With particular attention to religious, ethnic and sexual matters. By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
This document is part of an archive of postings on Political Correctness Watch, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written.
This is a backup copy of the original blog
Below are the backup copies of this blog for December. To access the backups for this blog in earlier years, click here
30 December, 2022
‘I hope more shootings happen’: The rise of anti-LGBTQ extremism in America
It's true in physics that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's largely true in psychology and sociology too. As someone trained in psychology who taught sociology for a number of years, I am well aware of that. And what we read below is an example of it.
The excessive valorization of homosexuality by the Left is only too evident. You can even lose your job by saying skeptical things about homoxsexuals. It has forced even some of the more more fundamentist religions -- such as the Salvation Army -- to abandon loyalty to the Bible -- which calls homoxsexuality "an abomination unto the Lord"
And that runs against justice for a start. Where is the equality or "equity" that Leftists are always preaching? Why must homosexuals get privileged treatment? Additionally, it runs against the instinctive distaste that many men have for the very idea of homosexuality.
And so we should not be surprised that Leftist extremism and imbalance sometimes produces an "equal and opposite reaction". There are of course reasons for unequal treatment of homosexuality but we must expect that to come at a price
First came the carnage, then came the vitriol. As a shattered community in Colorado Springs grieved the victims of last month’s mass shooting at gay hotspot Club Q, it didn’t take long for the condolences to be offset by hundreds of hateful, homophobic messages.
“The shooter was doing God’s work: five less faggots,” said one.
“I hope more shootings happen. Have a blessed day!” said another.
Club Q founder Matthew Haynes was saddened but hardly surprised as he saw the comments flash up on his screen. After all, LGBTQ people represent about 7 per cent of the US population, but make up 20 per cent of the nation’s hate crimes, according to the latest FBI data.
As a congressional hearing in Washington was told this month, the horrific attack that killed five people in Colorado Springs was merely emblematic of a growing trend of anti-LGBTQ extremism, fuelled in part by a rise in hostile public rhetoric - on social media, among some right-wing commentators or by politicians attempting to rile up their base.
Coupled with access to military-style assault weapons, Haynes said, “we were lucky that night that the casualties were not much higher.”
Demonstrators gather on the step of the Montana State Capitol in 2021 after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance two bills targeting transgender youth despite overwhelming testimony opposing the measures.
According to tracking data by LGBTQ lobby group GLAAD, more than 300 anti-LGBTQ bills have been considered by state legislatures this year - from blocking trans participation in sports, to barring access to gender-affirming care, to removing books about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Among the most high profile has been Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” laws, enshrined by Donald Trump’s Republican rival Ron Desantis, which bans classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through to the third grade.
Reverend Paula Stecker of the Christ the King Lutheran Church stands in front of a memorial set up outside Club Q.
Reverend Paula Stecker of the Christ the King Lutheran Church stands in front of a memorial set up outside Club Q. CREDIT:AP
Twenty children’s hospitals that provide trans medical care to minors have also received bomb threats - prompting calls by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association for the Justice Department to intervene – and nearly 150 attacks on LGBTQ events have been reported publicly.
In Oklahoma last month, for instance, a doughnut shop was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail after hosting a drag event - its second attack in less than two months.
In Texas, an inclusive church’s drag bingo night was mobbed by hundreds of far-right extremists in September after Trump ally Steve Bannon amplified a call for the event to be protested.
And in Massachusetts, a man was charged two weeks ago for making a death threat against a physician who cares for gender-nonconforming children.
Both sides of politics accept that violence is a growing concern. About 7300 hate crimes were reported to the FBI in 2021, including nearly 1400 offences targeting LGBTQ people. However, due to under-reporting, varying definitions of hate crimes in different states and the patchy nature of the FBI’s hate crime data in general, these figures are widely accepted to be far worse.
But what both sides can’t agree on is what should be done about it. Republicans blame Democrats for “soft on crime” policies, particularly the push by some progressives to “defund the police” - a contentious slogan used to describe reallocating funds from police departments for other forms of public safety and community support, such as mental health services, youth services, housing and education.
They have also highlighted violent attacks by the left: such as the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot Republican whip Steve Scalise in 2017, or the dozens of church organisations attacked after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal abortion rights in June.
“It’s easier to blame Republicans than have a serious discussion about the rise of violent crimes across the nation,” says deputy chair James Comer.
*****************************************************
Spain passes law allowing children 16 and over to change legally registered gender without medical supervision
Lawmakers in Spain have approved a bill allowing people over 16 years of age to change their legally registered gender without any medical supervision or parent supervision.
The measure, strongly backed by Spain’s left-wing Podemos party, was approved in the lower house of parliament on Thursday by a vote of 188 to 150 and means that anyone over the age of 16 can change their legally registered gender without consulting with a doctor, which was previously required.
Additionally, minors ages 12 and 13 will be able to change legally registered genders with a judge’s authorization, and people between 14 and 16 will have to be accompanied by their parents or legal guardians in order to make the gender I.D. change.
Up to now, Spaniards who identified as transgender needed a diagnosis by several doctors of gender dysphoria, which is the psychological condition of not feeling a match between one’s biological sex and gender identity. In some cases, they also needed proof they had been living for two years as the gender they identified with — or even records showing that they had taken hormones.
The legislation was not only fiercely opposed by conservatives in the Spanish government but also caused a rift between leftist factions of the feminist movement in Spain, BBC reported.
Equality Minister Irene Montero, a Podemos party member, said the law "de-pathologizes" individuals who identify as transgender.
"Trans women are women," Montero said.
Meanwhile, some members of the coalition government within the socialist party of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez have opposed the move, fearing that it will erode women’s rights.
"When gender is asserted over biological sex, it does not seem to me to be a step forward in a progressive direction; it seems to be a step backwards," Carmen Calvo, a former deputy prime minister Sanchez, said. "The state has to provide answers for transgender people, but gender is neither voluntary nor optional."
The bill will become law once it is passed by the Senate, which is a step expected by the end of the year.
*************************************************
Christian Actor Reveals He Was Blacklisted by Hollywood Because He Wouldn't Abandon His Faith
It isn’t too often you find a successful, outspoken Christian in Hollywood. Perhaps that’s because many such actors are blacklisted in the industry.
According to veteran actor Neal McDonough, that was certainly what happened in his case.
McDonough is far from a Hollywood lightweight. The actor has starred in many highly regarded shows and movies, including “Minority Report,” “Captain America: The First Avenger,” “The Flash,” “American Horror Story” and, perhaps most notably, the hit television series “Yellowstone,” per IMDB.
Nevertheless, for a period of time, McDonough was blacklisted for refusing to do sex scenes.
“I couldn’t get a job because people thought I was this crazy religious guy. But that wasn’t the case. I love my wife, but I love my acting, too. I was hopeful that, at some point, someone would give me a chance again,” the actor told Fox News Digital.
McDonough, a devout Catholic, didn’t only have a no-sex scene rule. He also had a rule against kissing other co-stars because, according to him, “these lips are meant for one woman.”
The actor married his current wife, Ruvé, back in 2003. They have five children together, according to Fox.
McDonough’s no kissing rule caused some problems for him on “Desperate Housewives.” But at that time, he was still able to keep his job.
When it came to the 2010 series “Scoundrels,” however, McDonough’s refusal to act in sex scenes got him booted from the show. “I remember falling to my knees and saying, ‘God, why have you forgotten about me? Why am I being punished so much?’” McDonough said.
“And as soon as those words came out of my mouth, I realized what self-absorbed questions those were. God has given me so much. We all experience challenges in our lives. I should be grateful — and thankful — for all the blessings I’m given.”
But then he was given a chance with the show “Justified.” Apparently, unlike most Hollywood elites, the men and women behind the 2010 neo-Western were tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
The showrunners also casted Nick Searcy, an openly conservative Christian.
“And after ‘Justified,’ everything was kind of forgotten. I was determined to give a really great performance, and I did. And, you know, I realized that perhaps I was taking some of my acting for granted. I was working all the time, but perhaps I wasn’t dialed in enough in terms of what I could really do as an actor,” McDonough said.
More recently, the Catholic actor appeared in another Hollywood project that some argue goes against the political grain of Hollywood, “Yellowstone.”
If he could have one gift for Christmas, McDonough would want to appear yet again on “Yellowstone.” But whether or not that happens is up to showrunner Taylor Sheridan.
“Taylor’s a mighty busy guy right now,” McDonough said, according to Fox. “And you know, [my wife] and I are so busy doing our films that I’m not sure we’ll ever have the time to … get it done. But I certainly would love to do that for sure — get back in the saddle one more time against Kevin [Costner].”
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/christian-actor-blacklisted-hollywood-faith
**************************************************
Australia: Christian couple who were banned from adopting after saying they would force their child to 'fight the sin' of homosexuality win payout
A devout Christian couple denied the chance to have a foster child because they believe homosexuality is a sin, have been awarded hefty compensation for their 'humiliation and hurt feelings'.
Byron and Keira Hordyk, from Perth, sued the Western Australian government for religious discrimination and received a $3000 payout each, after Wanslea Family Services denied their application in 2017.
The independent agency contracted by the state refused their request after the couple, who have kids of their own, said they would tell a child who says they are gay to 'fight the sin'.
The Hordyks are members of the conservative Free Reformed Church, a denomination that told the Tasmanian law reform institute in February 2021 that they practiced 'conversion therapy' for which they issued 'no apologies'.
Conversion therapy, which has been banned in the ACT, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, attempts to change a person's identified sexual orientation through Bible study and prayer.
The Hordyks had responded to a theoretical question about fostering a gay child by saying they would try to convert them to heterosexuality and that if this was unsuccessful the placement would have to be terminated, the State Administrative Tribunal heard.
'We certainly would not drop them off that day to another home,' the Hordyks said. 'However, we are taught and do believe that all LGBTQ identities are wrong and sinful but there will be people who have to fight against this sin,' they wrote in their answer.
'We will therefore offer our help and try and do what we can to help this child, but if the child continues to be gay and goes on to date etc. the placement will not work as this goes against our beliefs.'
Wanslea denied the Hordyks a foster child on the grounds that they could not provide a physically or emotionally safe environment for a young person who might identify as LGBTIQ+.
In response the Hordyks took the agency to the State Administrative Tribunal claiming religious discrimination. They asked for $3000 each in compensation 'for hurt feelings and humiliation'. Mrs Hordyk told the tribunal she felt 'gutted' and 'devastated' that her beliefs were labelled 'dangerous'.
In his testimony Mr Hordyk said the rejection of the core principles of his life left him feeling 'deflated'.
'It feels unfair for me to have to throw away my beliefs on these issues just so I can be acceptable to Wanslea. My religious convictions take centre stage in all aspects of my life,' Mr Hordyk told the hearing.
Wanslea argued that the couple's rigidity on issues of homosexuality and gender did not flow from their religious convictions.
However, the tribunal did not agree and ordered both the Hordyks be paid 'for the loss and damage they suffered as a result of Wanslea's discrimination'.
At the time they were knocked back by Wanslea, the Hordyks said they were speaking up for other people of faith.
'We do feel we have been discriminated against and also we felt that if we were quiet about this and didn't say anything about it, it could potentially harm or limit any people with the same Christian values as ours from fostering,' Mr Hordyk told The West Australian.
'We hold traditional Christian views on how the Bible teaches us on sexuality and marriage.
****************************************
29 December, 2022
“Distrust of Government” is Bad for You, Claims Study
Ach! This is just a speculation not based in the evidence. In my usual pesky way I have looked at the underlying journal article and the study had NO data on political orientation.
There is clearly a significant connection between unvaccinated Canadians and a high rate of traffic accidents but what the mechanism is nobody knows. A good range of demographics was examined but nothing there was informative
I think the connection is in fact obvious. You have to be a real scofflaw to remain unvaccinated in authoritarian Canada so those who defy one law might well defy others, including traffic law. And defying traffic laws is likely to be dangerous. We are looking mainly at chronic scofflaws, would be my speculation.
And despite my own record of demon-driving, I am pretty sure that most conservatives are law-abiding drivers. Fitting in with the existing systtem is what conservatives do.
“One possibility relates to a distrust of government or belief in freedom that contributes to both vaccination preferences and increased traffic risks,” say the authors of COVID Vaccine Hesitancy and Risk of a Traffic Crash, published by the American Journal of Medicine but authored by a trio in Canada.
Donald A. Redelmeier, MD FRCPC MSHSR, FACP, works in “evaluative clinical sciences” at the Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto. Jonathan Wang, MMASc, is with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and the department of medicine at the University of Toronto. Deva Thiruchelvam, MSc, is also with the ICES and the Sunnybrook Institute in Toronto. The trio tested whether COVID vaccination was associated with the risks of a traffic crash.
A total of 11,270,763 individuals were included, of whom 16 percent had not received a COVID vaccine and 84 percent had received a COVID vaccine. The cohort accounted for 6682 traffic crashes. Unvaccinated individuals accounted for 1682 traffic crashes (25 percent), equal to a 72 percent increased relative risk compared with those vaccinated.
“These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash,” the authors contend. On the other hand, “distrust of government or belief in freedom,” is another possibility, along with “antipathy toward regulation” exposure to misinformation, insufficient resources, or other personal beliefs.
“Alternative factors” include “political identity” and “social networks that lead to misgivings around public health guidelines.” These and other factors “remain topics for more research.”
The authors don’t specify the political identity that could be a problem or define what constitutes “misinformation.” The study mentions the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which do not prevent infection or transmission of COVID and can cause harmful side effects. The study could use a discussion of how that reality contributes to “vaccine hesitancy.” In a similar style, the authors show little interest in how governments’ coercive promotion of ineffective vaccines contributes to “distrust of government.”
No word of specific test results from those excessively trustful of government, those believing in dictatorship or totalitarianism, or people worshipful of government regulation. Without conducting further research, those dangerous believers in freedom could easily conclude that this study is junk science.
********************************************************
What do British people think about Corbyn's plan for the Falklands?
The comments below by Matt Taylor are from 3 years ago but are still very relevant
I am a very socially liberal person, I’m about as gay friendly as it is possible to be without routinely pleasuring male sailors.
I am not judgmental, and I think everyone should be free to live their lives however they see fit.
With that in mind, I have some regard for Corbyn as a human being, but he does seem to view the world through a naive and simplistic lens.
Anybody with any regard for democracy surely must side with the Islanders.
The simple fact is, we do not judge the living descendants of people who committed crimes to be morally accountable. We do not hold grudges against the living Japanese or Germans, and WWII was relatively recently.
You can certainly argue that there were many immoral actions committed by the British Empire, ironically there was almost no fighting involved in the taking of the Falklands, but that is entirely by the bye.
If more than three or four generations has passed, it is beyond ludicrous to hold young people accountable for the questionable actions of their forebears.
“Well you never stole anything, but your great great great great granddad did.. TO THE SALT-MINES YOU GO!”
The Islanders have committed no crimes, and now, rightly or wrongly, passionately wish to remain British, their wishes must be respected. Geography is utterly irrelevant.
If the British had taken the Islands by force in 1925, they might have had a case of a kind. Unfortunately for Argentina, that never happened. The families that live there now have been there for literally hundreds of years, some of them have lived there for 11 generations.
Anybody with regard for democracy and self determination HAS to side with them, and the actions of the Argentinian Government is reprehensible with regards to trade embargoes and saber rattling.
Short answer, Corbyn is a decent man at heart, but he is still just another self-loathing white man. I find it baffling that he doesn't see the paradox in telling everyone about the evils of identity politics and judging people based on the color of their skin or their religion or their sexual identity, while simultaneously judging people who happen to have long distant ancestors who took part in immoral actions before any of us, or even our grandparents were born.
This cringing self-loathing seems to be popular with the far left, they hate American and European colonialism so they judge living Americans and Europeans, but rail against judging people from everywhere else on anything but the content of their character.
I find it truly baffling.
*******************************************************
‘Avatar’ Is Little More Than a Hive of Left-Wing Tropes
“Avatar: The Way of Water” is floating atop the box office, but the sequel is facing an undertow for its alleged bigotries — no doubt a surprise to its director, James Cameron, who’s finding the leftist tropes of yesteryear are grounds for cancelation today.
Yuè Begay, “a Native American influencer,” urged a boycott of “this horrible and racist film,” describing the characters as wearing “blue face” and portraying a “white savior complex.” Slate.com called the film “a Sappy Valentine to the Myth of the ‘Ecological Indian.’”
Critic Kathia Woods indicted the movie for “cultural appropriation and white actors cosplaying as” people of color with its noble savage stereotype, once sacred to the left. All are big changes for Hollywood’s answer to Rip Van Winkle, who took a 13-year snooze from filmmaking.
In 2009, the political left sang the praises of Mr. Cameron’s epic, which clubbed its audience over the head with its green message. That alone was enough to earn a pass for a plot so unoriginal, it was called plagiarism.
A 2010 Huffington Post column, “‘Avatar’ = ‘Pocahontas’ in Space” showed how one could produce the script by swapping new nouns into the Disney classic. But the villains in “Avatar” remained common ones to leftists of the era: The military, colonialism, miners, and corporations.
Moviegoers couldn’t help rooting for his idealized heroes, the Na’vi — an anagram of “natives” — with their big eyes playing to the human affection for infants. Los Angeles Times wrote, “The film offers a blatantly pro-environmental message; it portrays U.S. military contractors in a decidedly negative light; and it clearly evokes the can’t-we-all-get along vibe of the 1960s counterculture.”
In an interview with AFP, Mr. Cameron shared standard hippie rhetoric. “There’s a sense of entitlement,” he said. “‘We’re here, we’re big, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains. We, therefore, are entitled to every damn thing on this planet.’”
He then scolded Americans to “wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on earth.” Politics, though, have shifted since those days when, say, Presidents Obama and Biden both opposed gay marriage.
Democrats have “evolved” on militarism, too. After winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Obama learned to stop worrying and love the drone, ordering ten times as many strikes as his Republican predecessor. The liberal columnist Joe Klein — pressed about Mr. Obama killing children of suspected terrorists — shrugged and responded that “the bottom line is: ‘whose 4-year-olds get killed?’”
Just last week, Democrats feted the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, without a peep from the anti-war movement about fattening the military-industrial complex or giving peace a chance. When the House Republican Leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, opposed a “blank check” for military aid, he was met with cries that verged on “Better dead than red.”
As for corporations, the most powerful ones today are Amazon, Apple, and social media giants which support the left. While digging for coal is still demonized by leftists, they welcome the strip mining required to produce rare earth minerals for green technology such as electric car batteries. Windmills and solar panels, which are killing birds by the millions, are praised as the wave of the future.
Causes such as clean oceans, land, and air have also been replaced on today’s leftist agenda by a singular focus on global warming, replacing slogans like “Save the Whales,” such hunting having been all but banned in any case.
YouTube’s Critical Drinker, Scottish thriller novelist Will Jordan, points out this anachronism in his review of the sequel to Avatar. “It just feels weird for this movie to make it such a thematic focal point,” and yet “Avatar 2” does just that with blue sea creatures standing in for blue whales.
“Avatar 2” may be a beautiful movie, as described by the Sun’s A.R. Hoffman in his review. Moviegoers, though, have come to expect CGI magic. They require a little social consciousness and plot along with their visual spectacle, and no longer applaud Mr. Cameron’s outdated tropes like the trained seals of 2009. Take it from Mr. Van Winkle.
https://www.nysun.com/article/rip-van-cameron-awakens-to-a-new-political-left-with-avatar-2
*****************************************************
Former trial lawyer who claims he was thrown off his master's degree for gender critical views insists dysphoria should be treated as a mental health condition
A former barrister who hit headlines earlier this year for after alleging he was thrown off his degree course over gender critical views, says gender dysphoria should be treated in the same way as a condition like anorexia to protect children.
James Esses, 30, who lives in London, claims he was ousted from his master's degree in psychotherapy at the Metanoia Institute in west London after speaking out against the 'medicalisation of children and the infiltration of gender ideology into the mental health profession'.
Speaking to FEMAIL, the campaigner insists he 'isn't anti-trans for believing in biology' and calls for alternative treatment for gender dysphoria.
'You wouldn't treat anorexia with liposuction,' he explained. 'At its core, people need to understand that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. There are those who say that being trans should not be pathologised, but in the same breath request irreversible medication and surgery.'
