chelsea football captain John Terry to court.  Terry was cleared last week of racism over a confrontation on the pitch with Queens Park Rangers player Anton Ferdinand.  But since Terry could have faced a maximum punishment of a £2,500 fine, a prosecutor might have judged that the expense of bringing senior lawyers and large numbers of witnesses to court was too high to justify.

The introduction of the proportion test would be the first major change to the basis on which criminal charges are brought for nearly 90 years. Until now, prosecutors have had to decide whether to bring criminal charges after making two basic decisions.  One is that the case has a better than even chance of resulting in a conviction, and the second is that a prosecution must be in the public interest.

A consultation paper about the new code sent out yesterday said that under the ‘proportionate’ element, prosecutors must consider ‘the cost to the prosecution service and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty.

The draft code added: ‘Cases should be capable of being prosecuted in a way that is consistent with principles of effective case management.  ‘For example, in a case involving multiple offenders, prosecution might be reserved for the key participants in order to avoid excessively long and complex proceedings.’

The rewritten code – which is under consultation until the autumn – will also include new guidance on how the credibility of evidence should be assessed, a ‘streamlined’ approach to deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest, and questions for prosecutors to consider about the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the suspect, and the impact on victims.

Mr Starmer said: ‘Proportionality is about ensuring that we and the police are choosing the right cases to prosecute from the start, and doing so in the most effective way. ‘There may be cases – for example where a court might convict a defendant but decide not to record that conviction by giving an absolute discharge – where police officers or prosecutors might anticipate that a prosecution is not a proportionate way to approach the criminality.’

SOURCE




Six-month ordeal of schoolboy, 15, accused of assault for 'throwing snowball at teen girl'

What is wrong with these cretins?  Their priorities are insane.  Many serious offenders are simply "cautioned" by the police and never see a courtroom

A mother has demanded an apology from the Crown Prosecution Service after her 15-year-old son was put on trial for throwing a snowball in the face of a teenage girl.  The teenager was charged with assault by beating and has been dragged to court five times since the February incident.

His ordeal until only ended on Thursday when magistrates ruled there was no case to answer and threw the case out.

Yesterday, the boy's mother said she was furious at prosecutors for ever bringing the case and denied her son had even thrown the snowball.

The woman, who cannot be identified to protect the anonymity of her son, said: 'The past six months have been a nightmare for my son, with this ridiculous prosecution hanging over him.  'We were so relieved when the magistrates said there was no case to answer but we are angry it ever came to this.

'God only knows how much this prosecution has cost the taxpayer. We've been told it's many thousands of pounds. What a waste of money.

'My son has been treated like a criminal and for what? A snowball that may or may not have been thrown, may or may not have hit a person and in any case was not thrown by him.'

The maximum sentence for an adult convicted of assault by beating is six months in custody, and the Ministry of Justice said the penalty remains the same for youth offenders - although magistrates would be more likely to take account of a defendant's young age and mitigation when sentencing at a youth court.

The teenager was arrested at his home the morning after a teenage girl complained he had thrown a snowball at her at a local recreation area.

The boy's mother, who lives with her family in a village near Leicester, added: 'He's only a young boy and was frightened. He was kept in a cell all day and all night.'  She said her 'jaw dropped' when he was charged with assault by beating and appeared in court the following day.  The court imposed bail conditions which included a 7pm to 7am curfew.

The family attended court sessions on five occasions, including a trial at Loughborough, in March, when the case was adjourned.

At Thursday's Leicester Youth Court hearing, the teenage complainant and two other witnesses gave evidence.

But none could be sure the boy, who had been having a snowball fight with a friend, had targeted the complainant. After listening to the prosecution case, magistrates ruled there was no case to answer.

His mother added: 'The whole thing has been totally stupid.The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should have never sanctioned this prosecution.'  She said she wanted an apology from the CPS.

Speaking after the case, the boy said: 'I just want to put all this behind me now and get on with things. The past six months have been horrible.'

A CPS spokesman said there had been 'clear evidence the complainant had been deliberately targeted and that this was more than just a youthful snowball fight.'

He added: 'The evidence, including two witness statements, pointed to the fact the defendant had made and thrown the snowball and made comments of a hostile nature afterwards.  'This, coupled with the fact that the complainant was recovering from a serious eye injury, meant a court should be asked to judge the case.

'If, however, during a hearing, evidence by witnesses appears to fluctuate from the statements provided, a court can determine there is no case to answer .'

Guidance issued by the Sentencing Council says custodial sentences for juveniles should only be imposed in the most serious cases.

A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: 'The incident was fully investigated and the evidence put before the CPS to decide if charges should be brought.'

In March last year, Dean Smith, 31, of Swadlincote, Derbyshire, was handed a two-week curfew after he admitted assaulting a woman Police Community Support Officer by throwing a snowball.

SOURCE






Olympic Games symbolism is steeped in fundamentalism, militarism and fascism

Guess who began the tradition of the Olympic torch relay?  His initials were A.H.

THE Olympic Games are creepy. Sure, their creepiness isn't immediately apparent. We have grown familiar with the pageantry that surrounds this sporting carnival. But there's more to the Olympics than swimming, shot put and badminton.

The Games are steeped in ritual, all of which is designed to promote an unsettling ideology. They are unlike any other international sporting event. Games officials talk of an Olympic movement, an Olympic spirit, and an Olympic ideal. Its five-ring logo is imbued with a quasi-mystical significance. It even has its own ceremonial calendar: an Olympiad is a period of four years. It's hard not to conclude that the Olympic Games are a religion, and a bizarre religion at that.

The opening ceremony for the 2012 London Olympics is this Friday. The official protocols dictate it will feature a sacred torch, which will carry a sacred flame, which will light a sacred cauldron. The flame is supposed to represent purity - flames come from the sun and are untainted by our material world. When the Olympic torch was lit in a Greek temple in May, there was a ceremony of dancing priestesses and men dressed as heralds performing feats of strength.

The flame ritual will be preceded by a symbolic release of pigeons. An Olympic flag will be raised. A hymn will be sung. There will be oath-taking. These rites are all very purposeful. The founder of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, said its basic idea was to convert athletics into "a religion, a cult [and] an impassioned soaring".

So the entertainments and frills of the opening ceremony obscure just how odd all the Olympic rituals are.

It is really only when totalitarian states host the Games (Berlin 1936, Moscow 1980, and Beijing 2008) that the cultish elements of the Olympics are fully assimilated into the opening ceremony.

For instance, what we call the "parade" of athletes around the ceremony would really be better described as a march. Coubertin was explicit about the militaristic elitism of the Games. He wanted to showcase "an army of sportsmen". Olympic athletes are the peak physical specimens of all the world's nations. They are young, fit and virile. In Coubertin's view, physical perfection was a sign of moral purity. He wanted athletes to devote themselves to sacrifice and an "ideal of a superior life".

No surprise when the Nazis hosted the Games in 1936, Coubertin embraced them. Berlin was the culmination of his life's work. It was the ultimate display of ceremony and strength. Olympic ceremonies still combine a sort of fascist symbolism with Cirque du Soleil-style choreography.

Yet the International Olympic Committee is proud of Coubertin. Our Australian committee even has an award in his honour, handed to the secondary school students who best epitomise the values of the Olympic movement.

No doubt the students don't understand how strange those values are. Presumably they believe the Olympics are focused on peace and global harmony. Because if there is one thing Olympic officials do well, it is soaring speeches about all the good they are doing for the world.

Jacques Rogge, the current Olympic president, told the United Nations in 2007 that "in a world too often torn apart by war, environmental degradation, poverty and disease, we see sport as a calling to serve humanity". An earlier president, Avery Brundage, pronounced in 1968 that "the essence of the Olympic ideal maintains its purity as an oasis where correct human relations and the concepts of moral order still prevail".

Their words are cheap and self-serving. Brundage made his lofty claim just five days after the Tlatelolco massacre, where the Mexican government killed dozens of students protesting the Mexico City Games. Rogge gave his speech in the lead-up to the Beijing Olympics, described recently by the dissident Ai Weiwei as nothing more than propaganda for the Chinese Communist Party.

Their words are so cheap that in 1995 the Olympic committee even tossed "sustainability" into their charter. Not content with saving humanity, they wish to save the planet. It's not clear how flying 10,000 athletes around the world every four years will achieve that goal. The sustainability platform is almost like a deliberate joke. And it reveals just how vacuous the Olympic ideal really is.

The Olympics do nothing to achieve global harmony. They arguably work against it. If harmony was the goal, athletes would compete as individuals, not on behalf of nations.

Do the Olympic ideologists honestly believe the nonsense they spout? The Games are a taxpayer-funded cash cow for all involved, and that's probably motive enough for many. Yet Olympism offers a sense of mission. It's not like the World Cup or the Commonwealth Games. The Olympics is a cause. It is a full-blown belief system.

Rogge said in his UN speech he wanted to place "sport at the service of mankind". Maybe he does. But right now, sport is serving the weird ideology of the Olympics much more than humanity.

SOURCE





Australia: 'Dangerous' NSW mum wins back stolen kids

It's appalling that a mere opinion can lead to such punitive official action

ROBBED of her beloved kids and branded a "dangerous" mum, a NSW woman has spoken of her joy of being reunited with her daughter after nine years of separation.

For 19-years, the mother struggled to keep her family together as childcare authorities were hellbent on tearing them apart.

But her courage and conviction has finally won. The baby "stolen" from her 23 days after she entered the world in 2002 is safely by her side.

The youngster has spent her life in foster care after childcare authorities believed the mum suffered from the discredited condition known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy in 1993.

"I've been waiting 10 years to bring my baby home," said the elated mum, who has requested not to be identified for the childrens' sake. She was labelled with the condition, in which mothers harm and even kill their children to gain attention, after her second-born son failed to thrive. Her next two children were removed as well.

Community Services Minister Pru Goward told The Sunday Telegraph she was pleased the matter had been resolved, but has demanded an explanation from her department.

"This will help my understanding of the events which led to the removal of these children," said Ms Goward, who made representations on the mother's part when she was in opposition.

With three children removed between 1993 and 2002, the woman went on the run to give birth to a son in December 2003 to avoid detection. Authorities made the child a ward of the state in her absence and when she was tracked down in October 2008 in Moree, they removed the boy who was then four.

After an 18-month court battle, the boy was returned to his mother in April 2010 and has lived with her ever since.

The two older children are grown up and no longer wards of the state. Her nine-year-old daughter had expressed wishes to be returned to her real mother and after her foster carer relinquished care, the child was returned.

"She gets in bed with me in the morning and says: 'I'm so happy', it's just beautiful',' the woman said.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy was coined by British paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow.

It was discredited in 2003 after Meadows' evidence wrongly jailed three women for murder.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



22 July, 2012

The Precipitous Decline Of Christian England

A British hotel replaces the in-room Gideon Bibles with copies of Fifty Shades of Grey (aka Mommy porn). A Christian organization is banned by the Advertising Standards Authority from announcing that God can heal sickness today. And a recent poll indicates that only 37% of people in England say they have always believed in God, as opposed to 81% of Americans. Christian England, what has become of you?

The hotel in question was the Damson Dene Hotel in Cumbria, Northwest England, and the idea to replace the Bibles with the racy novel came earlier this month from Wayne Bartholomew, general manager of the hotel and “reportedly a choir member at his local church.” (One wonders what kind of church Mr. Bartholomew attends.)

But that is just one hotel, and there was some outrage over the general manager’s decision. What happened to a Christian group in Bath England in February was far more telling. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a ministry named Healing on the Streets Bath from announcing on its website and in leaflets that God can heal today, ruling that “this is a ‘misleading’ ad which could sow ‘false hope’ amongst sections of the public.” And the ASA made this decision despite the fact that the message of healing in Jesus’ name is as old as the Gospels while the group simply offered to pray for sick people without making any guarantees. (Saying “can” is different than saying “will.”)

Cutting-edge columnist Brendan O'Neill could not resist taking a swipe at the ASA’s ban, writing, “The ASA has been itching to ban the words ‘God heals’ for quite a while. Last June, it rapped the knuckles of a church in Nottingham for putting up a poster that said ‘God can heal you today!’ after the church was grassed up to the ASA by some snitch in Nottingham’s Secular Society. And now it has actually banned a Christian group from proselytising about God’s healing powers. What next? Should we ban groups from declaring that ‘Jesus loves you!’, considering that is probably also technically untrue and could promote ‘false hope’?”

Not to be outdone, in June, “Three church groups [were] suspended from preaching at a secondary school after a leaflet containing homophobic scripture was delivered to homes in Walthamstow.”

In other words, because the leaflets contained a Bible verse that spoke against homosexual practice (part of a list of ten sinful behaviors in the verse; see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), they were suspended from using a public school for their meetings. (It should also be noted that the verse was one of several on the leaflet, and homosexual practice was absolutely not the focus of the leaflet.)

Remarkably, all three church groups denied distributing the leaflets, with one theory being that it was the work of a “rogue parishioner.” The spokesman for one of the church groups stated that, “It is ill advised to put that sort of thing on a leaflet and we would certainly never do it,” while a local atheist who received the leaflet said, “People who preach this sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a school.” Perhaps verses like this should just be cut out of the Bible to avoid all offense?

And then there was the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, a Christian couple in their 60’s who had cared for 15 foster children in the past. Last year, England’s High Court ruled that they could no longer take in children after a gay activist organization brought a complaint against them, concerned that kids in their care could be “infected” with Christianity.

As Eunice Johns explained, “All we wanted to do was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents, but because we are Christians with mainstream views on sexual ethics, we are apparently unsuitable as foster parents.”

In May, the courts again ruled that the Johns’ could not provide care for a 16th child. As Eunice stated, “The judges have suggested that our views might harm children.” (She had previously told a social worker who pressed her about her faith that she would provide love and care for a child who identified as homosexual but would not tell the child that homosexuality was “okay.”) She continued, “We have been told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that our moral views may ‘infect’ a child. We do not believe that this is so.”

Ironically, the initial court ruling against the Johns’ came down just weeks after magazine covers around the world breathlessly announced the news that Elton John and his partner David Furnish now had a baby boy, all of which leads me to ask: Christian England, home of men like John Bunyan, John Wesley, William Wilberforce, G. K. Chesterton, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis, home of cities named Christ Church and of once-Christian universities like Oxford and Cambridge, what has become of you?

SOURCE






Feminism betraying modern British middle-class  women

The career devotees are finding that they have missed the boat.  The old saying: "You must be young and beautiful if you want to be loved"  (originally a 1920s advertising jingle, I think) is not the whole truth but women ignore it at their peril

I can't afford to have sex at the moment," says Lysette Peters, a 43-year-old part-time barrister, who recently broke up with her 54-year-old banker boyfriend. "He wanted a lifestyle I couldn't keep up with financially, given the recession."

Another woman I know, who at 39 still has curves that would have a bishop kicking through a stained-glass window, has been celibate for six months, because, as she told me bluntly: "Right now, it's too expensive to run a lover. It's not just the cost of maintaining your appearance, but men these days seem to expect you to pay half of everything."

There was a time when shiny women south of 30 with independent means possessed the holy grail of a thousand magazine articles – a Prada handbag, an address in an agreeable part of the metropolis (forsaken for Italy in August and Les Arcs in January) and a lover who ornamented their lives, despite the concomitant outlay on lingerie and beauty salons. Now, however, austerity and unemployment are compelling an increasing number of middle-class women to choose between their lifestyles and the ars amatoria, and many are opting for what would once have been unthinkable: no sex and the city.

According to a recent study by the Cumbria Social Institute, the number of single women between the ages of 35 and 50 has increased by seven per cent in the past two years. And it would appear that a steady boyfriend, has, to many, become a luxury they can't afford.

Dr Angela Hutton, who compiled the report, says: "One of the factors is undoubtedly financial. Women are having to prioritise, and the mortgage and the car – as well as taking care of dependants – are taking precedence over men, who are increasingly falling into the luxury category."

It is a truth universally acknowledged that women heavily outnumber men in the dating arena; and the male sex is taking financial advantage of the fact.

As the cost of living escalates, so it seems, has the cost of loving, at least for the more mature woman. While older men remain willing to prise open their chequebooks for a 25-year-old whose alabaster complexion would grace the yacht of any concupiscent billionaire, an increasing number are ignoring the traditional etiquette of courting when it comes to women over the age of 35.

Gallantry is in retreat, buckling under the forces of recession, spurious excuses of equality – and the assumption that such women are in no position to protest, if they want to find themselves in an agreeable position in the boudoir. Michael Glass, a 50-year-old Scottish hedge funder, confirms that Cupid's arsenal of arrows has been subject to age-sensitive cuts.

"While I would happily spend money on a real babe, over whom other men are competing, I don't feel the need to do the same with an older woman who is probably desperate," he says. "Many of my friends feel the same. They'll ask such a woman to pay her share."

A recently married male friend who, at 49, has a small production company, made it clear while dating potential partners that women who were unable or unprepared to spend need not apply. "Part of my wife's attraction was her executive salary and her willingness to foot the bill," he says. "I earn, but in a recession I wasn't prepared to throw my money about as I had on previous girlfriends."

It seems that the economic downturn has left chivalry in tattered clothing. Dr Alfred Kinsey, the fabled American sex researcher, concluded in the first study of human sexual behaviour in 1948 that there was a correlation between inflation and sexual activity. High prices and low earnings, he concluded, led to "an increase in celibacy".

Contemporary females, woefully, are finding this to be the case. "The last two men I went out with would have bankrupted me," says Eliza Budsworth, a 42-year-old television researcher. "The first was a 50-year-old barrister who had extremely expensive tastes and in the end I couldn't pay half the bill in all the five-star hotels we always stayed at." She calculated that the cost of sustaining a relationship with him for a year would have been around £17,000.

Her second beau, a 46-year-old author, implied that she was lucky to have him, and: "He wasn't going to spend money on me."

The sexual see-saw has upended and a transference of power has occurred. While younger men, with the insecurities of youth, may still feel the need to wine and dine women in the traditional manner, the confident older man, providing he has the normal complement of limbs, feels himself to be an Alcibiades reborn, to whom women should pay financial as well as sexual homage. "It was increasingly impressed upon me," says Lysette Peters, "that my bank balance was the strongest hold I had over men."

In essence, many-splendoured romance has been replaced by something cold and glittering that is more akin to a business merger. And if you are a woman who can't afford to splurge, any sort of merger is becoming increasingly unlikely. Dorothy Parker once wrote:

Why is it no one ever sent me yet

One perfect limousine, do

you suppose?

Ah no, it's always just my

luck to get

One perfect rose

Today, many women would be lucky to receive even the rose without an invoice for half its cost tied to the stem.

Jane Morrow, a London psychiatrist, told me that many of her older female patients suffer from depression because "they feel that not only are men taking advantage financially, but in this competitive environment, with younger women a continuous threat, they worry they can't afford to maintain that groomed and perfect look that is their one advantage.

"Three months ago one of my patients lost her job. Her chief concern seemed to be that her fiancée would drop her because she could no longer afford designer clothes and weekly trips to the beauty salon and hairdresser."

Today, A-list men expect their female peers not only to pay as they date, but to look as pristine as a Clichy crystal. This involves a considerable outlay, rising as we grow older. Jennifer Ames, an accountant who was made redundant last November, was forced to give up her gym membership, her visits to Knightsbridge boutiques and her weekly pedicures and facials. "I'm only 39 and I've always taken care of myself, but then my boyfriend started to complain I was looking drab, and one week, when I couldn't afford to have my legs waxed, he just went off me."

She later found out that he had acquired a new girlfriend, aged 25. The sexual value of youth remains a recession-proof commodity. "To tell you the truth," conceded a male friend of mine, "I'd be prepared to invest a lot of money on a woman under 30. There's more mileage there and you feel good having her on your arm. Why would I spend money to have a 40-year-old middle-ranking executive on my arm instead? And if she is on my arm, she'd better pull her weight financially."

Even though the average female salary in the UK is a third less than the average male salary, women are told that going Dutch is the logical outcome of feminism. One woman I know who protested when her date, who had done all the romantic running, asked her to pay her half of the bill at an expensive London restaurant, received the response: "Do you want to go back in time and be some submissive little housewife?" Another was told, under similar circumstances, that her attitude "lacked modernity".

The celluloid sex symbol Lana Turner was once asked, apropos her financially draining hubby Bob Topping, "is the screwing you're getting worth the screwing you're getting?" Marie Harvard, a relationships counsellor, says: "These days, money as much as infidelity is causing discord between couples. Men are making financial demands on women that they weren't 10 years ago. This is partly due to the economy, but friction arises when women can't meet these demands or don't want to."

For an increasing number of women, the answer is no. Eliza Budsworth says: "I had the chance of a romantic weekend in Venice last month but the man who asked me wanted half the hotel bill up front, and so that was that. In any case, that sort of attitude doesn't really sweep you off your feet. I know I'm not this year's top model, but if men who aren't exactly George Clooney are only willing to be generous with 23-year-old sexpots, they're also the long-term losers."

Yet nubile females are always unsafe bets for men with the passions of Romeo in the bodies of Sir Toby Belch. This is where the modern male is making his fatal mistake. Once, wining and dining grown-up members of my sex were willing to overlook men's imperfections in search of a committed relationship. This gave men a certain sexual power, even if it came tinged with gratitude. No longer.

In a development that is ominous for both sexes, more and more women are shunning men who require them to look like Sarah Jessica Parker and meekly pony up half the bill. Sally Hughes, an attractive 41-year-old doctor, faced a choice this summer. "I could either go to France and chill with old friends, or spend money I haven't got and go to Italy with a man who expects me to be super-groomed and financially independent. The first cost £800. The latter around £3,000." She decided on old friends and celibacy.

For many women in her position, this choice is looking increasingly attractive. The cost of loving has become too high.

SOURCE





A Wakeup call for the young

Hey kids, wake up! Stop playing your X-Box while listening to your Facebooks on the iPod and wearing your iPad with the cap turned backwards with the droopy pants and the bikini underwear listening to Snoopy Poopy Poop Dogg and the Enema Man and all that!

Take a break from getting yet another tattoo on your ass bone or your nipples pierced already! And STFU about the 1 Percent vs. the 99 Percent!

You're not getting screwed by billionaires and plutocrats. You're getting screwed by Mom and Dad.

Systematically and in all sorts of ways. Old people are doing everything possible to rob you of your money, your future, your dignity, and your freedom.

Here's the irony, too (in a sort of Alanis Morissette sense): You're getting hosed by the very same group that 45 years ago was bitching and moaning about "the generation gap" and how their parents just didn't understand what really mattered in life.

Hence, many of the early pop anthems of the baby boomers - technically, those born between 1946 and 1964 but or all intents and purposes folks 55 years and older - focused on how stupid old people were ("don't criticize what you can't understand") and how young people would rather croak themselves then end up like their parents ("I hope I die before I get old"). "We are stardust, we are golden," sang Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young at Woodstock. "We got to get ourselves back to the garden." Flash forward four or five decades, a couple of hundred pounds, the odd organ transplant, random arrests and jail stints, and the only garden David Crosby is getting back to is the Olive Garden with its unlimited pasta bowls and breadsticks. What small parts of American life and power the boomers don't yet run they will soon enough.

Did you read that New York Times op-ed that called for a brand-spankin' new military draft and national service plan? "Let's Draft Our Kids," by veteran (read: old, born in 1955) journalist Thomas Ricks, is symptomatic of the new vibe, a kind of reverse Logan's Run scenario. In that godawful 1976 flick, when you turned 30, you were killed for the common good. Nowadays, it's more like life begins at 30. Which is confusing because 40 is the new 30 and 50 is the new 40 and on and on. The important thing: Youth is no longer to be wasted on the young.

Ricks suggests letting high-school grads pick from either 18 months of military service or two years of civilian service, in return for free college tuition and subsidized health care and mortgages (libertarians, he notes, could opt out of service by forfeiting benefits though apparently not avoiding taxes). Beyond all the obviously great and good and wonderful things that come of forced labor, Ricks suggests that "having a draft might...make Americans think more carefully before going to war." Sure it would. Just like it did in the past when we actually had a draft.

Expect this sort of plan to get more and more respectful hearings if unemployment stays high for another few weeks. Or as former hippies and punks get up there in years. Last year, during an appearance I had on Real Time with Bill Maher, the host and other guests (all of us well north of 30) thought mandatory service was a fine notion. Back in the 1980s and '90s, national service was a pet project of folks such as Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) and right-wing icon Bill Buckley (who wrote a book, Gratitude, on the topic).

Oddly, back in the actual 1960s, one of the few things that hippies and Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan could all agree on was that conscription was a really bad thing. For god's sake, Richard Nixon created a commission to end the draft. But that was then, and this is now.

And right now, old people are not going gentle into that good night. They know they're going to need younger people to change their diapers and pay their bills for them, literally and figuratively. As Hillary Clinton put it in 1999, nobody's going to do that if they have any option not to. Speaking to a National Education Association meeting, she explained one of the great benefits of old-age entitlements was that they meant you didn't have to live with your goddamn parents.

"In a very real sense," she said, "Medicare and Social Security say to our older people: We're going to help you remain independent ... We're going to free up the resources that might otherwise have to come directly to you from your family, so that they can do what you did--raise the next generation, send their children to college, hold down the jobs that enable them to move forward."

You got that? The author of It Takes a Village, a paean to the intricate bonds across and among generations, thinks one of the great selling points of Social Security is that it means you don't have to make room for granddaddy. Goddammit, we need that room for a home office! "There would be many families who would have to choose between supporting a parent--an elderly parent--and sending a child to college." She mused, "That would cause a lot of difficult decisions in our lives, wouldn't it?" Yes, it would, so it makes sense to give old people enough of other people's money so you don't have to see them except on holidays.

As a point of fact, retirees aren't particularly "independent" if they rely on tax dollars for income, are they? But here's the real rub, kids: You're getting screwed by Social Security, a program that is now more sacrosanct to aging boomers than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. You're paying more into the system than you're ever going to get out. No wonder it's mandatory. C. Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane put out a study for the Urban Institute last summer that should have caused far more riots than anything that happened at Zuccotti Park. They document that folks making average wages who retired in 2010 will get a raw deal over the coming decades. The deal will only get worse if you retire in, say, 2030. Read it and weep, kids, and don't believe it when old people who are either already on Social Security or about to join that club tell you it's part of a generational bargain that can't be changed even if retirees are totally wealthy compared to you.

Indeed, be wary of folks telling you that means-testing old-age entitlements is insulting and un-American. Because the fact of the matter is that between 1984 and 2009, the only households that did well are those headed by people 55 years or older. Fact is, you're coughing up 12.4 percent of your compensation for a system that will give you less money than you gave it. And that's assuming the system is still around in recognizable form when you're ready for retirement. On top of that negative return, expect to read more articles like this one by Spy co-creator Kurt Anderson (b. 1954) in which the one-time snark-meister bemoans the fact that the 1960s made us "all shamelessly selfish." Huh? Who's we, kemo sabe? Those of us either too young or too unborn to remember the '60s aren't being selfish if we call attention to a system that loots the relatively young and relatively poor to give money to the relatively old and relatively rich. We're being fair.

 So kiddos, you're getting screwed by old people who expect you to maintain a system that benefits them at your expense, regardless of their needs or yours. Thanks, Mom and Dad! And we just might be in the early stages of a bring-back-the-draft-movement, where you would get to choose between painting military barracks for 18 months or sharpening a teacher's pencils for two years.

Then chew on this: One of the primary ways that President Obama (born 1961) is making the so-called Affordable Care Act affordable is by having you foot more than your share of the bill.

Think it through for a moment, especially given that younger voters seem to really dig him. The younger you are, the less likely you are to need health care, much less insurance (there is a difference). The smart move for most generally healthy younger people is to take out a catastrophic coverage plan that would cover you in the event of a big accident. Thanks to Obamacare, you've got to get covered, either by your parents' plan or otherwise. The predictable result is that plans for younger people are getting more expensive precisely at the moment they are required by law (finally, a case where correlation meets causation!). That all plans are going to have to conform to higher-than-before benefit schedules ain't helping things either. Some colleges are dropping student plans as a result.

And just wait until those price-capped government-run health-care exchanges finally get set up. By law, the exchanges can't charge their oldest beneficiaries more than three times what they charge their youngest beneficiaries. That's despite the actuarial reality that the older group costs insurers six times as much. So you're helping balance the books there, too. Welcome to community rating, kids.

Another way you're helping balance the books: It'll be your future earnings that will pay the taxes to cover the massive amount of debt that local, state, and federal governments have rung up over the past few decades. Even before the Great Recession, the feds were spending like a drunken sailor (no disrespect to drunken sailors). Nowadays, the feds are borrowing something like 40 cents of every dollar they're spending. That bill is going to come due eventually and when it does, the people who spent it will be long dead. And so will the economy, suffering from a "debt hangover" that all the Advil in the world won't help. We're getting perilously close to the debt-to-GDP ratios that economists Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff say will significantly retard economic growth for an average of 23 years.

It should go without saying that it doesn't have to be this way. And don't buy into the idea that the way things are is just part of the circle of life. You're the mark here, the chump who's believing in Bernie Madoff even after the grift has been revealed. There's not going to be a bigger idiot to come along and keep the pyramid scheme alive. You can tell yourself that this is all part of living in a society, that's it for the common good, that there's simply no way a class of people with only 45 times the amount of household income as you do can get by without you sacrificing so much. But you're kidding yourself, kiddo.

 More to the point: Older generations don't need to mop up all the gravy from their kids' bowls. Those of them who can afford to should pay their own way and, in a generational exchange observed for hundreds of generations, could even leave things for their heirs (this is impossible with Social Security, of course). The days when being old universally meant being poor or sick are thankfully behind us and old-age entitlements should change to reflect that reality. We can help the truly needy among us without creating a system in which young people's already small incomes and savings are reduced further to prop up the relatively plush living standards of older Americans (read the cover story of the August-September issue of Reason, not yet online). The young shouldn't be sacrificed to the real and imagined needs of the old.

The one thing I know for damn sure as a parent and a late-era boomer (b. 1963) is that I would never want to charge my existence onto my kids' credit card. If that means we need to start living within our means as a society, that's not really a tough call, is it?

SOURCE




Tyrants and Human Nature

    Walter E. Williams

The agendas of liberals, progressives and assorted tyrants desperately depend on the aspects of human nature they often condemn, such as acquisitiveness, profit motive, self-interestedness and greed. This crossed my mind while reading "How Departures From Economic Freedom Can Affect Freedom In General," by Dr. John Taylor, a Hoover Institution scholar. Taylor tells how former Wells Fargo CEO Dick Kovacevich was forced to take Troubled Asset Relief Program funds even though Wells Fargo did not need or want the funds. Kovacevich was threatened that if he did not accept TARP money, regulators would declare his bank capital-deficient even though Wells Fargo had a triple-A rating. At the time, October 2008, Wells Fargo was in the process of acquiring Wachovia, and to be declared capital-deficient would have killed the deal. U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke could rely on acquisitiveness, profit motive and self-interestedness to bully Wells Fargo into accepting TARP money. They also knew that Wells Fargo's competitors would go after Wachovia. If all sound banks had refused TARP money, Paulson and Bernanke's tyrannical threats would have failed.

Imagine a person was ordered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to harvest timber on land that he owned because it threatened the habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker. What would the average agency tyrant propose in order to make him obey? If you said levy a fine, you'd be absolutely right. If he were to continue to disobey the order, he'd face the imposition of a higher fine. The agency tyrant's behavior simply acknowledges the first fundamental law of demand, which correctly predicts that the higher the cost of doing something the less people will do it. Conversely, the lower its cost the more people will do it. There are no known exceptions to the reality of the law of demand.

Though the law of demand is not rocket science, liberals and progressives sometimes pretend it doesn't exist. Suppose one wants to reduce the number of rapes, robberies and homicides. Should we raise or lower the cost of committing such acts? Though the death penalty exacts a high cost for a homicide conviction, most liberals and progressives are against it. Some liberals and progressives don't hold criminals responsible, because they believe that poverty and discrimination are the cause of crime and that it's society that must be cured. Others think that soft sentences and rehabilitation programs reduce criminal behavior. Both visions lower the cost to criminals of committing a crime.

An excellent example of how liberals and progressives -- and even some respected economists -- deny the law of demand is their support for increases in the minimum wage. The effect of mandated wage increases is to raise the cost of labor. The entrepreneurial response to higher labor costs is to use less of it by finding substitutes, and examples abound. Back in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, when you pulled into a gasoline station, there was a kid to pump the gas, wipe your windshield and check the oil. Today virtually all gasoline stations are self-serve, and it's not because today's Americans like smelling gas fumes. The minimum wage has destroyed that kind of job. Other responses to higher mandated wages include automation and relocation of production facilities to places with cheaper wages.

Though a few liberals and progressives acknowledge the minimum wage law's negative effects on low-skilled workers, none acknowledges the law's racially discriminatory effects. If an employer must pay a minimum of $7.35 an hour to everyone he hires, the costs to discriminate in the employment of people whom he doesn't like are less. The minimum wage is so effective at promoting racial discrimination in employment that it was a major tool in the arsenal of South Africa's racists during its apartheid era. Racist unions were the country's major supporters of minimum wages for blacks.

Liberals, progressives and tyrants acknowledge the reality of human nature when it fits their agenda and ignore it when it doesn't.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



21 July, 2012

US military to allow soldiers to wear uniform at gay pride parade

The Department of Defense, in a first-of-its-kind move, will allow active duty members of all branches of the US military to don their service uniforms while marching in an forthcoming San Diego gay pride parade, event organisers said on Thursday.

The move, confirmed in an internal defence memo, marks the first time the military has granted such blanket permission since the September repeal of he "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, under which gay individuals were allowed to serve in the military only if they did not divulge their sexual orientation.

"It is our understanding that event organisers plan to have a portion of the parade dedicated to military members," Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Community and Public Outreach Rene Bardorf wrote in an internal memo.

"We further understand organisers are encouraging service members to seek their commander's approval to march in uniform and to display their pride," Bardorf wrote.

Citing national media attention to the issue, Bardorf granted approval for service members to participate, but limited that approval in scope to the 2012 San Diego Pride Parade only.

San Diego has a large military presence due to its naval base and the nearby Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

Nearly 400 military members have already signed up to march in the parade, according to San Diego LGBT Pride, the organiser of the weekend festivities.

Many more are expected to participate in the military parade after the announcement went public, Fernando Lopez, the director of public affairs for San Diego LGBT Pride, told Reuters.

"We are hopeful that those who have feared coming to share in the joy of Pride out of concern for losing their military careers will be able to finally celebrate their full and complete selves," San Diego LGBT Pride, the organiser of the event, said in a statement.

In the past, only veterans of the armed services, not those on active duty, were allowed to wear their uniforms at gay pride parades.

In a second internal memo published on Thursday, Bardorf said that for parades other than the San Diego event for which he issued a specific memo, local commanders are given discretion in allowing service members to participate unless it is "likely to garner national or international interest or news coverage."

The approval for active service members of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force to participate in the gay pride parade in uniform comes in the wake of a number of important milestones fol lowing the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The US military celebrated gay pride month at the Pentagon for the first time in June, an event that other federal agencies like the CIA had been celebrating for years.

More than 50,000 people are expected to attend the San Diego Pride celebration in all, organisers said.

SOURCE






An Englishman's love of animals surpasses all others

By Rachel Johnson (Rachel Johnson is editor-in-chief of 'The Lady’ and sister of Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London)

On Wednesday night we all trooped to Daunt’s in Marylebone High Street for the launch of my father’s new book. It’s called Where the Wild Things Were and is not, as he told the well-oiled crowd, a history of the Bullingdon Club, or even a tribute to the late Maurice Sendak. Not that anyone thought it was. The subtitle, “Travels of a Conservationist”, rather gives the game away – and this book is, to my mind, another compelling piece of evidence that when it comes to Englishmen and their supposedly repressed emotions, what chaps feel for their dogs or other dumb beasts (or, in my father’s case, pandas or the blue-footed booby) is the one love that truly dares to speak its name.

For his book is all about the threats to wild animals in wild places, and I feel uninhibited from mentioning that the paperback is available on Amazon, e-book, etc. I also see no reason not to allude to his speech, in the course of which he made jokes about missing planes, tigers, going to the loo on top of Kilimanjaro, and serially failing to be elected to Parliament. Despite the presence of three ex-Cabinet ministers in the crowd and his two politician sons, my father announced that the hidden upside of not being elected to Parliament was that “you don’t have to be an MP”.

Towards the end he said that growth has always come at the expense of nature, and that the need to generate income will always trump the urge to conserve, but he kept that bit very short. It wasn’t until after several bottles of Chianti at dinner that he decided to read out a passage from his own book. This was about an owl and a remote Brazilian tribe. The owl would hoot whenever a tribesman was going to die. “Give me the name,” hoots the owl, “and I will look after him for ever.” He laid the book down, profoundly moved.

Now, my father, unlike the relative lightweight Brigitte Bardot, is a blond who has devoted both halves of his life to animals, endangered species and the environment. Forgive me for banging on, but he is the chairman of the Gorilla Organisation, and is a UN ambassador for the Convention on Migratory Species. So it’s not all that surprising, his passion. As children, we used to ask him if he loved animals more than us. “Yes,” he would confirm.

But I have other examples to prove my point. My old tutor, the great historian Robin Lane Fox, gave a lecture at the British Museum last week called “War Horse”, on the fighting horse in art, literature and history, from Homer to Oliver Stone’s epic, Alexander. “I’ve waited all my life for this,” he told me before he took to the lectern. “This will blow your socks off.” And it did.

For RLF opened his address with an account of the divine horses of Achilles, Balius and Xanthus, who, when they saw Achilles’ beloved Patroclus dead, so brave, so strong, so young, began to weep, and refused to leave the battlefield.

It was quite hard for me to type those words, but it was almost impossible for Robin to speak them. I didn’t think he would manage to continue, so choked was he, describing how the horses’ fine heads hung with grief and their long manes trailed in the dust. To his eternal credit, Robin cried twice more in the course of his enthralling lecture, in between showing us slides of steeds that he had loved. “You care for horses much more than women,” I told him afterwards. “Of course I do!” he replied.