'This is fundamentally inconsistent. We should be treating gender dysphoria in the same way that we treat all other mental health conditions - with explorative therapy, not with automatic affirmation down a pathway of physically modifying one’s body, fraught with risk, harm and regret.'
James, who was on the cusp of setting up his own private therapy practice prior to his expulsion from university, says that he gets 'abuse and vitriol' for being 'anti-trans'.
This comes after he called for more thorough counselling for those with gender dysphoria - something he says would be standard practice for sufferers of other forms of dysphoria, such as anorexia and body dysmorphia.
Scotland's new gender laws: What is the Gender Recognition Reform Bill? Why is it so controversial? Who has been opposing it? And will it definitely come into force?
'Once members of the public are made aware of the potentially irreversible damage being caused to children and hear the stories of those left with lifelong regret, they tend to empathise with what I and others are speaking out about.
'To parents who face a child struggling with gender dysphoria, I always recommend trying to strike the right balance, which is often easier said than done.
'It is important that children feel listened to, respected and empathised with. At the same time, it is important to emphasise to children what is real and what isn’t and to support explorative reflection (including through counselling or therapy) of why a young person feels the way they do.
'Often, gender dysphoria is a symptom of wider unease within a young person and most cases of gender dysphoria resolve themselves with time.'
********************************************************
UK woman arrested for silently praying across from abortion clinic: ‘Terrifying’
Conservatives and free speech activists on Twitter railed against a recent video depicting police interrogating and ultimately arresting a pro-life woman who was silently praying outside a U.K. abortion clinic.
Those who watched the woman’s arrest after admitting she was “praying in my head” were appalled. Some claimed this was proof that Great Britain had become a dystopia.
The woman who was arrested, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, is the director of the U.K. March for Life.
According to Alliance Defending Freedom UK (ADF UK), Vaughan-Spruce “was standing near the BPAS Robert Clinic in Kings Norton, Birmingham in an area ADF UK called a ‘censorship zone,’ when police approached her after an onlooker complained she might be praying outside the abortion facility.”
According to ADF UK, Birmingham authorities have established buffer zones near abortion clinics, making it illegal for people to engage in behavior disapproving or approving of abortion. This includes “graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counseling.”
The clip shows the woman silently standing on a curb across from an abortion clinic as British law enforcement officers approach her. One asks why she is standing there and responds that she’s there because of the abortion clinic. She denies that she is part of any protest.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, is the director of the U.K. March for Life.
Police interrogated and ultimately arrested a pro-life woman who was silently praying outside a U.K. abortion clinic.
The officer then asks, “Are you praying?” to which she responds, “I might be praying in my head.” The officer then asks her if she’d be willing to go to the station for questioning about her actions. “If I’ve got a choice, then no,” she responds, after which the officer states, “You’re under arrest” and claims she’s charged with “suspicion of failing to comply with Public Spaces Protection Order.”
Anglican priest Rev. Calvin Robinson slammed what he saw in the footage, saying, “This is terrifying. What have we become?! Under a Conservative government, too.”
Catholic author and Compact Magazine founder Sohrab Ahmari tweeted, “OY YOU GO’ A LICENSE TO PRAY IN YOUR ’EAD MA’AM?”
Pro-life advocate Emily Rarick wrote, “This is absolute madness. How can someone be arrested for praying?”
Virginia GOP delegate Nick Freitas took the opportunity to remind users of George Orwell’s dystopia, tweeting, “1984 was a warning, not a guide.”
RedState deputy managing editor Brandon Morse made the point, “If abortion advocates don’t believe in God and think prayer is actually silly then what are they so afraid of?”
Conservative pundit Lauren Chen tweeted, “People are literally being arrested for thought crimes in the UK. Free speech is NOT a western value, it’s a uniquely American one.”
Nile Gardiner, a former aide to the late former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, remarked, “This is appalling. Disgraceful to see a woman arrested for simply praying on a British street. This should not be happening under a Conservative Govt, and action should be taken by the Home Secretary to ensure that scenes like this are not repeated.”
National Review staff writer Nate Hochman tweeted, “Sorry but imagine not having a First Amendment.”
https://nypost.com/2022/12/22/uk-woman-arrested-for-praying-across-from-abortion-clinic/
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
28 December, 2022
Assisted suicide in Canada
I have mixed feelings about this. As a libertarian, I think any individual is entitled to commit suicide if they want that and anything done to help people get what they want is benign. And depression can be very painful so I understand people wanting to end their suffering.
I have had depressed times -- mostly connected with relationship breakdowns and illness -- so I know how it feels. I have of course thought about suicide at such times but have been deterred from it by a certainty that there will be better times ahead. I know that life delivers ups and downs and I have mostly had long "ups". I am still enjoying my life as much as ever even though I am now in my 80th year.
But some people can be in situations from which no betterment can reasonably be expected and I think it is simple mercy to help them to get what they want.
When governments get involved, however, precautions should be taken to ensure that no coercion is involved. Putting some delay in front of assisted suicide is also common sense. Depressive feelings do often pass with time
But Canada does seem to be ENCOURAGING suicide and that is oboxious -- but not unexpected from the Leftist culture of death. Communism has shown that Leftists can destroy millions without a second thought
Remember when the idea that government-run health care could lead to “death panels” was scoffed at as absurd?
Well, the absurd is coming closer to reality as Canada—which has a universal, publicly funded health care system—extends medical assistance in dying (MAiD) laws to include a wider variety of conditions.
Since Canada passed its law in 2016, more than 30,000 people have died as a result, and those numbers are accelerating.
MAiD is set to expand in March and will then allow people with mental illness to seek medically assisted death, too. It’s not just going to be the sick and the poor being eliminated, but those who are depressed. How progressive.
In Nazi Germany, they might have called these people “undesirables” or some other mean, nasty epithet before exterminating them. But in liberal, tolerant, modern Canada, they are above such sordid terminology.
Under the current law, only Canadians over 18 years of age are eligible. However, the Canadian government has put together a commission to study whether it should be extended to “mature minors,” who could be allowed to seek euthanasia without parental consent.
There is no set definition of what exactly a “mature minor” is, but presumably it would be for Canadians under the current age threshold.
Given the speed at which the law is expanding, it’s hard to see that option for minors not being on the table in the near future. What we are talking about isn’t really a slippery slope at this point, it’s a free fall to perdition. Certainly, it wouldn’t be the first time a medically assisted death program in an “advanced” country rapidly expanded to a point many would consider unimaginable when it began.
What makes the societal sanction of assisted-suicide laws particularly disturbing is how they are wound up with the government and its collective incentives.
While assisted-suicide laws have generally been sold as a means to empower individual choice, in reality it’s almost impossible to separate that choice from the interests of society. That’s especially the case when there is massive government involvement in medical care and cost.
A few stories from Canada in the past few years highlight the problem.
In 2017, the Canadian Medical Association Journal estimated that medically assisted death could save the government between $34.7 million and $136.8 million per year. One assumes that expanding the law could provide even more “savings” of this nature.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported the story in a way that made it sound like it was discussing the cost of a new highway or infrastructure project, not something with immense ethical implications.
Somehow, it gets even worse.
In 2020, the Ottawa Citizen reported that medically assisted death provided a “boon” to organ donation.
“In the first 11 months of 2019, MAiD patients in the province accounted for 18 organ [donors] and 95 tissue donors, a [14%] increase over 2018 and a [109%] increase over 2017,” the Ottawa Citizen reported.
It seems there are many in the managerial health-expert class who desperately want to normalize the idea that perhaps society should find ways to simply get rid of the sick and old (and harvest their organs for the healthy and useful). They look at the financial numbers and see that a stretched health care system—where aging societies and plunging birthrates are accelerating the problem—would really benefit if some people were taken off the books.
Right now, the Canadian system is in the aggressive promotion phase, where “offing” the old, the sick, the poor, and the mentally ill is advertised as humane and compassionate. But it’s already moving toward the next phase in the process, where suicide is the initial option given to patients by doctors and medical institutions looking to save money.
It’s like going from “do no harm” to “take this pill, and begone.”
For instance, a 52-year-old retired corporal who had competed in the 2016 Paralympics for Canada was provided a medically assisted suicide kit when she requested a wheelchair lift for her home. The incident prompted the Canadian government to review and change its protocols, but is there any doubt that this will become a more frequent occurrence?
And given the trend, it doesn’t seem at all unthinkable that in the future—especially when governments that bear most of the cost of health care and medically assisted death is normalized—government agencies will offer suicide as the only option for patients with various ailments.
This exposes one of the biggest problems with “socialized” medicine and why many Americans fear it, especially in a time of radicalized government agencies. Not only could government agencies work ruthlessly to cut costs, promoting policies that even Nazi Germany tried to hide from its people, but they could make financial decisions based on ideology.
Who is worthy of care, and who is deserving of life or death? These decisions will increasingly be made by woke institutions.
This is all to say that the increasing government approval of medically assisted death is leading Western societies into dangerous, morally repugnant territory. Massive government involvement makes it an even thornier issue.
Canada’s fast track to universal euthanasia is a warning to America, where medically assisted suicide is still limited to 10 states and the District of Columbia. For that, we should be thankful for federalism.
In the meantime, however, we must do what we can to promote a culture of life.
*****************************************************
Law firm Calls Out Washington State County for Banning Employees From Having Religious Decorations
On Tuesday, Becket Law released their 2022 Ebenezer Award for the worst offender to the holidays during this year's Christmas and Hanukkah season. The winner, King County in Washington state, holds the distinction for meddling into the religious affairs of county employees in their own homes, by telling them not to display religious holiday decorations, such as a Nativity scene or a menorah, in their remote video backgrounds.
A press release from Becket highlights a piece from Jason Rantz for 770 KTTH, a local conservative talk radio station. In addition to Rantz's own commentary about such an absurd war on Christmas and religion overall, more information about the directive is included:
King County Human Resources warned employees not to decorate their workspaces with overtly Christmas or Hanukkah decorations. They fear decorations may offend employees.
Gloria Ngezaho, Workforce Equity Manager for the Department of Human Resources, authored a memo titled “Guidelines for Holiday Decorations for King County Employees” to outline expectations. It says the county “remains committed to honoring the diversity in its workforce and is fortunate to have employees from many diverse backgrounds.”
The fact that the county has an "Equity Manager for the Department of Human Resources" is enough on its own to raise eyebrows. Ngezaho's claims also highlights the poison that is so often spewed from these so-called "equity" managers. Adding insult to injury, though, is the claim that the county supposedly "remains committed to honoring the diversity in its workforce" and that they are supposedly "fortunate to have employees from many diverse backgrounds."
It's all nonsense, though, given that the county won't allow employees to express their religious beliefs during the holiday season.
As Rantz goes on to write:
“Before adding any decorations to your workspace (including your virtual workspace), consider the likely effect of such decorations on all of the employees in and outside your work group,” reads the memo obtained by the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH by a county staffer who found it posted internally last week.
...
“Some employees may not share your religion, practice any religion, or share your enthusiasm for holiday decorations. Displays of religious symbols may only be displayed in an employee’s personal workspace. Religious symbols should not be displayed in or as a background to an employee’s virtual workspace,” the memo explains.
The memo says you cannot include Nativity sets or menorahs. But the list of symbols banned from virtual display extends well beyond what you would display for the holidays: stars of David, a cross or a crucifix, and images of Jesus or Mary.
To ensure that HR isn’t accused of focusing exclusively on Christians and Jews, even though that appears to be the intent, the memo warns against the dharma wheel, crescent and star, aum, khanda, and a nine-pointed star. None of these symbols are displayed for the holiday season.
...
“For those who are not teleworking, common areas within work units are considered a public area. These spaces are shared by multiple employees in the performance of their jobs. Such areas would include breakrooms, conference rooms, and reception areas. Religious symbols are not appropriate in these areas, because it may cause disruption to co-workers or members of the public that do not share that particular religion,” the memo claims.
The memo states that, as a public institution, it “cannot appear to support any particular religion.” And the guidelines apply to holiday gatherings.
The county appears to have long been engaged in a war on Christmas and religious holidays
*****************************************************
The workers are fleeing the Democratic Party
Democrats know they have a working-class voter issue but can’t address it since their base views these people as anathema. It’s partially due to the snobbish attitude liberal Americans have towards those who don’t act or think like them. They view this voter bloc, which numbers in the tens of millions, as uneducated country bumpkins. The lack of education disqualifies these people in their eyes. There’s also a racial component. Democrats won elections big when they got a healthy share of the white working-class vote—it was the backbone of the Democratic Party.
Now, these folks are viewed as quasi-Nazis and eschewed aggressively by the white progressive professional elite that dominates the coasts and cities. Affluent, liberal, and overwhelmingly white Democratic voters would instead double down on nonwhite voters in the cities. For two election cycles, the hordes of white college-educated voters have provided something of a buffer, but that won’t hold: nonwhite working-class voters are now veering into the GOP camp—big league.
When both sets of the working class vote support Republicans, Democrats should take notice, but all evidence from past cycles shows that they won’t. So, the GOP can run the table here, but it cannot be apathetic or carry a ‘run-through the motions’ aura regarding voter outreach with these folks. They must understand daily that the GOP will be the party for them, protecting their jobs and creating new opportunities—things the Democrats are no longer good at accomplishing.
Ruy Teixeira at American Enterprise Institute crunched the numbers. Ruy isn’t a conservative either—he was a former long-time fixture at the left-wing Center for American Progress before being cast out by the woke and unhinged youngsters at the think tank. His work on demographics has been well-cited on both sides, though he concedes the conclusions have been misconstrued, especially by liberals who have taken his “permanent political majority” thesis as gospel. Teixeira always says they didn’t read the fine print, which is that Democrats need significant white working voter class support to maintain this winning Democratic coalition. Based on the numbers he crunched from the midterms, not only do Democrats have the aforementioned white working-class deficit, but the dip in nonwhite working-class voter support also represents a second front in an electoral war the Left will be ill-equipped to counter if they focus on woke lefty initiatives. These include pronoun policing and enforcing an authoritarian ethos on political correctness that does little to help Americans find work:
With all the Democratic back-patting going on, I’m not sure they’re really facing up to an emerging problem that severely undermines their electoral theory of the case. I speak of their declining margins with the nonwhite working class. That’s not to say they don’t still carry the nonwhite working class vote, it’s just they carry it by a lot less. That wasn’t in the “rising American electorate” battle plan.
As I have previously noted, AP/NORC VoteCast estimates the decline in Democrats’ advantage among the nonwhite working class as 14 points between 2020 and 2022, 23 points between 2018 and 2022 and (splicing in some Catalist data, which are consistent with VoteCast data where they overlap) an astonishing 33 point drop between 2012 and 2022.
[…]
Arizona. The 2020 Presidential election and 2022 gubernatorial election were both extremely close. Interestingly, while Democrat Katie Hobbs ran quite a bit ahead of Biden among white college voters, she actually ran 3 points behind among nonwhite working class voters.
California. Gavin Newson in 2022 ran considerably behind Biden in 2020. One place where he kept almost all of Biden’s support from 2020 was among white college voters. In contrast, he lost a lot of support among nonwhite working class voters: 14 points.
Florida. Ron DeSantis of course ran way ahead of Trump in his 2022 gubernatorial race—about 16 points. But he ran 27 points ahead among nonwhite working class voters. And he did 38 points (!) better among nonwhite working class voters this year than he did in his initial 2018 gubernatorial race.
Georgia. Brian Kemp ran ahead of Trump in his 2022 re-election, albeit not on DeSantis’ level. But he did 16 margin points better among nonwhite working class voters and, compared to his initial election bid in 2018, also against Stacey Abrams, did 27 points better among those voters.
Republicans still have a chance to seize these voters to win a landslide victory, but they can’t take anything for granted, even if things seem inevitable.
***********************************************
'Women are right to fear their spaces will be invaded': JK Rowling condemns Scotland's new gender law
JK Rowling has condemned the Scottish National Party's new self-identification law that makes it easier for people as young as 16 to change gender without seeing a doctor.
The author and women's rights campaigner, 57, retweeted an article which argued that the Labour Party would pay for supporting Nicola Sturgeon's 'trans crusade'.
In The Telegraph piece, former member of Scottish Labour Tom Harris wrote: 'Let us be clear. Women are right to fear that their spaces will be invaded; that their privacy and safety will be tragically compromised.'
The Bill could lead to gender tourism to Scotland and transgender people in England demanding the same rights, it emerged today.
The vote in Edinburgh yesterday sparked huge protests and puts MSPs on a constitutional collision course with Westminster, where there are deep concerns about the 'divergence' in gender laws across the UK.
UK ministers are plotting how to prevent trans people from across the UK heading to Scotland for as little as three months so they can self-identify as male or female without a diagnosis from a doctor.
Government sources told The Times that they feared the new law could be used to allow biologically male Scottish prisoners in English jails to demand to be placed in women's prisons.
Scottish transgender women could also demand their new rights are mirrored in England, such as access to female-only spaces.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also warned that there could now be an impact on sex discrimination laws across the UK, including equal pay.
Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton said the Bill would 'let criminal men exploit the system' and put women in jeopardy in single-sex spaces.
What does the Bill do?
The Bill makes it easier for trans people to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) by removing the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It also lowers the minimum age for applicants to 16 and drops the time required for an applicant to live in their acquired gender to three months, or six months for people aged 16 and 17 - although with a subsequent three-month reflection period.
How does this compare to UK-wide rules?
Current laws mean a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate only if they are aged 18 or over, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK and have been living in their affirmed gender for at least two years. A person can apply even if they have not had any gender affirming surgery or treatments or do not plan to have any.
What do opponents say?
Opponents fear the Bill will impact the safety of women and single-sex spaces. Campaigners say there are insufficient safeguards to protect women and girls from predatory men, raising concerns about environments such as women's prisons. There are also constitutional concerns, and fears of 'gender tourism' across the border.
How about supporters?
Those in favour of the Bill say a move to make trans people's lives easier is long overdue. A group of LGBTQ+ groups recently issued a joint letter saying the Bill was a 'historic opportunity to continue Scotland's journey towards full social and legal equality'. They disagree that an expansion of trans people's rights comes at the expense of women's rights, saying the Bill will have little impact outside the trans community.
What issues need to be ironed out?
If the legislation becomes law, it is unclear whether any GRCs issued under the new Scottish rules would be recognised in England. Westminster has signalled it will not recognise them. GRCs allow someone to change their gender on legal documents such as their passport, which is issued by the UK rather than individual nations, or birth certificate, but it can also affect their entitlements to benefits and pensions. Practical difficulties are likely to arise in cross-border situations.
Could Westminster stop the legislation?
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack issued a statement yesterday after the Bill cleared Holyrood saying he was considering blocking it from becoming law. He said the Government would look at the ramifications for the Equality Act and could use a so-called Section 35 order to stop the Bill going for Royal Assent.
After Ms Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, slashed the minimum period for adults to obtain a gender recognition certificate from two years, in theory someone could now rent a property north of the border for just three months and legally change their gender without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
However, the UK Government is preparing to step in after Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch wrote to Ms Sturgeon to warn her it was 'not possible' for the legislation to be 'fully contained' within Scotland.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack issued a statement yesterday after the Bill cleared the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood saying he was considering blocking it from becoming law.
Ahead of yesterday's vote, Mrs Badenoch said: 'I am concerned about the impact [of] having divergent regimes in the different parts of the UK.
Rishi Sunak has said it is 'completely reasonable' to consider blocking new gender legislation in Scotland.
Visiting a homeless shelter in London, the Prime Minister said: 'Lots of people have got concerns about this new Bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women's and children's safety.
'So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK Government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children's safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is.'
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed yesterday to both applause and jeers of 'shame on you' in Holyrood.
Westminster has signalled it will not accept Scottish gender recognition certificates south of the border.
The SNP's Bill lets a person self-identify as transgender without medical checks, lowers the age limit to legally change gender from 18 to 16 and cuts the time a trans person must live in their acquired gender before they can switch.
The UK Government is so concerned about divergence in gender laws across the UK that it is set to overhaul how transgender people from other countries can legally change gender in England and Wales so Scotland does not claim to be discriminated against.
Whitehall sources said that to stop people travelling to Scotland to obtain a gender recognition certificate more easily before travelling back to England, they intend to update the entire list of approved countries to exclude some of those that allow self-identification.
After Mr Jack warned that he was considering blocking the Bill completely, Ms Sturgeon's SNP administration said it would 'vigorously contest' any such move.
Mr Jack said: 'We share the concerns that many people have regarding certain aspects of this Bill, and in particular the safety issues for women and children.