Dogs have an even more special place in the mad Englishman’s heart, of course. Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew only ever read one book in his life, Jack London’s White Fang, written in the voice of a wolf-dog, which he said was so frightfully good he never bothered to read another.

I once went to a play about James Lees-Milne called Ancestral Voices. My husband and I sat impassively through the death of Alvilde, Lees-Milne’s wife, and several plangent scenes about old age and infirmity. But when Lees-Milne’s faithful dog and constant companion went to the happy hunting grounds, my husband burst into heaving sobs; and later, Jeremy Paxman admitted that his waters had broken at precisely the same point. Max Hastings, meanwhile, told me that the one piece he has written that caused the most reader reaction was not about the Second World War, or soldiering, or even the English weather. It was about whether to put down his Labrador.

So it’s wrong to say Englishmen never show emotion. As Anatole France said: “Until one has loved an animal, a part of one’s soul remains unawakened.” Many Englishmen (especially those separated from their mothers at an early age and shipped off to freezing prep schools, as I think were all the ones mentioned here) reserve their displays of deepest feeling for them.

SOURCE





Not the Nanny State — the BULLY State

It is time we started calling liberal Democratic policymakers what they are.  We all too frequently lament the ever-reaching ‘nanny state,’ but that term violates a cherished cultural staple — nannies are Mary Poppins or such maternal substitutes as the TV character played by Fran Drescher.  Statists are not nannies, they are bullies.  Consider the following:

Deval Patrick (D), current Massachusetts governor, recently defended Obamacare in a conference call with reporters, referring to the law not as a tax but a penalty on “freeloaders” who take advantage of emergency rooms, roughly 1 or 2 percent of Americans.

Such uninhibited, feral denunciations of uninsured Americans is curious and out of character for modern Democrats.  Freeloaders?  Where is all this compassion for the little guy about which we’re always hearing the Dems boast?   And we just overhauled our nation’s health care system to deal with 2 percent of the population?  And furthermore, since when do liberals harbor such animosity toward freeloaders?  Liberalism has thrived for the last 50-plus years by transferring wealth and securing a permanent dependent class.

Then there’s the war on obesity.  If you think this is all about Oreos and 32 oz. Cokes, then I’ll cite for you a recent HBO documentary The Weight of the Nation, produced in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The target: fruit juice.  And you thought that bottle of Ocean Spray added health-kick bragging rights to your diet. According to pediatric obesity specialist Robert Lustig, “Juice is just like soda…”  Yes, according to the “experts,” fruit juice is full of sugar and lacks all the nutritional value of real fruit.  Let’s just hope Mayor Bloomberg of New York hasn’t heard about this one.

In truth, it is not the obese who are the gravest threats to our pocket books.  In a free, competitive market, those who make foolish choices (and obesity is not always the result of choice) would pay the penalty through higher premiums.   But the pertinent point here is an overall pattern that has become glaringly obvious.

“Freeloaders.”  “The obese.”  While space will not allow a thorough psychological assessment of the liberal mind, their compulsion to target and regulate the most benign activities of everyday Americans suggests a loathing of the very people they purport to champion.  While it is too simplistic to suggest that all liberals loathe average Americans, the fact remains that one does not seek to fundamentally transform a people or a nation that he loves.

Liberal thought and policy simmers with eye-rolling disgust at smokers, SUVs, Wal-Marts, Happy Meals, plastic bottles and grocery bags, gun shows, etc.  All things dear in West Virginia, Idaho, South Carolina and backwater towns everywhere.  With themselves fully ensconced in power, liberal statists can assure that overweight trailer-park moms and $10-an-hour iron workers in Tennessee who can’t afford health insurance because federal edicts have outlawed competition remain in their places, if not through government fiat, then by marginalizing them.  And they annoyingly hide behind the facade of acting in the public good.  But let us call them what they are: statists who label juice boxes, Oreos, Big Gulps and Happy Meals as enemies to be penalized through taxation and onerous regulations, are not nannies, they are bullies.

SOURCE





No  SlutWalk in response to Muslim cleric?

A Toronto Muslim cleric's comments that laws should make women cover up to avoid rape disgusted me. But what's going to sicken me more is the silence of the left.

Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, a street preacher, thinks Canadian laws "give too much freedom to women." Excuse me? We need more freedoms for everyone, regardless of gender.

But something tells me he won't be criticized by the feminist organizations. Or by any of the so-called progressives. No. They'll just ignore it.

Yet silence wasn't what happened last year when in January Toronto Const. Michael Sanguinetti told a York University class that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." The officer's remarks were sharply criticized by most people - including Toronto chief Bill Blair.

His comments also spurred the now international phenomenon known as SlutWalk. Thousands of people have taken to the streets in cities across the world to decry Const. Sanguinetti's comments.

Is Atangana going to be the next object of the SlutWalk organizers' denouncements? I doubt it.

SlutWalk is only interested in easy targets. They want knee-jerk responses, simple for people to adopt, that don't require any thinking. After all, the original SlutWalks weren't about Sanguinetti in particular, so much as what his comments symbolized. To many, he symbolized how the media, police, the law and more were involved in victim-blaming and rape culture.

Both Sanguinetti and Atangana were solitary people who possess a limited audience. We can argue that neither of them are worth spilling much ink over. However Sanguinetti didn't argue to change the laws, he wasn't of a mindset promoting sexist theocracy and his comments were not - as his chief made clear - indicative of his organization as a whole. The opposite applies to Atangana. While not every Muslim cleric shares his views, they are shared by many in Canada and by many, many more in Arab states, where women are legally inferior to men.

Sanguinetti was met with SlutWalks because of his poorly chosen words about dressing modestly. Where were the SlutWalks for the Shafia girls? They were murdered because of their ‘immodest' ways. Where were the SlutWalks for Nazanin Fatehi? She's the Iranian youth sentenced to death (released after a re-trial) because she defended herself and her 15-year-old niece from a rape. That is victim-blaming. That is rape culture. And that is what Atangana is promoting.

Last April I wrote a column denouncing SlutWalk. Not because I supported Sanguinetti. Because even back then I knew the event was all about low-hanging fruit. I took issue with the idea that ‘the media' - of which I am a member - is somehow promoting the mass rape of Canadian women. It was never going to help real victims of sexual assault. It was simply an opportunity for people in a very liberal society to feel good about themselves by protesting something vague.

People wrote many blogs, letters and e-mails attacking me. One line particularly got their ire up: "Do a SlutWalk in Saudi Arabia and then you'll earn your stripes." Stand up for the women all across the world who are victimized - raped, tortured, murdered - because of the very laws Atangana is proposing.

I know the line angered them because, deep down inside, they knew I was right. Yet now they have the chance to prove me wrong. They can speak out against Atangana, who represents widespread misogyny far more than Sanguinetti does. Go ahead. We're waiting. Your victimized sisters across the world, seriously in need of your help, are also waiting.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



20 July, 2012

If British women keep taking so much maternity leave, no boss will want to employ them

By Julia Llewellyn Smith

Late in the evening at a dinner party, Anthony, the head of a department at a City bank, made a shocking pronouncement.  ‘When we have a vacant position I don’t even look at women aged between 24 and 40,’ he said, as we passed the brandy. ‘The headache of training someone who might have babies is simply not worth it.'

‘You have to find and train cover, who you then have to drop if the woman comes back. It’s illegal to ask outright if a candidate plans on a family, so it’s easier just to write all women off and give the job to a man.’

I gasped in disbelief. ‘You can’t say that!’ I exclaimed. But several high-flying women there nodded. ‘Young women no longer figure in my organisation,’ one confessed. ‘They’re more trouble than they’re worth.’

It seems that, thanks in part to our country’s increasingly generous maternity leave, the dreams of equality of Suffragettes and women’s libbers have come true. Mothers can work in high-powered careers, take long stretches of paid time off when they have babies and return to work when it suits them.

A new mother will now, on average, take almost nine months off — compared with five-and-a-half months six years ago.

Over the past five years, the number of women taking all their maternity leave entitlement — a year, with payment of some sort (benefits vary between employers) for the first nine months — has doubled.

Yet could such leave actually be detrimental to women’s status in the workplace? Are fertile young women being shunned by employers who would have to fork out for maternity payments and cover?

There seems to be a growing backlash against it — even by mothers. When internet giant Yahoo! this week appointed Marissa Mayer as CEO of the company — despite her being six months’ pregnant — she announced she will take only two weeks’ leave after she gives birth.

Few women at the top take long maternity leaves. When she was French Justice Minister, Rachida Dati returned to work in stilettos five days after a Caesarean. Karren Brady, when managing director of Birmingham Football Club, had three days off after the birth of her first child Sophia, something she says she bitterly regrets.

But most mothers take months, or years, off work — despite the potential damage to their careers and those of other women.

In many ways, we have both the previous Labour Government and the Coalition to thank (or blame) for this: their determination to win female votes means the maximum maternity leave has doubled over the past decade to a year.

But is it possible for women to enjoy high-powered careers and take huge amounts of time off to be hands-on mothers? Increasingly, experts, including many prominent feminists, say the answer is no.

Sylvia Ann Hewlett is a leading campaigner for better maternity leave in the U.S. (American women are allowed 12 weeks’ leave, unpaid), but accepts that the long leaves in many European countries are backfiring dramatically, with employers overlooking women of childbearing age altogether.

A mother of four, 54-year-old Dr Hewlett went back to work just ten days after giving birth to her first child. Later, she lost twins when she was seven months’ pregnant. Her employers fired her shortly afterwards for ‘allowing childbearing to dilute her focus’.

‘I came at the issue of maternity leave as a warrior fighting the good fight,’ she says. But studying German leave — where women are allowed to take as long as three years off — led Dr Hewlett to reassess her opinion.  ‘German employers were quite open about avoiding young women when they could. A mother of two could potentially take six years off work,’ she says.

‘One employer told me he regarded all women of childbearing age as “wombs in waiting”.’ Dr Hewlett also discovered that countries with the shortest maternity leaves, like the U.S. and Australia, had far more women in top jobs than in countries where leave is more generous.

But she also points out that in the U.S. far more women leave the workforce entirely when they have children, and believes longer leave would help keep these women.

In Sweden — held up as the template for family-friendly policies — there is the highest ‘occupational segregation’ in Europe, with most women working in the lowly-paid public sector, while men hold better-paid jobs in the private sector.   Swedish women, who enjoy up to 16 months’ leave, are far less likely to hold managerial positions than British or American women.

In Britain, a similar state of affairs may not be far off. A recent survey of 10,000 British bosses showed only 26 per cent of them intended to employ women, compared with 38 per cent last year, and a third said they were put off by having to provide maternity leave.

The backlash can’t only be blamed on bosses. It’s also the fault of many new mothers — often middle-class, educated women.  Rather than treating maternity benefits as a hard-won safety net, the first generation of women to enjoy them can behave as if they have a legal right to take advantage of their employers and colleagues.

Take one member of a baby group I attended in West London, with my second child. Miranda (not her real name) was financial director of a small business and openly stated her aim, during her nine months’ leave, was to return to work pregnant. She succeeded, worked for just six months and this time took a year ‘on the company’.

She then returned to work for 13 weeks, the statutory time necessary so as not to have to repay her benefits, before resigning to achieve her real goal of being a full-time mother.

My friend Keith, who works at the BBC, recounts how, after a round of redundancies in his department, many of his female colleagues quickly became pregnant. Not only would they have leave funded by the licence fee — but discrimination laws would make it hard to sack them, he says.

Even if women return to work (and employers can make no plans about it since they are legally banned from asking if or when this will happen), they are allowed to request flexible hours.

Meanwhile, 12 months at home may have left them lagging behind their colleagues in terms of skills gained and contacts acquired. Indeed, even women who support generous maternity leave accept it inevitably causes problems for them when they return.

Julia Hobsbawn, a mother-of-three, stepmother-of-two, and author of The SeeSaw: 101 Ideas For Work-Life Balance, says: ‘By taking huge stretches of time like a year, it can make it much harder for them to get back in the saddle of office life with confidence.’

In her own research, Dr Hewlett discovered that a couple of maternity leaves of just six months had little or no effect on a woman’s future earning power. But if she took a total of more than two years off, she lost for ever 18 per cent of her earning power.

If she took three years off, her earning power was reduced by 38 per cent. Because of this, many women choose to sacrifice time with their infants rather than damaging their much-loved, hard-won careers.

Michelle Rodger, 42, from Glasgow, who runs a communications firm in the City, returned to work 12 days after her daughter was born by Caesarean, 13 years ago.

‘What women don’t realise is how much harder it will be to get back on the career ladder once they’ve decided to take a long break,’ she says. ‘Women and businesses are losing out. A line needs to be drawn between what’s sensible and what’s not.’

One thing seems clear: our maternity leave arrangements — in which mothers are entitled to so much time off they are seen as a liability by wary employers — are far from sensible.

SOURCE




Angry friends accuse useless British police over mudslide couple's death as the case is referred to watchdog

It's too early to tell but had police acted promptly, lives may have been saved.  That possibility should at least have been a guiding priority

The deaths of a couple entombed beneath a mudslide for ten days will be investigated by the police watchdog, it emerged last night.

Elderly sweethearts Rosemary Snell and Michael Rolfe were buried alive under tons of dislodged earth and rubble after their car was flattened by debris dislodged in bad weather.

Their friends yesterday spoke of their anger and disbelief at the police’s ‘outrageous’ delay in finding the bodies of retired surgeon Mr Rolfe, 72 and Mrs Snell, 67.

Now Dorset Police have been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for investigation after accusations were levelled at the force for not searching the debris because the landslide had happened over a ‘busy weekend’.

Mrs Snell’s friend Jane Fox, 61, condemned the authorities for trying to backtrack in a bid to put themselves above reproach. She said: ‘They’re covering themselves. Think about those poor people under there all that time. We are angry. Everybody is.’

The IPCC stated: ‘Dorset Police will be referring the Beaminster Tunnel landslip deaths. This will be assessed and a decision made about mode of investigation.’

Mrs Snell and father-of-four Mr Rolfe were found under tons of mud and earth at the entrance to the tunnel in Dorset on Monday – ten days after the landslide. Yesterday it emerged they had a romantic meal together at a local hotel before leaving early to deal with the terrible driving conditions.

Assistant Chief Constable James Vaughan of Dorset Police said no major search was carried out until it became known that the pair were in the area at the time of the landslide. He said police had had a ‘busy weekend’ and there had been no obvious signs of a vehicle buried in the mud. Asked whether he thought it was disgraceful that the couple’s bodies had been undiscovered for ten days, Mr Vaughan replied: ‘That’s unfair.’

He added: ‘This was a tragic, freak accident. It was a chance in a million that they happened to be driving out of the end of the tunnel when the landslide swept through.

‘Their car was severely crushed. It will be up to the pathologist to decide exactly what was the cause of death, but I would have thought it would have been pretty instantaneous.’

Western Dorset Coroner’s officer Andy Nineham confirmed that two bodies had now been recovered.  He said that an inquest was due to be opened and adjourned at a later date.

Local councillor Ron Bond said yesterday he was ‘absolutely disgusted’ that the bodies had remained undiscovered for so long.

However Dorset Assistant Chief Constable James Vaughan claimed the couple’s deaths would have been ‘pretty instantaneous’ owing to the huge weight of the rubble.

It has now been revealed that Dorset police have referred the case to the IPCC to investigate the actions of the force in the matter.

A tweet on the IPCC Twitter feed stated: 'Dorset Police will be referring the Beaminster Tunnel landslip deaths. This will be assessed and a decision made about mode of investigation.'

It emerged yesterday that emergency services were called to the scene but left without clearing the mudslide as their heat-seeking equipment failed to detect any sign of movement.

The busy A-road had been closed to traffic since the landslide and was not cleared because emergency services and the council said they were dealing with numerous flood alerts in the area.

It was only when Miss Snell failed to keep a lunch appointment with friend and neighbour Carol Walker two days later that police began a missing persons inquiry.

They discovered that the couple had used a credit card in Beaminster on July 7 and eventually their inquiries led them on Monday to the tunnel, still beneath 6ft of rubble.

The weight of falling masonry from the bridge structure, soil and debris literally flattened the Skoda.

A police spokesman admitted officers had been busy after the public had inundated them with calls during the bad weather.

'There were 150 flood warnings in the county at that time, 180 homes had been evacuated, and 400 incidents reported to the police control room,' the officer said.

SOURCE






The increasing "incorrectness" of religious affirmations

Why should religious leaders, of all people, turn their fire on celebrities who use their popularity for public proclamations of the almighty’s power? In an age when media icons flaunt every sort of indulgence and depravity, prominent members of clergy should find more appropriate targets to scold than athletic achievers like football's Tim Tebow, basketball's Jeremy Lin or baseball's Josh Hamilton, who choose to flaunt their devout Christian commitment.

Widespread discomfort toward well-publicized professions of faith highlights a significant rift in outlook — not just between believers and skeptics, but between religious people who want to limit theological affirmations to church or synagogue settings and those who announce their ardent belief at every opportunity.

The newly elected leader of the important Reform movement in Judaism clearly shares the instinct to wince at the insertion of too many religious gestures in today's pop culture. "God-sentences do not flow trippingly off Jewish lips," writes Rabbi Rick Jacobs in his denominational magazine Reform Judaism. He goes on to suggest "a deep reason for our unease. The God-talk we hear most is hardly worth emulating. Watching athletes pointing to the heavens to acknowledge their savior after scoring a touchdown, you'd think God actually cared about which team won. While I hope God's presence can be felt in all places, including football stadiums, I find it offensive to reduce the almighty to a football mascot in the sky."

These indignant comments take unmistakable aim at religious sports stars such as Tebow, who hopes to add many Jewish admirers to his adoring fan base when he takes the field for his new team, the New York Jets. Of course, Tebow has repeatedly denied he believes that God bothers to arrange miraculous victories for favored athletes.

When Christian sports figures point toward the clouds or drop to their knees in prayer, they merely express gratitude for the Lord's grace and generosity in allowing them to perform at the peak of their abilities. Is this impulse so different from the instinct of many religious Jews — including members of Rabbi Jacobs' own progressive Reform denomination in Judaism — to recite the She'cheyanu prayer to observe life's milestones, like watching the graduation of a beloved child, or leaving the hospital after serious illness? We say, "Blessed are You, Lord our God, sovereign of the universe, who has kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this season." Our Christian friends express much the same sentiments, though sometimes with gestures rather than words, and without the Hebrew formulation.

If athletic contests count as an inappropriate place for reflections on godly power, then Jews might find it difficult to explain our traditional "bathroom blessing" (Asher Yatzar), recited for centuries to celebrate the normal functioning of our marvelous bodies. If religious Jews thank God each time he enables us to relieve ourselves, it's hardly outrageous that religious Christians should express their gratitude for hitting a home run or scoring a touchdown before 60,000 screaming fans.

Meanwhile, if critics of public religious displays find it offensive whenever athletes seek to "give God the glory" for extraordinary accomplishments on the playing field, do they find it equally offensive if great artists credit a higher power for amazing gifts that enriched humanity?

The musical manuscripts of Johann Sebastian Bach show him writing the initials "SDG" at the beginning and end of all of his some 300 church compositions, as well as attaching the same abbreviation to many of his immortal secular works. The initials stand for soli deo gloria ("to God alone be glory"). No one assumes that Bach expressed these sentiments to imply some divine favoritism for his music above contributions by his less religious friend and rival, Georg Philipp Telemann. Instead, Bach humbly acknowledged the creator as the ultimate originator of his miraculous creativity, much as a distinctly blessed athlete in our century might acknowledge the almighty as the true source of his own health, power and skill.

The argument against injecting blessing and praise into what Rabbi Jacobs calls the "fleeting trivialities of popular culture" maintains that association with such ephemera actually diminishes our sense of the divine. But the other side insists that expressions of appreciation to a higher power help place even our silliest earthly endeavors in proper perspective, without any alteration of our perceptions of God.

If a champion wins an Olympic medal, an Oscar, a Super Bowl, or even a significant political campaign, and celebrates the triumph with invocation of the almighty's reign, that victor doesn't claim supernatural favor but rather recognizes mortal limits to his own power. When the most admired public figures take time to express gratitude and share credit, it suggests an admirable quality of humility that remains in short supply in celebrity culture and the nation at large.

SOURCE






The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived

In July, 2009, Newsweek ran a feature article on “relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners,” entitled, “Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution.” Last week, Showtime launched a reality TV show called “Polyamory: Married and Dating.” To quote from Newsweek’s 2009 article, it’s “enough to make any monogamist’s head spin.” And all this, of course, is being touted as a great thing, a celebration of love and freedom, a deliverance from the monotony and constraints of monogamy.

The Showtime promo pulls no punches and makes no excuses:

    Narrator: The polyamorous lifestyle may shock some. But with American divorce rates hovering around 50 percent, these families are on the front line of a growing revolution in the traditional monogamous relationship.

    Michael: I want people to know it’s okay to live a life this way, it can be good. Because it is. It’s beautiful. We love it.

    Jennifer: I want people to know that monogamy isn’t the only way.

    Vanessa: If it were socially acceptable, I think there would be way more poly people.

    Tahl: It feels like how we really should all be living.

    Natalia Garcia, director: I really believe that a lot of people are going to watch this show and their jaws are going to drop. And they’re also probably going to wonder, Am I poly?

    Narrator: Follow two not-so-typical families –

    Kamala: Mommy and Daddy are going to ask Jen and Tahl to come and live with us. How would you like that?

    Kid: Yeah. I like ‘em.

    Narrator: – that are changing the way America thinks about love.

Yes, it’s all about who we love, a statement we’ve heard before – repeatedly – in another context. Perhaps President Obama needs to allow his views on marriage to “evolve” just a little bit more? After all, don’t all Americans have the “right” to be with the person (or persons) they love?

According to the official blurb, “This provocative reality series takes an inside look at polyamory: non-monogamous, committed relationships that involve more than two people. Lindsey and Anthony are married, but live in a triad (three-way relationship) with their girlfriend, Vanessa. Husband and wife Michael and Kamala have many lovers, including couple Jen and Tahl.”

Tahl, for his part, cites this lengthy quote from Amy Thornton as expressive of his views: “A lot of people say no to more love. Why? Well (IMHO) the number one reason is they don’t love themselves. It’s the first place that people say no to more love. After that comes the perception of ownership and control in relationships. The…mentality is my partner is mine, and I don’t have to share. If I share I might lose what I have. Which of course is silly, you can always lose what you have, or what you think you have. People don’t know that though, and they aren’t taught to believe otherwise. It’s ridiculous conventional wisdom that few choose to challenge. Anyway, since that’s true, therefore I am willing to give up getting more love for myself so that I don’t have to share. There is also a perceived idea of lack, that there isn’t enough to go around. The silly idea also persists that there is one true love for everyone… …that’s the short version according to me.”

And to think: Some of us have been stuck in the stone age of monogamous marriage for decades. We could have been so free! In the words of one of the reality show’s stars, “Monogamy destroys family. . . . I feel liberated.” Chew on that for a while: “Monogamy destroys family.” (This sounds a bit like Dan Savage, who said, “people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”)

To be sure, it is not just Showtime that is pushing polyamory. In January, ABC News ran a TV spot entitled “Polyamory: 1 Mom, 2 Dads, and a Baby,” while a January report on the BBC carried the claim that “Polyamorous relationships tend to be ongoing, sustainable, emotionally bonded, committed relationships with more than one person, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”

But it is Showtime which has taken the lead, as the Polyinthemedia website announces: “The series will break new ground in introducing modern polyamory to a mass audience. Nothing like this has ever appeared on television. (Sister Wives and Big Love come from a very different place of religious patriarchal polygamy.)” To quote Newsweek again, “the traditionalists had better get used to it.”

According to estimates cited in Newsweek, there are more than half-a-million people in America living in polyamorous relationships, and if this is true, it won’t be long before the “progressives” among us will be calling for our children’s textbooks to reflect even more family “diversity.” (“Heather Has Two Mommies” is sounding quite passé.)

Of course, this is not Showtime’s first bold foray into the front lines of the sexual revolution. The network was already (in)famous for pioneering shows like “Queer as Folk” (2000-2005) and “The L Word” (2004-2009), all of which verifies what polyamory advocate Jasmine Walston stated in 2004, “We’re where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago” – and they’re catching up rapidly.

And there’s no slippery slope?

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



19 July, 2012

Dems' DISCLOSE Act Would Stifle Speech

    Debra J. Saunders

D.C. Democrats are pushing the DISCLOSE Act again. "DISCLOSE" stands for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections." The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Right to Life Committee oppose this bill because they fear it would chill free speech. As far as the anti-abortion group is concerned, "DISCLOSE" stands for "Deterring Independent Speech about Congress except by Labor Organizations and Selected Elites."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., frames this year's bill, which failed to win a floor vote in the Senate on Monday, as a reform made necessary by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision to allow independent expenditure campaigns to spend unlimited money from corporations, plutocrats and unions.

Problem: In the name of good government, DISCLOSE authors used every dirty trick in the dirty trick book. They deserved to fail before and deserved to fail Monday.

Whitehouse even dubbed his bill "DISCLOSE 2.0" in order to distance himself from the 2010 DISCLOSE bills. The 2010 Senate bill barred "electioneering communications" by corporations with federal contracts worth more than $10 million -- which suggested a mind frame more committed to censorship than transparency. The 2010 House version imposed restrictions on corporations but exempted labor unions. After powerful lobbies complained, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., exempted the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club from their bills.

Also, the 2010 bills would have made DISCLOSE the law in 30 days -- in time to help Democrats before the 2010 elections.

Whitehouse wisely stripped down the bill. Gone are the NRA exemption, the too-soon starting date and the ban on contractor donations. Instead, Whitehouse's bill requires organizations that spend $10,000 or more during an election to identify big donors to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours, starting in 2013. It seems simple.

But it's not that simple. In a letter, the ACLU explained two big problems in the new bill: One, it strips donors to public advocacy groups of their anonymity, "subjecting them to harassment and potentially discouraging valuable participation in the political process."

Californians may recall that some donors to the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign, which banned same-sex marriage, were subject to harassment.

Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington doesn't buy the ACLU's argument. "There is no First Amendment right to be free of the consequences of what you say," Sloan said. "There's just the right to say it."

Two, Whitehouse's bill has intrusive reporting requirements, even for "pure nonpartisan issue advertising that happens to mention a presidential or vice presidential candidate."

David Keating, president for the Center for Competitive Politics, believes that the reporting requirements are onerous. As he sees it, the Whitehouse bill means that "if you want to say anything about the government, you have to register with the Federal Election Commission to do it."

Also, because Whitehouse lengthened the reporting period, the ACLU warned of "a chilling effect on public criticism of the president or vice president, including truly nonpartisan criticism on specific policy issues, during more than a fourth of a president's first term."

Mitt Romney may be president in 2013. So liberals shouldn't be too upset that the bill failed.

SOURCE




Why Are Race Riots not News?

    Thomas Sowell

When I first saw a book with the title, "White Girl Bleed A Lot" by Colin Flaherty, I instantly knew what it was about, even though I had not seen the book reviewed anywhere, and knew nothing about the author.

That is because I had encountered that phrase before, while doing research for the four new chapters on intellectuals and race that I added to the revised edition of my own book, "Intellectuals and Society," published this year.

That phrase was spoken by a member of a mob of young blacks who attacked whites at random at a Fourth of July celebration in Milwaukee last year. What I was appalled to learn, in the course of my research, was that such race riots have occurred in other cities across the United States in recent years -- and that the national mainstream media usually ignore these riots.

Where the violence is too widespread and too widely known locally to be ignored, both the local media and public officials often describe what happened as unspecified "young people" attacking unspecified victims for unspecified reasons. But videos of the attacks often reveal both the racial nature of these attacks and the racial hostility expressed by the attackers.

Are race riots not news?

Ignoring racial violence only guarantees that it will get worse. The Chicago Tribune has publicly rationalized its filtering out of any racial identification of attackers and their victims, even though the media do not hesitate to mention race when decrying statistical disparities in arrest or imprisonment rates.

Such mob attacks have become so frequent in Chicago that officials promoting conventions there have recently complained to the mayor that the city is going to lose business if such widespread violence is not brought under control.

But neither these officials nor the mayor nor most of the media use that four-letter word, "race." It would not be politically correct or politically convenient in an election year.

Reading Colin Flaherty's book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is even greater than I had discovered from my own research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political evasions in dozens of cities across America.

Flaherty's previous writings have won him praise and awards, but this book has been met largely with silence or abuse. However much ignoring the ugly realities that his book reveals may serve the interests of the media or politicians, a cover-up is a huge disservice to everyone else -- whether black, white or whatever.

Even the young hoodlums who launch these mass attacks on strangers would be better off to be stopped now, rather than continue on a path of escalating violence that can lead to a lifetime behind bars or to the execution chamber.

The dangers to the nation as a whole are an even bigger problem. The truth has a way of eventually coming out, in spite of media silence and politicians' spin. If the truth becomes widely known, and a white backlash follows, turning one-way race riots into two-way race riots, then a cycle of revenge and counter-revenge can spiral out of control, as has already happened in too many other countries around the world.

Most blacks and most whites in the United States today get along with each other. But what is chilling is how often in history racial or ethnic groups that co-existed peacefully for generations -- often as neighbors -- have suddenly turned on each other with lethal violence.

In the middle of the 20th century, Sri Lanka had a level of mutual respect and even friendship between its majority and minority communities that was rightly held up to the world as a model. Yet this situation degenerated over the years into polarization and violence that escalated into a civil war that lasted for decades, with unspeakable atrocities on both sides.

All it took were clever demagogues and gullible followers. We already have both. What it will take to nip in the bud the small but widely spreading race riots will be some serious leadership in many quarters and that rarest of all things in politics, honesty.

Race hustlers and mob inciters like Al Sharpton represent such polarizing forces in America today. Yet Sharpton has become a White House adviser, and Attorney General Eric Holder has been photographed literally embracing him.

SOURCE





Fourteen British government hospital groups  broke the law on abortion by faking consent forms

Doctors carrying out abortions in hospitals have been routinely breaking the law by faking consent forms.   The Care Quality Commission found 14 NHS trusts were letting medics sign off documents without knowing anything about the women terminating their pregnancies.

Although such practice is illegal, the watchdog insists patients were not put in any danger.

By law, a woman wanting an abortion must fill out a consent form which has to include the signatures of two doctors.

They do not need to have seen her but must have a thorough understanding of her circumstances and the reasons for ending the pregnancy.

But the CQC said some doctors did not realise it was illegal to ‘pre-sign’ batches of forms, which is done in an attempt to save time and minimise stress for patients waiting for signatures.

Ministers ordered the watchdog to inspect 250 abortion clinics, run by both the NHS and private firms, earlier this year over concerns of illegal practice.

It followed revelations doctors had been breaching the 1967 Abortion Act by carrying out terminations because babies were the wrong sex.

Inspectors found most clinics were being run properly and only 14, just over 5 per cent, were breaking the rules. However they were all NHS clinics, with those run by private firms such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes International operating legally.

Public health minister Anne Milton said: ‘The swift action means we have been able to stamp out poor practice and sends a clear message we will act in cases where the law is not being followed carefully in this sensitive area. We want to ensure women always receive the best possible care.’

The health secretary ordered the CQC to investigate abortion clinics at very short notice.

At the time the watchdog warned that it would have to cancel 580 crucial inspections of hospitals and care homes to ensure patients were not at risk.

And yesterday Labour seized on the findings that abortion clinics were not putting women in danger as evidence that ministers were putting politics before patients.

Diane Abbott MP, shadow public health minister said: ‘This report shows that Andrew Lansley has yet again put political interests ahead of British patient care.

'CQC has blown Andrew Lansley’s weak justifications out of the water by confirming that no women had poor outcomes of care at any of the clinics that he personally ordered raids on.'

SOURCE




Don't let the prudes deprive us of the spice of sexual banter

IT'S been a red-hot month for sex therapist Marty Klein. The well-known Californian psychologist - soon to give a lecture tour in Australia - has spent more than 30 years writing about sexual issues, often attracting the blowtorch of indignation from the US's powerful conservative groups. But he's never experienced anything like the frothing-at-the-mouth nastiness he's experienced since commenting on a recent controversy over an unwanted sexual invitation.

It started when a woman, Elyse Anders, was speaking at a sceptics' conference. She was approached by a couple she'd had contact with through Facebook who presented her with a SwingLifeStyle card that included their names, phone number and a semi-naked photo of them. They then left.

Anders posted a seething blog on her website, ranting about how offensive this was, how it undermined her professionalism. "I do important work. The work I do saves lives. And yet I still have to worry about whether I'm worthy or if I'll ever be respected beyond my f---ability. And that's bullshit. I deserve better than that."

In his regular column in Psychology Today, Klein took up the issue, perhaps foolishly disguising some details of the case to present a more general scenario. But he made a powerful argument, suggesting the issue here isn't sexual harassment but rather unwanted sexual attention. He then described the legal, ethical and social differences between the two.

Klein argued that sexual-harassment law was never designed to protect women from merely feeling uncomfortable and that in a typical workday, for instance, both men and women face many sources of discomfort: the infertile face co-workers' desks with photos of their kids; fundamentalist Muslims and Jews face people dressed with arms and legs uncovered; atheists face people wearing crosses. Why do we privilege unwanted attention that happens to involve sexuality?

We all cope with unwanted attention every day, Klein said, coming up with some telling examples: overly personal stories from strangers on planes; awkward compliments from co-workers; grocery clerks sympathetically inquiring about the brace on your wrist; and "Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon missionaries asking if they can talk with you for just a moment about their invisible friend in the sky".

Klein pointed out that he had fought hard against sexual coercion and sexual harassment but suggested the whole "Eek! An unwanted sexual invitation - gross! My day/week/year is ruined" is a bit precious. He concluded that surely we should be able to handle a friendly sexual invitation in a genuinely safe environment without losing our composure.

He makes a good point. It seems extraordinary that Anders got her knickers in a twist about simply being handed a piece of paper, with no pressure to make any further response.

Since Klein's article was published, Anders has responded with 5000 words of venomous blog, tearing him apart and nit-picking about his inaccuracies, but never discussing the important issues he raised. The article also led to hundreds of furious comments, blogs and threats to interfere with his regular writing assignments.

There's a very real issue at the heart of this silly controversy - namely, the notion that sex is peculiarly dangerous and the rules of normal adult interaction must be adjusted when the subject is sex so no one ever feels uncomfortable.

Look at the constant skirmishes now taking place in workplaces, where the wrong joke, comment or sexual reference risks accusations of sexual harassment. Yet, as even the feminist website ffeusa.org points out, there are women who make and enjoy sexual banter. As this site suggests: "Overbroad restrictions on sexual material infantilises women and shores up destructive Victorian stereotypes that women are (or should be) so pure that any expression about sexuality offends and demoralises them."

Sexual banter, the exchange of jokes and flirty comments can be the welcome spice of life for women, as well as men, and it's foolish to let the prudish in our midst determine what is appropriate behaviour.

Demonising sexuality inevitably distorts a proper perspective on sexual crimes, leading to politically inspired calls for absurdly longer sentences, misinformation about the likelihood of offenders to reoffend and exaggeration of the emotional damage to the victims of minor abuse. Our prurient interest in sex crimes often robs the perpetrator of any chance of redemption - as the sad death of cricket commentator Peter Roebuck bears witness. This is why allegations of child sexual abuse feature so regularly in fierce battles over child custody - the hint of sexual misbehaviour is a weapon like no other, leaving a lifelong taint on character.

The absurd overreaction from Anders and her colleagues to Klein's serious discussion of unwanted sexual attention makes the case that reason disappears when sex rears its head. Klein has spent his career arguing that sexuality deserves better treatment, and that's what he'll be talking about in Australia in October.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



18 July, 2012

Political Imprisonment in Britain, 2012

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a.k.a. Tommy Robinson, is the joint vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party. The following article, which appeared earlier today at the British Freedom website, describes some of the ongoing official harassment that Mr. Lennon is forced to endure virtually every day.

Following British Freedom’s recent public meeting in Yeovil, party co-Vice Chairman Stephen Lennon was arrested by police for entering a kebab shop. He recounted the sequence of events in his speech at the European Parliament:

    [I] came out of the meeting, I was walking, police officer pulled up. “I’m arresting you on suspicion of drunk and disorderly.”

    “I’m not drunk. Okay? You can’t arrest me for drunk and disorderly.”

    We get down to the police station, I start my breathalyser. I’m not drunk. Eleven o’clock in the morning, the next day comes, they then rearrest me on suspicion of racially-aggravated public order. I’m held for another twelve hours. I said, “Why are you arresting me?”

    They said, “Did you go to the Muslim kebab shop? Did you go in that Muslim kebab shop?”

    I said, “Yeah. I went in there. My mate was in there”.

    “Well, what happened in there?”

    “Nothing happened in there.”

    “Well, we need to investigate whether something happened in there.”

    I said, “So no one’s actually telling you something happened”.

    They held me for twelve hours until they could contact the kebab shop owner to see if I’d done anything…. I spent twenty-four hours in the cells. I’m then released.

Maliciously entering a kebab shop? It sounds absurd, but it’s no joking matter when a citizen can be arrested and imprisoned simply for going into a take-away restaurant to greet a friend.

Unfortunately, Stephen routinely has to endure official harassment and intimidation that would break most men. In the last couple of years he has:

 *   had the doors of his home kicked down by police
 
*  been interrogated by Special Branch over £30 worth of damage to a hotel room (the charge was later dropped)

*   been arrested with his wife, in front of their children, on a bogus charge of ‘money laundering’

*    had 15 police descend on his parent’s home

*   had his financial assets frozen

*   seen the seizure of computers and phones from his parents’ home

*   had police question his grandmother and cousin

*    been arrested and incarcerated for entering the abovementioned kebab shop.

As a catalogue of harassment and intimidation by politically motivated police, all this wouldn’t look out of place in a Stasi interrogator’s log book. But it’s happening here, in supposedly democratic Britain, in 2012.

Its purpose, of course, is to silence political dissent on the issue of Islamic extremism. Too afraid to deal with the problem itself (for the violent Muslim backlash it might bring) officialdom instead turns its wrath and frustration on the messenger, one who sees clearer than most the danger our society is in.