'We will look closely at that, and also the ramifications for the 2010 Equality Act and other UK-wide legislation, in the coming weeks – up to and including a Section 35 order stopping the Bill going for royal assent if necessary.'
Ms Badenoch has raised concerns about the impact of the legislation.
A source close to her said she 'didn't believe the Scottish Government had considered the full impacts of this Bill – particularly on women and girls'.
The insider added: 'She shares the strong concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, and other civic groups and ministers regarding the impact this Bill will have on the functioning of the Equality Act, which is designed to protect all UK citizens.'
Under the Scotland Act, the UK Government can challenge devolved legislation if it feels it affects national security or 'reserved matters' - decisions taken by the UK Parliament even though they affect Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England.
Gender recognition is a devolved matter, but the Government is concerned about the impact of the Bill on equalities laws, which are the preserve of Westminster.
The Bill has also provoked fears that abusive men could take advantage of the new system to change gender, with critics, including JK Rowling, claiming that 'all a man needs to "become a woman" is to say he's one'.
Any action to block the legislation, which is expected to come into force next year, would be unprecedented – and would likely be subject to judicial review. Ministers have four weeks to decide whether to intervene.
****************************************
23 December, 2022
Is exercise good for you?
The study below concludes that it is. That is rather surprising. Past studies have concluded that there is little lifespan advantage from lifestyle changes.
But this study has large holes. For a start, does lots of excercise cause you to live longer or do people with good survival genes exercise more? There were of course no controls for genetic factors
And were the advantages one poeople who had aleways excercised a lor or were they people who had just taken it up? That could be a big difference with significant implications. Taking up excercise late in life might not help you
Estimated Number of Deaths Prevented Through Increased Physical Activity Among US Adults
Previous studies suggest that a substantial number of deaths could be prevented annually by increasing population levels of physical activity.1-3 However, previous estimates have relied on convenience samples,2,3 used self-reported physical activity data,1-3 and assumed relatively large increases in activity levels (eg, more than 30 minutes per day).1-3 The potential public health benefit of changing daily physical activity by a manageable amount is not yet known. In this study, we used accelerometer measurements (1) to examine the association of physical activity and mortality in a population-based sample of US adults and (2) to estimate the number of deaths prevented annually with modest increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity intensity (MVPA).
Methods
This cohort study was approved by the National Center for Health Statistics Ethics Review Board. This study used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and written informed consent was obtained for all NHANES participants. The study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.
The NHANES is a representative survey of the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population, including oversampling for non-Hispanic Black participants and Mexican American participants. Race and ethnicity was determined by self-report and classified using preferred terminology from the National Center for Health Statistics as Mexican American, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, or other. Race and ethnicity was included in this study to better characterize the US population. In 2003 to 2006, NHANES participants aged 6 years or older were asked to wear an accelerometer for 7 days. For this study, we evaluated 4840 of 6355 adults aged 40 to 85 years or older with accelerometer data. The remaining 1515 individuals were excluded because they were not eligible or refused to participate in the monitoring protocol (853 [13%]), had monitors that malfunctioned or lost calibration (360 [6%]), or had no valid days with monitor data (302 [5%]). Mortality follow-up was completed via National Death Index linkage through December 31, 2015. We estimated MVPA by summing accelerometer minutes at or above an established cutpoint4 and creating 8 physical activity categories (0-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80-99, 100-119, 120-139, or ?140 minutes per day).
The number of deaths per year prevented with increased physical activity was estimated as the adjusted population attributable fraction (PAF)5 multiplied by the US population annual number of deaths for 2003 (for individuals aged 40-84 years). To calculate the PAFs, we used population prevalence estimates and hazard ratios adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education level, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), diet, alcohol use, smoking status, and self-reported chronic conditions, mobility limitations, and general health. Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression models, and the proportional hazards assumption was confirmed for our main exposure (ie, MVPA). Counterfactuals for increased activity were set to 10, 20, and 30 minutes per day higher than participants’ observed values. Those classified as frail6 or who required equipment to walk were assumed to be unable to increase their activity (eMethods in the Supplement); when PAFs were calculated, physical activity levels for these participants were held constant. Data were analyzed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc), accounting for the NHANES complex sample design.
Results
This analysis included 4840 participants. Of these, 2435 (53%) were women, 993 (10.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 887 (5.1%) were Mexican American (Table). A total of 1165 deaths occurred during a mean (SEM) follow-up of 10.1 (0.1) years.
Adjusted hazard ratios changed from 0.69 to 0.28 across increasing activity categories (vs 0-19 minutes per day). Hazard ratios used to generate the PAFs for the 8 activity categories were as follows: 1.00 (reference) for 0 to 19 (548 [7.9%]), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85) for 20 to 39 (616 [10.0%]), 0.51 (95% CI, 0.42-0.63) for 40 to 59 (635 [11.8%]), 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29-0.55) for 60 to 79 (614 [12.7%]), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25-0.47) for 80-99 (633 [14.4%]), 0.32 (95% CI, 0.21-0.48) for 100 to 119 (508 [12.1%]), 0.30 (95% CI, 0.19-0.48) for 120-139 (384 [9.3%]), and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.18-0.42) for 140 or more (902 [21.7%]) minutes per day. The number of participants with frailty or needing special equipment was 280 (49.4%) for 0 to 19, 164 (26.3%) for 20 to 39, 94 (12.4%) for 40 to 59, 66 (9.5%) for 60 to 79, 42 (5.1%) for 80 to 99, 31 (4.7%) for 100 to 119, 20 (2.9%) for 120 to 139, and 35 (2.7%) for 140 or more minutes per day.
Increasing MVPA by 10, 20, or 30 minutes per day was associated with a 6.9%, 13.0%, and 16.9% decrease in the number of deaths per year, respectively. Adding 10 minutes per day of physical activity resulted in an estimated 111 174 preventable deaths per year (95% CI, 79 594-142 754), with greater benefits associated with the addition of more physical activity (209 459 preventable deaths [95% CI, 146 299-272 619] for 20 minutes and 272 297 preventable deaths [95% CI, 177 557-367 037] for 30 minutes) (Figure).
The PAFs indicate that the addition of 10 minutes per day of MVPA was associated with the prevention of 8.0% (95% CI, 6.0-10.0) of total deaths per year among men, 5.9% (95% CI, 2.0-9.8) among women, 4.8% (95% CI, 0.0-10.7) among Mexican American individuals, 6.1% (95% CI, 2.2-10.0) among non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 7.3% (95% CI, 5.3-9.3) among non-Hispanic White individuals.
Discussion
In this cohort study, we estimated that approximately 110 000 deaths per year could be prevented if US adults aged 40 to 85 years or older increased their MVPA by a small amount (ie, 10 minutes per day). Similar benefits were observed for men and women and for Mexican American, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White adults. To our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate the number of preventable deaths through physical activity using accelerometer-based measurements among US adults while recognizing that increasing activity may not be possible for everyone. However, 1 week of monitoring may not reflect changes in activity over time, and the observational study design limits the direct determination of causality.
These findings support implementing evidence-based strategies to improve physical activity for adults and potentially reduce deaths in the US.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2788473 ?
**************************************************
Targeting the ‘Imperial’ Supreme Court
The typical Leftist tendency to invert reality. Roe v. Wade was the imperial decision, not its repeal. There is something wrong in the brain of Leftists. Their hatreds distort their contact with reality
It might be scant surprise that the Supreme Court is the target of broadsides these days, but it could come as a shock to see one such potshot launched from the pages of the Harvard Law Review. Its author is a Stanford Law professor, Mark Lemley, whom the school touts as the most cited professor in the law of intellectual property and “one of the ten most cited legal scholars of all time.” The sage accuses the court of being a Machiavellian hoarder of power.
Professor Lemley’s “The Imperial Supreme Court”* strikes us as inaccurate. He spots the “emergence of the imperial Supreme Court” engaged in a “radical restructuring” of American law. The justices, he asserts, are working at “stripping power from every political entity except the Supreme Court itself” to “concentrate power” at the high court. He essentially doubts the justices’ integrity, accusing them of, in effect, a coup.
We, too, detect a shift in the balance of power, but where Mr. Lemley sees a gathering of power, we see its dispersal. In case after case, this conservative court has insisted on returning constitutional authority to what Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health calls the “people and their elected representatives.” Abortion is just one issue where decision making authority now resides within the democratic process, rather than beyond it.
Mr. Lemley concedes that “this in turn might seem to shift power to the states” and that Dobbs does “give power to state governments, albeit at the expense of individual rights.” That is exactly right, and in the wake of Dobbs there has been in respect of abortion an efflorescence of decision making from ‘We the People,’ from Kentucky to Michigan to California. By all accounts, Dobbs spurred voter passion, reminding Americans of the force of their franchise.
The professor cites another case from last term, West Virginia v. EPA, which held that on “major questions” agencies like the EPA are required to point to “clear congressional authorization” for regulatory authority. Mr. Lemley labels this a “powerful step to limit agency power” — and it is that — but if constitutional capital is being reallocated, it is to Congress, not the court. If the legislature does not quite know what to do with it, that is its failing.
Mr. Lemley also invokes a case from this term, Moore v. Harper, which turns on whether the national parchment assigns exclusive responsibility over federal elections to state legislatures. If that position, argued by Republican state lawmakers, triumphs, it is state courts that will be sidelined. Mr. Lemley calls that possibility “remarkable intrusion on state legal process.” Fair enough, but it is certainly not an aggrandizement of the high court, or any court.
To cut the “imperial” court down to size, Mr. Lemley expresses a willingness to entertain “radical fixes,” including curtailing its jurisdiction and packing its ranks. The “ship has sailed” on its legitimacy, he claims, and so anything goes. It appears as if it is Mr. Lemley and the liberal legal establishment who are preparing to wheel on the court. It would be an irony if this court’s returning power to the people is read as an invitation to aggression.
https://www.nysun.com/article/harvard-law-review-wheels-on-the-court ?
******************************************************
When Did “Patriotism” Become A Dirty Word?
Like so many other things these days, patriotism as a value that was once held regardless of political affiliation has now been rebranded as the calling card of extremism. This wasn’t always the case. But with tensions high and ever-increasing political division, is patriotism really outdated in our modern discourse? And when did it become a dirty word?
The Death Knell of Patriotism
There’s a common realization often observed by the critical thinkers of today: What was once a moderate or centrist viewpoint a decade ago has now somehow become a hallmark of the right-wing. Once-average opinions on topics like immigration, gay marriage, abortion, and other controversial stances widely accepted by the notable figures of progressivism years ago are now predominantly branded as the stamp of authenticity for the new right wing.
Patriotism wasn’t always a partisan issue. But it’s evolved into one as our culture demands that we adhere to an increasingly ridiculous standard of political correctness. Something as innocuous as celebrating Independence Day is now an offensive act to the thousands of marginalized people who were targeted by the creation of our country. Columbus Day is now Indigenous Peoples’ Day. We have fully committed to letting our past actions dictate our current and future behavior as citizens with convictions.
It’s hard to pinpoint when exactly patriotism became synonymous with other buzzword-y concepts like the ever-threatening “death of democracy” and the apparent rise of a new alt-right, led by fascist theocratic white males. But over time, as truth has become entirely subjective and identity has evolved into whatever feels good to the individual (regardless of reality), we’ve come to associate the concept of patriotism as something else that should be quashed, along with sexism, racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and all the rest.
54% of Americans believe that truth is subjective.
A survey of 2,000 participants by a cultural research institution found that 54% of Americans believe that truth is subjective. This belief thereby indicates that there are no moral absolutes in this world and no distinction between right and wrong besides what each individual decides for himself or herself. This is not just a talking point circulated on Twitter or hypotheticals that we posit among our peers. Truth has now become a postmodern concept dictated by the self and not by reality. Because this overhaul in rationalism, consciousness, and identity has been permitted, we’re now subject to whatever you or I deem politically correct, and equally subject to punishment if we transgress into what is (subjectively) offensive.
Judging the Past by Today’s Standards
Many Americans today may be able to trace their ancestry back to the early beginnings of America. This enables us to see how our own forebears made their way to this country and often failed to thrive but merely survived on their own labors. This might fill us with pride at the thought of our own predecessors playing a role in the formation of our society, paving the way so that one day we, too, could celebrate the fruits of their hard work. But some would never dream of taking part in such a shameful act.
The possibility of having forebears who defended the South during the Civil War or who sustained the practice of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries is enough to fill some of us with an overwhelming sense of indignity and remorse. But because we live in a politically correct society, that will never be enough.
This obligation of white guilt now not only includes just Americans. The United Kingdom, even in the immediate wake of the death of a long beloved monarch, was branded as the most contemptible colonizing force on earth. All of the advancements in health, science, medicine, technology, art, politics, economics, and education, to name a few, are to be patently ignored as cheap byproducts of imperialism.
We constantly judge the past by today’s standards, even though it’s not only an exercise in futility but egotism and arrogance as well. Though we might believe we have the innermost motivations of our oppressive forebears down to a science, we will never truly understand the forces at work within them. But that isn’t good enough – they must be subject to today’s standards, no matter how absurd or ridiculous. In becoming increasingly obsessed with rewriting or “re-contextualizing” the past, we waste considerable energy on the pursuit of folly rather than dedicating our interests to the present and the future.
Patriotism Is the New Intolerance
Patriotism used to signify a healthy sense of loyalty to your country. It doesn’t mean a blanket approval of its past actions, however deplorable or horrendous they might be, but gratitude for the sacrifices that have been made to secure our freedoms, freedoms which even some of the most developed nations don’t get to enjoy. Today, the most we can hope for in terms of patriotism is fundamental gratitude and a basic appreciation for the opportunities we’re offered here, though even those sentiments are few and far between.
The patriotism of the individual can drive the vision of a better future and make it a reality.
Many would equate patriotism with nationalism or intolerance, though in its purest form, patriotism is what the founders of our nation stood for, even when they were unsure it would survive. Patriotism now to many is equated with intolerance, whether related to race, gender, socioeconomic status, or any other prejudice. Patriotism, now known as intolerance to others’ backgrounds or lived experiences, has become intolerable.
A devotion to your country, which is the fundamental definition of patriotism, suggests a loyalty and a vested interest in the future and success of our society as we know it. In this manner, patriotism is absolutely indispensable to our identity as Americans who want to build our lives and raise our families here. This doesn’t mean that we condone far overreaching government actions or that we sanction every action of the politicians we most agree with. It could even be argued that the function of government today is directly in opposition to the true objectives of patriotism. But the patriotism of the individual, instead of cynicism and pessimism, can drive the vision of a better future and make it a reality.
Closing Thoughts
Patriotism is branded as many things that it isn’t, especially today. But when the majority of the politically correct’s most dogged adherents tell us to forgo patriotism as a sentiment and as a component of our individual and national identity, we’d likely be better off doing the opposite.
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/when-did-patriotism-become-a-dirty-word
********************************************************
The tiny Australian town gripped by a child sexual abuse crisis: 'If this was happening in Melbourne or Sydney it'd be front page news'
Reading between the lines, the offenders were Aboriginal. Aborigines (blacks) tend to be treated leniently by the courts. It's "the soft bigotry of low expectations"
The tiny Northern Territory town of Tenant Creek has been rocked by the actions of two vile rapists who are set to be released from detention mere months after they were convicted of their horrific crimes.
Ezekial James, 28, who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl in a community near Tennant Creek in the Top End in 2017, causing her to fall pregnant, is eligible for parole only four months after he pleaded guilty to the grisly crime.
In another case close by, a teenager who raped a seven-year-old girl while he was out on parole for arson back in May last year is set to be released less than two months after conviction.
Both cases have sparked outrage over the leniency given to the rapists.
Sky News Australia's Rita Panahi, who spoke to the network's Darwin Bureau Chief Matt Cunningham who covered both crimes, relayed her shock. 'Frankly, if this was happening in Melbourne or Sydney it'd be front page news,' she said. 'It'd be leading the news service for a week.' 'How can such horrific crimes see such lenient sentences?' she asked Cunningham.
Panahi claimed there was difficulty in speaking out against these cases due to fears of being labelled 'racist'. 'How can we elevate these issues?' she continued.
'We'll talk about it on this program, we'll talk about it on Sky News but it seems so many people are terrified to broach this subject because there can be blowback.'
The pair referred to comments made by senator Jacinta Price on the network who suggested that 'until there's an end to domestic and family violence, there won't be an end to these sorts of issues'.
Ezekial James pleaded guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl when he was 23-years-old in 2017. He approached the child near a football ground at night and lured her back to his family's residence where he assaulted her.
The victim returned to her grandfather's home after the traumatising incident and discovered later on that she was pregnant. The girl gave birth at Alice Springs Hospital in August 2018 after being in an 'extremely anxious' state.
Justice Barr described the girl's situation as 'horrible' and the birth as 'very traumatic for a young teenager who did not have the psychological resources to deal with the very stressful situation'.
James was taken into custody by police in December 2021, four years after the 2017 rape, when DNA evidence linked him to the child. He has previously been in prison for multiple offences including two cases of aggravated assault against women and recklessly endangering life.
Justice Barr said it was unlikely he would reoffend before his sentence was suspended.
In the other case, a 16-year-old boy groped a seven-year-old girl while she was watching TV at a house in the Top End.
The teen, who was out on parole for arson, then forced the child into a bedroom where he raped her.
The girl was later flown by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to a clinic in Alice Springs for treatment. She currently struggles to sleep, is too scared to go outside and wants to leave Tennant Creek.
The boy was arrested four days later and was sent to a youth detention centre. He pleaded guilty to the assault and was sentenced in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on November 30.
The boy, who is now 18, is set to be released from detention less than two months after his conviction.
****************************************
22 December, 2022
The Separation of Church And Christmas
The article below is well-motivated and devout but it is theologically naive. Both Sunday (the day of the sun) and Christmas were originally pagan celebrations so one more or less is surely trivial in a Christian life. And we should note Paul's advice in Romans 14:
"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord"
So specific days do not matter. Only your attitude to the Lord matters. So a devout pastor might well transfer his Sabbath observances to Saturdays when Sunday is inconvenient. A holy Saturday has at least as much scriptural warrant as Sunday
Christmas is a bit tricky for Christians this year. Because of the cyclical nature of the Georgian calendar, Christmas Day will fall on a Sunday. In response to this periodic quirk, many churches are canceling weekly worship services because of Christmas.
This is not satire. The New York Times reports that, according to a survey by Lifeway Research, only 61 percent of nondenominational evangelical pastors will conduct church services on Christmas Day.
The Times article quotes Lutheran Pastor Laura Bostrom saying, “For me, there was a theological decision but also a practical decision,” in deciding not to conduct worship services on Christmas.
Bostrom recalled that very few people attended Sunday services on December 25, 2016, the last time Christmas fell on a Sunday. According to the Times, it didn’t seem right to her “to get home at 9:30 and have everyone wake up and say we have to do this again for such low attendance.”
The Times also quotes StoneBridge Christian Church Executive Pastor Mitch Chitwood, who told the newspaper, “We have to meet people where they are. And where they are on Christmas Day is usually at home in their pajamas.”
Nothing in the Bible instructs us to celebrate Christmas on December 25 (or any day at all for that matter), but that is what Christians have done for nearly 1,700 years. In contrast, we have been called to gather and observe the Sabbath, which is Sunday in Christendom, for roughly 3,500 years.
The net net is that this year, an alarming number of Protestant ministers are consciously forsaking the Lord’s Day, prescribed by God when he gave Moses the 10 Commandments, because they fear low attendance. Is it just me or does this sound nuts?
Christianity in America faces plenty of threats, most coming from the political Left, and ideologues who despise God and the people who worship him. But this particular threat - canceling worship services because Christmas happens to fall on a Sunday - is coming from the Protestant clergy itself.
This year, Christmas Eve services will be held on Saturday night, and church pews will be filled with people holding tiny candles and singing Silent Night, wanting to experience this connection with the Christian faith. But on Sunday, Christmas Day, many people will want to spend their morning opening presents, precluding their attendance at Sunday worship services.
This is unsurprising. People go to church when they want to go to church, and the fact that they go at all is a good thing. But pastors have a higher calling which presumably includes leading their congregation in abiding by God’s commandments and millennia of biblical instruction. Since when did we start cancelling church just because of low attendance on a particular Sunday?
I’ve been going to church long enough to know that attendance ebbs and flows. It typically dips around Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and other holidays that entice people to take long weekends away from home.
As a boy growing up in rural Minnesota, I remember church attendance dropping off a bit when the Vikings were playing an early game on the road against an NFL rival on the east coast. The opening of deer season was also cause for decreased church attendance. In spite of these distractions, we still had church on Sunday.
Church ministers have a difficult job. It’s not easy being shepherd to a flock of Christians, and parishioners need a lot of pastoral care so they’re never really off the clock. This includes preparing for Sunday services, which is labor intensive for a lot of churches. Whether they be small mission churches that share a physical space for services or mega-churches with sophisticated audio/video systems and thousands of chairs, it’s hard work.
But if there is one duty above all that pastors are called to do, it is to conduct Sunday worship services. Of course there are legitimate reasons to cancel church; blizzards, ice storms and natural disasters can and do result in church closures from time to time. Arbitrary government edicts also closed a lot of churches during the COVID pandemic.
Local pastors aren’t responsible for the appetites of power hungry politicians any more than they are responsible for the weather or the rhythm of the calendar. But they are responsible for how they react to such events. Canceling worship services because Christmas falls on a Sunday drips with irony and must surely delight critics of Christianity. They are laughing at us because a subset of Christian ministers is doing their work for them.
Christmas won’t fall on a Sunday again until 2033. Over the next 11 years, more churches may come to realize the importance of conducting Sunday worship despite the fact that it coincides with celebrating the birth of Christ. They might if enough people have this conversation with their pastors.
*******************************************************
SPLC Targets Conservative Jewish Journalist, Suggesting He Supports White Nationalism
In the past two months, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch project has turned its ire to Josh Hammer, the opinion editor at Newsweek, suggesting he supports white nationalism and should be a pariah in polite society. In three articles featuring Hammer, the leftist SPLC repeatedly mentions white nationalism but omits the fact that Hammer is a religiously traditional Jew from a Jewish background.
“Newsweek Embraces the Anti-Democracy Hard Right,” ran the first SPLC headline Nov. 4. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Michael Edison Hayden slammed Hammer for publishing conservative opinion pieces, noting that Newsweek’s op-ed page published what the SPLC condemned as “bigoted views, like appearing to call for the state to deny adults access to trans-affirming medical care and supporting a ban on all legal immigration into the U.S.”
Hayden went on to condemn Hammer’s support for Blake Masters, Arizona’s unsuccessful Republican candidate for U.S. Senate this year, asserting that Masters “emerged as a favored candidate of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other admirers of fascism.”
The article does not once mention Hammer’s Jewish faith or heritage.
Similarly, the SPLC attacked Hammer in a Dec. 11 story about the New York Young Republican Club’s annual gala. The organization drew attention to a small interaction between “a Hatewatch reporter” and Hammer, in which the reporter asked the Newsweek editor if he knew Peter Brimelow, founder of the anti-immigration blog VDARE, whom the article describes as a “white nationalist.”
According to the SPLC, Hammer asked, “He’s right here, right now?” and added, “I didn’t even know he was here! I’m going to say ‘Hi.’”
The SPLC claims Hammer expressed “excitement” about the “infamous white nationalist publisher,” but the article does not include a video that would demonstrate just how “excited” Hammer may have been. The article goes on, however, to claim that when the reporter identified his SPLC affiliation to Hammer, the Newsweek editor “quickly claimed he did not know Peter Brimelow and left.”
Again, the story did not mention Hammer’s Jewish faith or heritage.
The SPLC’s Hatewatch ran another article, “Newsweek’s Place in Radical Right on Display at Gala,” on Dec. 14. This article mentioned that the New York Young Republican Club published a special guest list including the Austrian Freedom Party, which former Nazi Party SS officers founded. The article then recounted the claim about Hammer’s excitement about Brimelow, and raised questions about “Newsweek’s legitimacy.”
Once more, the SPLC omitted Hammer’s Jewish faith and heritage.
Although Hammer is a conservative, Newsweek’s opinion section publishes a broad range of political commentary from both the Left and the Right. For instance, Newsweek published dueling views on Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files,” one highlighting the “throttling of conservative voices” and the other claiming that “Twitter suppressed a story that wasn’t damaging.” One of Hammer’s deputy opinion editors, Jason Fields, suggested to his “liberal brothers and sisters” that they may want to leave the country in an article claiming that “It May Be Too Late to Save America.”
Laura Goldberg, founder and principal of LBG Public Relations, sent The Daily Signal a statement on behalf of Hammer and Newsweek.
“Josh Hammer does not share nor endorse the views of those published in the opinion section of Newsweek, nor those who participate in events he attends,” she wrote. “Josh Hammer has denounced white supremacist and antisemitic views, such as in a recent podcast episode where he vehemently rejected the views of Nick Fuentes. Any attempt to assign these views to Josh is without merit.”
“Newsweek’s mission is to be a platform for diverse voices and Josh’s work supports that mission,” Goldberg added.
Rabbi Yaakov Menken, managing director at the Coalition for Jewish Values, condemned the Southern Poverty Law Center’s attacks on Hammer. Critics such as Menken argue that the SPLC brands mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as “hate groups,” putting them on a “hate map” with the Ku Klux Klan.
My book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center” lays out the history of the SPLC and how its program to monitor the Klan and other white supremacist groups, Klanwatch, morphed into Hatewatch, the project that attacked Hammer and manages the SPLC’s “hate group” accusations. A former SPLC staffer has claimed that the SPLC’s accusations of “hate” are a “cynical fundraising scam” aimed at “bilking northern liberals.”
“The SPLC’s hate map was used to commit a terrorist act over a decade ago, yet the organization continues as it was—targeting conservatives, whitewashing Islamic terrorism, making Jews less safe,” Menken said, referencing a terrorist attack at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Family Research Council.
The rabbi also faulted the SPLC for having “repeatedly partnered with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas that accuses Jews of ‘Islamophobia’ when they oppose terrorism.”
“That the SPLC would target Josh Hammer should surprise no one: He’s both a conservative and a Jew, and the SPLC has evinced bias against both,” Menken said.
The SPLC did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on why its Hatewatch repeatedly omitted Hammer’s Jewish faith and heritage.
********************************************************
Woke Comic Books
Did you know that Superman's son is bisexual? So is Batman's sidekick, Robin, and lots of other superheroes created by Marvel and DC Comics.
The author of the bisexual Superman story says gay people write to say they "burst into tears" when they saw that the characters had become gay.
While it's nice to make LGBTIQ+ people feel more welcome in the world, not everyone is happy.
They became bisexual "out of nowhere!" complains comic creator Eric July in my new video. "They make it seem as if the only way that you can relate to a character is because you're gay and that character's gay, which is nonsense!"
July, who is Black, says you don't have to share the same traits as a superhero to enjoy the character. His favorite was Batman. "I ain't got Bruce Wayne money, and I'm not rich! And I'm certainly not white."
July points out that there have long been gay comic superheroes, like Northstar. But what's new and dumb is that DC and Marvel are changing the identity of established characters.
A new Batman is Black. There's a new Spiderman-like character, except she's a lesbian who uses a wheelchair. Iron Man is now a Black teenage girl. Really.
Maybe this is progress.
"When I was a kid," I say to July, "all the characters were white. It's a good thing more are non-white."
"But they've been just reduced to being an item to pander to certain audiences that aren't really buying into it," July responds.
No, they sure aren't. Marvel and DC had the bestselling graphic novels. Now the best sellers are from Japan. Often, they aren't even in color, yet they outsell Marvel and DC. The American-made books aren't even in the top 20.
"They turned off their audience by ... hyper emphasizing the social justice element." says July.
Marvel made its evil character M.O.D.A.A.K. resemble Donald Trump. They hired leftist writer Ta-Nehisi Coates to create a Captain America series. Coates made the villain, Red Skull, a bizarre version of Jordan Peterson.
Instead of just saving lives, today's comic superheroes lead protests. The cover of a Superman comic shows Superman's son leading a school "strike for climate."
It's so stupid! Superman, with all his powers, could solve climate change all by himself. But now he holds a protest sign.
"These guys are writing material for their peers," says July. "So even if the Son of Superman falls completely off the charts like it did, right? It's still a win in their mind."
I thought that capitalism would be a break on the silliest of the woke world. But in this case, they're just sabotaging their own projects. The bisexual Superman series was cancelled after 18 issues.
Marvel came up with two not-so-super heroes named "Snowflake" and "Safespace." Really.
"Snowflake is nonbinary and goes by they-them," says the writer in Marvel's video introducing the characters. Fan reaction to the preview video was pretty bad. Marvel decided not to release Snowflake and Safespace.
I wanted to ask Marvel and DC why they seem fine with losing market share. Aren't their investors angry? Neither company would talk to me.
At least their stupidity gives new opportunities to independent creators like Eric July. He's raised $3.7 million to fund a new superhero comic book, "Isom."
The market will decide if people want to pay for new characters like him.
But July understands something that Marvel and DC apparently no longer do: Capitalism means giving people what they want.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2022/12/21/woke-comic-books-n2617383
********************************************************
More Racism from the Non-Racist Left
The Left, of course, shouts “racism” shriller than anyone, but their actions speak much louder than their big mouths. The loudest voice is always the one people hear. But that doesn’t mean it speaks the truth. Look at what people do, not what they say. There is the true measure, and that measure, for the Left, is undeniable racism.
Rachel Maddow recently made the following observation: The GOP wants to "go back to the good old days where everybody was the same color."
Rachel, which was the party of slavery and Jim Crow? But you say we don't want a color-blind society?
No, the Democratic Party, the Left, does not want that. And they are doing everything they can to prevent it, to divide America along racial, and other, lines. The Left’s “identity politics” is inherently racist, and thus they deal with people differently based upon skin color. But such is the source of much of their political power, and if they started treating everybody equally, instead of treating some groups differently, they would immediately lose much of their political influence. And they know it.
Maddow's statement is demonstrably false on several grounds. First, America never had a society "where everybody was the same color," and even in whatever timeframe she is trying to reference, nobody thought such a ludicrous thing. America has always been multi-racial, and minority races were, indeed, considered second-class citizens for much of our history.
That was wrong, but it happened in every multi-racial society in history, and is still the rule, not the exception, around the world today. America isn't unique in its discriminatory history, except that the United States led the world in realizing that discrimination IS wrong and that “all men are created equal.” It took us awhile to get there—overturning thousands of years of historical traditions and customs rarely happens overnight, the rest of the world right now is proof of that—but we did, and far more quickly than Leftist cesspools who have never arrived. Places like Communist China still have gross human rights abuses, and always will, because they ARE Leftist elitists who believe some people, by nature, are superior to others. Go to China and let them call you a "barbarian" or "hairy foreign devil," which is exactly what they think of you, and the way they will treat you.
But treating people unfairly is called "discrimination." We thought we agreed that people should not be judged "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." But we do not. Conservatives believe that; liberals do not.
Our Congress passed (and a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it) the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law made segregation and discrimination illegal in America. The idea was, indeed, that everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, that we wouldn't treat people differently based on their skin color. That remains the law of the land. Some people today (white, black, brown, yellow, red, purple, green, polka-dot) violate that law, but then, some people don't obey our laws against murder, either. We will never cure evil from the human heart.
But, it would indeed be very nice if every citizen in America were, legally, treated as if we were all the same color, instead of giving special privileges to people BECAUSE of their color. White people used to get those privileges before the Civil Rights Act. Again, we call that "discrimination" and some of us now believe that such is wrong. But, from their actions (not their words), Leftists obviously do not believe it is wrong because they continue to give special privileges, or (more often) stay completely away from (see Martha's Vineyard) people of non-white skin color. Who are the racists here?
As is common among hypocrites, Leftists point fingers and shout “racism” in order to cover their own. And when they are exposed, hell’s fury doesn’t equal theirs.
Racism isn't defined by who can shout "racist!" the loudest. Nobody can outshout a left-wing bigot. Racism is defined by actions, and it isn't the Republican Party who is attempting to identify Americans by color today. Yes, it would be very nice if we could have a society where all citizens were treated as if we were the same color, all treated like Americans, all given the same rights and privileges based on law and not on color.
But that would destroy the Democratic Party and the Left.
Sometimes these Leftists--by mistake--expose what they actually think, and Rachel Maddow said we don't want a color-blind society. This is not the least surprising to anyone who listens to what they really say and observe what they really do. The Democratic Party hasn't changed in 200 years. They still believe they are superior to black people and that blacks cannot survive without their help. There is nothing more racist than that.
We need to unite on culture, on all of us being Americans, and quit dividing the country along racial and ethnic lines as the Democratic Party is doing. Joe Biden, by letting all the riffraff of the world across our borders, will continue the racial destruction of the nation, and further, there will soon be no more “America” because there will be nothing that unites us as a people. This is totally in harmony with what Leftism wants.
https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2022/12/21/more-racism-from-the-non-racist-left-n2617394
****************************************
21 December, 2022
Sapiosexuality
A discussion below describes sapiosexuality in rather categorical terms but it would probably be better described as a matter of degree. But the article is nonetheless useful as a survey of the idea. Basically, a sapiosexual finds intelligence attractive, often attractive enough to cause the sapiosexual to overlook other failings in an intelligent person.
I suspect that most sapiosexuals are themelves pretty bright. That would make it just another instance of the general rule that people get on best with people like themselves.
But there is a particular case where sapiosexuality might emerge very strongly: in intelligent women. No woman wants her partner to be dumber than herself and, in the traditional order of things, may in fact prefer him to be MORE intelligent than herself.
Men, however, are different. There is something of a tendency for men to like less intelligent women. Many men don't like their women to be too smart. They feel better equipped to get their way if they can outsmart the woman.
And things other than intelligence can matter when an intelligent man makes a mate choice. A very common example of that is when a man chooses a partner on the basis of her good looks rather than on her general competence.
So the supply of intelligent men that intelligent women can latch onto will often be quite limited. Potential mates will have been spirited away by a set of D-cup boobs, for instance.
So when an intelligent woman DOES find herself a potential mate who is high in intelligence, she will be very glad of that. Having found such a rarity she will often pair up with him regardless of other inadequacies in him. She will be very forgiving of his faults.
I believe that I am a lifelong beneficiary of that phenomenon. I DO greatly appreciate and seek intelligence in a partner and am myself very bright so I have often been what intelligent women were seeking. My looks were never better than average and I have often been not at all considerate of the woman in my life but I have nonetheless had many much appreciated relationships with intelligent women. I have been forgiven much, rather to my embarrassment in retrospect.
How it seems to work is that on teaming up with me, women become aware of a much wider world about them and they very much want to hang onto that awareness. So they tolerate or work around my deficits in other respects
What is sapiosexuality, and why is it so controversial?
Sapiosexuals are described as people who are physically, emotionally, romantically, and relationally attracted by intelligence. They find intelligence to be the most important and erotic trait, and value it more than a potential partner's physical appearance, status, emotional connection, and even personality.
It’s a relatively new term
Sapiosexuality is a relatively new addition to the sexuality lexicon, and though there were whispers of the word online prior, Merriam Webster reports that the first recorded use was in 2004.
The signs of being a sapiosexual
Before we get into the controversy of it, first let's look at what sapiosexuality is said to look like. The following are common traits typically associated with sapiosexuals in relationships.
Their relationships start slow
Oftentimes it's expected that sapiosexuals don't jump into romance right away. Rather, relationships tend to start out as friendships, giving them the time to really understand the person. In other words, it's not an immediate attraction based upon looks.
They might seem less sexual
Sapiosexuals tend to prefer discussing things like books and movies on first dates rather than trying to get into bed as fast as possible. Intellectual discussions can sometimes be more erotically rewarding than physical touch.
Intellectual discussion is necessary for sex
Most sapiosexuals reportedly can't feel comfortable enough to connect with someone sexually unless they've had an intellectual discussion. In other words, talking about politics could very well count as foreplay! Sex and relationship therapist Casey Tanner told MBG: "Intellectual connection may be considered far more effective foreplay than even physical touch."
They avoid small talk
Unchallenging, frivolous chatter does not bode well with sapiosexuals, and if the conversation starts to go that way they'll often ask harder questions to get people to think about things one might usually not. They supposedly prefer to unearth insights rather than merely pass the time.
They want to be challenged
As long as they are mentally aroused, sapiosexuals won't care so much about what you wear or how much money you earn.
They're also drawn to emotional intelligence
While intelligence is a focus of sapiosexuals, it also involves emotional intelligence. That means they can also be drawn to people who show compassion, empathy, and humility.
Not to be confused with demisexuality
Often, sapiosexuality is confused with demisexuality—an orientation characterized by only experiencing sexual attraction to someone after making an emotional connection with them. For sapiosexuals, intellectual spark is more important than emotional connection, and in fact the connection must be intellectual before they can begin to experience sexual attraction.
They are great at communication
Text or email conversations are especially great with sapiosexuals, who supposedly tend to be very articulate. Witty banter is considered a turn-on, and their feelings are typically always made clear.
They can lose romantic interest after a disagreement
While some couples can agree to disagree, many sapiosexuals will lose romantic interest in someone if they don't find their interlocutor's political, philosophical, or spiritual arguments valid.
They're attentive to thought processes
Sapiosexuals tend to analyze not only the information being shared, but the process of getting to that information—and the more sophisticated, the better.
They prefer deep, long-lasting friendships
Sapiosexuals are said to be great friends, as they value growing and learning with people over a fleeting good time.
The Mark Ronson drama
In 2019, famed music producer Mark Ronson said he identified as sapiosexual on 'Good Morning Britain,' and stirred quite a bit of controversy after the host declared, “So you're coming out as sapiosexual, congratulations!” The media interpreted the moment as Ronson's intentional coming out moment, as if he were staking claim to a marginalized community who needed to “come out.”
He apologized
In a subsequent interview with Rolling Stone, he clarified, “I do not consider myself part of any marginalized community. I apologize if anybody misunderstood or took offense to it." He continued: "It sounds like I went on a TV show to be like, 'Guys, I have some big news!' And the fact that I would go on and sort of declare myself—like as a heterosexual white male—part of any marginalized community was terrifying to me, or just embarrassing.
What really happened
Ronson was asked about sapiosexuality on 'Good Morning Britain' after an earlier segment had focused on it. He admitted that he didn't know much about it, and the hosts explained it as "when you're attracted to intelligence," leading Ronson to think, "That sounds great. Of course, who wouldn't be?" The hosts then capitalized on that to create his “coming out” moment.
How was Ronson's understanding wrong?
Gender and sexuality educator Eli A Scriver, founder of 'Pillowtalk,' a queer-inclusive column and radio show, clarified to InStyle that sapiosexuality is not just the attraction to intelligence, but rather it's being more attracted to intelligence than other traits, including sense of humor, family-orientedness, or empathy, for example.
Sapiosexuality is still quite common
Dating site OkCupid has allowed users to add sapiosexual to their dating profile since 2014, and reported in 2017 that 0.5% of their users identify as sapiosexual, though InStyle accurately notes that people actively trying to find mates cannot be representative of a general population. Still, self-identifying sapiosexuals are increasingly around us!
**********************************************
My Christian group was denied service at a restaurant. But we didn’t seek a legal remedy
Ever since Metzger Bar & Butchery in Richmond canceled our organization’s reservation an hour and a half before our guests would have arrived for dessert, we’ve received widespread support from Americans who don’t want to dine where a religious or political litmus test is applied at the door.
For those unfamiliar with the disturbing incident, our organization was denied access to the restaurant because the waitstaff refused to serve us on account of beliefs.
When waitstaff at any restaurant prejudge people they’ve never met based entirely on the faith-based values of those people, it is unsettling. For many conservative Christians, the hatred and intolerance echoes experience they know all too well. They are tired of being the subject of irrational fears and hatred by the woke elites, who want them shut out of the public square and the marketplace. Many people have strongly urged us to take the matter to court.
As an organization with a legal arm, the Founding Freedoms Law Center, a lawsuit or prosecution request seems like an obvious next step. Every day our attorneys are working on legal actions in situations where people of faith, including doctors and teachers, have lost jobs or had other serious consequences occur as a direct result of their religion. When employers trample on the fundamental religious freedom of their employees, we allow legal judgments to remind them of the Constitution and civil rights.
Metzger’s waitstaff was wrong, and its owners should have seized the opportunity to educate their team about customer service despite differences, rather than yielding to prejudice.