There is one sure-fire way to stop these abuses, and that is for others to follow Stephen’s courageous example, to get up and speak the truth, whenever and wherever they can. The state can bully one man, or ten, or a hundred, but it cannot bully hundreds of thousands into silence. To quote again from Stephen’s Brussels speech, “… the next generation… will never forgive us if we stand by and do nothing”.

SOURCE




Should Western women wear Muslim dress to prevent rape?

Women are "raw meat" waiting to be devoured by men because of their dress, declared an Australian imam in 2006.

Six years later, and in our own backyard, a young convert to Islam, Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana is proposing new laws in Canada that would require women to cover up "like Muslim women," concealing all but their eyes and hands. He contends that the high incidence of rape in North America is because of how women dress in Western countries. The new laws would make it "illegal for women to dress provocatively in the streets," and would thereby take away the freedoms Western women enjoy.

Canadian women would have to be covered up in burkas, abayas and hijabs. They would presumably also be segregated, and their male relatives would monitor and control their behaviour. So what is it about Islamist men and their preoccupation with sex that awakens such paranoia about women's garb?

First, many Islamist men do not understand the imperative of consent in a sexual relationship. They believe rape is a normal rather than a criminal reaction to female physiology, and assume that this would be every man's response to a glimpse of some skin.

The young convert also naively assumes that rape occurs in the Western world more frequently than in the Islamic world. He goes onto to suggest we "should take your example from the way Muslim women dress. Why does Muslim women who wear long dress and covers her head aren't targeted for sex attacks? Why is it that rapists and sexual predators only target women that dress so provocatively? Because Muslim women have nothing to show in regards to her body."

He is dead wrong.  While rape is more often reported here, it occurs with equal if not greater frequency and ferocity in the Middle East and South Asia. Women there suffer violent gang rapes and assaults. Even very young children are tormented by incestuous family members.

Statistical differences also involve definitions of rape. Is sex with a minor rape? Absolutely! Yet Middle Eastern countries like Yemen condone marriage with underage girls--children who are not old enough to give consent or even understand the concept. And what about marital rape? Since a Muslim wife is supposed to comply with her husband's sexual demands at all times, the issue of her consent becomes irrelevant under Sharia Law. Women can be beaten by their husbands if they refuse sex. They are forced, at times violently, to comply with their husbands' wishes.

All this occurs in countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, where women are required to cover up. In civilized countries on the other hand, men recognize the value of consent, a fact not altered by the aberrant behaviour of a minority.

No two cases of rape are identical. Rape may occur in situations where "signals" are mistaken as consent. At its worst, rape is of course a manifestation of criminal pathology. Here in North America we can at least be grateful that society rejects rape in any form, in any situation, and no matter what a woman chooses to wear.

According to Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, men are so depraved that if given the opportunity, they will pounce on a woman if she is scantily clad. He requires Western women to change their attitudes in order to check the incidence of rape in North America. Yet it is really those like Atangana who need to change. They need to realize that the responsibility of rape rests entirely with perpetrators of the crime, and that women have the right to dress whichever way they like. His exhortation for everyone to embrace Sharia shows that he has no idea that sexual crimes persist, at a horrifying level, in the kind of society he advocates.

SOURCE






Why victim culture is running riot in Britain

Last year's English riots weren't down to government cuts but to a vast culture of self-pity and entitlement among the young

A new Church of England report into last August’s riots in England ‘sounds a clear warning note’ about the ‘social consequences’ of austerity measures, senior cleric Reverend Peter Price said on Sunday. After the LSE/Guardian Reading the Riots reports, the Children’s Society’s Behind the Riots, and the government’s own independent panel report, the Church of England is the latest, and probably not the last, institution to blame the riots on cutbacks in social services. Written by the church’s mission and public affairs (MPA) council, the Testing the Bridges report is made up of interviews with clergy around the country who witnessed the riots breaking out.

A mixture of poverty and welfare cutbacks has, according to the church, had a negative impact on ‘already vulnerable people’. This has contributed to a ‘feeling of hopelessness which may sometimes emerge in destructive and anti-social actions’. The idea of the looters and arsonists being seen as ‘vulnerable people’ may surprise those who were attacked or had their livelihoods destroyed. But in recent years, being ‘vulnerable’ essentially means anyone who is not under the direct control of state agencies. These individuals, who clearly can’t cope when left to their own devices, must be nurtured, flattered and mollycoddled by nice, caring professionals.

If the response to the riots reveals anything, it is how the concept of the welfare state has dramatically changed in recent years. And it is this redefinition of state agencies which has helped pave the way, not just for the riots last August, but for a generalised culture of menace and anti-social behaviour, too. The original concept of the welfare state was to act as a safety net if an individual lost his job or when a person retired. At the heart of this conception of welfare was the idea that people made contributions which they would be entitled to in times of hardship. But in recent decades, welfarism has lost much of that ‘take out what you put in’ ethos. Instead, it now provides resources regardless of what a person has contributed to society beforehand.

Even worse, welfarism has actively promoted an incapacity culture, whereby the state has encouraged people to believe they can’t cope without help from an army of professionals. This is something that young people learn at an early age. The medicalisation of young people, whereby routine teenage behaviour becomes recast as a form of illness, makes youth aware of how potent the language of therapeutic victimhood can be. School pupils can be remarkably adroit at putting teachers on the backfoot by trotting out phrases like ‘you haven’t catered for my individual needs’. Consequently, schools in England have steadily replaced the attempt to instil in young people the value of personal responsibility with a belief that they are disadvantaged and in need of constant support. Far from ‘esteem boosting’ values providing a motivation to do well in life, instead they have informed a culture of self-pitying grievance and an inflated sense of entitlement.

Even before the riots, it was noticeable how a grievance or an assertive victim culture was increasingly palpable among young people. In an article I wrote for spiked in February last year, I pointed out that in ‘today’s therapeutic age, the cultural script is… an unappealing mix of gross emotional incontinence and aggressive assertions of victimisation. Even without oceans of booze inside them, I’ve seen young people kick off in public – to bus inspectors checking tickets or shopkeepers, for example – using the therapeutic language of assertive victimhood.’ Many a pop sociologist has reckoned that there were ‘warning signs’ of the riots in young people’s ‘sense of hopelessness’ and ‘anger’. In truth, it was a decade of the state promoting pity-based entitlement, not unemployment or poverty, that inflamed the short-fused tendencies of some young people today. This is why the riots should not be seen as an unfortunate one off, but as the rising to the surface of a more generalised culture of menace and aggressive entitlement.

At a Stone Roses gig last weekend at Heaton Park in Manchester, for example, one of the tent bars was raided and looted by crowds impatient with queuing for a drink. It was reported that one chap simply served pint after pint and distributed the stolen drinks to punters. On YouTube and internet chat forums, such antics were generally applauded for ‘sticking it the man’. In reality, as one individual pointed out, it meant that young bar staff were being threatened and intimidated by a riotous mob. It provided a rather sorry snapshot of the complete absence of class solidarity in British society today. Historically, a general affability towards service-industry staff, especially in domains of working-class life such as pubs, cafes and shops, was an important norm that was rarely transgressed. To do so would be to denigrate ‘one of your own’. The one-man riot at a T-mobile shop in Manchester last week, cheered on approvingly by a large crowd, was another dramatic example of how service workers are seen to be worthy targets of individual grievances and contempt.

The political defeat of the working class in the 1980s had the effect of weakening class solidarity. But it is the rise of state intervention into working-class life which has completely destroyed that important source of social solidarity. spiked has constantly attacked the ‘anti-chav’ prejudices of the political class because these have become ways to legitimise the state colonisation of all aspects of working-class life. As Brendan O’Neill said in a speech last year: ‘Today, people’s mental and moral powers are being decommissioned, weakened, undermined, put out to pasture by the relentless intervention of the welfare, nanny and psychological states into their lives, constantly telling them how to parent, how to eat, even how to think about themselves and their futures.’ For many people today, identifying with the ‘all helpful’ state has replaced identifying with each other or a local community as a source of moral support. The wider community, in turn, and individuals in that community, can end up being a focal point for all sorts of real and imaginary grievances.

Testing the Bridges also makes the point that the lack of youth centres should share in the blame for the riots. Come off it. Such places are hardly likely to be magnets for any self-respecting youngster. It would be far better if a vibrant pub culture thrived that enabled teenagers to socialise with, and be expected to behave like, grown adults. But here again, under the auspices of combating chav-style binge drinking and smoking, the state’s war on public drinking has effectively destroyed these once important areas of communal solidarity. Pubs were once a vital way in which expectations of mature adult behaviour were informally transmitted to the next generation. As places where the emphasis was also on conversation and quick wit, they forced young people out of their solipsistic state and into a relationship with others. The social development of young people has been seriously stunted through the state’s relentless attacks and interventions on pubs (see An initiation to the culture of unfreedom by Neil Davenport).

Testing the Bridges continues with the wrongheaded idea that further state intervention in ‘poorer communities’ is needed to prevent a repeat of the riots. That is clearly the last thing such communities need. The moral- and soul-destroying consequences of such hectoring intervention has not only corroded old forms of solidarity, it has also fostered the rise of a culture of victimhood and menace. You don’t only have to look at the riots to see the grim evidence of that.

SOURCE





The Leftist-Islamic Alliance against Freedom of Speech

Robert Spencer, a tireless defender of freedom and the freedom of speech against Islam, was attacked recently in the New York Daily News and charged with having "inspired" Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik to go on his killing spree in July 2011. The writer, Nathan Lean, in his July 9th column, "Expose the Islamophobia industry," connects several other counter-jihadist writers with Breivik's actions, and lumps them all together as "untouchables" who ought to be ostracized.

    The Islamophobia industry insists that it is not just a fringe minority who distort an otherwise peaceful faith. Instead, they point to the Koran and suggest that terrorists derive their world views from its messages. If that is so, these anti-Muslim agitators are guilty based on the logic of their own argument. After all, Breivik read and interpreted the writings of people like Spencer and [Pamela] Geller. He deciphered their diatribes much like Osama Bin Laden interpreted the Koran. Both men were compelled to act on the messages they digested.

It is doubtful that Lean has cracked open a Koran, or has heard of the Hadith, or The Reliance of the Traveler. For if he had any solid knowledge of Islam and its principal texts, he would grasp that these works do indeed sanction the violence of Muslim terrorists. He would understand that Spencer has every right to be an "Islamophobe," that is, someone who is fearful of Islam and especially of Sharia law. It is interesting to note that while Lean inveighs against Breivik, who murdered dozens of people, he does not mention the thousands of people killed by jihadists in virtually every country on earth. Moreover, he does not suggest that Breivik also was inspired by al-Qaida, in addition to a potpourri of other "Islamophobic" writers. About Spencer and his outspoken co-counter-jihadists, Lean concludes:

    Society has a responsibility to counter these individuals with overwhelming overtures of pluralism - and to systematically push the fear-mongers out of public discourse.

Spencer replies:

    The claim that I "inspired" the Norway mass murderer Breivik because he cited me in his "manifesto" has become a staple of Leftist and Islamic supremacist polemic against people who are trying to defend freedom against Sharia. But it founders on the facts: never mentioned is the fact that Breivik cited many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson -- who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders.

    Also swept under the rug is the fact that whether he is sane or not, Breivik's manifesto is actually quite ideologically incoherent -- so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups.

It probably has not escaped the notice of the more observant readers that the alliance of the Left and Islam reflects the same agitprop strategies, chief among is that when the Left's or Islam's policies fail, or produce disasters, or cause deaths, or provoke hostility among the electorate, blame for the failure is shifted elsewhere. When Obama's policies produce the opposite of his alleged goals, he blames Bush, when in fact Obama's policies are a continuation of Bush's soft-pedaled socialism. The difference between Bush's socialism and Obama's is that Bush's policies were founded on an ignorance of economics, or of reality; Obama's policies are intended to negate economics and remake reality.

When Muslims murder, torture, rape, go on rampages, or otherwise resort to violence anywhere in the world to enforce conformity to their ideology, their spokesmen in the West blame "extremists." But they never say that the "extremists" are wrong. The ideology is never at fault, only its finger-pointing "misunderstanders."

Thus, as Spencer points out in his Jihad Watch column, anyone who criticizes Islam is a "misunderstander" who spreads "lies" and "fabrications" and so on about the perils of Islam and can be quick-marched to the same camp with actual jihadists. Then a leap of logic is performed and Muslim violence can be blamed on criticism of Islam. The Left and Islamists "abhor" violence, express "regret" when violence occurs, and do not blame the perpetrators, but instead the "instigators" of the violence, that is, those who exercise their freedom of speech by pointing out the evils and fraud of Islam and the consistent violence its ideology encourages and promulgates. They cluck their tongues in public over the violence sanctioned by their ideology, but chastise anyone who says the violence is part and parcel of their ideology.

They must be "pushed out of public discourse." That is, shamed, humiliated, boycotted, mocked, picketed, and ultimately censored. The irony is that there is no "public discourse" about the nature of Islam and the crimes committed in its name. Nor does the Left and Islam wish there to be.

It is six of one, half a dozen of another. The Left and Islam both promote collectivism and universal submission and subjugation to them. Of course they are allies. With the help of its Muslim occupiers, France recently elected a blatant socialist. Has anyone in this country heard a single Muslim speak out against Obamacare? Has any British Muslim spoken out against Britain's welfare state? No? Why not? Because to oppose collectivism one must advocate individual rights. It is individual rights that the Left and Islam wish to extinguish. They say: Control private property, or expropriate it, and it is extinguished.

In the fantasy universe of collectivists, violence is never the fault of the ideology, it is always the fault of anyone who resists submission to the ideology or criticizes it. For secular collectivists (or the Left), as with Islamists, the fundamental means to the end is force.

The correlation between and alliance of the Left and Islam are not contrived, "constructed," coincidental, or accidental. They are fundamental, natural, and inevitable. Marx and Mohammad have gone forth into the world, holding hands, fingering their beards as their feral and predatory intelligences survey the landscape before them. For example, Marxists, socialists, and other leftists wish to collectivize property. If the property is thus "owned" by the state, then no freedom of speech is possible (except illegally underground, or via samizdat) but the "freedom" to extol collectivism. If property is Islamized - that is, owned, or controlled, by Muslims in a fully collectivized society governed by Sharia law (that is, Nazified), with nominal private ownership whose purpose and end are dictated by the state, or by the caliphate - then no freedom of speech is possible, either, except the "freedom" to parrot the party line of Mohammad. In either system, an individual who dares question the ideology gets swatted very quickly. That is what Gulags and chopping blocks and bomb detonators are for.

Then there is the "purgatory" or halfway point between the full collectivization by either ideology, a gray world in which freedom of speech is not expressly forbidden by law, but exists at the arbitrary whim or politically correct discretion of politicians or the judiciary. This is the situation in the United States. Brand any criticism of Islam as "Islamophobic" and the critics are conveniently diagnosed with dementia and committed to Antonio Salieri's Vienna loony bin, the papers signed by people like Nathan Lean. Or by Hillary Clinton and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations, or Barack Obama, or by Tony Blair and the Prince of Wales, and The New York Times.

James Bloodworth almost gets it right in The Independent (Britain) in his July 5th column, "It's time to stop using the term ‘Islamophobia'":

    There has, however, been an unfortunate consequence of all of this. It is now possible to shut down almost any contemporary political debate by blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and the anti-Muslim prejudice of the far-right. This is perhaps best expressed by the appearance on the scene of terms like "Islamophobic racism" - a further extension of the concept of Islamophobia - which conflate the idea of "race" (the way a person is born) with religion (a set of ideas passed on in the home, the school and the community).

Bloodworth is one of those leftists (and The Independent is notoriously leftist) who frown on private property but uphold freedom of speech, meaning, for all practical purposes, that one should be free to speak on any subject, so long as it's standing up at the bottom of a public swimming pool (there are no private swimming pools, except in the backyards of the political elite) and one's words have no untoward or deleterious social consequences. Bloodworth is correct to claim that the inclusion of the idea of racism is illegitimate, because Islamophobia has nothing to do with race. It is a "set of ideas," however, he presumably has not examined very closely. He still harbors a distaste for the term, without examining the root meaning of "phobia," either, which means a fear of something.

A phobia can be an unreasoning fear of things like mice or spiders or cigarette smoke or the number thirteen, or it can be a rational response to a nemesis, such as being knifed or stoned or raped or stalked by a fellow wanting to be propelled in a fireball to Paradise and seventy-two virgins. The desire to speak one's peace, or to preserve one's freedom, he insinuates but does not elaborate, is not a form of bigotry.

On the surface, the Left and Islam indulge in and promulgate the reversal of cause and effect. The mobs of Occupy Wall Street go on a rampage because they do not have the wealth of their victims. Muslims murder infidels because they are disrespectful non-Muslims who enjoy more freedom. But the reversal is only superficial. In fact, causality plays no role in the violence sanctioned by the Left and Islam. In criminal law, the causality of crime is not regarded as a legitimate, rational motive. Motives are not on trial. Murder, property theft or destruction, or felonious assault in the name of an ideology, are not admissible as rational norms of behavior. Only actions are deemed worthy of judgment.

Leftists like Nathan Lean say - and they say it often - that one having something a criminal lacks because of "the system" has denied him that thing is the cause of the violence. The wealthy sui generis are the cause of the expropriation of their property. This illogic can be and has been extended to: The bourgeoisie must be eradicated because they are the bourgeoisie. Jews must be exterminated because they are Jews. Muslims say that if infidels don't have "religion" - their religion - then their lives are forfeit and they must be fitted with fetters and assessed for jizya or just gotten out of the way. Infidels must be conquered or killed because they are sui generis infidels.

If you are a blonde, blue-eyed Swedish woman, or a British school girl, or a red-headed German secretary, you deserve to be raped by a gang of ambitious, "morally superior" Muslims who want a taste of Paradise on earth before they turn into bomb-carriers. Islam grants Muslims dispensation for being in a hurry. If you are rich, or just moderately well-off with money in the bank in spite of paying confiscatory taxes wherever you turn, you deserve to be robbed and collectivized in the name of a fantasy society projected by the looters to miraculously evolve some time after your passing. The Left grants its activists in and out of government dispensation on the basis of need and the sui generis sainthood of a "have-not." For the Left and Islam, every action is forgivable, nothing is criminal.

The reversal of cause and effect is not causality at work, but rather the irrational and the anti-reason. Lighting a bonfire beneath a pile of iron ore is not going to produce an ounce of steel. Gagging anyone who speaks out against censorship is not going to acquit one of the crime of censorship, not unless some dhimmi American judge rules that "Islamophobia" does not qualify as "civil" or "public" discourse.

Pushing "Islamophobes" out of the "public discourse" is not going to stop Islamic jihad, stealth or violent. Muslims will only be encouraged to carry more signs saying "Free speech go to hell." Prohibiting the advocates of individual rights from criticizing socialist policies will only encourage wannabe beneficiaries of socialism to smash store windows, occupy private property, and shut or shout down forums on the price of liberty in the name of "freedom of speech."

And that, in a nutshell, is the symbiosis of the Left and Islam. Its fruit is totalitarianism. Ignore it at your peril.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



17 July, 2012

Individualism is much more than egotism

Adam Smith and F. A. Hayek had it right.  Individualism in fact REQUIRES social co-operation

The citizens of a free society keep political power to a minimum and jealously protect individual rights. As a result a free society undermines legal privilege by removing the threat of aggression against upstarts of all kinds and preserves their autonomy. It offers the only lasting path to social progress and personal improvement for all people including those who, perhaps owing to accident of birth, may be the least well-off in society.  The desire to understand how individual actions can promote the general welfare led Adam Smith to develop a theory of the free society based on the complementary forces of sympathy and self-interest.

Adam Smith on Selfishness and Sympathy

In his 1759 book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith wrote:

    How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner.

For Smith, our ability to imagine ourselves in the place of others–sympathy–is the key to understanding why we morally approve and wish to reward or morally disapprove and wish to punish others, as well as ourselves, for particular actions.

     And hence it is, that to feel much for others and little for ourselves, that to restrain our selfish, and to indulge our benevolent affections, constitutes the perfection of human nature; and can alone produce among mankind that harmony of sentiments and passions in which consists their whole grace and propriety. As to love our neighbour as we love ourselves is the great law of Christianity, so it is the great precept of nature to love ourselves only as we love our neighbour, or what comes to the same thing, as our neighbour is capable of loving us.

So in a sense, while self-interest is like an accelerator for social progress in a free society, sympathy is the brake that helps us drive even faster.

True Individualism Is Not Narrow Selfishness

Trying to preserve our individual rights to life, liberty, and property–the essentials of individualism–need not imply selfishness in the narrow sense. We can use the fruits of our freedom to help others as well as ourselves–and we do. (And evidently it makes us happier.)

But the equating of individualism with narrow selfishness persists in no small part because libertarians themselves sometimes profess an overly narrow form of individualism–one that has a “rugged, me-first attitude” at its core. (I’ve written and spoken about this before.) While I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with that view or the lifestyle it implies as far as it goes, the problem is that it doesn’t really get very far. Social, economic, and cultural development depends on the evolution of complex social networks among vast numbers of people, and they have a hard time forming under an atomistic kind of individualism.

F.A. Hayek writes in his important essay “Individualism: True and False” (pdf): “. . . the belief that individualism approves and encourages human selfishness is one of the main reasons why so many people dislike it. . . .”

Thus, in an article published in the New York Times just before Independence Day, called “The Downside of Liberty,” Kurt Anderson laments:

     What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late ’60s isn’t contradictory or incongruous. It’s all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.

The author raises points that may be worth pursuing another time. But what is relevant here is the equation, again, of individualism with narrow selfishness. He’s wrong, of course. But I can understand why he and others might think that way, given what people on “our side” sometimes say. A cramped individualism lends itself to the notion that libertarians, insofar as we prize individualism, must indeed be antisocial.

(Now I also think that nothing is more effective in displacing Smithian sympathy with narrow selfishness than threats against our freedoms, or when, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations . . . evinces a Design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism. . . .” So trying to use political power to make us less selfish–though, say, takings and income redistribution–may have the opposite effect.)

True Individualism Is Pro-Social

What does individualism in the tradition of Adam Smith mean? Here is F.A. Hayek again in the same essay:

     What, then, are the essential characteristics of true individualism? The first thing that should be said is that it is primarily a theory of society, an attempt to understand the forces which determine the social life of man, and only in the second instance a set of political maxims derived from this view of society.

In other words, individualism is a way of seeing and understanding how we live together. Individualism is about how best to promote social cooperation. That is,

     . . . there is no other way toward an understanding of social phenomena but through our understanding of individual actions directed toward other people and guided by their expected behavior.

What then is the correct meaning of selfishness in the context of individualism?

     If we put it concisely by saying that people are and ought to be guided in their actions by their interests and desires, this will at once be misunderstood or distorted into the false contention that they are or ought to be exclusively guided by their personal needs or selfish interests, while what we mean is that they ought to be allowed to strive for whatever they think desirable.

True individualism, then, is the opposite of paternalism in that it respects each and every person’s ability to make and evaluate her own decisions. That includes decisions on whether and under what circumstances to ask for or to give help, and what kind of help to ask for or to give, as well as whether that help was effective or not.

As a result in the history of mankind there has been no greater engine than liberty and individualism (rightly understood) for lifting the material lives of even the very poorest, as this popular video by Hans Rosling, professor of international health, brilliantly illustrates.

Now, there is a kind of broad selfishness which is indeed an essential part of individualism that, as Hayek says, is often misunderstood. He explains:

     The true basis of his [the individualist’s] argument is that nobody can know who knows best and that the only way by which we can find out is through a social process in which everybody is allowed to try and see what he can do.

That social process is competition in markets free from political privilege and legal barriers. Competition of this kind is a discovery procedure in which people look for ways, via sympathy, to mutually benefit one another.  It doesn’t lead to utopian perfection, but to consistent improvement in the general welfare and in individual self-actualization.

Individualism is a tried-and-true way of promoting social cooperation, not a call to shun it.

SOURCE






1,000 innocent victims of Big Brother Britain: Families were spied on wrongly because of blunders by officials

Almost 1,000 entirely innocent people were wrongly spied upon using anti-terror powers last year following blunders by officials, it emerged last night.

In two shocking cases, two members of the public were arrested and accused of being serious criminals.

Details of phone calls and texts by genuine crime suspects had wrongly been attributed to the pair in a terrible mix-up between police and an internet company.

Sir Paul Kennedy, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, said the mistakes had ‘significant consequence’ for the victims.

The internet provider involved was slow to report the errors and initially gave unsatisfactory explanations as to how they occurred or what was being done to stop it happening again, Sir Paul said.

He also revealed details of a council going beyond its legal powers to use snooping laws to spy on a family suspected of cheating school catchment area rules.

The council obtained details of phone calls and texts to seek to establish if the family lived where it said, the first known case of a town hall spying on a person’s phone records over school catchment areas.

The unnamed council was not acting within the rules, which say officials must be seeking evidence for use in a criminal prosecution. Instead, the council wanted only to withdraw a school place offered to a child in the family.

The hundreds of errors made by police, town halls and the security services will raise fresh doubts about the Government’s plan for a new ‘snoopers’ charter’.

Currently, public bodies have access to details of when and where phone calls, texts and emails were sent and, in some cases, to whom. But under proposals before Parliament, this will be extended to a person’s every internet click and the details of phone calls made on Skype.

The details will be supplied by internet firms – which were responsible for around a fifth of the mistakes made last year. Most commonly, the wrong digit was attached to a phone number or internet address by police, spies or the internet firm. This leads to data on the wrong person being investigated. It is destroyed once the mistake has been identified.

Last year, there were 895 cases where communications data – details of texts, emails and phone calls – was obtained in error.

There were also 42 errors by the security services – MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – relating to undercover operations, and 42 blunders by police and other law enforcement bodies asking for warrants to intercept the details of phone calls or other data.

David Cameron said he was concerned by the errors made by organisations using the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

It was passed by Labour ostensibly to fight terrorism, but was then extended to cover a string of other public bodies, including town halls. Councils have been accused of using the powers to spy on those accused of putting their bins out on the wrong day or allowing their dog to foul the pavement.

The number of applications to obtain communications data was 494,078, which was down by 11 per cent but is still 1,350 every day.

Of these, 2,130 were made by town halls. This was up from 1,809 in 2010, despite repeated promises from ministers to curtail the use of surveillance by the so-called ‘Town Hall Stasi’.

The Home Office said: ‘Surveillance powers are a vital tool for police and security services, enabling them to catch criminals, prevent terrorist attacks and protect children. But they must be used proportionately – that is why we have blocked local authorities for accessing data for trivial purposes.’

Campaign group Liberty said the scale of surveillance revealed was ‘alarming’ and called on the Government to ‘think again about turning us into a nation of suspects rather than citizens’.

SOURCE






British photophobia again

Anger of primary school parents banned from photographing their own children appearing in play because of just ONE complaint
 
Furious parents have blasted a headteacher who banned them from taking pictures of their own children during a school play after a single complaint.

Pupils in their final year of primary school had been working hard for the last month on their end-of-term production of ‘Oliver!’
And on Tuesday 100 proud parents crammed into Blackheath Primary School, in Sandwell, West Mids., with their cameras ready to capture the occasion.

But just a few minutes before the performance was due to start, headteacher Lesley King announced nobody was allowed to film their children because one parent had complained.

Stunned mums and dads said the decision had left them and their children extremely ‘upset and disappointed’.

Geoffrey Pearsall, 48, who’s son played one of the workhouse children in the play, said: 'No-one could quite believe it.  'All the parents were looking at each other in amazement. They were not happy at all.  'This is the children’s last year in junior school and the last time a lot of them will ever see each other again.  'If one parent didn’t want to have their child filmed then that pupil could have had a lesser role.

'At the very least the school could have filmed the production and distorted the face of the pupil concerned. It’s not hard to do these days.

'But it doesn’t seem fair that we’ve got no record of it to show our son when he is older or his grandparents.'

Another parent, who did not wish to be named, added: 'Everybody was pretty upset by the decision - it was really disappointing.
'I wanted to capture the moment on film so I could make the play an everlasting memory for my son.   'But because of ridiculous red-tape these days - it put a real dampener on the occasion.

'My son said after ‘did you get any pictures of me?’ and I had to explain why I hadn’t.'

Headteacher Lesley King confirmed parents had been asked not to take any pictures or video footage during the production.  She said: 'We had an objection to people taking pictures and videos for reasons that are confidential.  'I asked if parents would respect that and they did.'

SOURCE





Not Das vierte Reich after all?

Frau Merkel promises Jews and Muslims in Germany that circumcision WILL be allowed despite controversial court ban

Germany's Chancellor Merkel has promised Jewish and Muslim communities that they will be free to carry out circumcision on young boys despite a court ban.  Last month a judge in Cologne sparked fury among religious groups by outlawing the practice on the grounds that it causes 'illegal bodily harm'.

The ban provoked a rare show of unity between Jews, Muslims and Christians who see it as a threat to religious freedom.  In a country that is especially sensitive to allegations of intolerance because of the Nazis' slaughter of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, the government said it would find a way around the Cologne court ban in June as a matter of urgency.

European rabbis descended on Berlin this week to lobby against what they see as an affront to religious freedom - with the backing of Muslim and Christian leaders in an unusual show of unity, as well as the support of many German politicians.

A spokesman for the chancellor said: 'For everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany.  'Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible in this country without punishment.'

Ruling in the case of a Muslim boy taken to a doctor with bleeding after circumcision, the Cologne court said the practice inflicts bodily harm and should not be carried out on young boys, but could be practiced on older males who give consent.

This is not acceptable under Jewish religious practice which requires boys to be circumcised from eight days old, nor for many Muslims, for whom the age of circumcision varies according to family, country and branch of Islam.

The ruling by the Cologne Regional Court applies to the city and surrounding districts with a total population of just over 2 million people. The total population of Germany is about 82 million. Cologne is home to about 120,000 Muslims, whose plans for a new central mosque has stirred anti-immigrant sentiment.

The head of the Conference of European Rabbis urged Jews in Germany to continue carrying out circumcision despite the ban.  But the German Medical Association, while opposing the ban because it could drive circumcision underground with greater risk of infection through poor hygiene, advised doctors not to carry out the operation until the legal situation is cleared up as they could risk prosecution.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



16 July, 2012

Individualism is much more than egotism

Adam Smith and F. A. Hayek had it right.  Individualism in fact REQUIRES social co-operation

The citizens of a free society keep political power to a minimum and jealously protect individual rights. As a result a free society undermines legal privilege by removing the threat of aggression against upstarts of all kinds and preserves their autonomy. It offers the only lasting path to social progress and personal improvement for all people including those who, perhaps owing to accident of birth, may be the least well-off in society.  The desire to understand how individual actions can promote the general welfare led Adam Smith to develop a theory of the free society based on the complementary forces of sympathy and self-interest.

Adam Smith on Selfishness and Sympathy

In his 1759 book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith wrote:

    How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner.

For Smith, our ability to imagine ourselves in the place of others–sympathy–is the key to understanding why we morally approve and wish to reward or morally disapprove and wish to punish others, as well as ourselves, for particular actions.

     And hence it is, that to feel much for others and little for ourselves, that to restrain our selfish, and to indulge our benevolent affections, constitutes the perfection of human nature; and can alone produce among mankind that harmony of sentiments and passions in which consists their whole grace and propriety. As to love our neighbour as we love ourselves is the great law of Christianity, so it is the great precept of nature to love ourselves only as we love our neighbour, or what comes to the same thing, as our neighbour is capable of loving us.

So in a sense, while self-interest is like an accelerator for social progress in a free society, sympathy is the brake that helps us drive even faster.

True Individualism Is Not Narrow Selfishness

Trying to preserve our individual rights to life, liberty, and property–the essentials of individualism–need not imply selfishness in the narrow sense. We can use the fruits of our freedom to help others as well as ourselves–and we do. (And evidently it makes us happier.)

But the equating of individualism with narrow selfishness persists in no small part because libertarians themselves sometimes profess an overly narrow form of individualism–one that has a “rugged, me-first attitude” at its core. (I’ve written and spoken about this before.) While I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with that view or the lifestyle it implies as far as it goes, the problem is that it doesn’t really get very far. Social, economic, and cultural development depends on the evolution of complex social networks among vast numbers of people, and they have a hard time forming under an atomistic kind of individualism.

F.A. Hayek writes in his important essay “Individualism: True and False” (pdf): “. . . the belief that individualism approves and encourages human selfishness is one of the main reasons why so many people dislike it. . . .”

Thus, in an article published in the New York Times just before Independence Day, called “The Downside of Liberty,” Kurt Anderson laments:

     What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late ’60s isn’t contradictory or incongruous. It’s all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.

The author raises points that may be worth pursuing another time. But what is relevant here is the equation, again, of individualism with narrow selfishness. He’s wrong, of course. But I can understand why he and others might think that way, given what people on “our side” sometimes say. A cramped individualism lends itself to the notion that libertarians, insofar as we prize individualism, must indeed be antisocial.

(Now I also think that nothing is more effective in displacing Smithian sympathy with narrow selfishness than threats against our freedoms, or when, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations . . . evinces a Design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism. . . .” So trying to use political power to make us less selfish–though, say, takings and income redistribution–may have the opposite effect.)

True Individualism Is Pro-Social

What does individualism in the tradition of Adam Smith mean? Here is F.A. Hayek again in the same essay:

     What, then, are the essential characteristics of true individualism? The first thing that should be said is that it is primarily a theory of society, an attempt to understand the forces which determine the social life of man, and only in the second instance a set of political maxims derived from this view of society.

In other words, individualism is a way of seeing and understanding how we live together. Individualism is about how best to promote social cooperation. That is,

     . . . there is no other way toward an understanding of social phenomena but through our understanding of individual actions directed toward other people and guided by their expected behavior.

What then is the correct meaning of selfishness in the context of individualism?

     If we put it concisely by saying that people are and ought to be guided in their actions by their interests and desires, this will at once be misunderstood or distorted into the false contention that they are or ought to be exclusively guided by their personal needs or selfish interests, while what we mean is that they ought to be allowed to strive for whatever they think desirable.

True individualism, then, is the opposite of paternalism in that it respects each and every person’s ability to make and evaluate her own decisions. That includes decisions on whether and under what circumstances to ask for or to give help, and what kind of help to ask for or to give, as well as whether that help was effective or not.

As a result in the history of mankind there has been no greater engine than liberty and individualism (rightly understood) for lifting the material lives of even the very poorest, as this popular video by Hans Rosling, professor of international health, brilliantly illustrates.

Now, there is a kind of broad selfishness which is indeed an essential part of individualism that, as Hayek says, is often misunderstood. He explains:

     The true basis of his [the individualist’s] argument is that nobody can know who knows best and that the only way by which we can find out is through a social process in which everybody is allowed to try and see what he can do.

That social process is competition in markets free from political privilege and legal barriers. Competition of this kind is a discovery procedure in which people look for ways, via sympathy, to mutually benefit one another.  It doesn’t lead to utopian perfection, but to consistent improvement in the general welfare and in individual self-actualization.

Individualism is a tried-and-true way of promoting social cooperation, not a call to shun it.

SOURCE






1,000 innocent victims of Big Brother Britain: Families were spied on wrongly because of blunders by officials

Almost 1,000 entirely innocent people were wrongly spied upon using anti-terror powers last year following blunders by officials, it emerged last night.

In two shocking cases, two members of the public were arrested and accused of being serious criminals.

Details of phone calls and texts by genuine crime suspects had wrongly been attributed to the pair in a terrible mix-up between police and an internet company.

Sir Paul Kennedy, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, said the mistakes had ‘significant consequence’ for the victims.

The internet provider involved was slow to report the errors and initially gave unsatisfactory explanations as to how they occurred or what was being done to stop it happening again, Sir Paul said.

He also revealed details of a council going beyond its legal powers to use snooping laws to spy on a family suspected of cheating school catchment area rules.

The council obtained details of phone calls and texts to seek to establish if the family lived where it said, the first known case of a town hall spying on a person’s phone records over school catchment areas.

The unnamed council was not acting within the rules, which say officials must be seeking evidence for use in a criminal prosecution. Instead, the council wanted only to withdraw a school place offered to a child in the family.

The hundreds of errors made by police, town halls and the security services will raise fresh doubts about the Government’s plan for a new ‘snoopers’ charter’.

Currently, public bodies have access to details of when and where phone calls, texts and emails were sent and, in some cases, to whom. But under proposals before Parliament, this will be extended to a person’s every internet click and the details of phone calls made on Skype.

The details will be supplied by internet firms – which were responsible for around a fifth of the mistakes made last year. Most commonly, the wrong digit was attached to a phone number or internet address by police, spies or the internet firm. This leads to data on the wrong person being investigated. It is destroyed once the mistake has been identified.

Last year, there were 895 cases where communications data – details of texts, emails and phone calls – was obtained in error.

There were also 42 errors by the security services – MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – relating to undercover operations, and 42 blunders by police and other law enforcement bodies asking for warrants to intercept the details of phone calls or other data.

David Cameron said he was concerned by the errors made by organisations using the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

It was passed by Labour ostensibly to fight terrorism, but was then extended to cover a string of other public bodies, including town halls. Councils have been accused of using the powers to spy on those accused of putting their bins out on the wrong day or allowing their dog to foul the pavement.

The number of applications to obtain communications data was 494,078, which was down by 11 per cent but is still 1,350 every day.

Of these, 2,130 were made by town halls. This was up from 1,809 in 2010, despite repeated promises from ministers to curtail the use of surveillance by the so-called ‘Town Hall Stasi’.

The Home Office said: ‘Surveillance powers are a vital tool for police and security services, enabling them to catch criminals, prevent terrorist attacks and protect children. But they must be used proportionately – that is why we have blocked local authorities for accessing data for trivial purposes.’

Campaign group Liberty said the scale of surveillance revealed was ‘alarming’ and called on the Government to ‘think again about turning us into a nation of suspects rather than citizens’.

SOURCE






British photophobia again

Anger of primary school parents banned from photographing their own children appearing in play because of just ONE complaint
 
Furious parents have blasted a headteacher who banned them from taking pictures of their own children during a school play after a single complaint.

Pupils in their final year of primary school had been working hard for the last month on their end-of-term production of ‘Oliver!’
And on Tuesday 100 proud parents crammed into Blackheath Primary School, in Sandwell, West Mids., with their cameras ready to capture the occasion.