Although our guests and I could have taken great offense at being denied service and labeled "unsafe" simply for sitting down to eat, the very faith that the waitstaff find so threatening teaches us to turn the other cheek. We simply and graciously found another restaurant, without making a scene or demanding that they serve us.
Moreover, unlike many in the LGBT community, we do not believe it is always necessary or desirable to weaponize government against those who deny us services because they disagree with our beliefs. This was just Colorado where multiple bakeries exist. Jack Phillips will bake for anyone, any cake he or she wishes except one that violates his faith. HIs customers include those who are LGBT, he simply won’t bake to celebrate a same-sex wedding, The free market is the solution, not the government.
When prohibited discrimination causes people harm, which can be made right by the justice system, a legal path can be a worthy solution. Yet even if a win in court here could satisfy the hurt felt by the ill-treatment of many people of faith, such a path is not our definition of living at peace with everyone as far as it concerns us. As Metzger is far from the only restaurant in Richmond, we were able to redirect our guests elsewhere. In this instance, Metzger has been tried in the court of public opinion.
The lesson for other businesses could not be more clear: discriminate against people of faith and find yourself shamed on a national stage. It is not a recipe for success. Metzger needs to learn that.
Some say, if Jack won’t bake the cake, he should "get out of the kitchen." Would they that about Metzger?
I have news for everyone. Principled Christians populate every career, and they aren’t going to be chased away by the intolerance of others, nor would you like a world without their influence. Pro-life doctors shouldn’t have to leave the medical field because they believe human life in the womb should be protected, not purged. Catholic adoption agencies shouldn’t have to shut down because they believe it’s optimal to give a child a mom and a dad. Christian psychologists shouldn’t be forced to push children with gender confusion toward hormones and amputations when they know counseling could heal.
A pluralistic society must have room for all viewpoints. Those who shout "tolerance" the loudest need to practice it, even against those they deem the most unworthy. I contend that their tolerance of people of faith might not be as difficult as they think once they engage with Christians. The very faith that the waitstaff finds threatening is the faith that compels us to treat the waitstaff with charity and love.
Our law center will continue to litigate on behalf of others free of charge when the injury is great, and the marketplace does not ensure an adequate remedy. But not today. Not against Metzger.
************************************************************
Christmas reflections: Quirky things to be grateful for
James Allan
At Christmas dinner my wife’s family has a longstanding practice of going around the table asking each person to tell the rest the one or two things from that year for which he or she is most thankful. I’m sure that more than a few readers have a similar custom. I mention that because Australia’s bravest editor (just look at the virtually unique courage he showed in making this publication one of the world’s best in standing up to lockdown thuggery and mandate illiberalism), The Spectator Australia’s very own Rowan Dean, has suggested to all of us regular writers that perhaps for the Christmas issue we might want to be a bit more reflective and quirky than is our usual wont.
So a few days ago, there I was reflecting on what to be reflective about. (It’s harder quirking while pondering what to be quirky about.) And for no particular reason I got to thinking about the unusual things for which I was very grateful and disposed to feel lucky. Not the important things such as the continuing health and well-being of our kids and spouses. Or how we’d all won the lottery of life living in Australia (where English is the main language and the country’s criminal law system is founded on the presumption of innocence – oops, sorry ACT and Victorian readers).
In other words, I got to thinking of unusual things not simply over the past year but over the course of my life for which I was grateful. Little, quirky things not the big life events. What were a couple of those that stood out?
Well, here’s one. It goes back to the teachers I had in my Toronto state schools who made us all memorise some poetry. You see my maternal grandmother had myriad lines of poetry that she could recite right into her nineties. Whole poems. Shakespeare sonnets and soliloquies. The Romantic poets. You name it; there was a good chance she could recite it. I’m not remotely in my late grandmother’s league. But ever since primary school and then high school, where teachers actually forced kids to memorise famous poems and Shakespearean passages, I’ve been incredibly fortunate. You see way back then I learnt by heart quite a few things. I can do three full Shakespeare sonnets (29th, 129th and 18th). And eight or nine of his most famous soliloquies. I can recite Kipling’s ‘If’, which we made both our kids memorise and which they can still do and which you can think of as Jordan Peterson condensed down into one beautiful, powerful poem. Likewise, I’ve memorised William Henley’s ‘Invictus’, which was reputed to be Nelson Mandela’s favourite poem (for obvious reasons perhaps) and again which our kids can recite. And a couple of war poems – ‘In Flanders Fields’ by the Canadian John McCrae and ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ by Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Full disclosure: I love both those poems, and note for Aussie readers that all Canadian Remembrance Day services will include McCrae’s haunting poem made more haunting by the fact he died just before the end of the first world war commanding a battlefield hospital. I’ve got the starting bits of Melville’s Moby Dick and Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice off by heart, both being terrific and with Austen showing that ironic cynicism that makes her my favourite female writer save for perhaps Agatha Christie. There’s Edward Lear’s ‘The Owl and the Pussycat’ and chunks from David Hume’s Essays. Oh, and I memorised a few biblical passages, including 1st Corinthians 13 and the 23rd Psalm.
And let me be clear that when I read the Bible back in my first year as a practising lawyer I read the King James’ Version (the one documenting the way God would actually talk and the only thing I’ve ever read that rivals Shakespeare for the sheer beauty of its prose) so that is the version I can recite. God’s version. I can also reveal to readers a small secret. It took me almost a whole year to the read the Bible because I would only read it on the 25-minute subway commute to and from work each day to my big downtown Toronto law firm. But I discovered this was also a fantastic way to get a seat on incredibly crowded commuter trains. Get on the train. Open the Bible. Presto, everyone around me had moved away and I had a seat.
Now you might think that it’s something of a drag to sit down and memorise poems and passages, and you’d be right. But boy, am I grateful today. Years later I realise that I am carrying around in my head some of the highlights of Western civilisation. And forget what the postmodernist nihilists say, Western civilisation has delivered the world’s best way of life today measured by what most human beings want.
It has delivered antibiotics, jet airplanes, the best life females have ever had anywhere at any time in human history, a Royal Navy that ended slavery on the high seas at great cost to British taxpayers when every other culture still practised slavery. (How many of our ill-educated Australian students know that far more African slaves were bought for and sent to the Islamic world than to the West? I’m betting not many.)
It alone went through an Enlightenment that changed all cultures everywhere, though my view is that the Scottish version was much superior to the French. At any rate, I am today immensely grateful to have this modicum of poems and passages at my fingertips. Or rather in my head. Connecting me to a great past, no doubt flawed, but worthy of deep respect. It is a shame, verging on a crime, how our schools and universities have been captured by the self-loathing postmodernists.
And here’s a second quirky thing for which I’m very grateful. My wife and I have been lucky enough to drive from Toronto to San Diego, and then half-a-year later drive back. We did it twice, actually, once in 2013 and once in 2019. No stops planned in advance. On and off the interstate highways as we pleased. Diversions at a whim. (We had a week to do this drive that is 4,200 kilometres if you go the fastest route, but we serpentined.) Meeting the friendliest people on earth. A sane speed limit on the interstate highways of 75 mph, but no speeding tickets till you’re over 85 mph. (That’s just under 140 kph.) Go look at car accident deaths in Australia versus the US and Britain and Germany. You’ll soon conclude that our officious speed limits are very much only about raising money.
Anyway, that experience of driving across the US is another quirky thing for which I’m grateful. Happy Christmas to all you readers.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/christmas-reflections/
***************************************************
Australian Dictionary reviews definitions of 'man' and 'woman'
The editors of the Macquarie Dictionary are considering the definitions of "man" and "woman" in light of shifting modern usage.
It comes after the Cambridge Dictionary quietly updated its definition of "man" and "woman" to include anyone who "identifies as male/female" regardless of their sex at birth.
A spokesperson for Macquarie Dictionary said "the editors are looking at ensuring the entries for woman and man are reflective of Australian English usage" as well as various related terms, including female, male, girl, and boy.
They added while "Cambridge is predominantly concerned with providing a reference for learners of English ... Macquarie seeks to describe Australian English as it is used in the community".
"To fulfil these goals, both dictionaries need to examine a range of different texts, from academic works to social media, from fiction to news reports, and beyond.
"Our intention is to have any necessary changes made to these entries by the update in mid-2023." Macquarie updates words twice yearly, according to their website.
The current Macquaire Dictionary definitions of "man" include "the human species", "the human race", "a male human being (distinguished from woman)" and "an adult male person (distinguished from boy)", while the definitions for "woman" are "a female human being (distinguished from man)" and "an adult female person (distinguished from girl)".
When asked if the definitions of "man" and "woman" would be broadened to include those who "lives and identifies as male/female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth" as Cambridge did, the spokesperson said, "that is certainly part of what we're looking at".
The spokesperson said, however, they were not yet in a position to discuss any specific changes that may be made next year.
The Macquarie Dictionary currently defines "female" as "belonging to the sex which brings forth young, or any division or group corresponding to it" and "of or relating to the types of humans or animals which, in the normal case, produce ova which can be fertilised by male spermatozoa".
When the Telegraph UK revealed the Cambridge Dictionary changes last week, a spokesperson told them they had "carefully studied usage patterns of the word 'woman' and concluded the definition is one that learners of English should be aware of to support their understanding of how the language is used".
It follows various dictionaries updating definitions to keep up with modern usage.
In 2020, Merriam-Webster included an additional definition for "female" as "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male".
The Oxford dictionary also altered its definition of "woman" to include they could be "a person’s wife, girlfriend, or female lover”, not only a man’s, to be inclusive of same-sex relationships. The entry for "man" was also changed to include gender-neutral language in the example of a relationship.
****************************************
20 December, 2022
Why Do Liberals Hate Trump So Much?
The question in the title needs, I believe, critical examination. Why DOES the Left hate Trump so much?
The answer, as usual, can largely be found by analyzing history.
But first. Do they hate him because the average price of a gallon of gas in his administration was far lower than under Biden? Is it because inflation was low (around 2%) and trending downward? Is it that the USA was energy independent and didn’t need to beg our enemies for oil, deplete our strategic oil reserve or sell it to China? Is it because black and Hispanic unemployment was lower than at any time in history? Is it because Trump forced China into a fairer trade agreement, got a strong trade deal with Japan, and a solid peace in the Middle East?
Are these the reasons (more in a subsequent article) that the Left despises Trump so much?
These reasons may be symptoms, but don’t touch the main issue. If you ask a liberal why they hate DJT so much, they aren’t going to say, “Well, because gas prices and inflation were manageable, minority unemployment was at record low levels, America was energy independent” etc., etc. Those aren’t the answers you are going to receive. More likely, they might mention something about his “mean, hateful tweets” or maybe opposition to their Green God. Mr. Liberal, are you better off now than you were four years ago? “Trump is a Nazi racist!” Are you paying less for gasoline, groceries, and heating oil? “He is an insurrectionist and dictator!” I truly doubt any of them will respond, “I hate Trump because we now have to beg Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil.” I’ve just a hunch you’ll get a different reply.
But, we all know the Left’s hatred of Donald Trump is real. It is a visceral, vicious, primeval, vindictive, animal. Unending and never ceasing. To them, he is the worst President the country has ever had. The above accomplishments of Mr. Trump mean absolutely nothing to liberals. Theirs is a total, and blind, unreasoning hatred.
But, crucially, it isn’t just Mr. Trump they hate. He is simply the current target. If Mr. DeSantis, or some other conservative Republican, gets the nomination in 2024, the hatred will simply be transferred, and perhaps worse. They loathed George W. Bush, they especially despised Ronald Reagan, and you are deplorable.
Most “common” Leftists probably can’t tell you why hatred of the Right runs so deeply, and many would probably deny it does. But you and I know better. Most folks don’t understand the historical or ideological reasons why the leadership of the Left is so vindictive toward the Right. There is no one, single, simple explanation, but it starts with the leadership’s arrogance and lust for power, and their inherent belief in their right to have and exercise it. They are elitists, which makes them better than you, and thus, by right, they should rule and you should obey. It isn’t a new feature in human history; the current manifestation spins out of Darwinism and Marxism. But elitism itself isn’t recent.
Perhaps the best known (though certainly not the only) example of the same kind of bitter loathing is the rabbinical clique’s attitude toward Jesus. The scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests were the “elitists” in Palestine in Jesus’ day. They were the local “rulers” of the people, they controlled, they intimidated, they spoke for God, and the common people were expected to submit. They loved their power and the positions it gave them—the “Jerusalem Establishment.” Jesus, the outsider, represented a danger to all that. “The common people heard him gladly.” Abomination! Jesus constantly exposed the “establishment’s” failures and hypocrisies, and that drove them insane with venomous odium.
Thus, those religious leaders continually and viciously attacked him. They couldn’t answer his arguments, so they resorted to ad hominem assaults and name-calling, incessantly strove to destroy his reputation and belittle him and lower his esteem in the eyes of the people. He had to be removed. But being unsuccessful in their attempts, they sought help. They took him to the Romans (illegally in the middle of the night) and got him executed. For one reason, and one reason only.
Power.
Now, Donald Trump is not Jesus Christ, of course, far from it, but the parallels are intriguing. And the principle of corrupting power remains the same. Trump, more than any Republican since Reagan, is/was perceived as the greatest menace to the Establishment’s desire for continued dominance over the American people. Whatever Trump likes (America), they hate. His policies were enormously successful and beneficial to the American people, but that is 100%, wholly irrelevant to the Left. The people mean nothing to them, except as slaves who must submit to their masters or be removed. Mao Zedong’s 60-70 million slaughtered Chinese is a testament to this. The same with Stalin and every other Leftist thug. The American Left’s “love” for children is manifested in their willingness to let them be mutilated in the name of a perverted ideology that gives the Democratic Party its slavish devotion in return. Elitists hate Trump because, like Jesus, he exposes them for the hypocrites they are. They spent four years, every day, 24/7, trying to destroy the man. And, as we are now learning, evoked every shady practice they could concoct to deny him re-election in 2020. And should, for example, DeSantis receive the nomination in 2024, and be perceived as a similar threat (and he will be so perceived), they will shift all of their animosity and venom toward him. It isn’t Trump, per se. It’s that the Left worships power, and like every Torquemada who ever lived, elitists will do all they can to destroy anyone who opposes their insatiable lust for dominance.
They hate you because you stand in the way of the thing they love most. A mother bear defends her cubs. Viciously.
https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2022/12/18/why-do-liberals-hate-trump-so-much-n2617265
****************************************************
A gender war in Scotland
Last year, Mridul Wadhwa, the chief executive of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre – and a trans woman – argued that women who objected to being counselled by someone who was born a man should “expect to be challenged on your prejudices” as part of their journey towards building “a new relationship with your trauma”. Doing so would require women in distress to “reframe your trauma”.
That was the moment a seed was sown for J.K. Rowling. Last week, that seed flowered, as the author revealed she was funding a new crisis centre for women in Scotland’s capital. Beira’s Place – named after an ancient Scottish goddess of winter – will provide counselling and support for women in need. Trans women won’t be allowed in.
“We believe that women deserve to have certainty that, in using our services, they will not encounter anyone who is male.” Trauma is not for reframing.
For some, this was further evidence Rowling is a transphobic bigot; for others a reminder that she is one of the foremost feminist campaigners of our time.
The author is too successful to be cancelled and she is determined to use her platform to speak out against those people she considers a threat to women’s rights.
Foremost among her critics is Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP and first minister of Scotland. Sturgeon is, in Rowling’s view, a “destroyer of women’s rights”, and her government’s proposed gender recognition reforms are “the single biggest assault on the rights of Scottish women and girls in my lifetime”.
Noting that most of the bill’s provisions were opposed by most voters, last week Rowling suggested that “this is Nicola Sturgeon’s poll tax”.
In the conflict between Scotland’s most famous woman and its most powerful, it appears celebrity will cede victory to pure politics.
Sturgeon’s bill is guaranteed to pass, albeit at some unusual cost to the first minister’s credibility. Although it has prompted the largest SNP rebellion since the party came to office in 2007, it also has the support of most Labour, Lib Dem and Green MSPs.
Scotland will, therefore, introduce self-identification for anyone who wishes to change gender. Previously a person seeking a gender-recognition certificate required a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but they will now be entitled to become legally a man or a woman simply by declaring that this is who they are.
And whereas they were hitherto required to “live in” their new sex for two years, they will henceforth be required to do so for only three months. It will be a criminal offence to make a false declaration of this sort, but no means by how this might be determined has yet been outlined.
Sturgeon insists this is simply a means of tidying up and improving existing processes, ensuring that a marginalised and much put-upon minority have an easier path towards living their best, true lives. The bill, she says, grants no new rights to trans people.
“All it does is simplify existing processes,” she says.
Reform has progressed at a glacial pace. The bill has been the subject of two public consultations. Sturgeon insists that “there are significant safeguards in the bill”, even as her government has rejected almost every significant amendment.
She told the Scottish parliament last week that, “of course, there are concerns that men may abuse provisions relating to trans people to harm women” – a key concern for Rowling and other critics – before insisting: “The point is that if any man was to seek to do so, the bill does not increase their ability to do that.”
This is the kind of argument that infuriates Sturgeon’s opponents. In their view, this is precisely the basis for their objections to the proposals: predatory men will be enabled by this legislation to access previously single-sex spaces more easily.
They accuse Sturgeon of elevating the rights of trans people above those of women, with little to no regard for how these new entitlements might be abused by people who would not previously have been considered trans but, under the terms of the legislation, must be considered to have changed their sex.
In a slightly different world, Rowling and Sturgeon might have been allies. They are on the centre left and their political preferences are, for the most part, orthodox.
Sturgeon’s past insistence that much more needs to be done to improve the lot and life chances of young people in care chimes with much of Rowling’s charitable work. The author’s Volant Trust – a foundation with £75 million ($135.5 million) in assets – typically donates up to £10 million a year to charities, chiefly in Scotland, that work with and for women, single parents and children.
The first Minister insists she is “a feminist to my fingertips”, and there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of her self-identification, even if Rowling also sardonically refers to Sturgeon as “the first feminist”.
“It’s not a political thing to me; this is personal,” Rowling says, but the line between the personal and the political is, as feminist history demonstrates, precious thin.
And the politics of the controversy cannot be wished away. Rowling has previously donated significant sums to the Labour Party, but is unlikely to do so again until such time as the party ceases to be, at best, agnostic on the trans issue.
She admires Sir Keir Starmer, not least because his leadership has helped make a Labour government plausible but, like many others, wishes he could be clearer and more courageous in outlining what a Labour administration might actually do.
“I don’t like ideologies of any kind,” she told the journalist Suzanne Moore last week.
“I have never met an ideologue who wouldn’t suppress a little bit of truth.”
This is the fundamental basis of her disagreements with Sturgeon, and also the reason she is detested by some Scottish nationalists. They have not forgotten that Rowling donated £1 million to the Better Together campaign during the 2014 independence referendum. That money, one insider told me, came at a crucial moment: “JK Rowling saved the Union,” he said, not entirely joking.
When the Scotland rugby team lost to Australia in the quarter-final of the 2015 World Cup, Rowling, who is a frequent visitor to Murrayfield, tweeted her disappointment, only to be met with a barrage of abuse from Scottish nationalists, some of whom suggested she reconsider her place of residence.
“Have you ever heard the premise of overstaying your welcome?” one extremist said. Another said Rowling should “f*** off” because “you don’t think we’re a nation at all.”
The controversy flared up to such an extent that Sturgeon felt it necessary to tweet a “note” to “my fellow independence supporters”, advising them that “people who disagree are not anti-Scottish”, and it “does our cause no good to hurl abuse (and it’s wrong)”.
Rowling was not alone, however, in observing the order of the first minister’s priorities.
“I’ve spent much of my life campaigning for women’s rights,” Sturgeon has said. “We don’t have to look very far to see the real threats to women’s rights right now. They come from men who attack, sexually and violently, women; who try to abuse women in a misogynistic way.
“They come from lawmakers in parts of the world trying to take away reproductive rights and access to abortion. They come from oppressive regimes … These are the threats to women’s rights, and feminists should focus on them, not on trans women, who are not the threat to women’s rights.”
But Rowling, like many of Sturgeon’s critics, has never claimed trans women are a threat. She agrees with Sturgeon that men are the danger to women, but is convinced that making it easy for men to identify as women is in effect an invitation for some men to infiltrate spaces that were reserved for women born female.