But just a few minutes before the performance was due to start, headteacher Lesley King announced nobody was allowed to film their children because one parent had complained.

Stunned mums and dads said the decision had left them and their children extremely ‘upset and disappointed’.

Geoffrey Pearsall, 48, who’s son played one of the workhouse children in the play, said: 'No-one could quite believe it.  'All the parents were looking at each other in amazement. They were not happy at all.  'This is the children’s last year in junior school and the last time a lot of them will ever see each other again.  'If one parent didn’t want to have their child filmed then that pupil could have had a lesser role.

'At the very least the school could have filmed the production and distorted the face of the pupil concerned. It’s not hard to do these days.

'But it doesn’t seem fair that we’ve got no record of it to show our son when he is older or his grandparents.'

Another parent, who did not wish to be named, added: 'Everybody was pretty upset by the decision - it was really disappointing.
'I wanted to capture the moment on film so I could make the play an everlasting memory for my son.   'But because of ridiculous red-tape these days - it put a real dampener on the occasion.

'My son said after ‘did you get any pictures of me?’ and I had to explain why I hadn’t.'

Headteacher Lesley King confirmed parents had been asked not to take any pictures or video footage during the production.  She said: 'We had an objection to people taking pictures and videos for reasons that are confidential.  'I asked if parents would respect that and they did.'

SOURCE





Not Das vierte Reich after all?

Frau Merkel promises Jews and Muslims in Germany that circumcision WILL be allowed despite controversial court ban

Germany's Chancellor Merkel has promised Jewish and Muslim communities that they will be free to carry out circumcision on young boys despite a court ban.  Last month a judge in Cologne sparked fury among religious groups by outlawing the practice on the grounds that it causes 'illegal bodily harm'.

The ban provoked a rare show of unity between Jews, Muslims and Christians who see it as a threat to religious freedom.  In a country that is especially sensitive to allegations of intolerance because of the Nazis' slaughter of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, the government said it would find a way around the Cologne court ban in June as a matter of urgency.

European rabbis descended on Berlin this week to lobby against what they see as an affront to religious freedom - with the backing of Muslim and Christian leaders in an unusual show of unity, as well as the support of many German politicians.

A spokesman for the chancellor said: 'For everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany.  'Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible in this country without punishment.'

Ruling in the case of a Muslim boy taken to a doctor with bleeding after circumcision, the Cologne court said the practice inflicts bodily harm and should not be carried out on young boys, but could be practiced on older males who give consent.

This is not acceptable under Jewish religious practice which requires boys to be circumcised from eight days old, nor for many Muslims, for whom the age of circumcision varies according to family, country and branch of Islam.

The ruling by the Cologne Regional Court applies to the city and surrounding districts with a total population of just over 2 million people. The total population of Germany is about 82 million. Cologne is home to about 120,000 Muslims, whose plans for a new central mosque has stirred anti-immigrant sentiment.

The head of the Conference of European Rabbis urged Jews in Germany to continue carrying out circumcision despite the ban.  But the German Medical Association, while opposing the ban because it could drive circumcision underground with greater risk of infection through poor hygiene, advised doctors not to carry out the operation until the legal situation is cleared up as they could risk prosecution.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



15 July, 2012

A new extreme of British authoritarianism

Under legislation by Tony Blair's Labour party, unsurprisingly.  But it is so British that the Cons/Lib government is energetically enforcing it

It beggars belief, but it can now be a criminal offence to use words like Games, Gold and Summer – or even a picture of the London skyline. The reason? An outrageous abuse of our laws to protect the profits of Olympic sponsors...

In passing the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act of 2006, the Blair Government granted the organisers remarkable concessions. Most glaringly, the Act is bespoke legislation that breaks the principle of equality before the law.

For it has given privileges to the Olympics and its sponsors and to them alone. The Games’ organisers can protect the Olympic trademarks, as any other organisation can protect theirs, but they can also control the use of words any business or shop, for example, may or may not associate with the Games. Along with bans on the use of the Olympic name, rings, motto and logo, the organisers have appropriated ordinary language.

At the organisers’ behest, the Government told the courts they may wish to take particular account of anyone using two or more words from what it calls List A: ‘Games’; ‘Two Thousand and Twelve’; ‘2012’; and ‘twenty twelve’.

And the judges must also come down hard on anyone, even a charity, who takes a word from List A and joins it with one or more words from what is List B: ‘Gold’; ‘Silver’; ‘Bronze’; ‘London’; ‘medals’; ‘sponsors’; and ‘summer’. Common nouns are now private property.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games does not stop there. To cover all eventualities, it warns everyone in Britain against creating an ‘unlawful association’ with the Games, which can be done without even mentioning the forbidden words!

Even the London skyline, believe it or not, is out of bounds if it is combined with, for example, an image of a runner carrying a torch.

My beef is not with Britain hosting the Games. It is with the heavy mob which warns that to use banned words or images relating to the Olympics, however obliquely, infringes the exclusive deals of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Adidas, Dow, Samsung, Visa and the Games’ other multi-million-dollar sponsors.

And the punishments will not just be damages in the civil courts. The state has granted the police powers under the criminal law to enter ‘land or premises’ and to ‘remove, destroy, conceal or erase any infringing article’.

Its motives are clear enough. The Olympics want to ban the often witty attempts by businesses to annoy the official sponsors with ‘ambush marketing’.  My favourite ambush was at the 1992 Winter Olympics, when American Express plastered ads in the streets of the host city saying, ‘You don’t need a visa to visit the games’ — which Visa had, of course, sponsored.  Visa could do nothing about American Express’s cheek then.

Now the authorities will meet similar attempts to spoil the sponsors’ party with punishments in the criminal courts.

The Olympics first introduced tight restrictions on ambush marketing at the 2000 Sydney Games, but it was Britain’s 2006 Act which allowed for heavy-handed policing.

According to the Chartered Institute of Marketing, the law does not discriminate between multi-nationals, which can harm major sponsors, and small businesses, which harm no one.

To concentrate on the interests of sponsors, however, is to miss the fanaticism of the authoritarian mentality behind the Games. Priests sacrificed oxen and rams to Zeus and Pelops at the ancient Olympics.

Their successors sacrifice the freedom to speak and publish to the gods of corporate capitalism and international sport. They regard encroachments on their holy space, however trifling, as a modern version of sacrilege. Thus trading standards officers in Stoke-on-Trent told a florist to take down its floral Olympic rings. Offending rings of sausages vanished from a butcher’s window in Dorset.

The owner of underwear shop JJ’s Lingerie in Leicester, meanwhile, was ordered to take down her window display of five mannequins wearing sports bras and modelling hula-hoops in the colours of the Olympic rings.

And, to underscore the true lunacy of this draconian edict, consider the case of 81-year-old grandmother Joy Tomkins, who had to withdraw a doll she had donated to a church sale because the jumper she’d knitted for it showed the Olympic rings.

It is not only the rings. The Olympic organising committee warned estate agents in the West Country they must remove Olympic torches made from old ‘for sale’ signs — or face ‘formal legal action’.  In April, the University of Derby, fearing legal action, took down three colourful ‘Supporting the London Olympics’ banners it had printed to celebrate the passing of the torch relay.

More heavy-handed still, at a rehearsal for the torch relay in Northumberland in March, Aidan Kirkwood, a recuperating Afghan war hero, was ordered to cover his trainers in white stickers. The reason? His shoes bore the logo of a rival to the official Olympic sponsor Adidas.

And so the relentless interfering goes on.

When the British Sugarcraft Guild asked the authorities if it might run a 2012 cake decorating competition, it thought it was making a modest request. The Guild was not even going to sell the cakes afterwards.  No matter. Only official sponsors could decorate cakes with Olympic symbols, the organisers ruled.

Such narrow-minded strictures are not mere protection of a brand, but evidence of a restless fear of losing control that borders on the paranoid.

Earlier this week, Goldman Sachs published a report on the Games which suggested that economic growth will be boosted by 0.3 to 0.4 per cent in the third quarter thanks to spending by tourists visiting London. If they are right, it could spell the end of the double-dip recession. But are they being too optimistic?

For the Olympics won’t let commerce join the party. Even the official suppliers to the Games — the builders, surveyors and electricians who have made the event a reality — cannot mention their connection in promotional material, for fear of trespassing on the sacred space the sponsors have paid the International Olympic Committee so much money  to ring-fence.

I said earlier that all businesses and organisations protect their trademarks, and so they do. But who takes it as far as the Olympics? The All England Club does not threaten shopkeepers who put tennis displays in their windows in Wimbledon fortnight. Not even the Cuban Communist Party claims the right to regulate images of Che Guevara.

The constraints will only grow tighter. You will be able to pay with Visa cards at Olympic events but not MasterCards. You will be able to drink Coke but not Pepsi.

If you fancy something stronger, Heineken will be served in the bars on the Olympic site, having bought the Olympic ‘pouring rights’ for an estimated £10 million. However, John Smith’s bitter and Strongbow cider, although brands owned by Heineken, are not included in the deal and so must be sold as plain ‘English ale’ and ‘English cider’.

At Lord’s, the Olympic archery venue, Marston’s Pedigree Bitter — sponsors of the England Cricket Team — is to be unceremoniously ousted. The real ale will be replaced with — you guessed it — Heineken lager for the duration of the Games, and any photos of Marston’s brand ambassador, the cricketer Matthew Hoggard, will have to be covered.

If the restrictions on drinks sound extreme, rules about what you can eat are even worse. Spectators learned this week that McDonald’s has been telling the organisers to ban 800 food retailers at 40 Olympic sites from serving chips with their meals.

The Olympics’ ‘sponsorship obligations’ to McDonald’s — whose French fries are clearly so tasteless they cannot stand competition — meant that only fish and chips were spared the prohibition. (Not even the Olympics dare ban the national dish.) It was only the protests of workers at the Olympic Park that forced McDonald’s to back down on Thursday.

Whether stewards will turn away spectators if they arrive in clothing branded with the logo of a rival to an official sponsor like Adidas is an unanswered question. Certainly, officials will punish an athlete who, deliberately or not, exposes the logo of an unauthorised company (other than, for example,  runners being allowed to wear branded racing spikes).

Modern athletes can afford a fine. But what of the Olympic bureaucrats’ warning to spectators that they must not ‘broadcast or publish video and/or sound recordings, including on social networking websites and the internet’?

In the age of instant uploads from iPhones to Facebook and Twitter this is an absurd restriction that is likely to boomerang back into the organisers’ faces. The web has made fools of those like the footballer Ryan Giggs who tried to enforce unwarranted controls on information. It is my sincere hope that bloggers and tweeters give the International Olympic Committee the same treatment.

The Chartered Institute of Marketing is rightly angry that the taxes of the small businesses and shopkeepers it represents have paid towards the £9 billion cost of the Games, yet they are not allowed to use the Olympics to seek custom as they could use Wimbledon, the Queen’s Jubilee and every other national event.

But all this raises a more profound point about corporate power in the 21st century.

The Olympic organisers dismiss everyone seeking to exploit the Games — from High Street butchers to rival multi-nationals — as ‘parasites’, an insult they really should not throw around since it is they who have allowed the fat and sugar pushers of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola to purchase a parasitical association with athletics.

In reply to that dismissive put-down, the Institute of Marketing says there must be limits to what money can buy. Sponsors should be able to garner good publicity from an event, and protect their investment, of course.

But a free society should not allow them to occupy every possible avenue of commercial advantage as if they were dictators in a totalitarian state, rather than merchants in a democracy.

Despite protests by the Institute at the highest level, a complete monopoly on the public consciousness is what the sponsors of the 2012 games have bought — with the active support of the British Government.

Therein lies the true scandal of the 2012 Olympics. Ministers should have told the organisers that Britain is a free country, and that they cannot turn officers of the law into McDonald’s, Coke and Visa’s private police force. Instead they have given private interest a free pass.

For a few weeks in August, Britain will be a corporate dystopia, in which agents of a sporting behemoth will ban the normal and, until now, legal marketing of products, and seek to stop file-sharing on social network sites.

Yet Britain’s lawyers have shown no desire to warn the Olympic organisers that they just can’t do that here, and for a depressing reason: Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects free speech, but in case after case the judiciary has ignored it.

The Games will provide a further illustration of the weakness of our protections against oppressive power.

It will demonstrate again that Britain is a country where freedom of speech is praised in theory but suppressed  in public. Only this time the whole world will be watching as we let intolerant men push petty censoriousness to a record-breaking extreme.

In 2005, Britain boasted that it had ‘won’ the Olympics. When the Games begin, it  will become clear that the Olympics and its corporate sponsors won Britain.

SOURCE






Parents' fury as teen who raped girl, 4, is allowed to return to his old school with victim's brother

Judge blames "society"

A teenager who raped a four-year-old girl he was babysitting will return to his old school and share its corridors with his victim's brother.  The victim's parents are calling for the 15-year-old sex attacker to be moved to another location after he admitted the crime but avoided jail last week after he blamed his hormones.

Her older brother is also due to attend the same school in Cambridgeshire next year and will face bumping into him between lessons.

The devastated family, who cannot be named for legal reasons, also live in the same street as the child's attacker.  The victim's mum said today: 'I don't want him at the same school as him but I can't move him way from his friends. I just can't do it.  'Believe me I want everyone to know he's there and to write it across the front of the school but I can't.'

Another mother, said: 'I can't believe that the person in question has been allowed back into the school.  'As parents we were not told about it, which I am furious about.

'I feel my daughter is at risk. I am so angry and shocked by what's going on. Whoever's decision it was to place the attacker back at the school has a lot to answer for.

The culprit, who was a family friend, was asked to look after the little girl for two hours while her parents attended their son’s Christmas play.  While they were out the babysitter raped her.

The victim, who has since turned five, later told her father she had been attacked by the teenager who told police he 'lost his mind' because his 'hormones took over.'

Judge Gareth Hawkesworth was slammed for failing to imprison the teen attacker after he admitted the rape in court last week.  The judge instead laid the blame at the hands of 'society and the world' for allowing the teenager to become corrupted by online porn.

One parent from the Cambridgeshire school, which cannot be named for legal reasons, said: 'A lot of parents know who he is.  'He should be moved out of the school and taught somewhere else or at home even. “

The little girl’s parents had trusted the quiet but 'normal kid' to watch her for a couple of hours in return for £10 pocket money.

But when they got home the victim’s Dad was getting her ready for bed when she revealed the babysitter had played a game, promising to reward her with chocolates.  It then came out he had abused her.

The teenager admitted the offence when he was later confronted by the victim’s family.

'I should want to rip this boy's head off - but I think I let my daughter down,' the guilt-ridden father said last week. 'I blame myself because I left her in a room with him and made the wrong judgment.'

'Our daughter was just four years old and so small for her age, she was still wearing age two to three clothing. He was a lot bigger than her,' her distressed mother added.

No-one at the attacker’s school was prepared to comment on what safety measures would be in place for other pupils.  But a spokesman said: 'It would be wholly inappropriate to comment on arrangements for an individual pupil.  'The school’s focus will be on ensuring it continues to meet the educational and well being needs of all pupils.'

SOURCE






Pastor imprisoned for supporting spanking

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him -- Proverbs 13:24

A Black Earth church pastor who taught his flock to discipline their children, some as young as 2 months old, with wooden spoons and rods was sentenced Friday to two years in prison.

Philip Caminiti, 55, was pastor of Aleitheia Bible Church, which meets in the homes of its members. His lawyer, Yolanda Lehner, asked that he be given probation.

But Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said the sentence, in part, was intended to send a message that child abuse will not be tolerated and to prevent Caminiti from once again teaching members of his church to spank their children with wooden objects to cure them of selfishness.

"What is important to me," Sumi also said, "is there was and continues to this day no expression of remorse or repentance for the consequences of those actions, or what the whole chain of events has led the family and the community through."

Caminiti was found guilty by a jury in March of eight counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse for teaching church members what he said was a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible, on children who were between the ages of 2 months and 5 years.

The practice, intended to teach children to behave correctly, was stopped after police intervened in November 2010.

"The children were beaten for of all things doing what children do, and that is crying," Sumi said.

Caminiti will be on extended supervision for six years after his release from prison. Despite objections on constitutional grounds by Caminiti's lawyers, Sumi ordered that he not have any contact with the Aleitheia Bible Church and have no leadership role in any church.

While that barred Caminiti from having contact with members of his extended family who are church members, Sumi did allow him to be with his wife, their children and their grandchildren. She turned down a request to delay his prison sentence until after an appeal of his case.

Assistant District Attorney Shelly Rusch asked that Caminiti be sentenced to five years in prison and 15 years of extended supervision, calling him "the spoke in the wheel of this conspiracy."

She said Caminiti is unlikely to change despite his criminal convictions.

Lehner said she remains incredulous that Caminiti was even charged with a crime. "The whole thing has become much more flammable than I anticipated," she said. "I really do feel like I've stepped into the Spanish Inquisition."

She said that since his arrest he has not promoted corporal punishment, has done everything that was asked of him and does not deserve to be imprisoned.

SOURCE





Atheist files complaint over Lancaster County restaurant's church-bulletin discount

He can complain but I doubt that the owner is under any legal obligation to do differently

For more than a year, Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen in Columbia, Lancaster County has offered a Sunday special: Diners who bring in a current church bulletin receive 10 percent off the purchase of their dinners.

But, the promotion has rubbed some people the wrong way, including John Wolff of Manheim Twp., Lancaster County, an atheist and member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Wolff, who said he's never been to Prudhomme’s, recently filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission claiming the 22-year-old restaurant should not give discounts based on religion. “I bear them no ill will but they shouldn’t be pushing religion,” Wolff, 80, said.

The restaurant’s co-owner, Sharon Prudhomme, said she’s not about ready to pull the plug on the deal, which was designed, to drum up business.

She said many in the community, including pastors and ministers, are regular customers at Prudhomme’s, known for its Louisiana cuisine such as catfish po boys, alligator platters and crawfish.

“I thought ‘How can I boost our Sunday sales for dinner?’ And, I thought ‘Well you know what we have a lot of folks who go to church who come in throughout the week,’” Prudhomme said.

Shannon Powers, spokeswoman for the Human Relations Commission, confirmed the complaint had been filed. Prudhomme’s has 30 days to submit a written answer to the complaint, she added.

Over the past couple of months, Prudhomme said, she received two letters and a phone call from the Freedom From Religion Foundation demanding the restaurant end the promotion.

The Madison, Wis.-based group works to educate the public on matters relating to promoting the constitutional principle of separation between church and state. It filed suit over the Pennsylvania Legislature's naming 2012 the Year of the Bible.

“I just kind of blew it off. Gosh, I have more things to concentrate on,” Prudhomme said of the letters.

As for the phone call, Prudhomme, who does not attend church due to her work schedule, said she told the group she operates an independent restaurant and suggested non church-goers can pick up bulletins from any church and bring them to the restaurant to cash in on the discount.

“We’re the most unprejudiced of all. I don’t care if you are purple or polka dot. The only requirement we have is men must wear sleeves,” she said.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



14 July, 2012

Sabbath



13 July, 2012

Have modern churches lost God somewhere along the way?

There is a need for the mystical and sublime.  Comment from Sydney, Australia by Elizabeth Farrelly below.  Like her, I am not   religious but I feel great peace when I am in either of my two favourite churches, both of which are very "old-fashioned".  And I am appalled by some modern barns that call themselves churches  -- JR

The girls on the footpath at Railway Square are having a little whinge about the bells. They're tourists, by the look, from Cairns or possibly Perth, peachy, bumptious and untroubled. Except by the bells. It's the loudest street corner in town, but those bells keep messing with their heads.

"They're so annoying," complains one, with flick of glossy mane. "Why can't they just be quiet?"

The bells - a glorious, liquid carillon - originate across the street in the mysterious other world that is Christ Church St Laurence. They sound real, real ropes swung on by real bell-pullers. But OMG. Calls to piety can totally interfere with your hooking up.

My church pathology has got so that, when my need for ancient mysteries starts to fibrillate, I must drive to (of all places) Canberra. On the bleached-out expanses of Anzac Parade, Edmund Blacket's lovely St John's offers a deep well in a dry paddock.

So I am consoled, although I resist his arguments, by Alain de Botton's assurances in Religion for Atheists that a craving for ecclesiastical aesthetics is not weird.

The yearning is not merely physical. It's for both church and liturgy. King James's Bible was 400 years old last year, the Book of Common Prayer 350 this year. Many writers, from Alexander McCall Smith to PD James, link their success to early inoculation with these books' entrancing rhythms.

"I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholick Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh and the life everlasting." Even as a kid reading comics in church I loved this stuff. "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made … "

Yet the Sydney church seems to give rather less of a stuff than those girls on the street.

I'm no medievalist. My preferred architecture is transcendent modern. But so few moderns (except Corbusier, Ando, Zumthor) do decent church.

Why? Partly education. The moulding of light for mystery and transcendence do not figure large in Design 101. And partly the Church itself, as client, frantically shedding anything that might distinguish it from big-box shopping.

So when a new church pops up I'm all agog. This particular Sunday morning, then, is a church-crawl between two extremes; Francis-Jones Morehen Thorp's superwhite renovation of Blacket's St Barnabas on Broadway, and Sydney's last-remaining pocket of pigmenty God-gloom, Christ Church St Laurence, tucked into the soot and stone of Railway Square.

The Barneys rebuild - and yes, the diminutive is official - is now almost complete. It was never Blacket's best moment; small, awkwardly sited and lately painted clotted cream. Yet I was aghast when it burnt, and more aghast that the rebuild would be total.

Yet architect Richard Francis-Jones has made a handsome building, eye-catching despite some ambiguity of purpose.

If you didn't know, couldn't see the glazed cross on high up front, what would you take this building to be? An office, says its glazed street facade. A community centre or three-star hotel, says its foyer. Something monkish, maybe a convent, says the crested white hood, visible from afar. A school, perhaps, or yoga studio, or minor publishing house.

The entrance is rewardingly ceremonial, ramping boldly up from Broadway (although not on the cross's axis, which is planted with trees). The foyer - and no, we don't say narthex - has the strongest sense of higher power, being emphatically vertical, with the cross-shaped window beaming in.

But the auditorium (no, not nave) feels distinctly secular. It has proudly curved walls, up which children love to run and down which they love to slide. It has an intimate acoustic and a low-brow, first-person liturgy ("Jesus died so I don't have to hide") on a big screen above the stage.

That's enough for me. I like this building, but sense no godliness in its formica-smooth interior. I understand that this slide into civicness began 350 years back, with Christopher Wren's 51 rebuilt post-fire London churches, and that Barneys is on the humanism gradient.

But whereas, in Wren's flattened, white-and-gold interiors you feel the enlightenment at work, Barneys's bright auditorium feels less a defence of science than a yielding to lounge-room populism. Church in an age of consumption.

I don't want church to be about me, or my ordinary life. I come here for otherness. So off I head, with my little troupe, to the darker, more wrathful end of the spectrum.

Christ Church St Laurence is about as high as High Church gets in Jensenite Sydney. It has Latin and incense, pews and shadows, robes and chants and genuflection. Where Barneys has joy, St Laurence has solemnity.

In part this is aesthetic; a difference between upbeat and down, between major and minor keys. But it's also a shift of the power relationship between God and humankind.

Democro-capitalism's biggest failing is putting humanity firmly in charge - of nature, the planet, God. Where once, God was a given and we were created, it's now we who are given, and God shaped to fit. Push has become pull.

That's OK, I guess, but it doesn't suit me. I like a sense of necessity, of very God. If you're going to have God - and I hover pathetically between atheism and agnosticism - you really need a big one. God underneath is just not God.

If I'm bothering to do church, I want my penny-worth of exigency. I do not wish to say "help us to look after the world and to reach our full potential," when I could be saying "give us this day … "

I want chiaroscuro of language and space. I want it difficult, subtle, hard and high. I want crucified, dead and buried. I want glorious.

Obscure? Sure. But as the Prince of Wales wryly notes, "the word of God is supposed to be a bit over our heads". Also the house.

SOURCE





The human right to claim welfare payments:  British jobless could sue for better payments under controversial plan

Human rights law will be extended to include the right to claim benefits and enjoy a comfortable standard of living courtesy of the taxpayer under plans unveiled last night.

A Government panel of experts is considering whether Labour’s Human Rights Act – which is already hugely controversial – should be extended to include so-called ‘socio-economic rights’.

This would allow the jobless to take the Government to court if ministers did not provide a minimum standard of living.

Earlier this week, a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested a family of four needed an income of almost £37,000 to have a satisfactory lifestyle.

The ‘Commission on a Bill of Rights’ was set up by David Cameron to end the rampant abuse of human rights laws.

Originally, the Prime Minister had pledged to scrap Labour’s Act and replace it with a UK Bill of Rights, which would stop the system being abused by criminals and those who refuse to work.

But, after being forced into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats he had to downgrade his pledge. Instead, he established the commission to decide the best way forward. Yesterday, despite deliberating for 15 months, the panel said it had not decided whether to recommend any change to the Act.

But it said that, if it did decide to opt for a Bill of Rights, it wanted to consider suggestions from the public and pro-human rights groups on whether to add on yet more ‘human rights’ which must be respected by Parliament and the courts.

Under a section headed ‘Additional Rights?’, it suggests ‘a right to equality’; a ‘right to administrative justice’, which would build on the existing ‘right to a fair trial’; ‘rights for victims’; ‘children’s rights’; ‘socio-economic rights’; and ‘environmental rights’. The last two are likely to be the most contentious.

Under ‘socio-economic rights’, it says: ‘Such rights, which are found in a number of bills of rights in other countries, can include rights to adequate healthcare and housing, a right to education, a right to a minimum standard of living, and a range of other social security entitlements.’

On benefits, the panel suggest copying wording from the South African Constitution.

This promises a right to ‘social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance’.

On the environment, the panel suggests that everyone should have the right to live in a world that ‘is not harmful to their health or well-being’ where there is ‘secure ecologically sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development’.

Critics fear this could lead to all building projects being automatically challenged under human rights law – creating a boon for lawyers but stifling economic growth.

MPs said they were hugely disappointed with the report, which also suggests the courts having the power to strike down laws made by  Parliament. Currently, judges can rule that a law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but must leave it to the politicians to decide what to do next.

Tory MP Dominic Raab said: ‘The Commission risks being hijacked by the human rights lobby. It is supposed to be looking at how to scale back the rights inflation and compensation culture that has undermined law enforcement, democratic accountability and personal responsibility.

‘Instead, it has churned out proposals for even more human rights. That would give judges enormous power to set social policy without proper democratic accountability, and cost the taxpayer a fortune.’

Mr Cameron voiced his frustration in May at slow progress on his plans to scrap the Human Rights Act.

He blamed delays on the compromises made necessary by being in a coalition, but said he remained determined to press ahead with the change.

Sir Leigh Lewis – chairman of the panel, which will make its final recommendations later this year – said: ‘I am pleased that the Commission has published this second Consultation Paper. We want to hear from as many individuals and interested parties as possible.’

SOURCE




'Being allowed to wear a crucifix at work is a vital freedom': British PM backs law giving right to display religious symbols

David Cameron has promised to change the law if necessary  to allow Christians to wear crosses at work.

The Prime Minister told MPs yesterday that the Government would back the right to display  discreetly a symbol of faith in the workplace, despite legal rulings to the contrary.

He said he supported Nadia Eweida, who is fighting a case at the European Court of Human Rights after being barred from wearing a cross by British Airways.

Miss Eweida, 61, a Pentecostal Christian of Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home after refusing to remove or hide a necklace with a cross.

An employment tribunal ruled she had not suffered religious discrimination, but the airline changed its uniform policy after the case to allow all religious symbols, including crosses. Miss Eweida has pursued the case, however, to try to establish in law the rights of other religious people.

She and Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after refusing to hide the cross she wore on a necklace, claim they were discriminated against by their employers.

The Government is opposing  their appeal.

In the Commons yesterday, former shadow home secretary David Davis described Miss Eweida’s treatment as a ‘disgraceful piece of political correctness’.

He said he was surprised Government lawyers were resisting her appeal, telling Mr Cameron he could not believe it would support religious suppression in the workplace. The Prime Minister told MPs he fully supported the right to wear religious symbols at work.  He said: ‘I think it is an absolutely vital freedom.’

Mr Cameron insisted the Government would change the law if necessary to make sure employees can wear religious symbols at work.

‘What we will do is that if it turns out that the law has the intention of banning the display of religious symbols in the workplace, as has come out in this case, then we will change the law and make clear that people can wear religious symbols at work,’ he said.

The women’s cases will be held in Strasbourg in early September.

Miss Eweida said: ‘Of course,  it is excellent news that the Prime Minister says he will change the law, but why doesn’t he get on  with it?  ‘Up till now the Home Office has said it would be too cumbersome for employers to have to look after all their employees’ religious requirements.

‘If Mr Cameron means what he says about overruling them, then he should not wait for the European court to decide but change the law now.’

Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable said: ‘As her local MP, I’ve supported Nadia’s right  to wear a cross throughout  her campaign.  ‘I wrote to the Home Secretary  18 months ago urging her change the law.

‘So I am delighted by the Prime Minister’s announcement that the law will be changed to allow people of all religious faiths to be able to wear symbols of their religion.’

SOURCE




Australia:  Provocation defence  gets Korean man off murder charge



Who's the galoot in the hat? You might ask.  It's actually the trial lawyer, Winston Terracini, who got the Korean guy off the hook

A MAN who caught his wife in bed with his close friend has been found not guilty of murder on the grounds of provocation.

Joachim Won came home from work sick in May 2010 to find his 44-year-old wife, Anna, having sex with his friend Hyung Mo Lee.  Won, then 56, went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and stabbed Mr Lee, 48, seven times, allegedly shouting "you must die" or "he must die".

A NSW Supreme Court jury took less than an hour to return a verdict of not guilty to murder. Won was automatically found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Won was overcome with emotion when the verdict was delivered yesterday.

Won's barrister, Winston Terracini, SC, said: "It's a very satisfying result and Mr Won, through his legal representatives, had offered to plead guilty to manslaughter from the very beginning but the Crown rejected it."

Mr Terracini had told the jury his client was acting under "provocation", in that he was so shocked by what he saw he lost self-control.

The jury was asked to decide if the act of finding a spouse in bed with someone else could have induced an ordinary person in the position of Won to have so far lost self-control as to have formed an intent to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm.

The case is the latest to focus public attention on the law of provocation, which is the subject of an inquiry by the NSW Parliament. The inquiry began last month following the case of Chamanjot Singh, who was given a six-year jail sentence for slitting his wife's throat with a box cutter.

In May, Singh was found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder after a jury accepted his claim that he had been provoked by a stream of verbal abuse from Manpreet Kaur, 29, including an alleged threat that she would have him deported.

Mr Terracini said the principle of provocation had been seen as valid since the 19th century.

Reacting to the verdict, the victims' advocate Howard Brown said cases where provocation is argued should be left to judges, not juries.

The defence of provocation was abolished in Tasmania in 2003 and Victoria in 2005, following a recommendation by the Victorian Law Reform Commission which found the law "partly legitimates killings committed in anger".

SOURCE

I am going to be all multicultural here and note that, when normally great  Asian patience is pushed beyond its breaking point, the result is often explosive.  The man "runs amok", as they say in Malaysia.  So I think that on multicultural grounds at least, the defence of provocation should remain available,  with juries in the best position to sort out the claims in particular cases,  as they did above

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



12 July, 2012

After the Storm

How Joplin, Missouri, rebuilt following a devastating tornado by circumventing bureaucracy

On May 22, 2011, a tornado ripped through the town of Joplin, Missouri. The multi-vortex storm cut an eerily straight west-east line through Joplin’s downtown street grid, growing to three quarters of a mile wide at its peak. In the end, the Category 5 twister physically picked up and slammed down about one-quarter of the town, creating 3 million cubic yards of debris. It flattened big-box stores such as Home Depot and Walmart and left a desert of concrete foundation slabs covering a six-mile stretch of destruction. The storm killed 161 people, displaced 9,000 more, and completely wiped out more than 4,000 structures while damaging another 3,000. It was the deadliest tornado since modern recordkeeping began in 1950, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But as the one-year anniversary of the storm approached, Joplin found itself in startlingly good shape. Local officials estimate that insurance claims will total $2 billion, yet the town’s business tax revenues are actually up for the year. School enrollment is 95 percent of what it was before the tornado, and the vast majority of displaced residents have secured lodging in or near the area.

Joplin’s recovery contrasts with the fitful, fraught response to the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, 700 miles to the south, in 2005. The two storms, like the two cities, were different in nature and scale. But there were also disparities in the official and unofficial responses after the initial damage. While the people of Joplin largely took matters into their own hands, pushing aside burdensome rules and refusing help when it came with too many strings attached, New Orleans and the surrounding area to this day remains hamstrung by federal, state, and local bureaucracy. Joplin’s experience offers a powerful lesson in self-sufficiency and knowing when to say “no thanks” to government.

‘This Isn’t the FEMA of Katrina’

When I flew to Joplin in the fall of 2011 on one of the two daily flights serving the city, residents were still struggling to fathom their losses. But they were certain about one thing. Over and over, locals told me, “This isn’t the FEMA of Katrina.” Which was good, because after Hurricane Katrina the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stalled the recovery and rebuilding for millions of Gulf Coast residents. In the months and years after the hurricane and resulting floods, media outlets, congressional investigations, and government reports excoriated the agency for its inept response. Indecision at local, state, and federal levels of government, as well as rigid regulations concerning everything from occupational licensing to debris removal, delayed or hindered Gulf Coast rebuilding efforts. FEMA’s own internal investigation admitted that the “widespread criticism for a slow and ineffective response” was well deserved.

One reason the FEMA of 2011 did not perform like the FEMA of 2005 was that Joplin residents were determined not to let that happen. Founded by lead and zinc miners in the 19th century, this small southwestern Missouri town has a long history of self-reliance in a state that ranks fifth in overall freedom from burdensome government regulations, according to a 2011 study by the free market Mercatus Center (which sponsored my trip to Joplin as part of a broader tornado recovery research project for which I handled logistics). The community has the close-knit feel you’d expect of a small Midwestern town, with a network of active voluntary organizations and church groups that collaborate regularly. And as Beloit College economist Emily Chamlee-Wright concluded after leading more than 400 interviews with Katrina survivors, the best approach once emergency gives way to recovery is to reduce government involvement and devolve power to disaster victims, who know their own situations best. “In order to minimize signal noise that inhibits the response from markets and civil society,” Chamlee-Wright writes in her 2010 book The Cultural and Political Economy of Recovery, “government at all levels should scale back its efforts as soon as possible to make room for markets and voluntary organizations to provide basic supplies, food, clean-up, and construction services.”

Despite its small size, Joplin, home of St. John’s Regional Medical Center and battery manufacturer Eagle­Picher, is a regional hub for commerce, providing jobs and connections to residents of nearby Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. “Joplin’s a town of 50,000 people at night but a city of a quarter-million during the day,” goes the local refrain. The recovery benefited from these trade routes. After the tornado, emergency response teams from around the state streamed into town. Four hundred and thirty police, fire, and public works departments helped with search and rescue, cleanup, and debris removal. Doctors and nurses, many of whom worked at one of Joplin’s two hospitals or in the medical services sector clustered around them, came from around the four-state area. A handful of warehouses around the city are full to this day with donated material such as tarps, clothing, and food.

Most displaced people found refuge with nearby family or friends; the city estimates that 95 percent of people displaced by the storm stayed within 25 miles of town. “A lot of the residents are staying here,” Assistant City Manager Sam Anselm tells me. It’s “a testament to the spirit, the way the community responded to this.”

The city registered 130,000 volunteers from around the country and estimates that at least that many helped and weren’t counted. One even came from Japan and stayed two weeks, citing the way Americans donated to his country after the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011. (Someone found the Japanese volunteer a bicycle that he rode 12 miles each day to and from his cleanup site.) In October, ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition rolled into town and built seven homes in seven days. Habitat for Humanity built 10 the next month.

The tornado sucked nine-story St. John’s a few inches off its foundation before setting it back down. The medical center erected temporary structures in open space next door, complete with an emergency room, and managed to keep nearly all of its 2,200 employees on payroll. Along with medical jobs, Joplin is home to a handful of big businesses, such as building materials company TAMKO, a PotashCorp animal feed plant, and a General Mills factory.

Joplin Schools Superintendent C.J. Huff didn’t want what he dubbed the “Hurricane Katrina effect” of people fleeing the area permanently, so the school district established a program for volunteers to “adopt” students and provide them with school supplies. Private donations poured in; the United Arab Emirates gave $1 million, enough to issue a MacBook to every high school student. TAMKO donated $500,000. Other sources, from Lions Club International to singer Sheryl Crow (who auctioned off a Mercedes) to a 9-year-old Nevadan who raised $360 with a car wash, combined to contribute $3.5 million of private money to the district by September 2011.

‘Better to Ask Forgiveness Than Permission’

Two days after the tornado, when 4,200 kids had nowhere to go to school, Superintendent Huff stood up at a staff meeting and said, “We’re going to start school in 84 days.” On August 17, they did just that. The tornado had destroyed the town’s only public high school and 50 percent of the school district’s property, inflicting $150 million worth of damage. When school re-opened as scheduled in the fall, enrollment hit 95 percent.

How did they do it? “Sometimes,” Huff explains, “it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission.” A day after the storm, once Huff had canceled the remainder of the school year, the Joplin school board granted him emergency authority to circumvent usual bureaucratic procedures in order to deal directly with the disaster. “We knew that to keep things moving at a rapid pace, we needed to give our superintendent authority to make decisions as quickly as possible,” says Joplin Board of Education President Ashley Micklethwaite. “The worst thing we can do as a board is get down into the weeds and worry about minute details. We had to look at the big picture, and the big picture was getting our schools back up and running.”

Huff’s new powers included the ability to make emergency procurement decisions instead of, for example, adhering to a mandatory two-week minimum for posting bids. The superintendent also successfully lobbied Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who signed a handful of executive orders granting the district emergency permission to speed up the contracting process faster than state regulations usually allow. Huff gathered a team of architects and contractors he had used for previous district jobs and began planning temporary construction for the approaching school year. Within a few days, he says, they were able to choose which subcontractors and building materials to use, a process that would normally take up to one month. City Hall also responded to the needs of the school district and its builders, agreeing to receive and approve plans and blueprints piecemeal rather than requiring the usual single master set. A process that would typically take months took only a few weeks.