More broadly, Rowling says, “I have no irrational fear of or hatred towards trans people in the slightest – as, God knows, I’ve said so many times. But if you’re going to say it’s ‘hate’ not to believe in a gendered soul then we cannot have a discussion. We can’t. There’s nowhere to go.”
Sturgeon has dismissed her critics’ views as “not valid”, echoing the “no debate” mantra beloved of trans-rights activists. No discussion; no compromise.
“I feel we’re currently waging a cultural war between what I would see as authoritarians and liberals,” Rowling says. “And those categories seem to me to cut across the old left/right divide.”
Sturgeon will win the immediate political battle, but the manner in which she will do so all but guarantees the gender wars in Scotland will rage for some time yet.
**********************************************
Lenient Soros prosecutors are a menace to society
Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano has entered into another plea deal, this time with a shooter who fired into a crowded bar and was facing six felony charges totaling 20 years in prison, according to reporting by the Washington Free Beacon’s Josh Christenson—and it could have disastrous consequences for the victim, and the community, and even the nation.
In 2021, Descano let a man accused of attempted rape go with just five months in another plea deal, and then the man went on a shooting spree in New York City for nine days, killing two homeless men and wounding three others.
Now Descano is being sued for deprivation of civil rights under federal law by the mother of an 11-year-old rape victim, whose attacker Descano let go on a lesser charge.
And this is just one of the local prosecutors who was funded by George Soros to push for less sentencing and fewer prosecutions, and more leniency for criminals. And it is having ripple effects across state lines.
Thanks to cashless bail, another “reform” by Soros-funded changes to law, which works in tandem with the lenient prosecutors, in New York, there has been 3.7 increase in violent crimes in the state since 2018 reported via the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, as violent crimes increased from 350.8 per 100,000 to 363.8 in 2020.
Data for 2021 and 2022 is not yet fully available, but it doesn’t look good.
According to a Times Union analysis of New York crime data, from July 2020 to June 2021, about 4 percent, or almost 3,500 of those 98,145 released under the law went on to commit violent crimes: “there were 3,460 cases in which adults were rearrested on violent felony charges, including 773 with a firearm.”
These included “cases in which adults were released after being charged with offenses for which judges previously could have set bail or ordered them held in custody.”
Even before the law’s implementation in 2020, New York state judges were letting criminals go in 2019, with 25,000 estimated to have been released beforehand according to PIX 11.
In his campaign for governor in 2022, U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) blasted New York State’s cashless bail reforms, enacted in 2020, calling for it to be overhauled. And with good reason, as the state and city governments were unleashing a crime wave upon their own people. It nearly put Zeldin into the Governor’s mansion in Albany—and in four years it might again, especially if things don’t improve.
If left unabated, these local changes in policy, being effected scores of municipalities throughout the nation and has the potential to increase local crime rates significantly. But they also have the potential to reshape American politics. The Zeldin case shows that, particularly in upscale suburban households on the outskirts of New York City that traditionally had voted Democratic suddenly switched to voting Republican.
The question politically is how much the American people, whether in a deep blue state like New York, or a more purple state like Virginia where a Republican can occasionally win statewide, are willing to put up with before taking action. These Soros prosecutors are a menace to society.
************************************************
How the mighty are fallen: Prominent Australian feminist seeks male approval
She has glammed up
Controversial feminist Clementine Ford has opened up about why she has drastically changed her looks since gaining a huge following.
Ford’s dramatic transformation means she has gone from having auburn hair to bleach blonde hair and had a complete style revolution. She started out looking like Andi at the beginning of Devil Wears Prada, and now she looks like Andi at the end of The Devil Wears Prada.
Ford has also lost weight and openly shared her journey online of getting Botox and falling in love with make-up and fashion.
She has gone from having an earthy, minimal, relaxed look to a more chic made-up look, and it is hard not to notice the stark difference.
Ford revealed the sad truth behind her makeover after someone on Instagram accused her of “falling victim to misogyny” by getting anti-ageing treatments and documenting the results online.
The follower said that she’d return to Ford’s Instagram “if you come back from this beauty and anti-ageing Influencer stuff that undermines the really important work you’ve done”.
In response, Ford opened up about why she’d altered her looks, and in a lengthy Instagram story, she wrote: “You can disagree with my thoughts and actions on cosmetic interventions, but please don’t waste my time by telling me you find it sad or disappointing that I, a woman who has spent almost her entire adult career being called ugly, who has been turned into memes, who has had her emotional and physical wellbeing put at risk because of the things I say about men’s violence against women, has found some kind of power in removing some of the means by which men can abuse me online.”
Ford shared with news.com.au that now her appearance has changed she’s less likely to get such horrible messages about how she looks. “For almost all of my public career, I was abused for being ugly, for being fat, for having freckles – even for having a diastema.
“As I’ve gotten older and begun to play more with my appearance, I’ve found the comments have shifted. Now the men who abuse me are more often to say I’ve had too much plastic surgery (I’ve had none), which is a welcome respite from the time someone said I was ‘uglier than a dead dog on the side of the road’.
In 2017 right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos during his Australian tour, projected an old photo of Ford with the word, “unf##ckable” on big screens during his talks in Adelaide and Perth and Ford has also faced constant online trolling.
****************************************
19 December, 2022
The unembarrassable Left
Let’s talk about NBC News activist Ben Collins. Benny had the world on a string just a month ago when, after the mass shooting at a gay club in Colorado Springs, he gave a Golden Globe-nominated performance on MSNBC about how evil Republicans and their heartless push against grown men dressed as women waiving their barely covered genitals in the faces of children was the cause of the shooting. Fellow “journalists” scrambled to their social media accounts to be the member of the Blue Checkmark Brigade who planted their lips on Ben’s behind the deepest; the Pulitzer Prize committee was put on notice that their search for the greatest journalism of the year was over.
The only problem was, as is the case with so much of that profession these days, none of it was true. As a sign of just how far the profession has fallen, Ben was not disciplined for whining on national television about how one side of the political spectrum was responsible for the murder, nor was he reprimanded for being wildly wrong once it became known that the alleged killer was “non-binary” and used “they/them” pronouns, meaning he is firmly on the left’s team.
He didn’t even bother correcting the record because there was no record to correct – Ben didn’t do any journalism or even questioning about the shooting before making his declaration; he made his pronouncements from 2,000 miles away in New York City without ever having set foot in Colorado Springs investigating the killings. Some narratives are too good to investigate.
What would be a humbling experience for most people wasn’t even something worth addressing again for Ben. He moved on. NBC News had no issue with someone projecting their political bias onto half the country and accusing them of murder
************************************************
Stephanie Carter, a nurse at a VA hospital in Texas, is suing the Biden administration to block a government rule requiring medical facilities to provide abortions
A Texas nurse is suing the Biden administration after the Department of Veterans Affairs published a rule mandating that VA medical facilities provide abortions and abortion-related services, without an exemption for medical staff who oppose abortion on conscience or religious grounds.
Stephanie Carter, a Christian who is a nurse practitioner at the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Medical Center in Temple, Texas, argues that she “cannot perform, prescribe, or counsel for abortion services because of her sincerely held religious beliefs that unborn babies are created in the image of God and should be protected,” the lawsuit, filed Tuesday, says.
For both religious and medical reasons, Carter also says she “cannot work in a facility that performs abortions for reasons other than to save the life of the mother,” according to the lawsuit.
Yet on Sept. 9, the VA published an interim final rule announcing that the agency “immediately” would begin providing abortions, abortion counseling, and other services. The rule did not mention religious exemptions nor provide a process for requesting exemptions, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that the rule violates Carter’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the First Amendment’s guarantee of Americans’ free exercise of religion. Carter asks the court to block the VA from applying the rule against her and at the VA facility in Temple.
The lawsuit also notes that the rule appears to violate the plain text of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, which stipulated that the VA may not provide abortions.
“Once again, the Biden administration seems ignorant of the law, or just doesn’t care,” Danielle Runyan, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, which represents Carter, told The Daily Signal on Wednesday. “The new VA rule disregards 30 years of federal law that prohibits VA clinics from performing abortions. It is abhorrent that the Biden administration is putting the health and well-being of our veterans at risk to pursue its extreme pro-abortion agenda.”
Runyan noted that Carter, a veteran who has worked at the VA for 23 years, may face criminal and civil liability under Texas’ abortion law. Texas prohibits most abortions after the unborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected, at roughly six weeks into pregnancy. The law also prohibits individuals from assisting a person in obtaining an illegal abortion.
“From the moment VA announced this new rule, Secretary [Denis] McDonough has made clear to all employees that their religious beliefs are protected here at VA,” VA press secretary Terrence Hayes told The Daily Signal in a written statement Wednesday.
“While we cannot comment on ongoing litigation, VA does provide accommodation for VA employees who wish to opt out of providing abortion counseling or services,” Hayes added. “We are currently honoring exemption requests that come through VA supervisors. We have provided all VA health care employees with this information—including information for how to exercise those protections through VA’s Office of Resolution Management Diversity and Inclusion—and we have encouraged employees to inform their supervisors of any requests for exemptions.”
Carter disputed Hayes’ claim, however.
“Stephanie inquired about a religious accommodation twice, but was told that no process for an accommodation exists,” Runyan, the First Liberty counsel, told The Daily Signal. “She has yet to be told otherwise.”
“It is unconscionable that President Biden issued an illegal rule—which violates Section 106 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992—to turn the life-saving, life-enhancing mission of the VA into new venues for abortion on demand,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, told The Daily Signal in a written statement Wednesday.
“Comprised of 171 medical centers and 1,113 outpatients’ clinics, the VA operates the largest integrated health care network in the world with 371,000 professionals and support staff who are absolutely committed to healing, nurturing, and rehabilitating,” Smith said. “The courts should expeditiously consider this federal lawsuit against Biden’s illegal rule, which is sadly just one more effort in Biden’s egregious push to force taxpayers to fund the violent death of unborn children by beheading, dismemberment, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time until birth.”
Smith concluded: “Joe Biden is the Abortion President!”
*************************************************
Will Jane’s Revenge Face Criminal Charges for Attacks on Pro-Life Centers? Waiting on FBI
Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center is one of at least 75 such centers and pro-life organizations attacked since the May 2 leak of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, according to Catholic Vote. (Photo: Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center)
It has been over five months since vandals attacked Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg, Virginia, shattering windows and spray-painting a threatening message outside the building. No arrests have been announced.
The radical pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge took credit for the attack, which occurred the night after the Supreme Court issued its June 24 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That decision overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the question of regulating abortion back to the individual states.
The FBI looked into the Lynchburg incident immediately following the attack in June and was in touch with local law enforcement and staff at Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center.
“Again, thanks for everything and we’ll be in touch,” FBI agent Ryan Taylor told Lt. Joshua Campbell and Detective David Dubie of the Lynchburg Police Department in a June 27 email acquired by The Daily Signal through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Most of the correspondence between Taylor and the police officers was redacted, but emails show several exchanges occurred between the FBI and the Lynchburg Police Department in late June and early July.
The Daily Signal, which reported on the attack on the center over the summer, followed up with the pro-life group Thursday to learn if any progress had been made in the investigation.
Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center leaders said the last time they heard from the FBI was in September, adding that the FBI told them it “continues to investigate” and there was “no update at that time.”
The Daily Signal asked the FBI to confirm that its investigation of the attack remains open.
“The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation into this matter,” Michael Schuler, chief counsel for the FBI division in Richmond, Virginia, told The Daily Signal Thursday.
Dubie, the Lynchburg police detective, emailed the FBI’s Taylor and Kristina Couden on July 1, writing that the “blog in relation to Jane’s Revenge has now claimed [responsibility for] the Lynchburg event.”
Couden responded an hour later: “Thanks, Dubie. National conspiracy—check! I forwarded to the AUSA and [Justice Department] attorneys involved.”
The acronym AUSA probably refers to one or more assistant U.S. attorneys, who, like the FBI, are part of the Justice Department.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency had referred The Daily Signal’s request for comment to the FBI National Press Office, which said: “The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation into this matter.”
Jane’s Revenge claimed responsibility for the attack in a June 30 post on its blog, writing: “On June 24th, the night after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Jane’s Revenge smashed the windows of the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center’s headquarters in so-called Lynchburg Virginia.”
The pro-abortion group went on to detail damage to the pregnancy center, writing that the “ground in front of their now smashed front door reads ‘if abortion ain’t safe you ain’t safe.’”
At the end of the blog post, Jane’s Revenge encouraged others to take similar action against pro-life organizations, writing: “Fascism is on the rise but so are we! May the sound of shattering glass (seriously it is so satisfying :)) dry your tears.”
Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center is in the congressional district represented by Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., who told The Daily Signal that the “vandalism attack … was a heinous act of political violence, and it’s unacceptable that the FBI has not provided the victims with any updates about their investigation.”
“FBI officials should work aggressively in a timely and transparent manner to bring the perpetrators of this heinous attack to justice,” Cline said.
Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center is one of at least 75 pregnancy resource centers and pro-life organizations that have been attacked or vandalized since the May 2 leak of a draft majority opinion in the Dobbs case, Catholic Vote reports.
***************************************************
Gay Norwegian filmmaker faces three years in prison after she said male-to-female transgender women cannot be lesbians
A gay Norwegian filmmaker faces three years in prison after she said male-to-female transgender women cannot be lesbians. Tonje Gjevjon spoke out against transgender activist Christine Jentoft, who transitioned from being a man and now identifies as a 'lesbian mother'.
'It is just as impossible for men to become lesbians as it is for men to become pregnant,' Gjevjon wrote on Facebook in October. 'Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes'.
Gjevjon is now under police investigation and faces a maximum of three years in jail for her public comments after Norway's parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people in 2020.
Norway expanded its penal code, which has protected gay and lesbian people since 1981, to include transgender people two years ago.
Gjevjon, who is also an artist, told Reduxx her Facebook post was made to draw attention to Norway's amended hate speech law, adding that trans activists have tried to shut down her art exhibitions for her views.
She wrote in an essay in Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen: 'I have stated that women are female, that lesbians do not have penises, that children should not be responsible for decisions they do not have the capacity to understand the scope of, and that no-platforming is harmful to democracy. 'For these opinions I have been cancelled several times.'
Gjevjon said she has been 'demonized' by the trans activists and politicians for her views. She wrote in the newspaper: 'I was not prepared for the extent of how queer organizations, politicians and activists would demonize a lesbian artist who was not in step.
'Trans activists contact people I work with, portraying me as hateful and warning against being associated with me.'
In Norway, the parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people in 2020. People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.
Norway is one of the most liberal countries in Europe for LGBT+ people, allowing trans people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis in 2016.
Trans people are 'an exposed group when it comes to discrimination, harassment and violence', Minister of Justice and Public Security Monica Maeland said after the law was passed in 2020. 'It is imperative that the protection against discrimination offered by the criminal legislation is adapted to the practical situations that arise,' she said.
The amendments in 2020 outlawed discrimination based on 'gender identity or gender expression' and changed 'homosexual orientation' to 'sexual orientation', meaning bisexual as well as lesbian and gay people will be explicitly protected from discrimination.
Under the penal code, people charged with violent crimes can receive harsher sentences if a judge decides their actions were motivated by someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The law's opponents argued that it could criminalise free speech criticising LGBT+ rights, said Anine Kierulf, an assistant professor of law at the University of Oslo, at the time.
****************************************
18 December, 2022
In Oregon, the Death Penalty Is Dealt a Fatal Blow
In my article on penology, I am on record as NOT advocating the death penalty for crime. But I do that for pragmatic rather than moral reasons.
Hanging murderers is perfectly in line with the old Hebrew moral system of "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". As Exodus 21:12 plainly says: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death". So there are good scriptural reasons for Christians to suppport the death penalty in some circumstances.
I do not personally argue for that system, however. I have written a lot on moral philosophy but I do not propose to enter into such issues here.
No. I think there is a strong pragmatic reason to avoid the death penalty: Miscarriages of justice. There have by now been very many cases of people who have been found guilty of serious offences being later exonerated -- even despite confessions -- and then liberated. But you cannot liberate an executed person. So executing offenders is simply unsafe and may itself be a great injustice.
I would like to see murderers hang but we cannot identify murderers with enough certainty for that. So they must live. Locking them up indefinitely is the only reasonable way to advance community safety. So I reluctantly have to agree with Governor Brown
The decision by Governor Kate Brown of Oregon, in her final days in office, to commute the death sentence of all 17 inmates on the state’s death row has brought into focus the sui generis role of the chief executive — both state and federal — in shaping the criminal justice system.
On the federal level, the power to pardon — a cousin of commutation — is found in Article II of the Constitution, where the president is granted the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Other than those barriers, the chief executive’s power to wipe away federal crimes is unlimited.
The ability of governors to extend clemency — meaning commutations and pardons for state crimes — is modeled on this assignment of power to the executive. Oregon’s state constitution grants to the governor the ability to offer “reprieves, commutations and pardons.”
The lives of those 17 will now unfold in prison, with no possibility of parole. Ms. Brown labeled execution by the state an “irreversible punishment that does not allow for correction” and is “wasteful of taxpayer dollars.” It has never, she asserted, “been administered fairly and equitably.”
Ms. Brown’s commutations are the latest move in the Beaver State’s push against the death penalty. That effort began with a 2011 moratorium against the ultimate punishment by the then governor, John Kitzhaber. It continued with a 2019 amendment to the death penalty statute that tightended its scope.
Oregonians adopted the death penalty in 1864, five years after America admitted the territory into the Union as the thirty-third state. It was repealed in 1914, then brought back in 1920. It has executed 60 people since 1904, the last in 1997.
In 2021 Oregon’s state supreme court found that the application of the death penalty in the case of a man convicted of a crime that was subsequently recategorized as “non-capital” violated the prohibition on “disproportionate punishments” in the state constitution, a version of the national parchment’s Eighth Amendment.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 24 states are prepared to hand down a capital sentence, while 23 have banned the practice. Three states, including Oregon, exist in the twilight zone of a moratorium enforced by the governor.
The United States Supreme Court, in a 1972 case, Furman v. Georgia, held that existing death penalty laws violated the Eight Amendment because they were discriminatory and disproportionately burdened minority communities.
That position was clawed back four years later in Gregg v. Georgia, which held that the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional and upheld processes developed in Georgia that minimized the possibility for the arbitrary application of capital punishment.
In the 1977 case of Coker v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty must be proportional to the crime committed, so that it could not be administered in a case when the victim lived, no matter how horrific the offense — in the case of Coker, the rape of a child.
This week a state district court judge in Texas, Lela Mays, recommended that the death sentence against a Jewish inmate, Randy Halprin, who was part of a group that shot a prison guard while on the lam from jail, be tossed out.
The petition arrived via the writ of habeas corpus, and was granted because of antisemitism on the part of the judge who oversaw the conviction, Vickers Cunningham. The district attorney who prosecuted the case admitted that Judge Cunningham “harbored actual bias” against Mr. Halprin.
https://www.nysun.com/article/in-oregon-the-death-penalty-is-dealt-a-fatal-blow
***************************************************
Does exercise really help ageing brains? New study raises questions
Educationists have long been aware that transfer of training is very dubious
Exercise and mindfulness training did not improve older people’s brain health in a surprising new study published this week in JAMA. The experiment, which enrolled more than 580 older men and women, looked into whether starting a program of exercise, mindfulness – or both – enhanced older people’s abilities to think and remember or altered the structure of their brains.
“We thought we would find gains from exercise and also from mindfulness and especially from a combination of the two,” said Eric Lenze, the head of the department of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, who led the new study. “We did not.”
The results seem to call into question the ability of exercise and other lifestyle changes to fight cognitive decline with ageing. But they also raise new questions about whether we really understand enough about the brain and mind – or how to study them to know if we are changing them when we walk or meditate.
“Given other studies have found a significant relationship between mindfulness and exercise and cognitive and brain health, how do we explain the current results?” wondered Art Kramer, the director of the Centre for Cognitive & Brain Health at Northeastern University in Boston, who has extensively studied exercise and the brain, but was not involved with the new study.
The answers may have implications for any of us who hope being physically active helps keep minds sharp well past middle age.
Past studies showed that exercise helped brain health
Certainly, a wealth of past research suggests our lifestyles influence our brain health. Exercise, in particular, has seemed to play a key role in how well we think and remember with age. A 2011 review of earlier studies concluded, “there is growing evidence that both aerobic and resistance training are important for maintaining cognitive and brain health in old age.”
Bolstering that claim, a famous 2011 study of 120 older men and women found those who started exercising moderately, mostly by walking, improved their scores on memory tests and increased the size of their hippocampus, a portion of the brain crucial to memory function, while those in a sedentary control group experienced declines in their hippocampal volume and memory skills.
Similarly, mindfulness has been associated with improvements in some aspects of memory and thinking among the elderly, presumably because it helps reduce stress and distractions.
But much of this research was short-term and small-scale, involving perhaps a few dozen participants, or it was epidemiological, meaning it found suggestive links between physical activity or mindfulness and sharper minds, but did not prove they directly better people’s brains.
A new study of exercise, mindfulness and the brain
Which makes the new study noteworthy. Beginning in 2015, its authors, primarily based at Washington University or the University of California at San Diego, recruited 585 healthy but inactive men and women aged 65 to 84. None of the participants had been diagnosed with dementia, but all told researchers they worried their thinking and memories were duller than before.
The scientists tested everyone’s thinking skills, focusing on attention, working memory and recall of words or pictures, and also scanned their hippocampal volume, then randomly assigned them to various groups. One worked out twice a week in supervised, 90-minute exercise classes, alternating between walking or similar aerobic activities, lightweight training and balance practice. After six months, they took their routines home, exercising mostly on their own for about an hour a day for another year.
A second group learned mindfulness-based stress reduction, combining meditation, yoga and mental exercises, under supervision for six months and on their own for the next year. A third group both exercised and meditated several times a week, while a control group attended twice-weekly classes about healthy living.
After six months and again after 18, the researchers repeated the cognitive tests and brain scans.
By the end, almost everyone’s hippocampal volume had shrunk, whether they exercised, meditated or not.
At the same time, their cognitive scores had risen slightly, a universal – but misleading – improvement, Lenze said. If exercise or meditation had actually benefited people’s brains, their scores should have been higher than those of the control group. Because they were not, he said, he and his colleagues attribute any gains to “people getting better at taking the tests.”
What this means for exercisers and the ageing brain
So, do the results indicate working out and mindfulness are pointless for brain health?
“I think this study tells us we don’t know nearly as much about the brain as we think we do,” Lenze said.
Exercise and mindfulness did not improve certain cognitive tasks in this study, he said, but perhaps they would aid other types of thinking or maybe their effects would differ in people with greater or lesser existing memory concerns.
“I think the authors conducted a very rigorous study,” said Teresa Liu-Ambrose, the director of the Centre for Brain Health at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who studies exercise and the brain, but was not part of this research.
But she also questioned the narrowness of the specific tests and analyses used to measure changes in people’s thinking skills.
So did Mark Gluck, a professor of neuroscience at the Centre for Molecular and Behavioural Neuroscience at Rutgers University in Newark. “Had the researchers used more-sensitive behavioural measures” of how well people think and remember, he said, “their reported outcomes might well have been quite different.”
Other brain scanning techniques likewise might have discerned meaningful changes inside people’s brains by the study’s end, he said.
Overall, the new study’s results “importantly suggest that future studies should carefully consider the characteristics of the study populations” and the exercise and mindfulness routines used, “to sort out the ambiguity” about whether and how they affect ageing minds, Kramer said.
What the findings do not suggest is that working out or meditation are futile, Lenze said. “We do not want people to get the message they shouldn’t exercise.”
Both exercise and mindfulness remain beneficial, he said, and he practises both.
Future studies may, after all, detect benefits not seen in this experiment. “There is still,” he said, “so much to learn about the brain.”
***********************************************
Stonewall's reading list for primary age pupils is embraced across the country despite organisations distancing themselves from the trans rights campaigners
This week, the Mail investigated a selection of these books. Under headlines ranging from 'challenging gender stereotypes' to 'trans inclusion', the list is proclaimed as a go-to guide for 'schools, colleges, parents, and carers' looking for pro-LGBTQ+ books.
Divided into categories by age, from toddler to teenager, it features four books on 'trans inclusion' alone for children aged just two to four years old.
Among these books aimed at very young children is a story about a character, Jazz, who is 'born with a girl's brain in a boy's body'.
Jazz's family are confused — until a doctor tells them Jazz is transgender and had been 'born that way'. Another is Jacob's School Play, which bears the subtitle 'Starring He, She, and They'. This book proclaims on its dust jacket that it 'introduces young readers to concepts of gender diversity and pronoun options'.
The reading list raises troubling questions about the extent to which Stonewall's vehemently pro-trans ideology holds sway in the country's schools.
A number of organisations — including the Department of Health and the BBC — have distanced themselves in recent months from the controversial charity's 'equality' training for adults, amid concerns that it misrepre? sents the law.
Ofsted, the education regulator, quit Stonewall's 'Diversity Champions' scheme last June amid revelations that the charity had encouraged it to threaten primary schools with the prospect of low ratings if they did not ensure that all children were aware of 'sexual orientation and gender reassignment' by the time they moved on to secondary school.
Meanwhile, dozens of primary schools across the UK have signed up to — and paid for — the chance to be a 'Stonewall Champion School'. As Stonewall's website puts it, this allows educators 'to benchmark your school's LGBTQ+ inclusion against the latest best practice'.
At a cost of between £150 and £550, schools taking part in the Champions scheme can strive for a Stonewall 'award' to show they are 'leading the way in celebrating diversity and supporting LGBTQ+ children and young people to fulfil their potential'.
Yet even those schools who have not signed up to the scheme are likely to be using resources influenced by Stonewall's self-declared intention to 'address LGBTQ+ inclusion in primary schools'. Among them is the leading educational material provider Twinkl, which proclaims its links to Stonewall on its website.
Of course, some children will always grow up to be trans and no one should question their right to their identity. Nor should anyone object to an organisation promoting tolerance and acceptance — and some of the books on Stonewall's list do just that.
'Half the reading list is about the celebration of difference — and that can only be a good thing,' says Simon Fanshawe, a co-founder of Stonewall who has spoken out about the organisation's adherence to the notion that men and women are not defined by their sex but gender identity.
'So, much of it would have been helpful when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s.
'When it becomes dangerous is when it plants the seed that to be happy, you just can't be a different kind of boy or girl, but you need to change sex and be something you're not.' And it is this that concerns Naomi Cunningham, a barrister specialising in discrimination law who has previously raised concerns about the influence of gender ideology in schools.
'The message promoted by Stonewall and its allies is not about 'tolerance', it's the exact opposite,' she says. 'It is the idea that you can 'choose' your gender, and it is the only current major 'religion' with any sort of traction in our society which demands that people sign up to its tenets or be dismissed as bigots. 'Not only must we not ridicule it, but we must positively reinforce this. And it is incredibly dangerous as these books are planting the seed among very young children that they can decide their 'identity' when they have none of the emotional or intellectual equipment with which to do it.'
Her sentiment is echoed by Debbie Hayton, a teacher — herself trans — who has written about her concerns about the grip gender ideology has on primary schools.
'Young children don't need to be able to find a gender identity in order to express their personality or their feelings or emotions, which is what this ideology is about,' she says. 'This is imposing the views of adults on children, who should be allowed to grow up without these concepts being forced on them. Many of the recommended books are promoted as helping to 'open a dialogue' with children about gen? der diversity — but is it necessary? Children are children.'
The concept of being 'misgendered', or even having no gender at all, is a recurring theme in Stonewall's approved 'trans inclusive' literature. Among the charity's recommended catalogue is a slew of picture books aimed at children aged between two and seven which promotes themes around gender dysphoria.
In Red, A Crayon's Story — recommended as suitable for two to four-year-olds — readers are introduced to a blue crayon with a red label. 'Everyone calls him Red because that's what his label says, and every? one expects him to draw in red, but as much as Red tries, he can't,' the blurb reads.
All the other crayons have opinions about how to 'fix' Red, from 'more practice' to 'mixing with other crayons'. Yet it's only when another crayon finally asks him to make a blue ocean does the penny finally drop for Red himself. 'I'm BLUE,' he declares.
The finale sees the other crayons united in celebrating his new identity. 'I always said he was blue,' says one. 'It was obvious,' says another. Meanwhile, Are You a Boy or Are You a Girl? — another two to fouryear-old reader recommendation in Stonewall's catalogue — has a 'gender-neutral protagonist' and bears a stamp of approval from Mermaids, the UK transgender rights organisation which is now being investigated by the Charity Commission over management and governance concerns.
Released in 2015 by co-authors Fox Fisher and Sarah Savage, who met when they both appeared in the 2011 Channel 4 documentary series My Transsexual Summer, it features a character called Tiny who likes both fairies and football, and who resents the desire of those around them to establish whether they are a boy or a girl. 'I Am Me,' Tiny declares at the end.
Other books on the Stonewall list are more explicit in their messaging: Alien Nation — aimed at five to seven-year-olds — is billed as a 'great resource' to use when discussing gender stereotypes and trans and 'intersex' identities with younger children. Alien Nation comes with an accompanying teaching pack that proclaims gender is based on 'how you feel'.
'When we are born we are given a gender,' it suggests. 'We are not asked how we feel or if we want it. We are given a gender based on only two options — girl or boy. This is often called the gender binary. 'However, gender is really about how you feel and there are many more than two genders. The words you choose to describe your gender should always be your choice, and you are allowed to change these.'
This is 'dangerous nonsense' according to Naomi Cunningham, who points out that this promotion of identity 'choice' is the thin end of a wedge which is helping to normalise the idea of surgical intervention for confused adolescents.
'What's being done in primary schools and through picture books for small children in particular is the most sinister and insidious aspect of this whole gender ideology craziness,' she says.
'It is grooming, because, along with a host of other books of a similar genre, it's planting the idea that if you do not like who you are you can change into some? thing else.
'That is a journey that can end in mutilation and self-harm, particularly in adolescence when many are confused about their changing shapes.
'It is useful to remember that the same organisation that is promoting these books has recently released a Christmas card which features a character with mastectomy scars from breast removal surgery.'
Yet the message that you can 'choose' your gender is reinforced time and again in Stonewall's reading list.
Jacob's School Play, the third in a series of books by authors Ian and Sarah Hoffman — billed as 'ideal for five to seven-year-olds' — sees protagonist Jacob meet a 'nonbinary child' called Ari who likes to be known as 'they'. Jacob is confused by this, but his teacher Ms Reeves explains to him that it comes down to 'who you are inside. From the outside we can't see who anybody is on the inside, so we have to trust them when they tell us.'
The book ends with Jacob telling Ms Reeves that he is glad Ari is a 'they' — 'because they know who they are'.
Yet, as Debbie Hayton points out, identity doesn't come down to feelings. 'This notion may work to an extent in the early years of child? hood when lots of children like to dress up and explore different things,' she says.
'But we are setting them up with a time bomb that is going to explode in puberty when biological reality hits,' she says. 'Consistently promoting this idea that gender is a choice is ultimately incredibly confusing for children.'
Christian Concern is a not-forprofit advocacy group that has consistently raised questions about gender ideology in schools. Chief executive Andrea Williams calls the literature on Stonewall's list 'little short of 'propaganda' '.
'It is not helpful, but rather harmful, to suggest to children that they can change sex,' she adds.
'As a society, why would we allow transgender propaganda to be presented to young children, which will only result in more children suffering from gender dysphoria?
'In future, we expect legal cases from parents and former pupils of schools that have promoted transgender ideology and harmed children as a result. Schools should be very wary of using any Stone? wall-recommended resources.'
Naomi Cunningham goes one step further. 'I'd like to see this ideology removed from everywhere, but especially from education — and most especially teacher training,' she says.
'Teachers need to be re-educated in the importance of both political impartiality and freedom of speech — they shouldn't be teaching highly contested dogma as fact, nor should they be suppressing children's freedom to reject that dogma.'
**************************************************
Kristi Noem’s Health Department Fires Transgender Group Ahead of ‘Gender Summit’
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, directed her state Department of Health to terminate a contract with The Transformation Project, a transgender activist group that is hosting a “Gender Identity Summit” next month, after The Daily Signal drew the governor’s attention to the summit and the group.
“Gov. Kristi Noem is reviewing all Department of Health contracts and immediately terminated a contract with The Transformation Project,” Ian Fury, Noem’s chief of communications, told The Daily Signal on Friday. “The contract was signed without Gov. Noem’s prior knowledge or approval.”
Fury sent The Daily Signal a copy of the document dissolving the state contract.
“South Dakota does not support this organization’s efforts, and state government should not be participating in them,” Noem told The Daily Signal in a statement provided by Fury. “We should not be dividing our youth with radical ideologies. We should treat every single individual equally as a human being.”
Fury said that The Transformation Project had not complied with its state contract. The organization had failed “to submit required quarterly reports for two consecutive quarters,” among other violations.
Noem terminated the contract after The Daily Signal reached out with questions about a “Gender Identity Summit” that the state’s largest employer, Sanford Health, will host next month with The Transformation Project. The project celebrates controversial medical interventions for minors and hosts events in which people ritually “burn” their “old name or pronouns.”
The third annual Midwest Gender Identity Summit will take place Jan. 13 at the Sanford Research Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. According to its website, Sanford Health is “the largest rural health system in the United States.” It serves more than 1 million patients and 220,000 health plan members across 250,000 square miles. It operates 47 medical centers and employs 2,800 physicians.
Minnesota-based Alpha News first reported the event, drawing attention to The Transformation Project, which puts forth as its mission “supporting and empowering transgender youth.” Attendees can earn up to 6.5 professional education credits.
The gender identity summit will include multiple workshops supporting the view that many biological males actually are female and vice versa, and these people are likely to commit suicide unless doctors give them drugs that stunt their growth, introduce what critics call a hormone disease into their bodies, and perhaps even remove healthy body parts. The summit frames this experimental medicine as “gender-affirming care.”
Summit session topics include “Providing Gender Affirming Care,” “Gender Affirming Care and the Attitude of Affirmation in Assessment,” “How My Journey as a Transgender Provider Has Impacted Patient Care,” and “Lessons From Transgender Patients.”
Presenters include left-wing activists and social-justice-minded medical professionals such as Dr. Mayson Bedient (who identifies his pronouns as “he” and “they”), Cody Ingle (a staffer at a suicide prevention nonprofit who includes “LGBTQ+ advocacy” on his LinkedIn profile), and Natasha Smith, Sanford’s head of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The Transformation Project opposed a bill to make it a felony in South Dakota for doctors to perform sex-reassignment surgeries on children or prescribe them so-called puberty-blocking drugs that would stunt their natural growth. In opposing this bill, the project highlighted the story of a 14-year-old boy, claiming that “hormone blockers saved his life.”
In the first edition of its Transforming South Dakota magazine in 2019, The Transformation Project featured the stories of gender-confused children and teens. It recounted the story of Cameron, who questioned his gender at age 5, and Sebastian, a 14-year-old girl who came to identify as “nonbinary” at age 11.
The project also holds an annual event where participants, including children, ritually burn their “old name or pronouns.”
The South Dakota Department of Health had hired The Transformation Project to “Create a Community Health Worker (‘CHW’) Program with ‘at least one certificate-level CHW.’” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—which certifies community health workers—defines CHWs as “trained public health workers who serve as a bridge between communities, health care systems, and state health departments.”
The contract also required The Transformation Project to develop infrastructure for the CHW program, develop awareness efforts to promote it, participate in the Community Health Worker Collaborative of South Dakota annual conference, collect clinical data, provide success stories, provide quarterly reports, and more.
Before Noem’s announcement, critics panned the gender summit.
“The Midwest Gender Identity Summit has a singular objective—to normalize a destructive belief that being male and female is irrelevant to identity,” Penny Nance, CEO and president of Concerned Women for America, told The Daily Signal on Friday. “The sponsors preach that children are ‘born in the wrong body’ if they don’t feel like the boys or girls they are created to be.”
“Sanford Health has bought into this notion by sponsoring this summit,” Nance added. “The goal is not health care but peddling an ideology that confuses children and fuels the lucrative gender reassignment market. Governor Noem should do everything in her power to protect South Dakotans from this intrusion of trans activism that threatens our kids.”
“Trusted medical professionals should be counted on to ‘do no harm.’” Linda Schauer, Concerned Women for America South Dakota state director, told The Daily Signal. “South Dakotans want young people to be healthy and happy in the sex that God created them to be. So why is Sanford Health promoting this summit?”
“Rather than push children towards a ‘gender identity’ delusion, Sanford should be helping kids determine the underlying cause of their distress,” Schauer added. “We wouldn’t tell a child suffering from anorexia that she’s fat and withhold food.”
****************************************
16 December, 2022
Black conservative says 'society would be safer' if we discriminated MORE
"Discriminating was once an adjective of praise. No more. Sameness is praised these days
Candace Owens opened her Daily Wire podcast explaining why she thinks more discrimination would make society safer. 'I discriminate,' Owens, 33, said at the very beginning of her show on Monday. 'I just want to get that off my chest.'
'I openly discriminate against weirdos and freaks and I encourage you to do the same,' she told her listeners.
Owens, the right wing commentator and talk show host, singled out transgender people, saying: 'I definitely discriminate against men that paint their nails or wear dresses' during her opening monologue.
Owens said she would actively cross the road to avoid becoming too physically close to a transgender or non-binary person.
'You can wear your dress and you can paint your nails but I'd prefer you keeping 100 feet away from a playground and all of the feet away from my children and me,' she said.
'I actually think that society would be safer if we discriminated more what's happening now is insanity because they're telling us to accept everything to say, "oh its fine, he just has a fetish, he likes to wear panties"'.
Owens also revealed that she discriminates against obese people and said she wouldn't want musician Lizzo to be her trainer.
'I am going to discriminate against somebody that is that clinically obese saying that they're going to get me healthy,' she said.
In October, Owens made another mean comment about Lizzo, saying facetiously: 'We should have put a White Lives Matter T-shirt on Lizzo. Maybe we could have gotten a lot of attention about obesity and how it's actually killing black Americans.'
Owens expressed frustration at the left for turning the word discriminate into a 'dirty word' and that she thinks that discrimination is important for allowing us to make important decisions that keep us safe against dangerous people.
'When someone just gives you the heebie-jeebies, even if you can't quite put your finger on why, I think you need to lean into that, and I actually think that society would be safer if we discriminated more,' she said.
The Oxford Reference defines 'discriminate' as 'treating one or more members of a specified group unfairly as compared with other people.'
There are federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, religion, disability and sex. among other things
************************************************
Former Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant Reinstated by Court After Firing Over Pro-Life Views
A federal judge has ordered Southwest Airlines to rehire a flight attendant and award her damages, back pay, and interest after she was fired in 2017 for stating her pro-life views on social media.
The ruling marks a victory for the religious freedom rights of Christians in the workplace at the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with the issue in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr ordered that former Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter be reinstated to the airline five years after the company terminated her for allegedly “harassing” Transport Workers Union President Audrey Stone in an email.
Carter also was awarded $810,000 in damages, back pay, and interest. She had originally been awarded a total of $5.1 million in damages by a jury at a federal district court in Dallas in July, but Starr reduced the award to “comply with federal limits on punitive damages that companies can be required to pay.”
The compensatory and punitive damages awarded to Carter were the maximum amount permitted under federal law.
The ordeal began in January 2017 when Carter became aware of the union’s support of the pro-abortion Women’s March that took place in Washington, D.C., that month. In a series of social media posts, Carter expressed her objection to using union dues to support the march because of her pro-life beliefs. Even though she had opted out of union membership four years earlier because of union-funded causes that conflicted with her Christian beliefs, she was still required to pay dues because of federal requirements.
Shortly after posting the pro-life messages, Carter sent an email to Stone that voiced support for a national right to work bill. Carter was subsequently called in to a meeting with Southwest management, who notified her of Stone’s “harassment” claim. Carter was dismissed a week later.
In his ruling, Starr wrote, “Bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn’t fly at all with Southwest in this case.”
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which represented Carter in the case, underscored the violation of religious freedom committed by Southwest and union officials.
“Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs,” Mix said in a statement. “This decision vindicates Ms. Carter’s rights—but it’s also a stark reminder of the retribution that union officials will mete out against employees who refuse to toe the union line.”
Arielle Del Turco, assistant director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, expressed cautious optimism in reaction to Carter’s court victory.
“It’s sad that Southwest Airlines had to be told by a court that someone’s exercise of free speech is not an acceptable reason to fire them,” she told The Washington Stand. “The reality is that we live in a society that is increasingly intolerant of Christian perspectives. Carter’s win is a powerful declaration affirming First Amendment protections for those working in major corporations who don’t want to check their faith at the door.”