More HERE





Social engineering 'could lead to class war' the British Government's social mobility tsar admits

The Coalition is in danger of creating a class war with middle-income families pitted against the poorest, the Government’s social mobility tsar admitted yesterday.

Alan Milburn warned that moves to give priority to working-class university applicants and create an array of social mobility targets risked alienating the better off.

Giving evidence to MPs, he appeared to admit that so-called ‘social engineering’ policies are in danger of backfiring.  ‘If we’re not very careful, we will end up in a position where we’re pitting the interests of kids at the very bottom against the kids in the middle,’ he said.

Surveys show that while the public felt a ‘high degree of empathy for children in poverty’, there was ‘not a high degree of sympathy for their parents’, he said.

‘And there is less and less sympathy over time for efforts to ameliorate on the part of Government the financial position of those at the bottom end.’

‘If we end up in a situation where working-class families are pitted against middle-class families, I think that’s a really big public policy and political problem because in the end you need public permission from the majority to be able to address some of these issues.’   He added that ‘some of our indicators don’t help that.’

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is using 17 social ‘trackers’ to assess the success of Government policies aimed at boosting social mobility.

The Coalition is also backing the use of so-called ‘contextual data’ - information on applicants’ school, family background and postcode - to help universities decide who to admit and which entry grades to set them.

Mr Milburn said it was ‘correct’ that the problem of class tensions most commonly arose in debates about university admissions.

Arguments about the merits of handing out benefits or helping the jobless back into work - instead of doing together - were also to blame, he suggested.

Mr Milburn, a former Labour Cabinet minister, was being quizzed by MPs prior to his appointment as head of a new social mobility commission being set up by the Coalition.

He went on to call for every child to be labelled according to their parents’ social class and tracked from nursery to employment as part of moves to close the gap between rich and poor.  They should be divided into ten groups based on their parents’ wealth and monitored throughout their education.

This would be more finely-grained than simply splitting pupils into those on free school meals and those not, as currently happens for many targets.

‘There are also a bunch of kids in private schools who would be entitled to free school meals because of bursaries and sponsorship etc’ he said.

‘We need a single set of indicators. We need to be able to track in my view an individual pupil from between starting school, getting into school, what happens about their progress in school, where they go to once they leave school, and post-university as well.’

In his current role as social mobility adviser, Mr Milburn will shortly produce a report on universities’ role in boosting social mobility which is expected to call for greater use of contextual data in admissions.

However he is also likely to say that the data on applicants’ social backgrounds made available to universities must become more reliable.  Mr Milburn admitted that current data - based on geographical areas - used was ‘imprecise’.

Elsewhere in his evidence, he disclosed that a 2020 target to eradicate child poverty in the UK had no chance of being met.  ‘It’s time for all political parties to put up or shut up,’ he said. ‘I don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell we’ll meet the 2020 target. ‘That’s widely privately acknowledged, and it’s time to publicly acknowledge it.’

SOURCE





Liberal leader's  bluff has been called. Now it’s time the Prime Minister  put him back in his playpen

That Roman emperor no one liked — the one whose lions dined off Christians in place of Pedigree Chum and who was accused of playing light music while his capital burned down — seems to have been a model of gravitas compared to the Liberal Democrats.

The party of Nick Clegg has an eye for the irrelevant and trivial, an instinct for embracing silliness, a nose for nonsense, which we would all find richly comic but for the fact the Lib Dems are part of Britain’s Coalition Government.

Before the last opening of Parliament, David Cameron asked Clegg if there was anything special he would like put in the Queen’s Speech, outlining forthcoming legislation.

The Lib Dems are men and women of powerful passions and clear priorities. Perhaps they would welcome a Bill to impose quotas for women in TV comedy? Or to outlaw cruelty to moorhens?

No, said little Nick with quiet firmness. All he wanted was House of Lords reform.  And thus, this month, the Government put such a measure before Parliament: a Bill to halve the size of the Second Chamber and make it 80 per cent elected.

The outcome is a widely predicted political shambles. Last night, the Government was obliged to cancel a key vote on the Bill, because close to 100 Tory MPs would have refused to support it.

The measure has brought to a head all the bubbling exasperation at Westminster and across the country with the Coalition and the Lib Dems’ role in it.

Now, we are faced with weeks of wrangling and endless discussion in Parliament about the Lords, which will only serve to distract from the business of governing.

At a time when Britain faces some of the most serious peace-time challenges of the past century — reviving the economy and our global competitiveness, redefining our relationship with Europe — Nick Clegg and his MPs have become a drogue anchor on policy-making.

It is true that since 2010 they have supported action to cut the nation’s dreadful budget deficit by reducing public spending. That was right and — for them — courageous. But almost everywhere else, they are a dead weight.

Their obsession with renewable energy is responsible for thousands of grossly subsidised wind turbines, and snail’s progress towards exploiting newly discovered shale gas  reserves and building a new generation of nuclear power stations.

They are intractably opposed to curbing the excesses of human rights legislation. They will countenance no reduction in overseas aid spending, even when the British Army is being cut to the bone.

They condemn Michael Gove’s attempts to make exams more rigorous because, like the Labour Party, they think that in the name of social justice everyone must win and be given prizes.

They resist measures to make business more competitive. They will continue to fight revision of our relationship with Europe even when all that is left of the Eurozone are bubbles rising to the surface where it sank.

They cherish a self-image as the nice party in a nasty world, even though in truth their MPs include as many unfaithful spouses as Labour and the Tories, and they have raised funds from just as many crooks.

Not one of their current ministers would occupy a government post if appointments were made on merit, in open competition with Tory MPs rather than by quota.

If David Cameron were being frank, he might say: ‘Even if all that is true, we are stuck with the Lib Dems. We had to join them in coalition because we failed to win an absolute majority at the 2010 election.

‘Coalition means compromise, and if the country doesn’t like it, voters should have given us a clear mandate.’

But the Tory part of the country is weary to death of seeing the Coalition cited as an excuse for not doing so many right things, while doing such wrong ones as introducing Lords reform. This seems, to quote Blackadder, as useful as a catflap in an elephant house.

There is plenty wrong with the House of Lords, packed with superannuated politicians and folk whom the Serious Fraud Squad would like to interview. But no democratic nation’s constitution is working perfectly just now.

Ask an American how he feels about the paralysis of Congress. Hear what Australians have got to say about the bunglers running their country. Talk to one of the French fugitives scurrying to get taken off the Channel coast beaches in small boats, to escape the consequences of their recent elections.

Democracy is in trouble, partly because few people whom you would want to see join your parish council are entering politics, and partly because it is hard to reconcile voters with the idea of having fewer of the things than they have had in the past, which is the name of the game in the 21st century for everyone except bankers and Russian oligarchs.

I do not think the Lib Dems’ Lords reform proposals threaten a constitutional disaster.

What is for sure, however, is that it is monumentally frivolous to waste time and energy debating and introducing such a change at this moment in the nation’s fortunes.

It is as if Nick Clegg said to the British people: ‘I haven’t an earthly what to do about the economy or Europe or immigration or bank governance, but instead here’s a little wheeze we think is quite fun.’

Lib Dems are not serious people. They never have been and never will be.

They are a political party for flat earthers, muesli eaters, world peace salesmen, and kindness-to- rats enthusiasts. It is absolutely right that the body politic should offer such a home to voters who shut their eyes and stop their ears whenever hard choices are to be made.

But it becomes Nightmare on Elm Street when these people get anywhere near the levers of power, because they are a chronic impediment to getting things done.

One of David Cameron’s biggest mistakes, acknowledged even by some of those closest to him, is that he has allowed keeping the Coalition afloat to become his principal policy objective, an end in itself.

Well, last night’s government decision to press the panic button and cancel a doomed Commons vote gives a dramatic political message.

The Cleggies’ bluff is being called. It only remains to be seen what happens next.

For weeks, the Lib Dems have been muttering that, if they cannot have Lords reform, they will retaliate by voting against constituency boundary change legislation that might benefit the Tories by as much as 20 seats.

This threat emphasises the Lib Dems’ irresponsibility. But the onus is on them to decide whether to put up or walk out.

If they quit the Coalition and force an election, they will merely transform themselves into political suicide bombers.  Opinion polls suggest that, when the votes are counted, it will be hard to identify their remains. And they know it.

Most likely, the Lib Dems will cling to their chauffeurs and red boxes. If they are smart, they will recognise that the Lords reform stunt will not fly, and does not deserve to.

As for David Cameron, nothing will do more to raise respect for the Prime Minister, currently less than stratospheric, than for him to quit stroking the Lib Dems, and instead give them a dose of tough love.

Lords reform has brought to a head popular as well as Tory Party impatience with coalition government.

It is time for the Prime Minister and his closest colleagues to start acting grown up, which includes pushing Clegg back into his playpen.

SOURCE



Australian  Mosque in strife with other Muslims after encouraging polygamy

VICTORIA'S largest mosque has been forced into an embarrassing back-down after women were told they must "fulfil the rights" of their husbands and share him with other women.

In a move that has outraged local Muslim women, at least one Preston Mosque committee member authorised a post on its official Facebook page instructing women that polygamy was a better alternative to divorce and husbands were "someone you share".

"It is very important for a wife to fulfil the rights of her husband. Why? Because Allah commanded her to, after marriage Jannah is through her husband, and also the husband is your partner. A partner is someone you share with not someone who does things for you," said the post.

"If a man is saying to his wife I will marry another woman, this is far better than saying you are divorced every time he is upset.

"Now where is the problem. If a man divorces his wife three times he has destroyed his family. They can no longer return to each other. Islam only allows two divorces and returns.

"So if your husband is telling you that he wants to take another wife and you are not doing the right thing by him, then know that he is thinking straight and using a weapon that doesn't have severe consequences."

The advice was pulled down after complaints and the Facebook post has been condemned by community leaders .

"We are deeply concerned by the advice provided by Preston Mosque; it reflects a poor understanding of marital discord in Muslim families," said Joumanah El Matrah, executive director of the Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights.

"Research from the Islamic world unequivocally demonstrates that polygamy contributes to marital discord, it does not resolve it.

"We are further concerned that the mosque is encouraging of polygamous marriages when they have no legal standing in this country - as this is a key requirement of Islam. Muslim marriage is a partnership, it is not a woman serving a man."

A spokesman for Preston Mosque refused to comment, but the secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria, Sherene Hassan, also condemned the post.

"The comments on the Facebook post are inappropriate and unacceptable," Ms Hassan said. "The fact that the post was removed . . . very shortly after it was posted is encouraging.

"However, this incident further substantiates the community's calls for greater conversations about these issues."

SOURCE

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



11 July, 2012

Compromise over women bishops in the Church of England rejected

No allowance at all for those who follow the Bible on the matter.  Further shrinking of an already drastically shrunken church to be expected. Average Sunday attendance is less than a million in a country of 60 million.   It's said that more people in Britain go to Mosque on Friday than go to the CofE on Sunday.  Women bishops will find themselves preaching to largely empty pews

The Archbishop of Canterbury made a humiliating apology to the Church of England yesterday for the latest fiasco over women bishops.

Dr Rowan Williams spoke of ‘penitence’ as the bishops asked the Church’s parliament, the General Synod, for another three months to make up their minds over how to draw up a new law about the place of women.

It would allow women priests to be promoted for the first time to the leadership ranks of the bishops. It has already taken the CofE 12 years of agonising to get to the brink of consecrating its first woman bishop.

But yesterday the Synod voted for another delay after Dr Williams admitted that, together with his fellow bishops, he had badly misjudged an attempt at a compromise.

Supporters of women bishops were so angry that they were poised to vote down the new Church law.

The Archbishop said: ‘It is quite clear that the reaction cannot be ignored. When there is a reaction of real hurt and offence in the Church, Christians and Christian pastors in particular, cannot afford to ignore it.

'If other bishops feel as I do, they will need to examine themselves and feel appropriate penitence.

'An adjournment gives us at least the chance of lowering the temperature and explaining ourselves to each other.

‘If other bishops feel as I do they will need to examine themselves and feel appropriate penitence that they did not recognise just how difficult that was going to be.'

The Synod will gather again to try to agree a law on women bishops in November.

Dr Williams and his colleagues now have until September to draw up a compromise  to save the consciences of traditionalists who will not accept the leadership of women bishops, while ensuring the women bishops who are expected to be appointed from 2014 have the same status as their male colleagues.

Yesterday’s climbdown came as Dr Williams and his colleagues faced an open warning from a senior politician that further delay or mishandling of the women bishops issue will have serious political consequences for the Church of England.

A ‘train crash’ would threaten the Church’s power to keep seats for bishops in a reformed House of Lords, Tory MP Sir Tony Baldry told the Synod. Under Lords reform proposals currently before Parliament, the CofE would see its 26 bishops in the Upper House reduced to 12.

Sir Tony, who as Second Church Estates Commissioner is the CofE’s link with the Government, said: ‘I am your only voice in the House of Commons who will be arguing for the bishops.’

‘The Deputy Prime Minister has already made it clear he is indifferent to the matter, the Honourable Member for Rhondda (Labour MP Chris Bryant) has already made it clear that he intends to introduce an amendment for the removal of bishops from the Second Chamber.

‘If you have a train crash this afternoon all I am saying is that my task of maintaining bishops in a mainly elected second chamber is going to be infinitely more difficult if not impossible.’

Synod members voted 288 in favour of a delay, 144 against and 15 abstained.

The compromise on women bishops that has now been withdrawn was produced by Dr Williams and his colleagues in May.

It would have put into law the rights of traditionalist parishes to reject a woman bishop and insist on oversight by a male bishop who was himself untainted by ever having ordained a woman priest or accepted the authority of a woman bishop.

Supporters of women said they could not support this because it would turn women into second class bishops.

A leading tradionalist at the Synod, conservative evangelical the Reverend Rod Thomas, said: ‘The House of Bishops has a huge amount of work to do. Unless it comes up with clear space for us to have a permanent space in the Church it will fail - that has to be done.’

SOURCE






'All babies deserve the best start in life': British government  to speed up adoption system by finding children in care permanent homes faster

Babies and children who are taken into care must be given permanent homes quicker, ministers said yesterday.

Some children are being moved ‘again and again’ before finding a home, causing huge disruption to their young lives, Education Secretary Michael Gove said.

Mr Gove, who was himself adopted at four months, said he wanted to ‘radically’ speed up the amount of time it takes to place young children with potential adopters.

‘I want as many babies as possible to have the best start in life,’ he added.  ‘I know that stable and loving families provide the ideal environment for young people to achieve their full potential.’

Under the new plans, children will be able to move in with their possible future permanent families before lengthy legal procedures are finalised, the Prime Minister has announced.

And there will be a new legal duty on local authorities to consider placing children with approved adopters who will foster them first.

Currently, local authorities often do not begin to look for a permanent family for a child until a court’s placement order has been received. It can take 21 months from entering care to moving in with a new family.

Under the Fostering for Adoption scheme, it is also hoped that more people will come forward to become potential adopters.

Jonathan Pearce of the charity Adoption UK said: ‘Initiatives that offer children in care the chance of both earlier placement with their adoptive parents and fewer moves in care have to be welcomed, as we know so much about the damage caused to children through delay in finding stable and permanent families.’

Analysis released yesterday shows half of newborn babies in care are eventually adopted. However, it takes an average of more than 15 months for them to move to their permanent family.

David Cameron said: ‘These plans will see babies placed with adopters who will foster first and provide a stable home at a much earlier stage in a child’s life.’

Ministers said they would legislate ‘as soon as possible’ to make fostering by potential adopters standard practice.

SOURCE





Freedom from religion?

Let’s note that the Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee the free exercise of religion, so they enshrined freedom of religion in the Constitution. The First Amendment ensures there will be no official, state supported “Church of America.” They’d seen the way the Church of England could stifle freedom, and they wanted no part of that.

But while the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, it doesn’t provide freedom from religion. Sadly, though, that seems to be how many want to read the First Amendment.

For example, In the “Mt. Soledad Cross” case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the federal government could not acquire and maintain a war memorial that included a cross honoring veterans. The court believed that such a display violated the Constitution’s prohibition on Congress respecting an establishment of religion.

To its credit, the Obama administration disagrees. “The decision below, if permitted to stand, calls for the government to tear down a memorial cross that has stood for 58 years as a tribute to fallen service members,” the Justice Department wrote in a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit ruling. “Nothing in the Establishment Clause compels that result, because the Establishment Clause does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the case at this time, turning the issue back over to lower courts. But even Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr. says that if the cross must be removed, the case "unnecessarily fosters the very divisiveness” about religion that the Constitution intended to prevent.

There are other recent challenges to religious freedom.

Frank Buono filed a lawsuit some years ago requesting that an 8-foot tall cross in the Mojave Desert be removed because he “claims to be offended by the presence of a religious symbol on federal land.” The cross is part of national memorial to the 300,000-plus American soldiers who were killed in World War I.

Buono’s case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which shot him down by a 5-4 margin. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the Constitution’s Establishment Clause “does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.”

Note how close that vote was. As legal expert Brian Walsh (then at The Heritage Foundation) wrote at the time, “If the Court had affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s extreme decision, it would have opened the door to legal challenges eliminating Stars of David, crosses, and similar religious symbols found, for example, on soldiers’ graves in Arlington National Cemetery and every other federal cemetery.”

As long as there have been humans, they seem to have always worshipped a god or gods of some kind. The genius of the Founders was in allowing people to worship any faith (or no faith) as long as they “demean themselves as good citizens,” as George Washington phrased it in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I.

It bears repeating: Americans enjoy freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Trying to obtain it is a misreading of the Constitution, and a waste of time and energy to boot.

SOURCE





Can one child have many parents?

When she was a precocious preschooler, the daughter of my cousin was famous for begging to sit in the front seat of the family car. As the youngest of four children, she was unlikely to have that privilege, even if she was large enough to safely sit up front. She begged anyway.

The story goes that after repeatedly being denied the chance to sit in the front, the little girl buckled herself into her booster seat in the back, smugly declaring, “This is the front seat.”

Which proves that even a 4-year-old can execute the “When all else fails, redefine the issue” strategy.

This is the avenue being pursued by California state Sen. Mark Leno, who has introduced legislation in the Golden State to allow a child to have more than two parents.

Reflecting the changing nature of families, Mr. Leno believes that adults in nontraditional families — such as when there is a gay couple as well as a biological father or mother — ought to have parental rights conferred on all the parties engaged in the business of “parenting.”

Referring to the 1950s TV show about the quintessential American family, the San Francisco Democrat is quoted as saying, “The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today.”

Mr. Leno is an outspoken proponent of gay marriage, which the voters of California have resoundingly and repeatedly rejected. Now it appears he’s going around the will of the citizens to confer at least one of the “rights” associated with gay marriage — the “right” to be designated as a parent to a child with whom one has no biological connection.

In a tasteless nod to pragmatism, Mr. Leno thinks this bill is a good idea for, among other reasons, its ability to assign financial responsibility for children to an even larger pool of people than just the two responsible adults known as a “mother” and “father.” He envisions kids having access to more child support, Social Security benefits and health insurance.

Apparently what he does not envision are the gruesome and protracted custody battles and fights over who must (or mustn’t) pay child support, fund a college education, foot the bill for a wedding, or even pay attention when said (confused and understandably screwed up) child lands in jail or rehab or on a therapist’s couch.

Most troubling, Mr. Leno seeks to redefine “parenthood” in a fundamentally different way, eliminating old-fashioned designations of “mother” and “father” in favor of the gender-neutral term “parent,” something he presumes anyone can be to another person with whom they form a special emotional bond.

The irony in this bill is that Mr. Leno believes it somehow serves children’s “best interests,” something he wants California courts to determine.

But Mr. Leno ignores the irrefutable proof: If we want to serve the best interests of children, we’d work harder to raise them in intact two-parent families consisting of one mother and one father.

At the risk of stating an obvious, if unpopular, fact: Children of “traditional” families do better by every measurable standard. They achieve more educationally, they engage in fewer risky behaviors, they get more sleep, eat more vegetables, read more books, enjoy better health, and have greater potential for success as adults than do children raised in any other family structure.

Apologies to those who simply aren’t able to provide the benefits of a two-parent home, for whatever reasons. Life throws curves and we all do the best we can with what God sends our way.

But redefining what it is to be a “parent” will no more make someone a mother or father than will sitting straight and tall in your booster seat put you up front where you’d prefer to be sitting.

Words have meaning, and no matter how they redefine it in California, “mom” and “dad” mean something unique and irreplaceable.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



10 July, 2012

It's Not Racism, Mr. President

Repeat something and it becomes heard. Repeat something often and it becomes accepted fact. Repeat a lie and people believe it even if it defies logic. But if you’re a prominent person and you repeat something that has no factual basis, you truly are a disgusting individual.

One of the accusations that the supporters and allies of President Obama have continued to assert is that challenges to Obama are based on something other than disagreement with his governing policies or philosophies. Unwilling to listen to opposing arguments, they’re convinced that every difference of opinion has to be based on distaste for black people.

The latest to make this ridiculous claim is Sam Donaldson. Some of you may not even know who Sam Donaldson is so his making a pronouncement about the President may seem as important as your Aunt Lucy making one. Donaldson was a former White House Correspondent and has been an employee of ABC since 1967. Donaldson, who is considered one of the senior newsmen of Washington, stated that "Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!" Donaldson was prodded to make his comment after reporter Neil Munro jumped in to ask the President a question about his new immigration mandate. This is not a defense of Neil Munro, but what does this have to do with racism?

Donaldson, of course, has a history of aggressive behavior, having similarly asked untimely questions of both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, but that is just a matter of degree. Those were Republican presidents, and, according to the MSM playbook, don’t merit any respect. But throughout all the coverage of Donaldson’s comments, not one person asked the man on what he based his assertion. Someone in a senior position for ABC News shouldn’t be able to spout ludicrous statements like this without any basis in fact, or without being questioned.

He’s not the first prominent individual to make this preposterous claim. The President’s buddy and Attorney General said it himself. On the topic of criticism of himself and President Obama, Eric Holder told the New York Times that “This is a way to get at the President because of the way I can be identified with him. Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Not having any proof of this, I decided to do my own research. It just might be shocking to the race-baiters, but I can find lots of people who gravely dislike Obama’s policies, but could care less about the color of his skin. The Leftist retort to that is “of course, they are not going to admit their racism to you. That is something that remains under the radar, lurking in the shadows.” Those who truly believe this will never listen to reality or reason. They are, in fact, unredeemable.

But here’s a story for you. I recently went to Fenway Park to watch the Red Sox play the Atlanta Braves, and found myself sitting next to a couple of ”good ol’ boys” from Georgia. I don’t often get to meet folks like this; they’re rather difficult to find around the West Side of Los Angeles. I informed them that I was visiting #1 son, who is in Boston working for Governor Romney. My neighbor replied that he was very unhappy with the performance of the current president, and would be voting for Mr. Romney in November. Now keep in mind that this man was the epitome of a southern white boy. He spoke and reeked old south. He even had some chew under his lip. Picture Larry the Cable Guy.

I leaned over and quietly asked him if his distaste for President Obama had anything to do with his race. He said “Hell, no. That stuff has been over long ago.” Then he said the most fascinating thing. “You know who I wish you Republicans would put up for President?’’ I waited, fully expecting to hear names like Jim DeMint or Chris Christie. He blurted out “Condi Rice. That woman is smart and classy. The best thing President Bush did was make her Secretary of State. Now that is someone who would make a great President.”

There’s no science behind what I did, but at least I tried to find out some facts. I have asked the same question to hundreds of people who do not support the President, and have always received a similar response. That doesn’t mean that somewhere there might be people who will base their vote on racial animus, but I haven’t spoken to any of them and neither has Sam Donaldson, Eric Holder, or any of their supporters. They have offered no evidence for their position.

To accuse those who do not support this president of racism is disgusting. To accuse all Republicans of racism is disgusting. To use a position of prominence to assert that someone that disagrees with you is a racist is despicable. And to assert that people are racists with no basis for that assertion is as low as you can get as a human being.

Now you know what I think of you Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Holder, and anyone who agrees with you.

SOURCE


    


British Christians sue Eric Pickles for £25K after block on conference promoting heterosexual marriage

The organisers of a major conference defending traditional marriage are suing the Government after they were barred from an official building because they allegedly breached ‘diversity’ policies.

The conference, whose high-profile speakers included David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ guru Phillip Blond, was cancelled at the last minute by  the Government-owned Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Central London after organisers were told it was ‘inappropriate’.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is now facing claims for £25,000 for breach of contract and religious discrimination, according to legal papers seen by The Mail on Sunday.

The legal action may prove particularly embarrassing for Mr Pickles, whose department is responsible for the centre, as he has robustly defended the rights of Christians to express their faith in public.

The conference promoting heterosexual marriage was organised by the campaign group Christian Concern along with a non-religious American organisation called the World Congress of Families (WCF), whose supporters include former President George Bush.

Entitled One Man, One Woman – Making The Case For Marriage, For The Good Of Society, the event, a response to Government plans to introduce gay marriage, had a line-up of speakers including Ben Harris-Quinney, chairman of the Conservative Party’s oldest think-tank the Bow Group, and the commentator and former Catholic Herald editor Cristina Odone.

The conference had been moved to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre near Parliament after solicitors’ representative body The Law Society, which had been due to host the conference at another venue, said it contravened the organisation’s ‘ethos’.

However, on May 22, the day before the rearranged conference was due to take place, the centre’s chief executive, Ernest Vincent, told Christian Concern he was cancelling the event.

According to the legal documents, he said it was ‘inappropriate’ and when pressed added that certain comments on the WCF website were contrary to the centre’s diversity policies. The website describes marriage between men and women as the ‘sole moral context for natural sexual union’.

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: ‘The department has had absolutely no role in the cancellation of the event and this is ultimately a matter for the management of the QE2.’ Mr Vincent said:  ‘We don’t as a matter of policy comment on  clients’ files.’

Christian Concern founder Andrea Williams said the centre had earlier hosted a conference by  gay-rights organisation Stonewall. She said: ‘It would seem that the centre does not extend the same hospitality to Christian groups.’

SOURCE






Aggressive cyclists virtually above the law in Britain

All of us sometimes read newspaper stories that make our blood boil. I encountered one of these yesterday morning.

It concerned a cyclist named Andrej Schipka. He has been convicted of knocking over and severely injuring a leading solicitor in London last July after ignoring a red light and sending his victim spinning into the road.

As a result, Clive Hyer suffered brain damage and is unlikely ever to be able to work properly again. His witness statement claimed that he is only 40 per cent of the person he was before the accident.
CCTV footage showed Schipka skipping a red light. According to witnesses, he shouted ‘Oi, move’, as he saw Mr Hyer step into the road. He went over the handlebars but neither he nor his bike was damaged. Mr Hyer was in a coma for three days.
Two-wheeled rage: The number of cyclists skipping red lights, and screaming and swearing at pedestrians, appears to have reached record levels

Two-wheeled rage: The number of cyclists skipping red lights, and screaming and swearing at pedestrians, appears to have reached record levels

A pretty serious offence? Most of us would think so. A man’s life has been half ruined, and that of his family severely affected. And yet Schipka — who’d had the brass-neck to deny he had skipped the light, and disputed that he had not given due consideration to pedestrians — was fined a mere £850 for cycling carelessly. He was also required to pay £930 costs and a £15 surcharge.

Schipka, who is a German citizen, will almost certainly face a civil action at the end of which he could be required to pay damages, though whether he would be able to do so is not clear. What is certain is that the criminal law has applied a penalty that is ludicrously light in view of the seriousness of the offence.
Soft justice? The maximum penalty for careless cycling is a £1,000 fine, while it is £2,500 for dangerous cycling

Soft justice? The maximum penalty for careless cycling is a £1,000 fine, while it is £2,500 for dangerous cycling

The maximum penalty for careless cycling is a £1,000 fine. For dangerous cycling it is £2,500. By contrast, someone convicted of careless driving faces a maximum fine of £2,500 and possible disqualification, whereas a person found guilty of dangerous driving is automatically disqualified and can be sent to prison for up to two years. Causing death by dangerous driving can carry a long jail sentence.

Already I can feel the bikers among you stirring uneasily. You will point out that very many more car, lorry and bus drivers kill cyclists than cyclists kill pedestrians or anyone else. That, of course, is perfectly true.

If any driver causes the injury or death of a cyclist through careless or dangerous driving, I am entirely in favour of the full force of the law being applied. I am not in any sense anti-cyclist or pro-driver.

My point is simply that the law should be consistent, and that cyc-lists should not imagine that they are exempt from it. And yet many of them appear to. In the city where I live, Oxford, cyclists almost uniformly ride through red lights just as Mr Schipka did, not infrequently shouting something far worse than ‘Oi, move’ if you get in their way.

Some of them are youths or students who might be expected to be uncouth. Others are sturdy matrons or gentlemen of advanced years who in other circumstances would not dream of breaking the law. What is so extraordinary is that if you politely point out their infringement, normally peaceable souls are liable to yell obscenities at you, contorting their habitually placid faces with hate-filled rants.

Rather as the internet can turn usually polite people into howling monsters, posting vile or threatening comments or blogs, so bicycles can have a similarly transformative effect on the mild-mannered and law-abiding. It’s bizarre.

As most of us know, Lycra-clad young men and women on racing bikes tend to be the most prone to outbursts of aggression and to strings of expletives. Woe betide if you get in the way of one of these tartars after they have jumped a red light!
Simple: While we should be encouraging cycling, and raising awareness of general road safety, cyclists must adhere to the rules of the road like everyone else

Simple: While we should be encouraging cycling, and raising awareness of general road safety, cyclists must adhere to the rules of the road like everyone else

Needless to say, the police are generally useless in such circumstances. They are remarkably indulgent towards cyclists who don’t have lights on their bikes at night, endangering not only themselves but others. They tend to smile amiably at cyclists who go the wrong way down a one-way street. Riding on pavements, which is supposedly illegal, is apparently fine and dandy.

And yet not long ago, when I was momentarily and most unusually driving without a seatbelt — putting no one other than myself at risk — a young policeman stopped me and delivered a most unfriendly lecture. You wouldn’t catch him doing the same to one of the light-jumping Lycra brigade.

The fascinating question is why so many cyclists think it all right to break the law, and why some of them — a minority, I’m sure — resort so easily to snarling and swearing. Maybe they have a sense of victimhood, in some cases bordering on paranoia, because the drivers of vehicles sometimes cut them up or do not know they are there. Fear may make them aggressive.

But this is a tentative explanation, not a justification. Cyclists are obviously vul-nerable to vehicles, and we drivers should do our utmost to be aware of them. Much more should be done to increase their safety. But we bikers — I occasionally cycle, too — should remember that bicycles can also cause serious injury. We shouldn’t break the law.

And it seems odd to me that the criminal law should regard careless cycling when it causes injury as a less serious offence than careless driving. In some European countries, such as Holland and Belgium, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of cyclists in an accident involving vehicles, which pro-cycling lobbyists would like to apply here.

We haven’t got there yet, and I don’t think that we should. But we appear already to have a criminal law that regards a dangerous offence committed with a bicycle as automatically less serious than an offence with a similar outcome committed with a larger vehicle. That doesn’t seem just.

Nor is it fair or reasonable for a driver convicted of careless or dangerous driving to be disqualified while a cyclist guilty of the same offence is allowed to carry on as though nothing has happened.

Andrej Schipka did not merely receive a derisory fine. He is also free to continue riding his bike without any threat of even a short-lived ban.

Clive Hyer’s terrible misfortune should remind us that cyclists, like everyone else, are subject to the law. Such accidents may be relatively uncommon, but they are not unheard of. A former colleague of mine was very seriously injured after being struck by a cyclist.

Pedestrians have rights, too. Cyclists should stop caterwauling and threatening. By all means let’s encourage more bicycling, and do more to protect cyclists from menacing vehicles and bad drivers.

But at the end of it all, cyclists should remember that they have no more right than anyone else to swear and to curse, and they are not above the law.

SOURCE




Australia: Government contractor loses data on thousands of people

How British!  It rather shows what government promises of security for your personal information are worth, doesn't it?  Losses like this have happened time and again in Britain

And note that this galoot was a specialist in data SECURITY!

A federal government contractor that was paid more than $1 million to deliver e-security alert services to Australians has lost 8000 subscribers' personal information in the postal system.

AusCERT, which was paid $1,199,484.52 by the federal government to run staysmartonline.gov.au between July 18 2008 and June 30 2011* lost subscribers' data after using Australia Post to send it to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) on April 11 when its contract to run the alerts service expired.

In an email to the site's 8000 subscribers sent at about 6pm on Friday, the "Stay Smart Online Team" said information that had "gone missing" on the DVD included subscribers' user names, email addresses, memorable phrases and passwords. It said passwords were "unreadable" (stored as a cryptographic hash).

The DBCDE claimed it had "no reason to believe" that subscribers' information had "been found and misused by any third party" and therefore did not believe that there was "a privacy risk".


But it did not provide any evidence to support this claim, and suggested subscribers "consider" whether they should change their "user name, memorable phrase and/or password for other websites or services".

The DBCDE said in a statement that AusCERT was responsible for the security of the subscriber data.

Neither the DBCDE or AusCERT has said whether registered post was used to deliver the data via Australia Post's "express post service" or why the data was not sent electronically. AusCERT refused to comment, saying media enquiries were being handled by the DBCDE.

Australia Post said the disc containing subscriber's personal information sent by AusCERT to the DBCDE was not posted using registered post, which it recommended using for sending sensitive information.

Geordie Guy, an "online rights and digital policy geek" who has previously worked for Electronic Frontiers Australia, joked in a blog post that he had to check his calendar to see if it was April 1 (April Fools' day).

"This isn't likely to be the last data leak this year, it's unlikely to be the biggest, but it's above and beyond the most embarrassing for a government department with a long history of poor practice (despite its preaching), and I think I speak for a lot of the online rights community when I say it'll be a long time before we get another [thing] this funny."

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



9 July, 2012

Biased British police take Muslim woman's side -- regardless of evidence

She has heard them many times over the past few days, but speaking the words 'racially aggravated assault' still causes Cinnamon Heathcote-Drury's entire body to shake and tears to stream down her face.  Her name may have been cleared, but it is obvious the scars of being accused of a vicious hate crime will be more difficult to erase.

Last Thursday, a jury at Isleworth Crown Court in West London took just 15 minutes to acquit her of shoving a pregnant Muslim woman to the floor and calling her husband a terrorist during a row in Tesco. Despite Miss Heathcote-Drury's relief at the verdict, her sense of bewilderment at what has happened remains her overwhelming emotion.

The investigation that led to the celebrated photographer - whose work hangs in the National Portrait Gallery - being tried was described in court as 'a shambles'.

To her, it often felt like being trapped in a dystopian world in which she could not make her version of events heard, no matter how hard she tried.  Although, in fact, she says she was the victim of assault, her own accusations were dismissed while her accusers' claims were pursued by police.

'I kept waiting for my story to be investigated, and it never was. Of course it was an enormous relief to be acquitted so quickly, but I find it absolutely terrifying that the case against me could have gone as far as it did.  'The sense of powerlessness at what was happening was overwhelming.'

Even a relatively short time in her company reveals that if Miss Heathcote-Drury had committed the crimes it would have been remarkably out of character. Articulate and bohemian but resolutely middle-class, she grew up in Devon, the daughter of Trevor Heathcote-Drury, a hotelier and pilot, and his wife Roxanne, an artist.

After a stint running The Amber Trust, a charity which helps blind and partially sighted children to become involved in music, she became a photographer, making her name with a portrait of Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman.

It was on November 30 last year that she unwittingly became embroiled in the extraordinary fracas at a Tesco superstore in West London.  She had been to see a friend and was on her way home to Kensington when she decided to pop into the store for some groceries at about 2pm.

She was waiting to pay at the checkout when she noticed a man with two small children also queuing. They were joined by a woman wearing a hijab and a long black tunic who began unloading an overflowing trolley, one item at a time.

She says: 'I glanced over and thought, “This poor woman's going to be there for hours.” Her husband was standing closest to me, so I said to him, “Will you help her?”  'He said, “I've got the children.” I said, “Well, I can help her” and he replied, “What's it to you?” I said, “This is what feminism's about - women helping women.”

He said, “Oh, get lost.” I looked at the woman and said, “We live in a society in Britain where rights are equal - if you need help you can ask for it.”'

Very little was revealed in court about the couple, Abdelkrim Danyaoui and Mounia Hamoumi, aside from his stated occupation of 'teacher' and the fact that Mrs Hamoumi had been pregnant at the time of the incident.

Miss Heathcote-Drury says her initial impression was that the woman was elegantly dressed and appeared to have a French accent, while she assumed the man was of Mediterranean origin. She accepts that her offer of help caused offence, but denies her comments about British society were intended as a slight against the couple's Islamic culture.

'I wasn't trying to be inflammatory, or condescending, or implying anything about their race or religion,' she says. 'I was trying to make sure the woman was OK because I don't think women generally do enough in small ways to help one another.

The couple became infuriated. 'The husband came up behind me and said in my ear, “You f*** off,” which I found very intimidating,' Miss Heathcote-Drury says. 'I wanted to get out of the shop as quickly as possible, but he approached me again.'

She called for a security guard and when one arrived, he began speaking to the man. Meanwhile, Miss Heathcote-Drury, who had paid for her shopping, was making her escape down the aisle when she claims she felt a sharp pain in her left shin and stumbled.

'The woman was standing with her hand on her hip and smirking. She wanted to humiliate me. Then she hit me on the left cheek.'

According to Miss Heathcote-Drury, a struggle ensued in which she was kicked in the right shin and her hat was wrenched from her head before the woman lost her balance and fell.

The security guard called the police while the couple continued to put their shopping through the till.

'I didn't want the police to be called, but because I'd told the guard I'd been hit and kicked, I was informed Tesco were obliged to call them,' she says. 'I asked the guard to let me speak to the police to say I didn't want to press charges - I just wanted to forget it as I hadn't been badly hurt.