*****************************************************
Three Paths Forward for Trump and the GOP
CONRAD BLACK
In a column in American Greatness on December 10, Paul Gottfried built upon a piece of mine last week that effectively ascribed the disappointing results for the Republicans in the midterm elections jointly to an abhorrence of the climate of unlimited controversy and near chaos induced by President Trump’s presence at the forefront of events, and the inability of the Republicans up to now to respond effectively to the changes in voting and vote counting that were largely instituted in response to the Covid pandemic, and with some modification, have now been enacted durably in many states.
He makes the point that there is very little evidence that Mr. Trump’s presence as a potential ultimate beneficiary of Republican votes actually cost the Republicans anything in the midterm elections, and instead emphasizes in a very recondite manner the comparative and increasing failure of the Republicans to make an effective pitch to various voting blocs, including younger well-educated voters and unmarried women voters of practically all ethnic, age, economic, and education brackets.
The Democrats’ abortion stance, reduction of marijuana penalties, and attempt to forgive a trillion dollars of student loans certainly helped assure that 70 percent of university students would vote, 63 per cent of those for the Democrats. He makes a strong case that the deterioration of the Republican appeal to those voters more than compensates for the substantial progress of the Republicans with Hispanic American voters, and to a lesser degree, with African-Americans also.
He perceptively writes that “There is no indication that the electorate cares about Democratic scandals and failures. Republican attempts to call attention to such issues” (as the flood of illegal immigration, skyrocketing crime and inflation, and the long-term dubious international financial grifting of the Biden family), “or to the damaged brain of our new Pennsylvania senator or to Joe Biden’s obvious decrepitude, fall on deaf ears with these voters.”
He again perceptively argues that the Republicans are reticent about challenging questionable votes because they do not want to be accused of “election denial or suppressing minority votes. This hesitancy puts them at a disadvantage against a radical leftist party that shows no compunctions about cheating or election denial. The fact that Democratic Party organizers and politicians can engage in their legerdemain with unfailing media protection makes them even more brazen.” Mr. Gottfried argues, quite persuasively, that the Republicans should steel themselves to the deluge of righteous hypocrisy they would receive and attack all suspicious ballots as soon as they detect them.
Where I part company to some extent with Mr. Gottfried is his statement that “There is no convincing evidence the Trump support for a candidate was the decisive factor in any person’s defeat.” Strictly speaking, I do agree with that, but the prolonged defamation of Mr. Trump that seems to have been the principal motivation in the outrageous occupation of his home at Palm Beach by the FBI in August, rather than any nonsense about violating the Espionage Act, did not inspire anyone except the usual virulently anti-Trump half of the electorate to imagine that he was guilty of anything. Yet it did remind all of the voters, including his supporters, of the terribly contentious and abrasive nature of all American politics where Mr. Trump is a protagonist.
This fact is the only believable reason I can find for the shrinkage of Mr. Biden’s status in job-approval ratings to 10 percent negative from 20 percent negative. This seems to have been the principal reason for hurling the profoundly debased justice system onto the electoral scales, and it must be said that it was a well executed surgical strike, without which the Democrats would surely have lost more congressmen and would probably not have retained control of the Senate. And Mr. Gottfried appears to believe that most voters in America have now become so detached from any traditionally recognizable notion of respectable standards of civic conduct that they don’t care that the Justice Department is simply a tool of the dirty tricks division of the Democratic National Committee.
This indifference to spectacular and continuous lapses of ethical government and impartial justice, supported by the ethically bankrupt national political and social media, now swanning through a full frontal exposure in the unsurprising revelation of the shameful hypocrisy of Twitter in the last presidential election, is extremely dangerous. If true, the potential for an elevation of a regime even more malignant, if not more incompetent, (that would be a stratospheric hurdle to surmount), than the present one, would inevitably be realized eventually.
These are marginally conflicting intuitions rather than disputes of fact between Mr. Gottfried and me, but my impression is that most Americans are appalled by the corruption of the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies in their interventions in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. Yet, as I wrote, that concern and the fact that three-quarters of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction, are compensated for by the extreme distaste that 10 to 20 percent of Americans have at any thought of a return of Mr. Trump as president, not out of extreme dislike of him, but of the controversy he brings with him.
If the Republican Party was so severely disadvantaged by the loss of support of voting blocs Mr. Gottfried cites, I don’t think that the gubernatorial results in Florida, Georgia, and even Texas would have been so robustly Republican as they were. There are three possible deliverances from the gloomy Republican future the Mr. Gottfried foresees. First, another well-qualified Republican than Mr. Trump is nominated in 2024 supporting Trump policies and runs with the former president’s support. Second, Mr. Trump continues in the good-humored and polite manner exhibited in his announcement that he was seeking renomination and runs as a “new Trump” as Richard Nixon in 1968 ran as a “new Nixon.”
Third, and this is a serious gamble, the Trump we know is nominated again and the Republican self-familiarization with the new voting and vote counting techniques, which must be accomplished in any event, suffices to put him across one last time. All conscientious and sensible people who wish America well, whatever their notions of spirituality, should start praying for one of these outcomes this Christmas season, and keep it up until next election day.
https://www.nysun.com/article/three-paths-forward-for-trump-and-the-gop
**************************************************
New California Law Will Cripple Its $20 Billion Fast-Food Industry
California’s new fast-food law establishes a politically appointed council with unprecedented power to regulate the industry by setting worker wages, hours, and other working conditions. The law applies to any fast-food chain in California that has at least 100 stores nationwide sharing a common brand. This is not just government overreach on steroids. This bill essentially kills the franchisor-franchisee model within the industry and will almost certainly destroy thousands of jobs by driving up the cost of doing business and increasing the level of automation in the industry.
The new law couldn’t have come at a worse time. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in California’s fast-food industry remains nearly 20 percent below its pre-pandemic level (representing a loss of more than 75,000 jobs). Even more disturbing is that industry employment continued to decline even after the height of the pandemic, losing another 25,000 jobs between the spring of 2020 and the spring of 2021 (data for 2022 are unavailable).
The average fast-food restaurant is marginally profitable, with profit margins averaging between 6 and 9 percent in normal times, and franchisee capital requirements are large, sometimes requiring $2 million or more to get a franchise up and running. Most fast-food workers are young, and many work part time, which tends to lead to high turnover, as high as 143 percent annually. This means that over the course of a year, a workplace that begins the year with 100 employees will need to hire 143 workers over the course of that year to finish the year with 100 employees. Not surprisingly, 78 percent of fast-food restaurant operators indicate that recruiting and retaining workers is their top priority.
The bill passed both the 80-member State Assembly and the 40-member State Senate by only one vote in each chamber, despite the state’s having a 60–20 Democratic supermajority in the Assembly and a 31–9 supermajority in the Senate. No Republican lawmakers supported the bill.
The question that needs to be asked is why such an extreme law was passed and signed into law by California governor Gavin Newsom, whose finance department opposed the bill. The bill was marketed as being necessary to protect worker health and safety and fight employer wage theft. But there are of course existing laws at the federal and state level that protect worker safety and health, and California passed a new law last year that makes wage theft a criminal offense in California. Former Clinton administration labor secretary Robert Reich remarked that California is home to the “nation’s foremost set of laws to protect workers.”
California’s new fast-food law is not about protecting its workers. It is an under-the-radar attempt by politicians to increase unionization. Union fingerprints are all over this bill. Unionized businesses—those operating under a collective bargaining agreement—are exempt from the new law. Just like that. Like so many other recent California bills, the goal of this law is to increase the likelihood that a business will be unionized by raising the cost of not being unionized. The council will have substantial latitude to punish non-union businesses de facto, as the bill allows the council to set wages as high as $22 per hour, along with providing the right to dictate working hours and other conditions of employment. Suddenly, collective bargaining looks so much better than it did before the bill was signed into law, but only because the new law makes running a non-union business remarkably more expensive.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was one of the strongest supporters of the bill. No surprise there. The SEIU has spent about $100 million since 2012 to raise the state’s minimum wage, which is another indirect way of increasing unionization. The SEIU will be the main beneficiary of the new law should restaurants cave and accept collective bargaining. Lorena Gonzalez, the chief officer of the California Federation of Labor, which is the umbrella organization of more than 1,200 labor unions within the state, was the original author of the bill when she was in the California State Assembly. Gonzalez believes that every workplace should be unionized and uses, shall we say, colorful language to characterize those who question the role of unions in today’s economy.
Private-sector unionization has been dropping for over 50 years. At one time, 40 percent of California workers belonged to a union. Today, less than 8 percent of private-sector workers in the state are unionized. There are two reasons why unionization rates have plummeted. One is that many of today’s workers wish to have the independence and flexibility to negotiate their own work arrangements rather than be subject to the terms of a collective bargaining, one-size-fits-all agreement. The other is that most US unions have an awful track record of representing the interests of their members. Major American unionized industries, including autos, steel, and rubber, have collapsed over time as chronic industrial conflict, including strikes and work slowdowns, resulted in American industries falling behind foreign producers, becoming uncompetitive, and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.
Job loss now looms large in the fast-food industry, an industry that is already transitioning from employees to machines. Robots and other forms of artificial intelligence are taking the place of workers in fast-food restaurants, and California’s new law will accelerate this process. Nala Robotics has introduced “The Wingman,” a robot that can bread, season, and perfectly fry chicken wings for $2,999 per month. It can also prepare other fried foods, including French fries and onion rings. Assuming a 10-hour restaurant operating day, “The Wingman” costs about $10 per hour to operate. Miso Robotics has developed “Flippy,” a robotic arm that can flip a burger or any other food that is cooked on a flat grill. Flippy, which cost Miso $50 million to create, rents for $3,500 per month, which includes on-site maintenance, or can be purchased for $30,000 per unit. Self-ordering kiosks, which sell for about $50,000, are taking the place of workers who take orders at the drive-through.
These devices are just the beginning. As AI technologies advance, even more sophisticated and cost-effective devices and software will appear and will take the place of any worker who cannot deliver a comparable profit to their employer.
California’s new law is in essence legislating away thousands of future jobs by preventing workers and employers from reaching employment agreements on their own terms. The law places failed union leadership above the interests of individuals who wish to work and business owners who wish to hire. And don’t be surprised if similar councils are formed in the future to organize workers in other industries. Unions are desperate for new recruits. After decades of losses, it appears that the only way that they can grow is by having legislators take away the freedoms that are crucial for individual prosperity and economic growth.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14365&omhide=true&trk=title
****************************************
15 December, 2022
Will Secular Conservatives Have Conservative Grandchildren?
Surprising though it might be, the research shows that political orientation is under strong genetic influence -- so the story below may be too pessimistic. As much as 50% of the variance in political ideology is explained by genetics, with other infuences being very small
Something that Dennis Prager seems to overlook below is that the Leftism of youth tends to fade over time. Many of today's young Leftists will end up as consevatives. Both Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan started out as liberals
AS a general rule, influences from the environment (such as a college education) fade out over the lifespan. By age 30, genetic influences will normally rule.
Secular conservatives have done, and continue to do, great work on behalf of America, liberty and conservatism in general.
But they will not likely have conservative grandchildren -- and many will not have conservative children.
I know this because I speak with hundreds of conservatives a year in person and on the radio.
I routinely ask these people these questions:
"How many children do you have?"
After they give me a number, I ask:
"With regard to their holding your conservative values, what's your batting average?"
On some occasions the answer is "I'm batting a thousand," but that is the rarest response. Usually, conservative parents have at least one child who has become a leftist -- not a liberal, mind you, but a leftist.
To be completely honest, though less common, this is often also true of religious conservatives. Many religious parents have seen at least one child not only reject religion, but conservatism as well.
I will never forget a man who cruised with me years ago on one of my annual listener cruises. He was a successful businessman and a pastor of a church. He told me that he had three sons, each of whom had doctorates -- one from Yale, one from Princeton and one from Stanford. "And they are all leftists," he sighed.
All three had chosen the values of the university over religious and conservative values.
The great tragedy of American life since World War II is that many Americans failed to explain American values to their children. As I have said since I began lecturing in my early 20s, the World War II generation decided to give my generation -- the so-called "baby boomers" -- "everything they didn't have" -- such as material comforts, financial security and a college education. And they largely succeeded. The problem is that they failed to give them everything they did have -- such as a love of country, commitment to liberty, self-discipline, religion, etc.
The same problem held true among Christians and Jews. Most Christians failed to explain Christianity to their children and most Jews failed to explain Judaism to theirs.
Secular conservatives see what is happening to some of their children and to many of their friends' children, yet few draw the conclusion that abandoning God and Judeo-Christian values might be a major factor in these children's alienation from conservatism.
But it surely is.
God is one of the three components of the American value system. As expressed on every American coin and banknote, those three components are "In God We Trust," "Liberty" and "E Pluribus Unum" ("From Many One"). And as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, our rights come from the Creator. The notion that the Founders sought to found a secular, let alone a godless, society has no truth. It is true that many of the Founders did not hold specifically Christian theological beliefs. But they believed in God, and they believed America could not succeed without a God-centered and Bible-revering population.
In other words, American conservatism is incompatible with a secular worldview.
Furthermore, secular conservatism doesn't work. As we saw during the lockdowns and see every day regarding, for example, woke attacks on "binary" sexuality, it is disproportionately religious Americans who hold and fight for conservative values.
It is true that religious Jews and Christians were a disappointment during lockdowns. That most rabbis, priests and ministers closed their synagogues and churches in obedience to irrational secular authority is reason for weeping.
Nevertheless, whatever challenges there were to irrational authority almost all came from religious institutions.
The same holds true for challenges to the premature sexualization of children taking place in American elementary schools and challenges to the nihilistic claims that there are more than two sexes (or "genders") and that there is no objective definition to "man" or "woman."
Such challenges come overwhelmingly from religious America. Conversely, the nihilism comes almost exclusively from secular America.
In sum, it is hard enough for religious conservatives to keep their children and grandchildren conservative. It is far harder for secular conservatives to do so.
I am well aware that many secular conservatives are convinced that they cannot believe in or practice any religion. To these people, I say: So what?
Once you realize that America's future depends on Americans affirming "In God We Trust" just as much as they affirm "Liberty" and "E Pluribus Unum," you have to work on taking God and some religious expression seriously. You should emulate parents who are tone deaf who nevertheless give their children piano lessons.
"Fake it till you make it" is one of the many great insights of 12-step programs. The rule applies to everything good that does not come naturally.
Find a clergyman who shares your values and regularly take your child (or grandchild) to religious services.
Study the Bible with your child or grandchild on a regular basis. Lincoln rarely attended church, but he read the Bible every day. If you need a rational approach to God and the Bible, I suggest beginning with any of my three volumes of Bible commentary, "The Rational Bible."
Say a blessing before each meal. Even if you're secular, that shouldn't be too difficult.
I promise you that whatever discomfort you experience acting religious pales in comparison to the discomfort you will experience if your child or grandchild ends up woke.
**********************************************************
Hey Antifa, Who Are the Real Fascists?
The recent revelations about the full-scale censorship of conservative thoughts, perspectives, opinions, and insights by Twitter are very telling. It confirms what everyone knew to be happening. But, to say so, you were branded as a conspiracy theorist. Now we know--contrary to the testimony of one Jack Dorsey--that Twitter, under his leadership, was doing something called "shadow banning." In essence, Twitter was enacting one of the fundamental tenets of fascism: suppression of political opposition. Why was that necessary? It’s simple; the truth cannot be challenged or confronted by progressive socialists, the real fascists.
Now, one must wonder, what does this mean for our very own domestic terrorist organization of Brown Shirts known as Antifa -- meaning anti-fascists?
If Antifa were true to its name, then they would be speaking out and protesting, perhaps enacting their well-known acts of violence against Twitter. It seems that this group would come to a revelation that they are on the wrong side of the political spectrum. Then again, do not hold your breath and think that will ever happen. Antifa is just a violent leftist tool used to implement fear, intimidation, coercion, and yes, violence, in order to subdue any ideological and political opponents into silence. This delusional and dangerous organization has been levied against the very standard of the rule of law in our republic, attacking law enforcement and those who would dare not agree.
It is quite interesting to look up the several sources of the definition of fascism. Wikipedia immediately castigates this as a right-wing movement. However, when one reads the definition in the Encyclopedia Britannica, you find a more in-depth explanation, with historical examples. The first example comes from fascist Italy and Benito Mussolini, then Adolf Hitler. Let us not forget that fascist Italy was allied with Nazi Germany. As a reminder, Nazi was short for National Socialist. Britannica goes on to lay out common aspects of fascist regimes: extreme military nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy (you know, like flooding a country with illegals and allowing them to vote), political and cultural liberalism (post-modern, not classical), a belief in the natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and finally, a desire to create a society where individual interests are subordinated to the good of the community (hmm, communism).
Recently, I spoke at the University of Iowa for the Young America's Foundation (YAF) and a young protester held up a sign that said, "punch a Nazi in the face." Pretty interesting, considering that young leftist college students embrace socialism, for which “Nazi” stands. But also, the real fascists are the ones who go around on college campuses ripping down the flyers of conservative speakers coming to their campuses, or, as in my case, the speakers who must be escorted by campus police. Consider that even Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, was welcomed to speak on the campus of the largest Christian university in the world, Liberty University, and you heard nothing about insidious protests or threats.
It is not just about what we have learned about Twitter, but remember how the other leftist social media platforms, enabled by Apple, destroyed a conservative platform called Parler. What we know to be true at Twitter is certainly happening at Google, its subsidiary, YouTube, and Facebook. How else can you explain certain videos just disappearing?
Constitutional conservatives believe in individual rights and freedoms as enshrined in our Constitution, such as free speech and freedom of expression. We believe that everyone has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and not be designated as domestic terrorists . . . such as we have seen with parents. But the real fascists are those progressive socialist leftists who do not share that belief. They will use ill-informed, misguided, “stuck on stupid,” masked, black-clad terrorists to suppress their opposition, as well as use of technology.
Conservatives are the real Antifa; we are the real anti-fascists. At American Constitutional Rights Union we are certainly anti-fascists. Those who were at Twitter, who are at Google, YouTube, Facebook, in the Biden administration, BLM, and running around in black, are the real fascists.
Why must fascists resort to these tactics? They must suppress opposition because they do not possess the intellectual rigor to defend what they believe in an open forum and debate.
Anyone undermining the First Amendment rights of Americans is a real fascist. Thanks to Elon Musk we know that was happening at Twitter. That is why the government wants to investigate him. Yet another aspect of fascism is totalitarianism.
Steadfast and Loyal
https://townhall.com/columnists/allenwest/2022/12/12/hey-antifa-who-are-the-real-fascists-n2617011
***********************************************
Ireland: Christian teacher jailed following refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns
A Christian teacher who was jailed following his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns has been told that he will remain behind bars over Christmas.
Enoch Burke was jailed in September after refusing to obey a court order to stay away from Wilson's Hospital School in County Westmeath, Ireland, a school he is employed at.
His school told him to stay away in August after he was suspended on full pay for refusing to address a transitioning student as ‘they’ rather than ‘he,’ citing his devout Christian beliefs, which he maintained are against 'transgenderism'.
But Mr Burke ignored the order and continued to attend school, leading to his arrest.
Mr Burke pleaded with the judge over video link today from Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, to let him out for the festive period. He told Mr Justice Conor Digham he was 'not a thief, a murderer or a drug dealer' and that he was being imprisoned because of his Christian beliefs.
But the judge refused to release Mr Burke as he was not willing to comply with the court order.
However, Mr Burke can be released at any point so long as he purges his contempt before the court.
He told the court that he would not do so as this would be reneging on his duty to God and his core Christian beliefs.
He again pleaded with the court that he was 'not a criminal' and asked them to 'free me for Christmas'. 'I am in prison for my religious beliefs', he told the court.
Mr Burke's parents Sean and Martina were left in fury over their sons imprisonment.
Present in the court, Sean Burke said his son was not a criminal but had simply been brought up in a Christian family. He added that his son was being wrongly persecuted over his objection to 'transgenderism' that was founded on the bible 'from the book of Genesis to Revelations'.
Mr Burke's mother Martina told the court 'shame upon you' and that they will face judgment from 'God Almighty'. Martina Burke also told the court that the case was 'all about transgenderism' and that her son was being denied his constitutional right to express his Christian beliefs.
The judge said he refused to enter into a debate with Mr Burke's parents.
Enoch Burke