In shock and trembling, Miss Heathcote-Drury was led to a back room to wait until two police officers arrived. They took her name, date of birth and address, and then left. When they returned after speaking to the couple, she was told she was being arrested for racially aggravated assault.

'I was absolutely astounded,' she says. 'It was just total disbelief. I had no idea what was going on, but I kept thinking, “When they watch the CCTV they'll see what happened.”

'I now know they had spoken to the couple before me and believed their story without even hearing mine. They marched me through the store and took me to Chelsea police station. It was the most terrifying experience of my life. They spent hours fingerprinting me, taking my details and my DNA, in a stark room. I kept asking if I could see a nurse, because my cheek was very sore, but I was told the nurse was busy.

'I asked again and again when I could make my statement, but the officer kept saying, “You can't make a statement, you're under arrest.”

'They asked me if I wanted to call anyone and I thought, “Who can I call?” I'm single and couldn't afford a lawyer because a lot of my work is voluntary and unpaid. My liberty had been removed and I had no voice. No one was listening.'

A duty solicitor arrived and explained that the couple had claimed Miss Heathcote-Drury had used the words 'suicide bomber' and 'terrorist', called the man a 'bad feminist' and said they were probably on jobseekers' allowance. She was then interviewed.

Finally, at 11.35pm, when she was informed the CPS had decided to release her pending further investigation, she was allowed to see a nurse. She then gave her statement before arriving home at 5.30am.

On December 17, three days before she was due to return to the police station, she says she received a call from one of the investigating officers asking her to make a statement about her assault claims. 'I told him I'd made one already and he said he hadn't seen it,' she says.

She had also discovered, on returning to Tesco, that police had not yet spoken to the security guard, despite him offering to give a statement.

Three days later, her worst fears were realised when she was charged. 'I was in shock,' she says. 'I was told the CPS had made the decision to charge me on December 16, without even knowing about my counter-allegation. I felt the police had no interest in my side at all.  'They hadn't talked to any witnesses apart from the couple and a cashier who hadn't seen crucial parts of the incident.  'I felt like they just wanted me as a convenient statistic to help them meet a target.'

Through a contact, she was able to enlist the services of a solicitor from Tuckers, England's leading criminal defence practice.

They advised her to ask for her case to be heard at a crown court rather than a magistrates' court, where she would have more opportunities to give her side of events.

Her trial took place over four days last week. Being questioned was an ordeal, but Miss Heathcote-Drury says she was glad the trial had arrived after months of waiting.

On the first day, her accusers gave their evidence against her. The security guard also told the court that he had heard Miss Heathcote-Drury say she did not want to press charges. However, he admitted he had not seen the tussle or how Mrs Hamoumi came to fall.

Another witness, the cashier, also gave evidence saying that he had not seen the crucial incident but had heard the man telling Miss Heathcote-Drury to 'f*** off'.

In the end, CCTV did not show the incident, but the fact the acquittal was delivered so quickly was testament to the strength of her defence.

Her lawyer Miss Sarnjit Lal says: 'We were astonished with the way the case was handled, the fact Miss Heathcote-Drury was charged and that it went to crown court. It has been a terrible ordeal for her and a total waste of public resources.'

Miss Heathcote-Drury says: 'I find it very sad we live in a culture which seems to believe if we try to help someone, we're asking for trouble.'

 Source

Comment by Peter Hitchens:

The CPS will put anyone on trial... except crooks

The main purpose of the Crown Prosecution Service is to save money by pretending that crime and disorder are not as bad as they really are.

That is why it is almost impossible to get it to prosecute anyone, unless you have clear, high-definition film of the crime actually being committed.

Burglary? Why bother? Here’s a crime number, if you can still get insurance in your postcode. Car theft? Happens all the time. Probably your fault. Assault? How about a caution? Drugs? Well, Chuka Umunna, the Shadow Business Secretary, reckons that it isn’t news any more that he smoked dope. So why would we trouble ourselves over that?

In which case, why on earth did the CPS think  it was worth spending heaps of our money on prosecuting Cinnamon Heathcote-Drury after  a bizarre and faintly comical scuffle in Tesco, in which nobody was hurt?

Could it be because her accuser was a Muslim  who alleged she was a ‘racist’?

But now that a jury has thrown out this ludicrous case after 15 minutes of deliberation (God bless them), will anyone in the CPS be disciplined?

SOURCE






Soft justice: British prisoners win right to keep tea-making facilities in their cells in case they fancy a brew during the night

A prisoner has won the right to a keep a thermos flask of hot tea overnight after the new Prisons and Probation Ombudsman said it was good for his health and that he deserved 'decent treatment'.

Nigel Newcomen CBE, who was appointed the new Prisons and Probation Ombudsman by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke in September 2011, took up the unnamed prisoner's case after hearing he had been denied access to hot drinks in his cell.

Mr Newman agreed that banning access to hot drinks was in breach of the rules on how prisoners should be held.

The National Offender Management Service has now accepted the recommendation and agreed that prisoners should be provided with tea-making facilities at night if they ask for them.

Writing in prison's magazine Inside Time this week, Mr Newcomen said he was 'proud' to take on the role as ombudsman, which was set up in 1994 to provide an 'independent adjudicator of prisoner complaints'.

Explaining his reasoning for taking on prisoner A's case Mr Newcomen said: 'He complained that he was not able to make a hot drink when he was locked up overnight (for 12 to 15 hours depending on the day of the week).

'In my view, both health and decent treatment required that prisoners should be able to make a hot drink when they are locked up for that long.

'I was pleased that the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) accepted the recommendation - and the cost implications - that the prison should provide prisoners with vacuum flasks or in-cell kettles for this purpose.'

In another case detailed by Mr Newcomen in the Inside Time article he explained how he had tried to help a family visit a prisoner who was a long way from home.

Mr Newcomen said he battled to get increased petrol money for the prisoner's family so they could visit him, but that this was turned down by the prison service.

He said: 'There was a different outcome in the case of Mr B who complained that the Prison Service would not support a move to a prison closer to his family.

'He said that it was very difficult for his wife and young children to visit him as they lived 250 miles away.

'Mr B was a category A prisoner who was serving a life sentence for serious offences. He had, therefore, been allocated to a high security prison that specialised in certain offending behaviour programmes.

'The financial help for Mr B's family, through the assisted prison visits scheme, did not cover the cost of petrol for the trip.  'The mileage rate had stayed the same since 2005 but petrol prices have risen by 60%.

'The assisted visits scheme is not intended to cover all costs, but the value of the mileage allowance had fallen sharply, making it more difficult for families to visit.

'I, therefore, recommended that the mileage rate be increased. Unusually, this recommendation was not accepted - because it would cost too much. 'This may be a sign of the times.'

Speaking to The Telegraph about the proposals one prison source said: 'It's all very well to be a friend to the prisoner, but surely it's hardly a human right to have a cup of tea at night. Prisoners aren't meant to be in hotel rooms with room service. They are there to be punished.'

SOURCE





New American Trend: Gyms Banning Slim Clients To Foster Comfort For Overweight Patrons

 A new fitness trend appears to be sweeping the nation – one that expressly excludes those on the more slender side of the scale.

Multiple reports have surfaced recently about gyms that cater exclusively to zaftig clients looking to lose weight in a place free of potential judgment from other, smaller patrons.

Though some all-inclusive gyms have attempted in the past to create a safe haven for anyone interested in exercising – for example, Planet Fitness, a national chain of gyms with a “judgment-free” motto and mentality – some creators of obese-only gyms feel it’s not enough.

Fitness facilities throughout the United States and Canada are adopting the obese-only idea in the hopes of removing intimidation from the exercise equation.

One such business is Downsize Fitness, with locations in Las Vegas, Chicago and Dallas. They are self-described as a gym “developed specifically with chronically overweight and obese individuals in mind.”

Chris Gowens, co-founder of Downsize Fitness, told CBS Sacramento that he formerly served as the personal trainer of the gym’s other founder, and the two talked extensively about his former client’s apprehension to go to a public gym.

“Most people can’t afford a personal trainer … and never feel comfortable going to the gym,” he said. “The idea [for Downsize Fitness] was borne out of that. We thought it would be a good idea to open a gym tailored to overweight people, to create an environment that’s more welcoming and less intimidating.”

Other gyms with the same idea include Body Exchange in Vancouver, Square One in Omaha, Neb., and Buddha Body Yoga in New York City.

Shawn Arent, an associate professor for the Department of Exercise Science and Sport Studies at Rutgers University, told CBS Sacramento that any program with the potential to motivate obese people to pursue a healthier lifestyle is a program worthy of a chance.

“Anything that gets people moving is a good idea at this point, considering what we’re dealing with in terms of an obesity epidemic,” he said, adding that those put off by the notion of judgmental work-out companions are not alone. “The barrier people are talking about here is social physique anxiety, or nervousness about what others observe and perceive about a person in a certain environment.”

He additionally noted that the business model of an obese-specific gym evokes thoughts of the women-only model employed by the Curves franchise.

Not everyone is on board, however.

Lisa Tealer, a board member for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance in Foster City, Calif., said that she has “strong concerns” over a gym that separates overweight and obese people from people of average weights and statures.

“I [worry] about a gym that is basing its business model, services and membership on size discrimination, in this case to average size women,” Tealer, a former health club owner herself, told CBS Sacramento. “The health cub I owned was a weight neutral, body positive, health club, where women were not judged based on shape or size of their bodies. We had staff that reflected size diversity and equipment that could be adjusted to accommodate a variety of body sizes.”

In regards to other options, Gowens noted that patrons who tried to work out at home said they often found themselves in close proximity with family, friends, significant others or roommates who were sympathetic to their health goals, but ultimately not supportive due to their reluctance to alter their own habits.

And when those clients tried to go to conventional gyms, they did not fare much better.

“Some [of our clients] said that when they went to the gym, they would get to the parking lot and sit there. It was as close as they could go,” Gowens recalled. “They felt out-of-place.”

He added, “It really motivates everyone [at our gym] to see … someone else having the same experience.”

Tealer agreed that there are potential merits to such a business model, but ultimately feels that it creates a discriminatory environment aimed in the other direction.

“While I commend the attempt to create a judgment-free environment, where fat women feel comfortable, it should not be at the expense of average size women,” she said.

Arent additionally pointed out the “reverse discrimination” element of obese-only gyms.

“There’s a different societal issue there,” he said. “But if it gives [obese people] an exercise program that works for them, I see nothing wrong with that part.”

Arent also noted that the quality of the program is just as important as the environment, if not more so.

“It’ll be interesting to see where it goes. If someone is that overweight, are they people that enjoy working out in the first place?” he said. “It depends on the qualifications of the staff. It’s not just the environment, but also the quality of the programs offered.”

SOURCE





Prayer rooms for Muslims are indicative of the coming changes to the Australian way of life

Stories in past months about the plans to place prayer rooms for Muslims inside Australia’s football venues provide yet another sign of the changes that are happening in our country. It has been reported that prayer rooms are to be compulsory at all AFL grounds.

These prayer rooms are being touted as “non-denominational”, but considering that it has been Muslims campaigning for them, to facilitate the Islamic practice of praying five times a day whilst facing in the direction of Mecca, there is little doubt that their primary purpose is for the use of Muslims.

Various changes are happening in our society. Change, in general, is inevitable, but that does not mean that all change is good. The rise of communism and fascism were changes, but they were not changes for good. Likewise, demographic genocide via massive Third World immigration, intrinsically linked to political multiculturalism and creeping Islamification, is not good either.

There are now separate facilities in some educational institutions for Muslims, there are swimming pools that have closed at certain times for Muslim women, there are foods with the Muslim “Halal tax” appearing in our supermarkets, there are butchers who have been on the receiving end of aggressive behaviour because displaying pork in their store windows has been regarded as offensive to Muslims, retailers who have been attacked because selling alcohol has been regarded as offensive to Muslims, the blind who have been refused taxi service because having a guide dog in the car has been regarded as offensive to Muslims, and the list goes on. Let’s not even mention the Muslims who celebrated the terrorist attacks upon the West (oops, we just did mention it) or the Muslims who have attacked free speech by dragging pastors into court (with the government’s connivance) for “vilifying Islam”.

Sure, it’s all been a misunderstanding, or there is a certain reason for it, or because it’s a special case. Or maybe it’s only because of a certain percentage of fundamentalist Muslims that these things happen; but these fundamentalist Muslims certainly seem to get around a fair bit, don’t they?

The presence of so many fundamentalist Muslims in Australia is a concern. Not because “they are all terrorists” (how often do you hear that very phrase coming from the multiculturalists, who like to treat ordinary Australians with contempt, as if the average Australian would think all Muslims are terrorists), but because they favour a culture that is not conducive to the well-being of the Australian way of life, and because many of them want to impose their beliefs upon us; at this stage, it is just in so many little ways, bit by bit.

Many Muslims, including fundamentalist Muslims, have fled Islamic countries, in part because of potential dangers from the extremist Muslims there; but fleeing from danger does not change the beliefs of fundamentalist Muslims, it merely changes their location. Once here, free from the stonings, beheadings, and killings, many seek a fundamentalist lifestyle; a lifestyle free from the Taliban-style extremists and the deaths they cause, but a fundamentalist lifestyle nonetheless. Many of the non-extremist Muslims want some changes in their favour too, and that assists the fundamentalists in their cause.

If our society is undergoing so many changes now, with the Muslim component of the population supposed to be less than 2%, what changes will be dealt out to us if and when the Muslim population reaches 10% or higher? How many of them will be fundamentalists, demanding that we change our way of life to suit them?

The calls of caution about the coming changes are like a bell tolling in the night, ringing out a warning – a warning of changes that are coming, of changes that won’t be good for the future of our people. The deathly sound of this bell tolling can be heard right across the landscape of our entire country. Fellow Australians, do not ask for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



8 July, 2012

'Lactivist' flashmob take over British cafe in protest against waitress who abused breastfeeding mother

More than 200 breastfeeding mothers descended on a cafe in support of one of their own who claimed she was verbally abused by a waitress for suckling her baby in public.  Kelly Schaecher, 28, claims she was told by a member of staff: 'Don’t you ever come back to my cafe with your t*** out again!'

When word spread about her ordeal, a Facebook page set up by mothers calling themselves 'lactivists' and 'mother suckers' called on like-minded women to take a stand by deliberately breastfeeding there.

Cheered on by schoolchildren and monitored by policewomen on horseback, the group marched to the cafe to have it out with the owner.  Kelly said: 'What we did was a peaceful gathering, not a protest and we had a really good reaction from the police and the public.

'A group of school children started clapping us and there were six policewomen on horseback to make sure no one drifted in the road.'

Kelly had popped out for lunch at the Park Street Cafe in Bristol, where she claims she was told by the waitress that if she wanted to feed her baby she would have to sit in the corner.

On leaving, Kelly, from Clifton, Bristol, told two customers about the cafe's breastfeeding policy who promptly turned around and left.  Kelly claimed she then walked a few minutes down the road when she was pursued in a car by a waitress at the cafe who screamed: 'Don’t you ever come back to my cafe with your t*** out again!'

Kelly, who works in procurement at the University of Bristol, said: 'When this happened, I was absolutely terrified and really shocked. I was only breastfeeding, and Bristol is a really family-friendly city.  'You see girls in nightclubs barely wearing any clothes all the time, so why would someone have a problem with me feeding my child?

'I turned around and said to her “You don’t know what’s coming" even though at this stage I had no idea we were going to assemble in the cafe.'

Although Kelly was distressed by what had happened, she decided not to pursue anything.  Kelly had never met the person who started up the Facebook page, but word spread about her ordeal very quickly.

She said: 'The cafe's owner was really apologetic and gave everyone a free tea or coffee and a free cake.  'He can't help it if one of his staff was rude to me and he has now put up a sign saying "Breastfeeing is allowed in here".'

Davide Pontini, 35, general manager of the Park Street Cafe, said: 'We want to make it clear that we welcome all mothers and we have women breastfeeding in here on a daily basis.

'It's not company policy for us to make women breastfeed in the corner. This was simply an isolated incident due to a misunderstanding.'

SOURCE




The United Kingdom Is Doomed by a Perniciously Wimpy Form of Political Correctness

Normally, I get pessimistic about the future when I think about wasteful spending programs that will drive almost all developed nations into bankruptcy. And America is on that list, by the way, because of our poorly designed entitlement programs.

But sometimes my despair is the result of idiotic political correctness and bone-headed bureaucracy. And for some reason, as shown by these examples, the United Kingdom seems to have a disproportionate share of morons who want to impose bad policy on their fellow citizens.

* A job-placement center got in trouble for discriminating against incompetent people by seeking “reliable” and “hard-working” candidates.

* A women who was being threatened by thugs got in trouble with the police for brandishing a knife in her own home.

* A proposal to prevent children from watching Olympic shooting events.

* A man got arrested for finding a gun in his yard and turning it over to the police.

* The government wanted to require “competency tests” for pet owners.

* An ID requirement to buy teaspoons.

* The most useless sign in the history of the world.

* A proposal to ban skinny models.

But I don’t know if any of those horror stories can match this baffling story reported in the Telegraph.

When the chief starter at the London Olympics agreed to fire his pistol to start the races at a school sports day, parents thought it was a wonderful treat for their children. But they did not count on the intervention of health and safety officials from their local council, who ruled that the noise from Alan Bell’s starting pistol would be too frightening for the youngsters. Bizarrely, the local authority instead suggested playing a recording of a starting pistol on an iPod before agreeing to let Mr Bell start the races by sounding a klaxon.

…One parent, who did not wish to be named, told a Sunday newspaper: “It was ridiculous. We were told that the children would be distressed by Mr Bell firing his starting pistol. “Anyone who believes they would be frightened by a starting pistol has never experienced the noise at a typical three-year-old’s birthday party.

 …Norman Gardiner, president of the Pitreavie Amateur Athletics Club in Dunfermline, said the decision was “health and safety gone mad.”

It’s amazing to think that the United Kingdom once ruled half the world, but now produces pencil-neck bureaucrats who think starting pistols are a menace to society.

But we Americans shouldn’t feel superior. We’re traveling down the same path.

* A Rhode Island boy got in trouble for bringing toy soldiers to school.

* A student in San Diego got in trouble for making a motion detector for a science project, simply because someone decided it resembled a bomb.

* The military was criticized for giving Osama bin Laden an Indian code name (Geronimo) as part of the operation to exterminate the al Qaeda dirtbag.

* A Florida student was expelled for having a toy gun on school property.

And how can we omit the politicians in San Francisco, who decided that banning happy meal toys was an appropriate use of government coercion.

We also have regulations in Maryland governing the application of sunscreen at summer camps.

And proposals in Seattle to require life vests on swimmers who are more than five feet from shore.

My initial instinct is that we should fire the over-paid bureaucrats who generate this kind of nonsense. I admit that such as step might only address the symptom of a politically correct world, but it would be a good start.

SOURCE (See the original for links)





Judges support the criminals in NYC

Even sentences to probation are being overturned

For the second time in a week,a Manhattan appeals court has overturned the conviction of a teen found packing heat in a crime-ridden neighborhood after a stop-and-frisk.

In yesterday’s stunning decision, the five judge panel reversed the conviction of a14-year-old boy with a rap sheet whom cops found carrying a loaded handgun.

Both decisions are seen as a slap in the face to the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program aimed at getting guns off the streets.

“They are basically saying officers need to wait for someone to stick a gun in their face before looking for a weapon, even when they have clear and legitimate suspicion,” fumed Mayor Bloomberg’s spokesman, Marc Lavorgna.  “They are establishing a precedent that is going to keep more guns on the street and get people killed.”

In the latest case, Jaquan Morant, then 14, was busted on June 11, 2010, outside the drug-plagued Manhattanville Houses in West Harlem with a 9mm pistol loaded with 11 rounds, according to court records.  Sources said the gun’s serial number had been scratched off.

Officer Mourad Arslanbeck said he saw Morant looking up and down the street, and making a quick phone call before he knelt down, removed a white object from his waistband, and slipped it into his backpack.

When the cop approached Morant, the Bronx boy asked, “What do you want from me? I’m only 14,” and claimed to be on his way to an address written on his arm — known to be “a high-crime, drug-prone location,” court records show.

The “fidgety” teen denied anything was in the backpack, even though it felt very heavy to the cop.

Morant gave the cop permission to search his backpack for his school ID. There, Arslanbeck found the loaded gun.

Morant was sentenced to 15 months’ probation, but appealed.  In a 3-2 ruling, the judges said Arslanbeck lacked both the reasonable suspicion needed to justify patting down Morant and the probable cause needed to search the backpack.

The teen’s mom, Kimberly Morant, last night told The Post she wasn’t aware of the court’s decision but said, “I’m glad [the conviction] was tossed out.”

Of her son’s gun bust, the Bronx mom said, “I’m still trying to forget about it.  “I don’t know where he got it from.’’

Asked if Jaquan — whom law-enforcement sources said has two prior busts, for robbery and grand larceny — was a good child, she replied, “He’s an all right kid.’’

In the earlier reversal, the judges overturned the conviction and probation sentence of Darryl Craig, also 14, who was found toting a loaded .25-caliber pistol. Three months after Craig was busted, he allegedly shot and nearly killed a Queens man.

Michael Cardozo, head of the city’s Law Department, said he will appeal the rulings in both cases.

SOURCE





Publicity forces a backdown after Florida lifeguard fired for saving drowning man

This is the sort of bureaucratic nonsense you expect in England -- and publicity as the only remedy is also the same

A lifeguard in Hallandale Beach, Fla., canned for helping to save a drowning man can return to work, his former boss says.
Tomas Lopez, 21, was fired for leaving the section of the public beach he was paid to patrol -- and in doing so, leaving the swimmers he was responsible for unattended -- a supervisor for the employer, Jeff Ellis Management, told Orlando's Sun Sentinel earlier this week.

On Thursday afternoon, however, the company recanted the controversial decision that's made international headlines.

"I am of the opinion that the supervisors acted hastily. It was not the appropriate course of action to take," owner Jeff Ellis told the Sentinel.

Ellis said an investigation determined the area where Lopez was stationed wasn't unattended when he left the scene to help the swimmer.

Lopez said he was at his post Monday afternoon when someone ran to him for help. He spotted a man struggling in the water in an unprotected swimming area and ran to assist. He was fired a short time later.

"It was a long run, but someone needed my help. I wasn't going to say no," Lopez told the newspaper.  The man is being treated in hospital.  At least two other lifeguards have quit in protest

SOURCE





Australia: No God or Queen for Girl Guides

TONY Abbott [Federal conservative  leader] has hinted that he wasn't in favour of the Girl Guides cutting ties with the Queen and God.



The Opposition leader said his daughters and wife were all involved in Girl Guides, which he considers to be a fine organisation.

“Speaking for myself, I don't mind pledging to both God and the Queen. They are OK by me. I don't want to drop either of them,” Mr Abbott told the Nine Network today.

Debate on the issue was a hot topic on radio and TV this morning.

Promising to serve God and the Queen and pledging obedience as they have for more than half a century, has been ruled old-fashioned and out of step with modern Australian life by junior and senior Guides.

Australia's 28,000 Guides will instead vow to serve their community and country, and "live with courage and strength".

The change to the Guiding Promise and Guide Law begins in units across the country from today.

Girl Guides spokeswoman Belinda Allen said it was up to members to decide if Queen Elizabeth's photograph was removed from Guide Halls.

"They may decide they still like to have pictures of the Queen around but . . . we have to move on," Mrs Allen said.

About a million Australian women have been part of the Guiding Movement since it began in 1910.

The review of the wording has been under way for two years and involved a survey of all members. "(The Queen) is not part of the Australian Citizenship pledge and being responsible to one's community is one of the essences of Guiding," Mrs Allen said.

The Australian Scouting movement made pledging its duty to the Queen optional in 2001 but retained God in its Promise.

Twelve-year-old Girl Guide Rebecca said not all Guides followed the same religion.  "I think it's pretty cool, most people have different religions or views and this takes it into account," Rebecca said.

Guiding has already tried to modernise. Brownies and Rangers have been cut and uniforms swapped for informal clothes.

But the famous three-fingered salute devised by Robert Baden-Powell remains.

The Queen has a long-standing relationship with the organisation. Her wedding cake was made from ingredients supplied by Australian Girl Guides.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



7 July, 2012

Sabbath



6 July, 2012

One woman finally gets it figured:  What feminists have taught her will never get her a man

Being "demure" must be the word feminists hate most  -- but it sums up what works for a woman who is sexually normal

At least it does in Britain and Australia.  Not so sure about NYC.  Maybe men there judge women by their Mommas

My friend Anna is attractive, confident and has a high-powered job in publishing — yet she has spent most of her adult life desperately trying to find a man.

One evening, when she was in her early 30s, she found herself sitting next to a good-looking, single architect called Chris at a dinner party. Their friends thought them perfectly suited to each other and were trying a bit of match-making.

By the time the main course arrived, Anna had told Chris exactly what he was doing wrong in his career, made jokes about his dress sense and criticised his choice of car. Chris barely got a word in edgeways.

For her part, Anna thought she was being helpful and amusing, and couldn’t understand why Chris never called her.

Ten years later, during which time Chris had got married and divorced, they met by chance at a house party. This time Anna, by now 41, was less bossy and far more relaxed; she let Chris speak, she laughed rather than criticised and was a much nicer person to be with. Within months, they were living together and now they are married with a baby on the way.

Anna’s story is far from unique. In fact, before she changed her ways, she was typical of a growing breed of 30 and 40-something women who are so snippy, critical and exacting that they have no hope of ever snaring a man.

I should know — for I’m one of them.  Single at the age of 39, I’ve often wondered why none of my relationships lasted the distance, but had always put it down to luck and timing — assuming I had neither on my side.

But recently, my friend Steven threw some cold, harsh light on the subject.  ‘Your problem is that you’re really snippy,’ he said.

‘Snippy?’ I asked, not entirely sure what he meant.

‘Yes, snippy,’ he said. ‘Abrupt. Critical. If someone says or does something wrong, then you’re onto it straight away. Men will ignore a lot of things if they fancy someone — a weird dress sense, or taking hours getting ready to go out — but they hate being put down or made to feel small. You can be funny, but sometimes it’s way too close for comfort.’

This wasn’t a nice thing to be told. But what he was saying did have a ring of truth about it.

I’d thought I was quite witty, to be honest, with my quick quips and smart comments. Now it seemed that what I thought was funny could be completely off-putting to men.

Steven tried to cheer me up.  ‘Don’t worry, it’s not just you,’ he said, explaining that in his opinion there were lots of women in their 30s who were so uptight and critical they just weren’t any fun to be around.  ‘And you wonder why men go for younger women, who are way more relaxed?’ he asked.

My sister agreed with Steven. She said that what I thought were entertaining and witty comments could come across as criticisms or complaints.

I thought of Anna and how she had missed out on ten years of being with Chris because, as she admits, she was just too sharp.

‘It wasn’t just Chris — I ruined things with other men,’ she says. ‘If I was on a date in a restaurant and I didn’t like the table we were at, I’d insist on moving. I didn’t like it when trains were delayed, or the traffic was bad, and I showed it. It was because I wanted everything to be perfect, but I think it came across as being fussy or critical.’

Perhaps, women my age are putting men off with our demanding, critical natures?

My single female friends back up this theory. One is so curt, I’m almost too scared to call her at work for fear of inviting a tirade. Another will always pick the venue when going on a date because she doesn’t trust the guy to choose a nice place. It is an affliction that affects celebrity women too.

Last year, X Factor judge Kelly Rowland, 31, told reporters: ‘The desire to be in control and decide everything myself as much as possible gets in the way. The fact that I can act a little bossy has ruined quite a few dates.

‘I choose the restaurant, I open the door myself, sometimes I’ll even pay the bill. I need to learn to let a man be a gentleman. That must be one reason why I’m single.’

This phenomenon is linked to age. If you’re single and in your 30s, you are bound to be rather independent, and organising your whole life means that you are not good at letting someone else take charge.

Our generation was told by our mothers that we didn’t have to be reliant on a man, and shouldn’t be afraid of making ourselves heard to get ahead in our careers. But have we gone too far the other way and become harsh?

A quick survey of my family — who seemed more than happy to point out my flaws — revealed that I frown when I think people are saying daft things. I also talk too quickly, too loudly, jump into people’s sentences, so even when I’m agreeing with them, I sound intimidating. And I can’t keep quiet whenever a ‘smart Alec’ comment springs to mind.

With that list, I was no longer surprised that I was single, but baffled that anyone had ever wanted to go out with me in the first place. So I made a resolution — to ditch the snippiness and see if my love life and friendships improved as a result.

It wasn’t going to be easy, especially as biting my tongue and playing nice has never been my strong point.

One former boyfriend drove me crazy by never rinsing off the soapsuds after doing the washing up, so our food always tasted of Fairy Liquid. Should I have let that slide, or always done the washing up myself, rather than trying to get him to do it differently?

I thought he was ignoring my pleas for him to do the washing up more thoroughly; he thought I was nagging, and while it wasn’t the reason the relationship ended, it didn’t help. I tried out my new resolution with some friends at a pub quiz where one of the questions was ‘Which Olympics was Chariots of Fire set in?’

‘I think it was the 1924 one,’ I suggested, having seen it recently.

‘No, it’s 1920,’ insisted one of the guys, a friend of a friend who I hadn’t met before. ‘Definitely.’

Previously, I would have stood my ground, but this time, I let it go. I assumed a Zen-like calm, even when I was right.

‘Don’t worry, it doesn’t matter!’ I said cheerfully, when before I would have made some ‘maybe listen to me next time?’ comment. He even bought me a drink to apologise.

I practised talking more slowly and with a softer voice. I found that it was impossible to finish a sentence this way without being interrupted, as people were used to me talking 19 to the dozen.

But I refrained from interrupting anyone and nearly combusted with biting back all the ‘smart’ comments that constantly bubbled up. It felt like the episode of Friends when Chandler has to stop making jokes and nearly explodes. But forcing myself to ignore everything which irritated me made me feel much more relaxed, I smiled more than I frowned, and I was a much nicer person to be with.

While the new, nice, me worked like a charm on my friends, the ultimate test would be how it panned out on a date.

After a meal in an Italian restaurant with a man I’d met through an online dating site, the bill — which we’d already agreed to split — arrived. My date carefully explained to me how £60 into two makes £30 each.

I bit back the smart ‘Thanks, I think even I could have worked that one out!’ remark which was on the tip of my tongue. Instead, I gave him a warm smile and a polite thank you. And in return? He asked me on a second date. I might be onto something.

SOURCE




Nigel Farage savages the EU again

Good to see him in top form again after his air crash.  I personally think Britain should be in NAFTA, not the EU



Select Quotes:

    ESM is doomed before it starts

    Legal Challenges in Ireland and Germany

    Estonia Justice Says it will not fit their constitution

    Finns and Dutch have broken agreement made in the middle of the night

    Perhaps the little countries do not have a say at all anymore

    Crisis is unsolvable





Das Vierte Reich:  German Court Declares Judaism A Crime

Sieg heil!

Hard to believe, but that’s what the decision handed down by the regional court in Cologne, Germany means: circumcising a child under the age of consent is a crime, notwithstanding the religious beliefs of the parents.

Many judges who loyally served the Third Reich finished their careers in perfect peace and quiet after World War Two; in some cases, they are still collecting pensions for administering Hitler’s laws. However, Germany’s moral sensibilities are so refined and so pure today that the thought of Jewish parents (or Muslims for that matter) performing an immemorial religious rite is unacceptable.

Jews believe that the circumcision of infants is a necessary act; the command to circumcise male children at the age of eight days is the first command that God gives Abraham to mark their covenant; for thousands of years this has been a foundation of Jewish life. To ban infant circumcision is essentially to make the practice of Judaism illegal in Germany; it is now once again a crime to be a Jew in the Reich.

Some may have worried that the memory of past, ahem, problems in German-Jewish relations would inhibit German judges from the single most anti-Semitic state action taken anywhere in the west since 1945. Holm Putzke, a legal expert at the University of Passau, praised the court’s dedication to duty, telling the Financial Times Deutschland that “Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance.”

Well, thank goodness for that! If courts start letting themselves be inhibited because people will denounce them for being intolerant anti-Semites, how can we possibly build a clean and beautiful New Europe?

Perhaps those convicted of wrongful circumcision could be required to wear a yellow star?

SOURCE






Black mobs now beating Jews in New York

If Chaim Amalek had his way, no one would know that mobs of black people are attacking and beating and robbing Jews in the New York area.  Or that they shout anti-Semitic epithets.  Or that they target Jews because "they don't fight back."

"Such information can only serve to heighten racial tensions between these two groups," said Amalek, an alias for New York video blogger Luke Ford. "Let us all look beyond the issue of race (in any event a mere social construct) and instead celebrate our diversity."

In this case, the New York Post saw a pattern that most other media outlets never see. To some, it was jarring.

"Anti-Jewish crime wave," read the June headline about a series of recent anti-Semitic attacks. "In the most disturbing incident, a mob of six black teenagers shouting, ‘Dirty Jew!' and ‘Dirty kike!' repeatedly bashed Marc Heinberg, 61, as he walked home from temple in Sheepshead Bay (in June.)"

This is one of several black mob attacks on - and robberies of - Jewish people in Brooklyn over the last two years, leaving broken bones and life-threatening injuries in their wake.

The assaults are part of a larger pattern in the New York area and around the country: Black mobs assaulting, robbing, destroying property and creating mayhem - hundreds of times in more than 60 cities.

Orthodox Jews may bear a disproportionate amount of the violence in New York. But the lawlessness that black mobs inflict throughout the area is not limited to Jews. Much of it is on YouTube.

In February, four black people beat and robbed an Orthodox Jew in the New York suburb of Monsey. They were charged with hate crimes after it was determined they targeted the victim based on his religion. News accounts do not mention the race of the attackers, but the picture tells the story.

In a three-week period after Thanksgiving 2010, the same group of black people was charged in three separate episodes of targeting, beating and robbing members of the Orthodox community. One of the victims, Joel Weinberger, spent four days in the hospital with broken bones and required 10 hours of surgery on his broken jaw and eye socket.

Ford and others, such as MSNBC news anchor Melissa Harris-Perry, say the media should not report news if it makes black people look bad. But most racial crimes and violence from black mobs in the New York area are usually not reported - not by the mainstream media anyway.

Witnesses and others who know often find a way to drop a dime, or a video or Internet posting.

Just a few days before the Heinberg beating, a group of students from a predominately black school in a predominantly black neighborhood in Brooklyn were "evicted" from the 9/11 Memorial site in Manhattan "after they callously hurled trash into its fountains. The vile vandals from Junior High School 292 in East New York treated the solemn memorial - its reflecting pools honoring the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terror attacks - like a garbage dump."

One of the students was found carrying ammunition.

The story did not identify the race of the students. The picture for the article featured a young white person looking over the fountains. But people who posted comments to the story, many of whom said they lived near the school, identified the vandals as black - if only to defend them.

"The NYPD have destroyed enough young black lives," wrote poster Blaque Knyte. "I'd be willing to bet you didn't suggest jail for the little white suburban thugs who harassed that elderly bus matron to tears, which IS a crime by the way."

Many of the commenters said the story should have identified the race of the miscreants - if only to protect the community from future mayhem. That was too much for "brooklynborn," who said, "I am embarrassed for my fellow Americans who flaunt their racism so publicly. What they did was offensive, but the conditions of where we grew up - compared to the wealth of Wall St. - is also offensive."

While New Yorkers continue to debate whether race has anything to do with crime, or whether it should be reported, the list of racially violent and lawless episodes continues to grow.

On May 12, black women taunted two teenage girls on a subway before "hauling" the girls off the subway, beating them and stealing one of their phones.

The local NBC affiliate did not disclose the race of the mob, but it didn't have to: The attack was videotaped and posted on YouTube.

On Staten Island in December, two police officers were hurt trying to control a mob of 50 black people attacking a single family home. Firefighters finally disbursed the crowd with fire hoses to get them away from the officers. Several pictures and videos show some of the action.

Last June, hundreds of black people rioted on Brighton Beach in an annual event called Brooklyn-Queens Day. Four people were shot and one killed. Much of it was posted on YouTube.

According to the New York Post: "The shootings didn't surprise neighbors, who've gotten used to trouble on previous Brooklyn-Queens Days."

"These kids come not to swim, they come for turf fights," said Pat Singer, president of the Brighton Beach Neighborhood Association. "It's a problem every year. It's really hard on the businesses. All day long, all you see are hundreds of teenagers. Of course you're going to have problems."

In May of 2011, more than two dozen black people on a "rampage ... terrorized" a Dunkin Donuts. The "swarm mob" attacked patrons, destroyed the fixtures and stole food, reported the Daily Mail, which published the story with pictures.

A few months before, the same scenario unfolded at a New York Wendy's. A mob of black people were fighting and destroying property, and a teenage employee was attacked and hospitalized with a concussion.

Also like the episode before, the New York Fox affiliate removed the videos of the attack from its website - but not before Hip Hop New 24-7 posted it.

This is a long list. New York is a big city.

Last summer, a Bronx man said he was taunted for being white and beaten by a black mob on a subway. No charges were filed, and police refused to list it as a hate crime.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



5 July, 2012

Pink Gestapo in Canada

By Mark Steyn

I wrote recently about a small victory for freedom of speech in Canada, but, as always, it’s two steps forward, one step back. Here’s the backward one: Gai Écoute in Québec has announced the launch of the world’s first “register of homophobic acts.”

I don’t mind gay groups keeping a vast database of anonymously-reported homophobic thought-crimes if they feel that’s a productive use of their time. But it is preposterous that this sprawling directory of  cobwebbed flamer cracks and swishy-gait titters will be publicly funded by taxpayers under the Québec Government’s “action plan for the fight against homophobia,” which apparently also includes redesignating Jean-Marc Fournier, the minister of justice and attorney general, as “Minister of Justice, Attorney General, and Minister for the Fight Against Homophobia.”

As usual with these censorious types, “act” is defined with the broadest of brushes to include “moquerie blessante” (offensive mockery) and “couverture médiatique inappropriée” (inappropriate media coverage). The right to mock and be “inappropriate” are about as basic to a free society as any, so nuts to that.

To announce the launch of their secret files of inappropriate mockers, the leaders of Gai Écoute were flanked by Montréal Police Chief Inspector Johanne Paquin and Commander Alain Gagnon. In a sane world, no self-respecting gay would attend such an event. The fact that this sight — policemen publicly announcing a dossier of dissident citizens suspected of thought crimes to the approval of supposedly “liberal” “progressive” groups — is now entirely normal in Western societies is far more disturbing than any problem they purport to be addressing. To modify an ancient joke, how do you make a fruit cordial? Evidently, it’s a lot harder than it used to be. You can have that one for free, lads — just in case things are a bit quiet on the homophobia-epidemic front.

PS I’ll be interested to see how much room the database has for persons of a, ahem, certain background who say things like “all male homosexuals should be killed for their deviant behavior.”

SOURCE





Transgender student named prom queen at Ontario high school


Cripes!   Who'd make it a queen of anything except for politics?

A transgender student says being named prom queen was the cherry on top of her high school education. "I was really surprised," Connor Ferguson, an 18-year-old male-to-female transgender student at Trenton High School, said of the win. "It was pretty surreal actually. If I remember correctly my jaw hit the floor and we all started laughing because it was so crazy. I walked up and the crown didn't fit my hair, so I had to hold it."

Ferguson had an inkling she might get a few votes, but never thought she'd walk away with the crown.

"I heard some students talking about it at school, but I
thought it was just funny," she said. "There was so many other girls that could have received it."

Caroline Rolf voted for Ferguson and went with her to the prom.  "I voted for Connor because anyone who has been through as much as she has and still exudes so much class and confidence deserves a royal title, and not just on prom night," Rolf said.

Ferguson admitted high school was relatively easy-going, especially considering the stigma surrounding transgenders and the LGBT community. The school has a tolerant student body and supportive staff, as well as the positive effects of the anti-bullying campaign the school holds annually, Ferguson said.

"I've lived as I am for four years now, so I believe the ‘shock value' is gone and most people just accept me for me," Ferguson said. "It took some time for quite a few people, but the school and staff definitely helped with that, and my group of friends was endlessly supportive. I think people accept you a lot more when you stick up for yourself and have enough confidence to be yourself."

But, like many high school students, Ferguson faced her fair share of bullying.  "A couple of the older students would yell stuff at me in the hallways, but I definitely didn't care. I didn't feel the need to waste teachers time with telling them about it if it didn't make me upset," she said.

Ferguson knows the road ahead may not be as easy as her classmates and teachers have made it in high school, but she has some choice words for anyone who is trans-phobic.

"I would want to tell them I really am like any other girl," she said. "Acceptance isn't crucial in my life, but the fact is I'm not hurting anyone, so there's no reason for trans-phobic behavior. I hope I can change some views along the way. If I can't, that won't make me lose sleep at night. I just think some people would be happier if they weren't concerned with how I live my life."

SOURCE



   

Jews Do Control the Media

Larry David is a comedian but I think he is half-serious below

We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which  was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.

But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!

Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?

But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.

And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.

Now, I know what everyone will say. That everyone tries to lobby. Every minority group and every majority group. That every group has some successful actors and directors. But that’s a far call from saying that we run Hollywood and Madison Avenue. That the Mel Gibsons of the world are right in saying we’re deliberately using our power to take over the world. That we’ve got some crazy conspiracy going down.

Okay. Fine. So some of that is kooky talk.  But let’s look at it a bit deeper.

Maybe it’s true: everyone lobbies. Maybe it’s true there are actors of every ethnicity out there. But come on. We’re the ones who are bragging about this stuff all the time. Can’t we admit that we’re incredibly successful? Can’t we say it to the world?

I’ll give my theory for why Jews don’t want to talk about their control of the media.

First of all, as much as Jews like to admit that so many of them are successful, and that so many of them have accomplished so much, they hate to admit that it has to do with they’re being Jewish. Maybe they’ll admit that it has something to do with the Jewish experience. But how many Jews will admit that there is something inherently a part of every single one of them that helps them to accomplish amazing things?

The ADL chairman, Abe Foxman, was interviewed in a great article about the subject and he said that he “would prefer people say that many executives in the industry ‘happen to be Jewish.’” This just about sums up the party line.

The truth is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in the world. We’re talking about a group of people that just got put in death camps, endured pogroms, their whole families decimated. And then they came to America, the one place that ever really let them have as much power as they wanted, and suddenly they’re taking over. Please don’t tell me that any other group in the world has ever done that. Only the Jews. And we’ve done it before. That’s why the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. We were too successful. Go look at the Torah — it’s right there. And we did it in Germany too.

This ability to succeed, this inner drive, comes not from the years of education or any other sort of conditional factors, but because of the inner spark within each Jew.

Now, the reason groups like the ADL and AIPAC hate admitting this is because, first of all, they are secular organizations. Their whole agenda is to prove that every Jew is the same as every other person in the world. I cannot imagine a more outlandish agenda. No, we’re different. We’re special.

Of course, people hate when anyone says this. They assume that if you’re saying that Jews are special, it somehow implies that they’re better.

To be honest, I’m not really sure what the word “better” even means. What I do know is that being special simply means a person has a responsibility to do good.

I think that’s the real reason most Jews are so afraid to admit that there’s something inherently powerful and good about them. Not because they’re afraid of being special. But because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world. It means that things can’t just be created for the sake of amusement or fun or even “art.”

Suddenly, we can’t screw up the world.

The interesting thing is that Jews have done so much for the world in so many other ways. They’ve moved forward civil rights; they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.

But that’s not enough. Fixing the world physically is only half the battle.

Our larger battle, the harder battle, is elevating the world spiritually. And this is what the people that fight with every inch of their soul to prove that Jews are just the same as everyone else are afraid of. It means that we can no longer just “express ourselves.” We’ll have to start thinking about the things we create and the way we act. It means we’ll have to start working together. It means we’ll have to hold one other, and ourselves, to a higher standard.

The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country.

Instead, we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge responsibility — and opportunity.

SOURCE





Not what the feminists foresaw

By Rachel Johnson,  editor of "The Lady"

Marlborough College has hit on a brilliant way of making parents feel hideous and over-the-hill as their child comes to the end of their happy time at the honey-stoned, Wiltshire alma mater of Kate Middleton, Sam Cam, Sally Bercow etc. The Master three-line-whips the parents of leavers to buy tickets to his “Invitation Dance”.

The above paragraph is rather witty so I suppose I should decode it for non-Brits:  Kate Middleton is the future queen of England,  Samantha Cameron is the wife of the British Prime minister and Sally Bercow is wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons;  "Alma mater" is not widely used in Britan so is a humorous affectation; A three line whip is an instruction to vote given to parliamentarians which is underlined three times.  Disobeying one is a serious breach of party loyalty (something expected in Britain);  Applying it to an invitation to a ball is therefore also humorous -- JR

“Oh my God, the girls,” groaned Giles, a father in his fifties, as we sat with all the other wrinkled parents in black tie (the fathers) or brave jewel shades and shawls (the mothers), watching hordes of teenage supermodels with glossy manes, dewy skins, perfect teeth and sweeping false eyelashes parade about in plunging, backless and even somewhat frontless gowns. “In my day there was perhaps one pretty girl in a year, but now…”

It is true. Girls nowadays are different. My mother bought all my clothes from Debenhams in Taunton, but my daughter’s generation combine the athleticism of Maria Sharapova with the grooming schedule of show ponies at Goodwood.

I’m not sure what to think about this. The fact is, the stunning girls we were all gawping at had spent ages – months, really – “getting ready”. Many had had their hair, nails and make-up done. They wore designer dresses. Now, we all enjoy looking at beautiful young things, but I do worry: after all, many costly decades of what Nora Ephron called “maintenance” and I call “admin” lie ahead of these 18-year-olds, all of whom would have looked sensational had they rolled out of bed and come in their pillow-cases. As Ephron said, the amount of time and money hair consumes as one gets older is “overwhelming” – and as one heads for 70, one is only about eight hours of beauty salon time away from looking like a tramp.

I agree with Giles that teenagers are prettier than they used to be. But when I recall those fronds of fake lashes, and wonder why 18 doesn’t look how it used to, I think there is another factor, one that would disturb feminists such as Naomi Wolf, who argued that the imperative to look beautiful is the force that prevents women from being liberated, and it’s this: far from becoming less onerous, female maintenance/admin is incessant, and starts earlier and earlier for every successive generation of girls.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



4 July, 2012

Knowing British bureaucratic rigidity I understand this guy

He may have done all customers of that firm a favour

An unhappy customer smashed up a city centre mobile phone shop during an apparent row over a refund for a mobile phone contract.

Shocked shoppers filmed Jason Codner, 42, from Salford, on their phones as he methodically ripped out wall fixtures and set off fire extinguishers at the T-Mobile store in Manchester city centre.  The footage, which later appeared on YouTube, shows the middle-aged man destroying the shop displays as staff watch in disbelief.

Dressed in a checked shirt and jeans, the man pulls stock from the walls and overturns tables.

The havoc continues for several minutes until one member of staff makes a call from his mobile phone and shopping centre security staff arrive at the store shortly afterwards.

Five burly police officers turn up seconds later and the man smiles and tells them he is OK. Police then arrest him and lead him away, after telling a huge crowd of bystanders to move on.

A spokesman for T-Mobile - whose slogan is Life is for Sharing - said the firm was aware of the video footage and was investigating the incident.

A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson said they were aware of Saturday's incident and that Jason Codner, from Salford, had been charged with criminal damage and public order offences. He is due to appear at Salford and Manchester Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday 30 July.

One shopper said: 'The footage is unreal and we couldn’t believe how much damage had been caused.

'He must have been seriously angry about something to go on such a rampage. Normally disgruntled shoppers would have just an exchange of words with a member of a staff about a product but this guy took it to a whole new level.'

A T-Mobile spokesman said there were seven staff members and several other customers in the shop at the time of the incident but all managed to escape without injury.

They added: 'The incident which occurred at the Manchester Market Street store was of course very upsetting for our staff.  'During the incident, all customers and staff were taken outside of the store as quickly as possible and the police were called immediately to handle the incident.

'The customer’s dispute was in relation to a refund that we were not able to give - as it was clearly outside of the stated terms and conditions. 

SOURCE

He may have had good reasons for wanting a contract  release   -- such as illness, becoming unemployed  or poor phone reception -- and the terms and conditions should make generous provisions for  allowing reasonable requests

And in Britain, you've got to get all the  rules right for all the circumstances.  A  Brit with a rulebook is like a robot.  See a summary of the very different American approach here.  The descendants of pioneers behave very differently from the descendants of serfs and villeins -- JR







Police station closed down? You'd better head to the supermarket: As one in five British police stations shut their doors to cut costs

Victims of crime will be told to go to Tesco to get help as the shutters at more than one in five police stations are brought down to cut costs.  Chief constables will close 264 public counters over the next three years as they battle to balance the books.

Residents will instead be encouraged to travel to supermarkets, libraries and community centres if they want to speak to officers face-to-face.

A further 179 police buildings which have no public access will be sold off in an unprecedented fire sale of assets.

Senior officers argued that the blow of the police station closures will be softened as 137 so-called ‘shared locations’ open their doors.

They highlighted how many buildings were out of date and said fewer people visit police stations as they turn to the phone and internet. Some forces, such as Kent, Surrey, Essex, Cumbria and Gwent, were already using mobile police stations in supermarket car parks.

But critics have accused police of withdrawing from landmark high street buildings in many towns and cities simply to cut costs.

Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, lashed out at forces for closing ‘places of refuge’ for crime victims. He said: ‘These drop-in centres are no substitute for a proper police station and for a lot of people they are not the answer.

‘In many cases they have taken away a police station and given the public a part-time office in a supermarket or a mobile home left in a car park.

‘The public want a police station with full facilities, a place of refuge and safety. What we are doing is abandoning this and providing a drop-in point instead.’

The closures were disclosed yesterday in a report by a police watchdog into how police forces in England and Wales are coping with tighter budgets.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found crime continues to fall and confidence in police remains high despite substantial cuts in government funding.

Its report said the total police workforce will fall by 32,400 officers and staff by 2015.  Among these will be 5,800 frontline officers although many forces have reorganised to put a larger proportion of bobbies on the beat.

However, Paul McKeever, of the Police Federation, argued that some forces have simply created a ‘smokescreen’ by moving officers to the front line from other important roles.  He added: ‘Whichever way you cut it, the resilience of the police service to be able to react to whatever is thrown at it is being threatened.’

Spending on equipment and services will also be cut by about £474million as chief constables look to reorganise and share contracts to save cash.

Sir Denis O’Connor, Chief Inspector of Constabulary, argued that  forces can save the jobs of dozens of police officers by selling off costly buildings.  He said: ‘The police station and front counter have traditionally been the physical mainstay of forces’ presence in communities.

‘However, the potential savings benefit to a force in shrinking its estate can be considerable. One reports it will save £500,000 in 2013/14 rising to £1.6million in 2014/15.’

He said the frontline officers he has met are ‘cracking on with the mission’, working imaginatively to maintain services whatever difficulties they face.

The latest cuts figures do not include Britain’s biggest force, the Met, which has not produced detailed budget plans or officer numbers.

Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe is reassembling his management team following a string of  resignations and a shake-up of how the force is overseen. Officials warned his force was in danger of severe failings when cuts bite after the Olympics and it already has a budget shortfall of more than £233million.

Two other forces, Lincolnshire and Devon & Cornwall, were also singled out as potentially failing to provide an ‘efficient and effective’ service in the future.

Chief Constable Steve Finnigan, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: ‘We are becoming more flexible in the way we deliver critical services such as neighbourhood policing, local response teams and investigative work.’

Policing minister Nick Herbert defended the cuts, saying: ‘This report makes it clear that the frontline of policing is being protected overall and that the service to the public has largely been maintained.’

SOURCE





Arguments Do Not Have Testicles

Mike Adams

Recently, a student asked me whether I had a right to speak out on abortion given that I am a man and could never experience pregnancy. I countered by asking him whether arguments have testicles. The question drew laughter from other students who were listening to the exchange. But my point was serious and worth addressing at length.
The idea that men are ineligible to speak out on abortion has at least six flaws, each of which should be understood and articulated by men who desire to speak on the issue. Those argumentative flaws follow in no particular order of importance:

1. The argument is sexist towards men. There have been 26 million males aborted in America since Roe v. Wade. Men have every right to speak out on behalf of those millions of males who were victims of violence at the hands of women. To accept that men cannot speak up for them because they could never choose to have an abortion would have dangerous implications. Could a woman not speak up for a young female rape victim because she could never choose to commit a rape? Would they be prohibited from speaking because they were not members of the gender ultimately responsible for carrying out the crime? Surely not. Furthermore, the argument reinforces the dangerous idea that rights belong to groups and not to individuals.

2. The argument is sexist towards women. We must also consider the effects of male anti-abortion advocacy on unborn women. An unborn woman has a right to choose simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman. Or so the argument goes. If a woman is persuaded to let her unborn female child live then she too can hear the evidence on both sides of the abortion debate. If she dies, she is not at liberty to hear arguments on either side of the issue from either a man or a woman. And she cannot make a decision concerning what to do with her body if she is dismembered in the womb. Ironically, a woman’s so-called right to body autonomy, when exercised, defeats another woman’s right to bodily autonomy (in roughly one out of every two cases of pregnancy).

3. The argument defeats Roe v. Wade. Feminists would like to see the two dissenting Justices in Roe v. Wade silenced because they are men. But the same argument would silence the seven Justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade. They were also men. In other words, if a man’s opinion on abortion is invalidated simply by virtue of the fact that he is a man then Roe v. Wade would also be invalidated.

4. The argument would also apply to other medical procedures. Women usually decide to let their male offspring live. When they do, they usually have their male offspring circumcised. As Francis Beckwith points out, a woman can never know what it is like to have a portion of her penis removed. So how can she be allowed to participate in both the abortion and circumcision decision while a man is excluded from the former?

5. The argument assumes the male pro-life speech is directed toward women. People simply assume that the pro-life male is trying to control women when he argues against abortion. But oftentimes he is not even speaking to women. He is often motivated by a desire to change the hearts of men. This is because he knows that men often coerce women into abortions by threatening to leave them if they have the baby. Therefore, by entering the debate, the pro-life man may be reducing coercive control over women’s bodies. If women are better suited to speak to women, then it stands to reason that men are better suited to speak to men.

6. The argument also applies to slavery. No one could reasonably argue that abortion only affects women. A better argument would be that it affects women disproportionately. But that does not mean women are the only ones who can address the issue of abortion. Historically, slavery has affected blacks disproportionately. But it does not lead to the conclusion that non-blacks are disqualified from commenting on a moral issue that clearly spills over to all segments of the human population.

Liberals are constantly trying to reduce the marketplace of ideas by reducing the number of voices that are eligible to participate. They have already silenced 52 million voices with the blade of a sharp knife. We cannot let them do further damage with dull ideas. Sharpening arguments requires vigorous debate. And vigorous debate requires acceptance of the idea that arguments are not gendered. Neither is the right to speak on matters of profound moral consequence.

SOURCE





Race rules among most American blacks

Star Parker

When the House voted last Thursday to find Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress, members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked out.

Why is the Black Caucus trying to make this about race?

It’s about Holder’s refusal to turn over Justice Department documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Committee in its investigation of the “Fast and Furious” operation.

“Fast and Furious” was a “gun-walking” operation conducted by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). ATF would allow known smugglers to purchase arms from dealers in Arizona with the idea that they would trace them to their destination to operatives in drug cartels in Mexico.

Before the vote, Black Caucus chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) appeared on CNN calling the House contempt vote “....silly and detrimental to one human being.” On MSNBC he told Al Sharpton, “This is partisanship at its most base level.”

Sure, it’s an election year. And if you had to stretch to appreciate the complaint against Holder being made by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif), chairman of the House committee doing the investigation, you might buy Cleaver’s claim that this is just Republican political grandstanding.

But you don’t have to stretch to appreciate the case against Holder.

It seems pretty clear that “Fast and Furious” was a botched operation. The ATF lost track of some two thousand weapons that disappeared into the hands of criminals in Mexico. In December 2010, weapons traced to this operation were found on smugglers who murdered U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry. Others were tied to the murder of at least 200 Mexican citizens.

The investigation into these ATF activities began with inquiries by ranking Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) after Agent Terry’s murder.

The Justice Department, in a letter to Senator Grassley, initially denied the existence of gun-walking operations. But this picture changed when ATF whistleblowers brought facts to the contrary to light. Subsequently, Justice withdrew its letter, saying its denial of the existence of these operations was mistaken.

Inconsistencies in Holder’s testimony before the House committee produced further reasons for suspicion. And then Holder’s stonewalling for months, refusing to produce the documentation that the House committee requested.

Whether there is a fire here remains to be seen. But there is plenty of smoke.

Yet Cleaver calls the House vote holding Holder in contempt “silly?” The chairman of the Black Caucus should have the opposite reaction if only for concern for his own community. Illegal drugs smuggled into the US from Mexico cause havoc among black youth. According to the Center for American Progress, there have been more than 25.4 million drug convictions in the US since 1980, and one third of them were black.

To grasp what’s really motivating Cleaver, I apply what I call the “A Time to Kill” test.

In the 1996 film “A Time to Kill”, a black man in a town in Mississippi hires a white lawyer to defend him after he kills two white racists who raped and mutilated his daughter. When the lawyer makes his closing argument to the jury, he asks them to close their eyes. He describes the atrocities that were done to the girl and concludes by saying “now imagine she’s white.” His black defendant is acquitted.

So close your eyes. Consider the details about “Fast and Furious” and then picture that the Attorney General is not Eric Holder but John Ashcroft (first Attorney General of President G.W. Bush) and that the murdered border agent, Brian Terry, is black.

Would Emanuel Cleaver now call this contempt vote “silly?” Would the Black Caucus have walked out?

For the Black Caucus this is about racial politics.

Fortunately for us, for Darrell Issa (who happens to represent my home district in California) this is about shedding light on what might be broken in ATF operations.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



3 July, 2012

The power of pessimism: We're told to 'think positive' yet a new book argues we'd be far happier if we embraced negativity

I broadly agree with this.  High self-esteem is toxic.  Christian humility works a lot better.  I have had a very easy life because of my pessimism.  I pessimistically foresee bad things that might happen to me and so avoid them.  People tell me I am lucky but it is my pessimism that makes my luck  -- JR.

Uplifting self-help books, looking on the bright side and repeating positive affirmations to ourselves - a day never seems to pass when we’re not told to be as upbeat as possible. So why, then, do most people in modern Britain seem to be more stressed, miserable and confused than ever?

One expert claims to have found the answer. In a fascinating new book, Oliver Burkeman, an author who specialises in writing about psychology, claims we’d have a much better time if we actually took a more negative view of life.

It’s time to embrace failure, insecurity and pessimism instead of trying to run away from it, Burkeman says, and simply stop trying so hard to be happy if we want to feel more positive about life.

‘For a society so fixated on achieving happiness, we seem remarkably incompetent at the task,’ Burkeman says. ‘One of the best-known general findings of the “science of happiness” has been the discovery that the countless advantages of modern life have done little to lift our collective mood.'

Romance, family life and work often bring as much stress as joy. Economic growth does not necessarily make for happier societies, just as increased personal income doesn’t make for happier people.

The huge number of self-help books available to us these days also fail to make us happy. This is why publishers refer to the ‘18-month rule’, which states that the person most likely to purchase a self-help book is someone who, in the previous 18 months, purchased a different self-help book — one that evidently didn’t solve all their problems.

The existence of a thriving ‘happiness industry’ clearly isn’t sufficient to engender happiness, and it’s not unreasonable to suspect that it might make matters worse. So what does help?

After years spent consulting specialists — from psychologists to philosophers and even Buddhists — Burkeman realised they all agreed on one thing: the effort to feel happy is precisely the thing that makes us miserable. And it is our constant struggle to eliminate the negative — insecurity, uncertainty, failure, or sadness — that causes us to feel so insecure, anxious, uncertain or unhappy.

Instead, they argued for an alternative — a ‘negative path’ to happiness. It involved learning to enjoy uncertainty, embracing insecurity, stopping trying to think positively, and becoming familiar with failure. In short, in order to be truly happy, we might actually need to be willing to experience more negative emotions — or, at least, to learn to stop running so hard from them. So how can pessimism really be as healthy and productive as optimism? Burkeman explains:

POSITIVE THINKERS ACHIEVE LESS

Behind many of today’s most popular approaches to happiness lies one simple philosophy — positive visualisation. If you picture things turning out well, the theory goes, they’re far more likely to do so. And, yes, focusing on a positive outcome, rather than a negative one, seems like a sensible way of maximising your chances of success.

But according to the German-born psychologist Gabriele Oettingen, spending time and energy thinking about how well things could go actually reduces most people’s motivation to achieve them. For example, in one experiment, subjects who were encouraged to visualise having a particularly high-achieving week at work were shown to achieve significantly less than those who were invited to think about the coming week, but given no further guidelines on how to do so.

STATE OF EMOTION

In experiment after experiment, Oettingen and her team found that people responded to positive visualisation by relaxing and doing less. They seemed, subconsciously, to have confused visualising success with having already achieved it.  By choosing to maintain only positive beliefs about the future, the positive thinker ends up being less prepared when things eventually happen that she can’t persuade herself to believe are good.

This is a problem underlying all approaches to happiness that set too great a store by optimism. It’s important to keep a realistic view of what lies ahead if you want to feel truly happy.

WORRYING IS GOOD FOR YOU

Do you lie awake at night, worrying that you’ll lose your job? Do you fret that your   partner might leave you and that you’ll be left all on your own? We normally try to assuage our worries about  the future by seeking reassurance — by trying  to persuade ourselves that everything will be  all right. But positive reassurance is a double-edged sword. In the short term, it can be wonderful, smoothing away worries. But in the long term, it requires constant maintenance.

If you offer reassurance to a friend who is in the grip of anxiety, for instance, you’ll often find that a few days later she’ll be back for more.

Worse, reassurance can actually exacerbate anxiety. When you reassure your friend that the worst-case scenario she fears probably won’t occur, you are inadvertently reinforcing her belief that it would be catastrophic if it did. But it is also true that when things do go wrong, they’ll almost certainly go less wrong than you were fearing.

Those fears are based on irrational judgments about the future, usually because you haven’t thought the matter through in sufficient detail. Thinking about, rather than trying to ignore, the worst-case scenario is the way to replace these irrational notions with more rational judgments. Imagine how wrong things could go for you in reality, and you will usually find that your fears were exaggerated.

If you lost your job, there are steps you could take to find a new one; if you lost your relationship, you would probably manage to find some happiness in life. Looking on the downside and  actually confronting the worst-case  scenario saps it of much of its anxiety-inducing power.

DON’T SET BIG GOALS - JUST GO WITH THE FLOW

If we’re going to be positive about life, we need to have some goals to aim for, don’t we? Or do we? According to many self-help scientists,  setting ‘positive’ goals for yourself can often mean setting yourself up for failure — even disaster — rather than the success you might imagine. What motivates our investment in goals and planning for the future, they suggest, is rarely any sober recognition of the virtues of preparation and looking ahead. Rather, it’s how deeply uncomfortable we feel when life is uncertain. We hate not knowing what is around the corner, so we set goals to try to bring some certainty into our lives.

It is alarming to consider how many major life decisions we take primarily to minimise present-moment emotional discomfort. To understand what this means, try the following exercise. Consider any significant decision you’ve ever taken that you subsequently came to regret: perhaps a job you accepted even though, looking back, it’s clear that it was mismatched to your interests or abilities. If it felt like a difficult decision at the time, then it’s likely that you felt the gut-knotting ache of uncertainty; afterwards, having made a decision, did those feelings subside?

If so, this points to the possibility that your motivation in taking the decision was simply the urgent need to get rid of your feelings of uncertainty.

Taking a more relaxed approach to your future, working with what you have now and moving forward in small steps, rather than setting up one big, inflexible goal, is a far less pressurised way to live. It’s an attitude that made a chemist realise the insufficiently sticky glue he’d developed could be used for Post-it Notes. Trust the uncertain things beyond your control and go with the flow.

HIGH SELF-ESTEEM WILL MAKE YOU MISERABLE

We tend to assume that having high self-esteem is a good thing, but some psychologists have long suspected that there might be something wrong with the whole notion — because it rests on the assumption that your personality can be given a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ rating. When you rate your ‘self’ highly, you actually create the possibility of rating your ‘self’ poorly. It’s a preposterous over-generalisation. We all behave in good ways and bad ways. Smothering all these nuances with a blanket notion of self-esteem may prove a recipe for misery.

It’s better to rate each act as good or bad. Seek to perform as many good ones — and as few bad ones — as possible. But leave your ‘self’ out of it.

SOURCE





'Nightmare' plans for 6-month paternity leave to be rewritten after opposition from British businesses

Ministers have been forced to rethink plans to allow parents to share leave after the birth of a child following opposition from business and campaigners.

The plans, announced in the Queen’s Speech and championed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, would see maternity leave end at 18 weeks and allow fathers up to six months’ paid paternity leave.

Ministers say the measures will offer more flexibility to families with woman breadwinners, and would allow fathers to spend more time with children.

But businesses said the proposals would result in a ‘nightmare’, increasing red tape because workers could take their leave in ‘chunks’ of weeks or months.

Employers would be forced to keep jobs open and would not be able to refuse requests for the time off.

And women’s groups have called for a minimum of 26 weeks’ ring-fenced maternity leave, saying any less would pressurize new mothers to return to work.

The issue also caused a cabinet split with ministers – including Chancellor George Osborne – arguing the proposals should be scaled back.

Now Whitehall sources have revealed that while the Coalition remains committed to parental leave, ministers are having to rethink the plans to keep business on board. One said: ‘It is frustrating to have been attacked by people who ought to be in favour of what we are doing, but we need to address their concerns.’ Insiders admit it may not be possible to introduce all the planned changes before 2015.

Currently mothers are entitled to take 12 months’ maternity leave, of which nine months are paid, and fathers can take two weeks’ paid paternity leave.

Last year a Government consultation proposed that mothers should automatically get five months’ paid maternity leave, while fathers should get six weeks’ paid leave.  The couple would then be allowed to ‘share’ a further seven months of parental leave, with all but the last three months paid.  This means that if the mother chooses to go back to work after five months, the father can have six paid months off.

Business Secretary Vince Cable was expected to respond to the consultation before the summer recess but the Department for Business said that no date had been set.

Adrienne Burgess, of the Fatherhood Institute, urged the Government not to backtrack.  She said: ‘The proposals are an opportunity to offer families real flexibility and choice and would have a transformative effect in many homes.’

SOURCE




English anti-Muslim group joins up with young Sikhs

Sikhs have been fighting Muslims for hundreds of years

At first, the dozen white men mingling with 300 or so Sikh demonstrators besieging Luton police  station went largely unnoticed.

They stood on the fringes, content to observe. But as the night wore on and the intensity of the protest increased, the white men grew more raucous and aggressive.   What was remarkable about their presence was that they were members of the far-Right English Defence League.

They had turned up to express support for their Sikh ‘brothers’ who were angry at the way detectives had handled an allegation that a young Sikh woman had been sexually assaulted by a Muslim man.

The EDL makes no secret that it loathes Islamism, but stresses that, unlike the British National Party, it embraces all other creeds.

That said, when EDL supporters have taken to the streets in the past they have done so with St George’s flags and banners bearing inflammatory slogans.

In Luton all 12 men, including EDL leader Tommy Robinson and his right-hand man Kevin Carroll, wore a rumal, the traditional Sikh headscarf.

That night – May 29 – racial tensions had risen in the multicultural  town and this time it was Luton’s usually equable Sikh community that was angry.

Bringing traffic to a standstill, female protesters lay down in the dual-carriageway that splits the town centre. Others demanded answers from individual officers.

While there was much anger  and plenty of noise, there was no violence, and by midnight it was all over. Yet that night a curious  alliance was formed.

A Mail on Sunday investigation has established that the leadership of the EDL has aligned itself with groups of radical Sikhs from Luton, the West Midlands and other parts of the country, who are furious that young women in their communities are, as they see it, being sexually exploited and groomed by British-Pakistani Muslims.

Two days after the protest, Sikhs and EDL members held a secret meeting in Luton to discuss a joint response to the problem. Both sides are said to have favoured acts of vigilantism.

There has been unofficial contact between Sikhs and the EDL for some time, and the links were cemented at the protest.

Asked about the secret meeting, Mr Robinson said: ‘Who told you about that? We can’t comment on exactly what we will do with the Sikhs but we will do whatever we can to work together, raise awareness and combat the problem.’

When pressed about plans to carry out vigilante acts, Mr Robinson – who earlier this year was the focus of a Channel 4 documentary called Proud And Prejudiced – said:

‘When the police fail to protect the community, when they fail to protect daughters, we have to protect them.  ‘We live in a community where Muslim paedophile gangs are operating without police pressure. If  a Sikh girl is attacked in Luton that is my problem because she is a member of my community.  ‘I class everyone in my community as everyone who is non-Islamic.’

The EDL has held many demonstrations across the country since it was formed in Luton in March 2009 after Muslim radicals disrupted a homecoming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment. It has become the most significant far-Right street movement in Britain since the National Front in the Seventies.

Nick Lowles, director of the anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate, said: ‘We are aware there has been contact between the EDL and a small group of radical Sikhs. But there is nothing to be gained by anyone in the Sikh community linking up with the racist EDL.  ‘We need to tackle the issue of child exploitation, but it needs to be a community-wide response.’

While the EDL supporters in Luton were welcomed by some, the town’s  Sikh elders viewed their presence at the protest as opportunism.

They accuse EDL leaders of trying to hijack the protest and exploiting difficulties between their community and the town’s large Pakistani Muslim population.

The issue of grooming is at the heart of that discord.  The group of radical Sikhs says it receives about three calls a week from Sikh parents fearing their children are being targeted.

There have been few prosecutions, however, largely because the issue touches upon notions of honour and shame.

Jasvinder Singh Nagra, of the Luton Gurdwara temple, said: ‘Young girls of school and college age are being targeted by men from the Pakistani community.

They are duping them into believing they  are in love and it all comes to grief because they are treated as sex toys.  ‘A small proportion of the Pakistani community feel it is fair game to go for Sikh and Hindu girls.

‘In the past, the Pakistani community have not taken this seriously and neither have the police. They have not looked into the role played by coercion or blackmail.

‘We know that at colleges and  universities you have young Muslim men wearing the kara [a bangle worn by Sikhs] to pretend they are part of the community, or they change their names to pretend to be Sikh and our girls fall for it.

‘Before they know it they are with this man and then compromising photographs will be taken of her. She will be threatened with having these shown to her family and the fear of losing honour is a very  powerful tool to make her do what the man wants.’

But Mr Nagra said protest organisers did not share EDL’s values. ‘The arrival of the EDL was a total surprise to me,’ he added.  ‘They were there to try to make an alliance over what they felt was a common issue. It caused a great deal of anxiety because we wanted, above all, for the protest to be peaceful.

‘The EDL leaders were showing off to our young people by being very aggressive in the way they spoke to the police, pretending to be doing it out of solidarity.  ‘I would advise our young people not to be lured down the EDL route of taking the law into our own hands and vigilante activity.’

In response, the day after the protest, some 40 leaders from the Sikh and Muslim communities met at the Gurdwara to discuss their differences in a two-hour meeting.  Mr Nagra said: ‘I was delighted that so many people from the Pakistani community came.’

Zafar Khan, of the Luton Council  of Faiths, who chaired the meeting, said: ‘The idea that there is an orchestrated campaign by young Muslim men to target young Sikh women is totally insulting and wrong. This is the language of the EDL.’  He added: ‘The threat of the EDL is very great in Luton. We have a  lot of experience in dealing with them and that is why we reacted so promptly.  ‘Now we will meet every couple of months to talk about inter- community issues.’

A Bedfordshire Police spokesman urged anyone with evidence of grooming of people ‘from any faith or group’ to come forward, but added that there was nothing to indicate that ‘systematic’ grooming of Sikh girls was taking place in Luton.

SOURCE





Backgrounder: UK underage sex ring sparks racial tensions in England

She was lonely in the way only an adolescent girl can be: No friends, no boyfriend, not much of a relationship with her parents. So she felt special when a man decades older paid attention to her, bought her trinkets, gave her free booze.

Then he took her to a dingy room above a kebab shop and said she had to give something back in return. His demands grew: Not just sex with him, but with his friends. It went on for years, until police charged nine men with running a sex ring with underage girls.

The story of Girl A, as she became known in court, is tragic by any measure, but it has also become explosive. Because there is no getting around it: The girls are white, and the men who used them as sex toys are Asian Muslims, mostly Pakistanis raised in Britain. And it's not just Rochdale -- roughly a dozen other cases of Asian Muslim men accused of grooming young white girls for sex are slowly moving to trial across northern England, involving up to several hundred girls in all.

In today's Britain, which prides itself on being a tolerant and integrated society, the case has stripped away the skin to expose the racial sores festering beneath. It is also feeding an already raw anger against the country's Asian Muslim minority, in a movement led by far right groups at a time when the economy is stalled.

"You can't get away from the race element," says prosecutor Nazir Afzal, a British Muslim with family roots in Pakistan who ended several years of official indifference to the girls' plight and finally brought the perpetrators to trial. "It's the elephant in the room."

_______

From a distance, Rochdale looks like a picture-perfect English city, with the 800-year-old Parish Church of St. Chad perched high above the streets, and the Victorian Gothic Town Hall just below, its clock tower resembling the one that houses London's Big Ben.

Up close the flaws become clear. Like missing teeth in an otherwise sparkling smile, a fair number of downtown shops are boarded up, or have been turned into pawn shops or dueling "pound shops" where almost all items cost 1 pound ($1.60) or less.

The Pakistani community started to grow half a century ago, when the town's cottons mills were flourishing. The newcomers, most of them from poor rural villages, were drawn by the promise of steady jobs and a chance to educate their children in English schools.

A number of mosques became part of the skyline, particularly the showcase Golden Mosque, winner of several design awards. Today, Muslim men wearing beards and decorated caps and women in black robes and veils are a constant presence on the downtown streets.

Nearly 1 million Pakistanis live in England — far more than in any other European country — with about 25,000 settled in the greater Manchester area that includes Rochdale. The government's equality commission reports that more than half of the Pakistanis in Britain live in poverty, far more than the general population, with just under 75 percent having no formal savings.

They face hard times now. The closed shops are signs of a double-dip recession that has hit northern England harder than the more affluent south, which includes London, with its financial district and well-to-do suburbs.

The mills have long since closed; the local newspaper trumpets gloom and doom: A tripling in the number of homeless, a sharp rise in youth unemployment, more people seeking housing benefits.

Even the local McDonald's, long a fixture in the town center, has moved out.

It was in this environment that Girl A lost control one summer night in 2008.

After drinking heavily, the 15-year-old went to the kebab shop in nearby Heywood where she had first met her "boyfriend." She started screaming and busting the place up. When police were called, she told them she had been raped -- repeatedly -- and offered up her semen-stained underwear as proof.

Greater Manchester Police detectives concluded the girl, who was below the age of consent, was telling the truth, but Crown Prosecution Service lawyers recommended against pressing criminal charges, reasoning that the jury might not believe a troubled, hard-drinking, sexually active young girl. The case was quietly dropped after an 11-month inquiry.

The abuse intensified. The ring of predators grew; the circle of victims widened. Eventually there would be at least 47 victims or witnesses.

The girl was driven around at night, forced to have sex with more and more men, sometimes up to five a day, in cars or restaurant backrooms or grubby apartments. The men threatened her if she complained. There seemed to be no escape.

She was trapped in a secret world of sex acts that took place late at night when most people in Rochdale were safely tucked away in their homes.

_________

The Rochdale men do not fit the classic profile for sex offenders in Britain -- the majority of pedophilia crimes are committed by white men who target boys and girls via the Internet. However, there is a consensus among prosecutors, police, social workers and leading national politicians that "street grooming," which happened in Rochdale, is largely dominated by Asian men.

Ella Cockbain, a University College of London crime science specialist, says research shows that mostly Asian men make up the big groups of offenders who work together. She chooses her words carefully because the sample size is small and the topic sensitive.

"There are definite patterns emerging that would be foolish to ignore," she says.

Mohammed Shafiq, a British Pakistani who directs the Ramadhan Foundation in Rochdale, has angered some in his own community by suggesting that police at first did not pursue the case aggressively for fear of appearing racist because of an obsession "with the doctrine of political correctness."

Shafiq says that a "tiny minority" of Pakistani men feel white girls are worthless and immoral — and can be abused with impunity.

"They know if they took someone from the Asian community, it pretty quickly is going to be found out," he says. "But those white girls are available, so they think they can get away with it."

The men in the Rochdale sex ring were remarkable only in their ordinariness. They were part of British life, but on the fringes — the sort of people most Britons don't really notice when they pass them on the street.

Many were taxi drivers, accustomed to working all-night shifts with long down time between fares, and they frequented the late-night kebab takeout shops offering familiar lamb, chicken and falafel dishes. Their cab stands and the kebab shops were often the only businesses that remained open after the bars closed.

Most of the men were first or second generation Pakistanis raised mainly in Britain. Only one had faced previous sex charges: Ringleader Shabir Ahmed, at 59 the oldest in the group, who was accused of repeatedly raping a young girl in a separate case. Ahmed, known to the girls as "Daddy," was convicted of 30 counts of rape in that case last week.

Some of the men had families and small businesses. The ring included Abdul Rauf, 43, who would later claim to have experience as a Muslim preacher, which local Islamic leaders dismiss as a total fabrication. A few had ongoing contacts with local politicians.

The men were neither affluent nor dirt poor. They lived outwardly stable lives but had few obvious prospects for advancement.

They were finally brought to justice after health workers reported a large increase in the number of underage girls in the Rochdale area claiming to have suffered sexual abuse. The next year, Afzal, the new regional chief of the Crown Prosecution Service, reversed the earlier decision by prosecutors and decided to press the case in court, with Girl A at its core.

"It was a no-brainer," Afzal told the Associated Press. "She was immensely credible. And the police now had evidence of a wide network."

Eleven men were charged with offenses ranging from rape to conspiracy, and police suspect more were involved. The men had such psychological power over the girls that even during the trial, one girl talked of a defendant as her boyfriend.

Parliament has launched an inquiry based in part on reports that the abuse is far more widespread than originally thought. Afzal said his office is handling roughly a dozen other similar cases, including one that involves 13 men accused of operating a sex ring with 24 girls.

Afzal says that as a Muslim he is sickened by the crimes.

"Rape and alcohol and abuse are not part of Islam," he says. "Just because they have a beard and go to the mosque doesn't make them good Muslims."

_____________

As the Rochdale trial reached court, the issue of race and religion burst into the open.

One far-right protester carried a sign making reference to the meat favored by many observant Muslims because it meets strict religious guidelines. "Our girls are not Halal meat," the sign read.

Inside the court, Ahmed, a key defendant, fought back hard. He accused the all-white jury of racism. He accused one girl of thinking whites were superior, and denigrated them all as greedy money seekers. And he accused white society of neglecting its girls and tolerating, even encouraging, bad behavior.

"You white people train them in sex and drinking, so when they come to us they are fully trained," he said.

The jury found nine men guilty and set two free. Judge Gerald Clifton articulated what many felt but were reluctant to say out loud when he accused the men of treating white girls as worthless because "they were not of your community or religion." Then he sentenced them to a total of 77 years in prison.

The May verdict further polarized Rochdale. Pakistanis were horrified at the stigma on their community and enraged that the men claimed to be Muslim.

"They are playing the Muslim card, pretending they are good Muslims, but they are not," says Irfan Chishti, who runs an educational program at one of the town's mosques. "This was a great sin under Islam. If Sharia law was in place, the punishment would be very severe."

Even while he and other leaders of the Rochdale Council of Mosques were discussing the case, about 40 protesters from the far-right British National Party held an unauthorized rally on the nearby Town Hall steps. The far right has seized on the case, claiming that some British Pakistanis follow a code they believe is practiced in parts of the Islamic world that allows men to have sex with girls under 16.

Louis Kushnick, founder of the race relations resource center at the University of Manchester, said it has become convenient for white residents — including those beyond the far-right movement — to blame Muslims for the sex crimes.

"You hear people talking about this, and it becomes tied to Islam," he says. "People say they are Muslim men, they see women as inferior, they have contempt for white women, so it has nothing to do with the rest of us."

That view overlooks all the problems that left the girls vulnerable in the first place, he says, citing a deficient school system and a government-backed child care regime riddled with neglect and abuse. And he says the prolonged economic downturn has intensified resentments, with whites and Asians competing for the same "crap" jobs.

"Blaming the Muslims lets us avoid addressing these questions," he says. "Once we blame 'The Other,' we think we have an explanation that makes sense."

Many in Rochdale are wary about discussing the case. Graduate student Heather Eyre, 25, says the trial has badly divided the city.

"It shouldn't have mattered that they are Pakistani," she says of the abusers. "But it's stirred up hatred. Some say they should be deported, and some parts of the Asian community say the jury was racist. Then the far-right groups came in...this case has been good for the English Defense League."

__________

The girl who first told police about the abuse, now a young woman of 19, has moved out of the area. In a brief pooled interview before she withdrew from the public eye, she refused to call the crimes against her racial in nature, but said she was shocked Muslims would commit such acts.

She said that in 2008, when the grooming began, there was no awareness of this type of crime involving Asian men and white girls.

"Now it's going on everywhere," she said. "You think of Muslim men as religious and family-minded and just nice people. You don't think...I don't know...You just don't think they'd do things like that."

When the abuse started, she said, she felt anger and shame, then became resigned and, finally, numb.

"After a while it had been going for so long and so many different men that it became like I didn't feel anything towards it anymore," she said. "It just weren't me anymore. It just became something I had to do....Once you're in it, you're trapped. I just think what they did to me was evil."

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



2 July, 2012

'It's time to open the door and consider a referendum': Cameron to give Britain a vote on Europe

British sovereignty to be restored and multinational government to be forced into retreat?  The crackup of the EU would be a near-fatal blow to the world-government freaks

David Cameron paved the way for a historic popular vote on Britain’s role in Europe yesterday by indicating he is ‘opening the door’ to a referendum.

Voters could be asked if they want the UK to stay in or out of the European Union, or to sever many of its existing ties with Brussels.

The Prime Minister is gearing up to resolve the matter once and for all – but not yet. He is considering turning the next Election, due in 2015, into a vote on Britain’s membership of the EU – or holding a referendum afterwards if he is still in No 10.

Mr Cameron believes it is too early to decide the crucial question to be put to voters: whether it be a straight ‘in or out’ choice, or a proposal to grab back some of the powers lost to Brussels bureaucrats.

And he believes it would be a mistake to hold such a vote before the dust settles over the euro crisis.

A source close to the Prime Minister said: ‘It is time to open the door on this matter and consider a referendum. It could either be a standalone referendum or it could be part of the Conservative manifesto at the next Election.’

Explaining why Mr Cameron has not yet decided on the wording of the question to be put to the nation, the source added: ‘Now is the wrong time when Europe is in flux and the whole continent  is changing before our eyes.

‘We need to see where everything ends up before we consult the British people.’

Mr Cameron’s hand has also been forced by the financial  crisis in the eurozone, which is forcing member countries to negotiate ever-closer ties.

The accelerated integration is likely to lead to full-scale treaty  renegotiations in the coming years.

Although cynics will describe the referendum as another Government U-turn following the Budget measures such as the ‘pasty tax’ and the aborted 3p petrol duty, the pledge is the  latest evidence that Mr Cameron is increasingly turning his attention to political life after the Coalition.

If he does call an referendum, it is almost certain that arch-europhile Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg would be on opposite sides to Mr Cameron.

Recent polls show a majority of voters want a referendum, and a significant number are ready to turn their backs on the EU completely. However, the result would not be certain.

In the run-up to the last referendum on Europe in 1975, surveys suggested a ‘No’ vote, but in the event, the public decided against going back on Britain’s decision two years earlier to join what was then known as the Common Market.

Mr Cameron’s pledge comes in the face of intense pressure from Tory backbenchers to give the public a vote.

Last week, 100 Tory MPs – more than half of all backbench Conservatives – sent a letter  to the Prime Minister which argued that there was ‘a consistent majority in this country who believe that the EU meddles too much in our everyday lives, that the regulation on our businesses is too burdensome, and that the cost of membership is far too high’.

They also pointed out that the EU is ‘very different’ from the Common Market that Britain originally signed up to – and that no one under the age of 55 has had a vote on the nation’s membership.

The picture appeared confused on Friday when Mr Cameron emerged from a marathon Brussels summit on the euro crisis  to say: ‘I completely understand why some people want an in/out referendum – some people just want to say, “Stop the bus, I want to get off.”

‘I completely understand that, but I don’t share that view. I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. There are other things I would like us to get out of. That’s the trouble with the in/out – it only gives you two options.’

Newspapers interpreted the remarks as a sign that Mr  Cameron had ruled out a vote on the UK’s membership of the EU, while Peter Bone, one of the signatories to the backbenchers’ letter, said it showed that Mr Cameron was ‘on the wrong side of the argument’.

Furthermore, Ministers were increasingly worried that Labour leader Ed Miliband might outflank Mr Cameron  by pledging a referendum if Labour won power.

Mr Cameron has hardened his stance in an attempt to seize back the initiative.

In addition, Mr Cameron faces a growing Election threat from the anti-EU UK Independence Party, which has overtaken the Liberal Democrats in some opinion polls.

Worryingly for the PM, many eurosceptic Tory voters are switching to UKIP and its populist leader Nigel Farage. There are also persistent rumours that some Tory MPs could defect to Mr Farage’s party.

More than 80 Tory MPs defied Whips to demand a referendum on Europe during a major Commons rebellion last year.

Government insiders say the most likely outcome is a 2015 Tory manifesto pledge seeking approval to renegotiate the terms of British membership of the UK if Mr Cameron wins  the Election.

This could see Brussels bureaucrats stripped of their power to decide legal, social and employment rights in this country.

Alternatively, he could promise to hold a referendum along the same lines – or offer a straight in/out vote – if he is returned to power.

By then, it is possible that  the EU landscape could have changed beyond recognition – and public opinion with it. Greece is already teetering on the edge of leaving the single currency bloc, and there is speculation that Spain, Italy and even France could follow it in the coming years.

SOURCE





The centre has moved Right, not Prime Minister David Cameron

The Conservatives are not 'lurching' to the Right but struggling to keep up with the people’s change of mood

So it’s game on, right? The next general election campaign has begun. The blizzard of U-turns in which proposed tax rises were vaporised, and that evangelical speech on the need for even more welfare cuts – all of the noisy shifting of rhetorical furniture which comes under the BBC’s heading of “Lurch-to-the-Right” – means that David Cameron is “re-positioning himself” or “redefining” his party’s message (or something else that sounds carefully planned) in order to set the Conservatives on the road to outright victory. No more messing. The Tories are sharpening their act (or reverting to type, depending on your political tastes) and making a serious effort to galvanise their core vote. David Cameron is coming home!

If this were true, the obvious question would be: if Mr Cameron and his friends now know that this is the way to win elections, why didn’t they adopt it the last time? When exactly did they discover that talking turkey on immigration and attacking the entitlement culture were more likely to appeal to voters, and not just Tory ones, than being soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime? If it is positively useful (as I’m sure Downing Street knows that it is) to have Left-wing newspapers shrieking about the return of “the nasty party” in the run up to 2015, why was it “toxic” in 2010? Why has there been such a dramatic strategy change and who is responsible for it? There would seem to be two possible explanations. The more hopeful, from a Conservative point of view, is that Mr Cameron has had an epiphany which compels him to embrace his genuine convictions: he is a natural advocate of free-market, low-tax economics and of the private virtues, and is now prepared to commit himself openly to these because he has learnt the value of conviction politics. I personally have not met anybody who believes this.

Alternatively, there is the more generally accepted account which is that the Cameron-Osborne project is now so punch-drunk with exhaustion and tactical disaster that it is simply falling back on the old religion. This is the view of the BBC, the Left-liberal commentariat and a proportion of the Right-of-centre press which has no more confidence in Mr Cameron’s revised set of stated principles than it had in the earlier version. But both of these theories – the optimistic one and the cynical one – are based on a false premise. That is, that something in the basic philosophy of the Tory leadership has really changed. In fact, the most fundamental axiom of Cameron Conservatism is that there must be no fixed strategy except for the one unalterable rule of remaining on The Centre Ground.

If the Downing Street clique has changed its position on, say, immigration or welfare, it is because it wants to remain where it perceives the majority of public opinion to be at this moment. They are not, as the Guardian comment pages would have it, giving up the centre ground in order to move to the Right. They are moving to the Right because that is where the centre ground now is. They are still standing by what they have always believed, which is that they must follow public opinion rather than lead it. Of course, this makes them look as if they have changed their minds – and are being wildly inconsistent – on really major issues: as if they are in the business of re-defining the party’s basic objectives in order to distance themselves from the Liberal Democrats in the lead-up to the election, etc, etc. But that is the effect rather than the instigating cause of their tactical shift.

What they have discovered about the Gospel of the Centre Ground is what many of us tried to tell them – oh, so long ago, when they used to thrust their opinion poll data triumphantly under our noses. The CG is not a fixed point at the precise mathematical centre of every public policy argument. It moves all the time. In the 1970s it was on the Left – so far to the Left, indeed, as to constitute a kind of soft Marxism. In the 1980s, it was on the Right – infuriated by trade union militancy and enthusiastic about share ownership. In the 1990s, it was Left-ish: private prosperity and the belief that life would always get better bred a “willing to pay more tax” generation which complacently embraced bourgeois guilt. That was the era in which Mr Cameron properly entered the scene. It was to that incarnation of the CG that he believed (or was told) that he must appeal. So he re-invented a Tory image that was acceptable to the salon liberals who, as it happened, were the inheritors of the paternalistic tradition with which he felt comfortable, and he seemed to assume that this was a permanent solution to his party’s future.

Now we are in the post-2008 recession. The electorate is hard-up, economically insecure and tough-minded. The CG has moved to the Right again: perhaps further to the Right than it was in the 1980s, when extreme Labour Leftists could still comfortably win control of local councils, as they certainly could not now. So the Conservatives are not leading – for some unsavoury or misguided reason – a quixotic charge to the Right of mainstream opinion. They are actually struggling to keep up with the people’s change of political mood and priorities. The idea that they are being forced to resurrect old pieties by a Right-wing press (we should be so omnipotent) or a few influential websites is absurd. Newspapers and blogging sites must respond to the demands and views of their readers even more attentively than political parties, if they are to survive. Elections come up every four or five years: circulations and viewing figures are a day-to-day test of the quality of a media outlet’s relationship with its consumers.

Paranoid fantasies about the power of a handful of media conspirators who supposedly manipulate the opinions of millions of people this way or that – with no connection to the real experience of their lives – are an insult to the populace. Voters, especially politically committed ones, are not passive lumps waiting to be told what to think by self-serving editors or vainglorious proprietors. Media outlets survive and gain authority to the extent that they are in tune with a significant tranche of ordinary people’s views.

If Mr Cameron and his party seem to be changing (or reverting) to a more robust, hard-edged social and political stand, that is not because they have been coerced or bullied into it. It is because they have gathered that that is what the people want. It remains an open question whether the people – who heard them espouse very different views such a short time ago – will be convinced that this time they really mean it.

SOURCE

    





The British public is more than ready to see benefits made fair

Public attitudes towards the welfare state have been hardening for years. The British Social Attitudes survey showed that the proportion of people who feel that benefits for the unemployed are “too high and discourage them from finding work” had risen from 44 per cent in 1999 to 55 per cent in 2010. Today’s Sunday Telegraph poll confirms that these opinions are not softening, with 56 per cent of people responding that benefits are too generous.

The recession has something to do with this. With families struggling to make ends meet, there has been a backlash against anyone seen not to be doing the right thing. This is true at both ends of the income distribution. At one end we have seen protests where CEO pay has diverged from performance. At the other end, the public is frustrated with the idea that benefit claimants are living off hard-working taxpayers’ money but not seriously trying to get back to work. Reports have indeed shown that some job-seekers on benefits in Britain spend as little as an hour a week actually looking for work. Compare this to the 40 or 50-hour weeks on close to minimum wage that many people have to endure and it is clear why this could be seen to be unfair.

The conditions placed on claimants in return for benefits can also be feeble. In general, three “job-seeking” activities are required each week, but these could just include looking for jobs in a newspaper, or getting a haircut. We need to get people doing more, so they get jobs faster. So it is right that the Coalition has focused on strengthening these conditions. The Prime Minister’s speech earlier this week is the latest in a series of announcements aimed at ensuring benefit claimants are serious about finding work; it outlined some sensible proposals, including that benefit claimants must have an up-to-date CV. But, while extensions to these requirements are needed, they must not be the only focus.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that, in fact, most benefit claimants are unlikely to fit the stereotype of “benefit scrounger”. These claimants are desperate to find work, might have children to support and could have real disadvantages in the labour market. They may be young people leaving the care system, former addicts or just long-term unemployed, who desperately want the steady job that firms are unwilling to give them. These people all need extra help to find work, but the current system does not distinguish them from those not willing to look seriously for work. Policy and public discourse must become more nuanced to ensure that requirements are increased for those who are not doing all that they can, but support is stepped up for those who need it.

The second reason for wider reforms is that the “contributory principle” – that people who pay through National Insurance and income tax get something back from the state when they fall on hard times – has been completely eroded. Families who have been working hard all their lives but find themselves unemployed because of the recession realise that they get nothing more than those who have never contributed.

With this in mind, it is unsurprising that a poll commissioned by Policy Exchange found that over half of respondents believe that “no benefits at all” should be given unless people have contributed. It was encouraging to see a mention of this principle in David Cameron’s speech, but much more needs to be done. In general, “much more needs to be done” summarises where we have got to with welfare reform. The Coalition has made a good start in ensuring that all claimants are doing all they can to get back to work. To really tackle the problems with the welfare state it needs to ensure the something-for-something approach rewards the right behaviour, as well as punishes the wrong behaviour, and that people in need get personalised help to find work.

SOURCE





Food Stamps, Handouts, and America's  Ever-Expanding Welfare State

In their never-ending efforts to buy votes with other people’s money (see the first cartoon in this post), politicians have been expanding the welfare state and creating more dependency.

This is bad for the overall economy because it means a larger burden of government spending and it’s bad for poor people because it undermines their self reliance and self respect.

It also has very worrisome long-run effects on the stability and viability of a culture, as shown by these two cartoons.

A stark example can be seen in the food stamp program, which has morphed from a handout for the genuinely poor to a widespread entitlement for everyone from college students to the Octo-mom, and for products ranging from luxury coffee to lobster.

Here are some of the unpleasant details about the fiscal costs from Veronique de Rugy’s column in the Washington Examiner.

"When the food stamp program was first expanded nationally in the 1970s, just 1 in 50 Americans participated. Today, 1 in 7 Americans receive $134 each month… With the bipartisan Farm Bill going through Congress right now, these high levels of dependency may become permanent. Some 70 percent of the nearly $1 trillion Farm Bill recently passed by the Senate will be spent on food stamps — that’s $770 billion over ten years. …An estimated 45 million Americans received food stamps in 2011, at a cost of $78 billion. That’s a twofold increase from just five years ago when 26 million people received benefits at a cost of $33 billion. …food stamp enrollment increased and spending doubled, even as unemployment and the poverty level dropped modestly between 2007 and 2011. The more important part of the story comes from the eligibility changes implemented by the Bush and Obama administrations."

The last sentence is the key. Eligibility has been expanded dramatically. Food stamps are slowly but surely becoming mainstream and that should worry all of us.

But food stamps are just one form of income redistribution. Welfare spending also is a problem.

Here are some excerpts from a New Hampshire story, featuring a store clerk who got fired because she didn’t think welfare cards should be used to buy cigarettes.

"Jackie R. Whiton of Antrim had been a six-year employee at the Big Apple convenience store in Peterborough until a single transaction sent her job up in smoke. The store clerk was fired after she refused to take a customer’s Electronic Balance Transfer card to pay for cigarettes. …Whiton said she did not think EBT cards could be used to purchase cigarettes and refused to sell to him. The two “had a little go-around” as the line got longer behind him, said Whiton. “I made the statement, ‘do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?’ and he responded ‘yes,’ ” Whiton said. …Charles E. Wilkins, the general manager of the C.N. Brown Co. that runs the stores, said the EBT cards in the cash phase could be used for any items, including alcohol, tobacco and gambling. Wilkins said the company gave Whiton the option of staying but she said she would not accept the cards anymore. “She didn’t think it was right and just wasn’t going to sell to people in that program anymore,” Wilkins said. Whiton said when she came to work the next day, her manager asked her how much notice she was giving. When she responded “a week,” she was told the home office had just called and fired her."

Ms. Whiton is now one of my personal heroes, joining Mr. Mothershead, another store clerk who had the right reaction when confronted by someone who tried to get something he didn’t earn (albeit using a different tactic).



Last but not least, above is something that arrived in my inbox yesterday.

A bit harsh, but we have gotten to a strange point where the Obama Administration is bribing states to add more food stamp recipients and even running ads to lure more people into food stamp dependency.

So, yes, Billy Fleming (assuming he’s real) has a right to be upset.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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



1 July, 2012

Britain's lost generation of NEETs

More than 8,000 teenagers have joined the ranks of NEETs as the proportion staying on in school after 16 has fallen for the first time in a decade.  The number of 16 to 18-year-olds that are considered not in education, employment or training - rose 5.7 per cent in a year.

One in 12 of this age group (8.1 per cent) has now become a drop-out - 154,710 - by the end of 2011 compared to 7.5 per cent or 146,430 in 2010.  This means that an extra 8,280 young people were NEET in 2011 compared to 2010.

Among 16-year-olds, 86.2 per cent were in full-time education in 2011, compared to 88.0 per cent in 2010, a fall of 1.8 percentage points or over 21,000 students.

It is the first time the numbers have dropped since 2001, and comes amid a move to raise the school leaving age.  From next year, pupils will leave education and training at age 17, and in 2015, this will be raised to 18.

Overall, there were fewer young people aged 16 to 18 in 2011 (1,910,000) than there were in 2010 (1,952,400) according to the Department for Education figures.

Children’s Minister Tim Loughton said the figures were a ‘clear sign’ that the education system needs to do more to give young people the skills that businesses and universities want.

He said: ‘The number of young people not in education, employment or training has been too high for too long - this is not a new problem. But we are determined to tackle it.’

The Government is spending £7.5 billion on education and training and £126 million over three years on extra support for the 16 and 17-year-olds most in need of help, Mr Loughton said.

Shadow minister for young people Karen Buck said: ‘This generation of young people is paying a huge price for the recession made in Downing Street - long term youth unemployment has more than doubled in the last year.

‘Whether it is cutting support for young people to stay in school, trebling tuition fees or ending face to face careers advice, this Government is hopelessly out of touch with the needs of the next generation.’

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), said: ‘Education is a key social and economic driver and can help young people develop the necessary skills to find jobs and realise their potential.

‘Instead of erecting barriers to study, such as hiking up university fees, the government should follow the example of other countries and invest in education, not cut the very services young people need.’

Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT, the largest teachers’ union, added: ‘These figures are a reflection of the Coalition Government’s short-sighted, destructive and illogical reforms of the education and training system for young people.’

SOURCE







Now Britons  can check on their doctor's track record -- as Government plans to release 'tidal wave' of information about public services

Good if it happens

Patients will soon be able to scrutinise the  success rate of treatment by local GPs, including their track record on beating cancer.

Under the Government’s 'open data’ plans, a ‘tidal wave’ of information will be released about public services covering health, education and crime.

As well as potentially life-changing information about local healthcare, it will also give parents the chance to judge schools beyond the usual Ofsted report and see additional data, such as which have the best records for getting pupils into universities.

The move – unveiled by the Cabinet Office today in a White Paper – is designed to make those working in public services more accountable. Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said there would be a ‘presumption to publish’ information from departments and officials ‘from the Prime Minister down’.

Coalition ministers started revealing more about government spending two years ago when they began publishing all departmental spending over £25,000 and local authorities had to reveal all spending over £500.

Senior civil servants earning salaries higher than the Prime Minister’s have already been named on the data.gov.uk website, and residents have been able to see how dangerous their neighbourhoods are with the publication of crime maps and sentencing rates.

Mr Maude said: ‘Data is the 21st century’s new raw material. With more than 9,000 datasets covering crime, health and education up on data.gov.uk, people can now scrutinise local crime statistics, sentencing rates, school results, hospital infection rates and GP outcomes.

‘But we want to take this to the next level.  ‘We will be publishing even more data that has the power to change people’s everyday lives.’

From the end of July, cancer survival rates will be published to give patients more choice over which GP they want to manage their care. Such information will put pressure on GPs to ensure they detect cancers earlier.

Patients will be able to enter their postcode and see detailed comparisons between local  clinics.

And there will also be a smartphone app giving GP ratings based on 11million responses from the Department of Health’s national survey, which asked  patients questions such as whether they trusted their GP and how easy it was to get an appointment.

The White Paper on Open Data stated: ‘We will be unrelenting in our efforts to get more data out.’

SOURCE







The Anti-Islamist Texts the Free World Needs to Use

The free world is in dire need of texts that can mount a challenge to the Islamist ideology. At long last, they've arrived. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser's A Battle for the Soul of Islam and The Illusion of the Islamic State by several Indonesian authors, including former President Abdurrahman Wahid (1999-2001), are unused weapons in the ideological battle. Western governments, interfaith groups and activists should use these books to guide their choices of Muslim partners.

The two books have different but complimentary styles. Dr. Jasser's book tells his story, helping readers grasp the Islamist ideology and why he turned out differently. He addresses the Islamist interpretation of numerous Islamic passages. This is a book that touches you on the personal level. The Indonesian book is more academic. It illustrates how Islamists infiltrated the country in a process that is eerily similar to what we see taking place in Europe and the U.S. and, as the subtitle states, "How an Alliance of Moderates Launched a Successful Jihad Against Radicalization and Terrorism in the World's Largest Muslim-Majority Country."

The Illusion of an Islamic State is more of a policy paper than a book. It is the end product of a study where 27 academics traveled across Indonesia and interviewed nearly 600 extremists in order to define the motivations, strategies and weaknesses of Islamists. The authors' stated goal is to confront the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabism and Hizb ut-Tahrir and turn Indonesia into an ideological launching pad against them.

The authors are a formidable foe for the Islamists. Former President Wahid had been called "the single most influential leader in the Muslim world" by some. One of the contributors leads Nahdlatul Ulama, a 40-million-strong organization founded in 1926 in response to the Wahhabist conquest of Mecca and Medina. Another author led Muhammadiyah, another anti-Islamist group with 30 million members.

The book is young, only published in Indonesia in May 2009, but has had a tremendous impact. The project was funded by a single American donor and a Swedish government grant. The Gulf governments, on the other hand, spend billions promoting Islamism. The success of The Illusion of an Islamic State is frustrating in a way. If a relatively small expense could do so much good, then what would happen if real money and support was put behind it? The authors lament that they lack the resources to turn their momentum into an organized civil society movement and are disappointed that the U.S. and other Western countries are dropping the ball.

The common theme of the two books is that Sharia is meant to be a spiritual path based on an individual's relationship with God, not a system of governance that actually stands between man and God. Both believe that nationalism does not contradict Islam, whereas the Islamists view the ummah, or the entirety of Muslims, as a single nation-state and single political party. Both believe in critical thinking and questioning the teachings of imams. Islamists believe only the imams are qualified to tell you what God wants for you. From a young age, Jasser was taught to examine the texts independently as his father spoke classical Arabic and made his own translations. He was taught that imams aren't political authorities and to be aware when their spiritual instruction crossed that line.

One major problem is the treatment of Muslims as a single entity, an obstacle Dr. Jasser partially attributes to the influence of Arab tribal culture. Muslims who speak out against those within the ummah often become outcasts, much like would happen in a tribe. Dr. Jasser and other anti-Islamist Muslims know this all too well. This has negative effects when it comes to security. The Fort Dix terror plot was foiled with the help of a Muslim informant working for the FBI. Instead of being celebrated, he was out-casted because, as he describes it, "For Muslims, we are all brothers, and I betrayed a brother."

This leads to double-standards where Muslims rage against real or imagined transgressions against their own but rarely speak a negative word about the co-religionists like Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, a hugely influential cleric whose extremism is plain for all to see. Another example would be how Imam Zaid Shakir, a prominent American preacher, answered when he was recently asked about Hizb ut-Tahrir, an anti-American group openly hostile to democracy that advocates resurrecting the Caliphate. His criticism was limited to their belief that a Caliphate would cure the ills of the Muslim world, followed by instructions to Muslims to not publicly criticize or "vilify" the group. This stands in sharp contrast to his fiery rhetoric about the U.S.

The most powerful moment for me in Dr. Jasser's book was his story of how his family wanted to construct a mosque in Wisconsin but public opposition stalled it. After they went to the media, the attitude changed and it was built. Rather than showcase the incident as proof that Muslims are oppressed in American society, as CAIR would, Jasser's family marveled at how American liberties allowed them to win. "My parents always told us that the struggle and uncertainty about Muslims were human but their victory for religious freedom was American," he writes.

One of the barriers to Islamic reform is opposition to ijtihad, the independent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. The general consensus is that the "gates of ijtihad" were closed by 1258 A.D. It was declared that the qualified Islamic scholars had answered all the necessary questions. New questions are to be answered through analogical reasoning.

The result is that, in the words of Professor Ziauddin Sadar in IslamForToday.com, "serious rethinking within Islam is overdue" because the doctrine is "frozen in time." He writes that this has led to "three metaphysical catastrophes:  the elevation of the Shari`ah to the level of the Divine, with the consequent removal of agency from the believers, and the equation of Islam with the State." Tunisian professor Dr. Muhamed Al-Haddad likewise writes, "Daily life has evolved radically since the last millennium, but there has been no accompanying development in mainstream Muslim legal theory."

Middle East expert Harold Rhode argues "For the foreseeable future, the answer seems to be a resounding no" to the question of whether the gates can be reopened. However, there are Muslims arguing for the revival of ijtihad and there are Muslims who argue that they were never really closed to begin with.

Malcolm Jardine, for example, wrote a paper arguing that the belief that ijtihad has ceased "needs to be contested vigorously." Irshad Manji has started Project Ijtihad to promote critical thinking and cites the Nawawi Foundation's Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah's paper that argues that Islam "never had a doorkeeper to close it in the first place." Former Islamist Tawfik Hamid reported in January 2011 that a group of 25 scholars, including some from Al-Azhar University, had called for the formal continuation of ijtihad. They listed 10 points in need of re-examination including jihad, separation of mosque and state, women's rights and relations with non-Muslims.

It is Muslims like Dr. Jasser and the now-deceased Abdurrahman Wahid who need to be upheld and promoted. Interfaith groups would be wise to seek out those like them, rather than working with the more easily-accessible Islamists that spout their ideology and promote feelings of victimization, separatism and identity politics that undermine bridge-building. On this topic, there is one part of The Illusion of an Islamic State that truly impacted me as a Christian.

C. Holland Taylor writes how she brought her Pentecostal friend to meet Wahid when he came to the U.S. in May 2008. He was here to accept the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Medal of Valor for calling Iranian President Ahmadinejad a liar after he denied the Holocaust. Her friend said, "Holland, I keep asking myself: how do these Muslim leaders you introduce me to, know what I know?"

Taylor asked what she meant. "It's obvious that President Wahid is filled with the Holy Spirit," the friend answered. She continued, "Well, I wouldn't be comfortable saying this to anyone at church...but the only explanation that makes sense to me, is that Jesus is far, far greater than I ever realized."

She didn't have to believe in Wahid's faith to believe that God was using him for good. God isn't limited to only using Christians or believers in whichever faith you belong to.

You may or may not agree with that analysis, but the bottom line is this: The Islamists are promoting texts and leaders preaching their beliefs. Why aren't we promoting the texts and leaders preaching against their beliefs?

SOURCE




What Has Happened To Love Of Country

Just last week a school principal in Coney Island, New York, banned a song to be played during graduation because she objected to the phrase "G-d bless the USA." Although the song was banned, students gathered outside in protest and sang the song in front of the school while parents yelled "Burn in Hell" at the students.

To the students' credit, they began to drown out the protesting parents with shouts of "USA, USA!" For those of us who grew up in the 50's where love of country was taught and encouraged by parents, schools, and the greater community, today's acts of trashing the values we held dear are as alien as being transported to another planet.

What has happened to the America we love? The America that held to the belief of American exceptionalism through hard work and a free market. An America where anything was possible as long as you had a good idea, persevered, and made something of yourself because America was the land of the free. We were expected to become self-sufficient and to stand on our own two feet.

Welfare was something to be ashamed of and most able-bodied men and women preferred a low wage to a handout. Shame was a motivator as well as an instrument to keep young people in line. Yes, conformity was encouraged. There were boundaries and standards that we were expected to live by and live up to as a means of becoming productive, decent citizens. We would not have dared to disrespect an elder, and our manners were a sign of civility.

Civics was taught in junior and senior high schools, and in those classes we learned not only about the Constitution and our rights, but we also learned that with those rights came responsibilities. Civics is no longer taught and hasn't been taught for years.

While in school, the curriculum, as well as art and music, transmitted pride in country. As we respected ourselves, the rest of the world respected us. As a teenager, I remember a road trip to Canada with my family and the admiration we encountered from others when they learned we were Americans. That is no longer the case. It appears that the best generation - the generation that lived through the Depression, and fought World War II, the generation that sacrificed to put their baby boomers through Ivy League schools produced the worst generation.....my generation.

For the last few decades these same baby boomers who were coddled by the greatest generation while wallowing in their arrogance began to tear down all of our institutions, and in the process we are now left with a country adrift. Unfortunately the greatest generation failed to transmit the values, principles, rights and responsibilities of the greatest Republic ever to grace this earth to their darling offspring.

The 60's cultural revolution led by the baby boomers began to tear down all that was once held dear. The breakdown of the family, sexual promiscuity, recreational drug use, illegitimacy, anti-Americanism on college campuses and the lowering of standards had a direct correlation to our failure to transmit the values set before us. Today we find ourselves under attack from within and without.

The Left seeks to replace our economic and governing system with, at best, socialism and, at worst Marxism. Islamists seek through their civil code, Sharia, to transform our Constitutional Republic to an Islamic Caliphate. Most Americans do not have a clue as to what is at stake because they have no frame of reference to decipher between our form of government and the alternatives creeping at our shore. Our universities are bastions of liberal indoctrination where Conservative professors are few and far between. Anti-Americanism is learned at these institutions. Millions of dollars in Saudi oil money has bought departments in Middle East Studies at our finest universities and the result has been an increase in anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism for American Jewish students as well as an increase in Jewish hate crimes throughout the land.  American middle school textbooks contain a whitewash of Islam and Mohammad, while portraying Jews and Christians as conquerers.

The influence of Islamic oil money here on our shores cannot be underrated or underestimated. The Muslim Brotherhood, through their various front groups, has infiltrated all of our institutions and, if we are to survive as the Republic we once were, we must not only identify the enemy, we must transmit to our young the values that we cherish and why they are worth preserving.

Our Constitution was inspired by a Judeo-Christian doctrine and the liberties we enjoy - such as freedom of speech, equal opportunity, freedom of religion, equality before a court of law, etc. - are not a given to people in many parts of the Islamic world. It is a misconception driven by the Left that all men seek freedom. All men do not seek freedom. Islam demands of Muslims not freedom, but submission. The very definition of Islam is submission and while honesty is encouraged and valued within our Judeo-Christian framework, within Islam there is a practice referred to as Taquiyya (deception), which grants permission for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in the advancement of Islam. It is a concept that is so foreign to us that most Americans cannot grasp it.

Unless we can regain our identity as Americans and maintain the values that defined us, we will be in danger of being overcome by a stealth civilizational jihad that is taking place here on our shores. A country without an identity is easy prey for those who have one.

The Islamists and the Leftists have an agenda that seeks to subvert our way of life and it is incumbent upon all of us to see that they are defeated. Already we are witnessing honor killings and Sharia courts here on our soil. While shopping in Los Angeles, it is now customary to see many women in hijabs and, at times, women covered from head to toe with only their eyes visible. Is this our future landscape and is this what we want our America to look like?

In today's America, American women are not second class citizens and if they want to maintain that status it would behoove them to protest such degradation. While it may be customary for Muslim women to be covered from head to toe, the practice is not an American custom and while here they must be required to conform to our standards. We should not be required to tolerate customs that are in conflict with American values under the guise of tolerance. All cultures are not equal and tolerance in the face of evil is a crime. Values that define our culture will unite us while those that are alien to Judeo-Christian doctrine will divide us.

There are many fronts in this battle, but we can begin with education. Civics must be restored within all school curriculums and it will not be restored until parents demand it. Dennis Prager refers to the three pillars of American exceptionalism as the American Trinity....."In God We Trust (our rights are derived from G-d), Liberty, and E Pluribus Unum (from many one). Those three pillars inspired us to greatness and it is our duty to transmit those values to future generations so America can once again regain its identity and be what President Ronald Reagan described as "that shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom loving people everywhere."

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

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






Examining political correctness around the world and its stifling of liberty and sense. Chronicling a slowly developing dictatorship


BIO for John Ray


Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the most politically incorrect person in American public life so she will be celebrated on this blog


I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.


I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take chidren away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass


Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"


Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!


Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.


Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."


The Supreme Court of the United States is now and always has been a judicial abomination. Its guiding principles have always been political rather than judicial. It is not as political as Stalin's courts but its respect for the constitution is little better. Some recent abuses: The "equal treatment" provision of the 14th amendment was specifically written to outlaw racial discrimination yet the court has allowed various forms of "affirmative action" for decades -- when all such policies should have been completely stuck down immediately. The 2nd. amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed yet gun control laws infringe it in every State in the union. The 1st amedment provides that speech shall be freely exercised yet the court has upheld various restrictions on the financing and display of political advertising. The court has found a right to abortion in the constitution when the word abortion is not even mentioned there. The court invents rights that do not exist and denies rights that do.


Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".


One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.


It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.


The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin


On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.


I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!


Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds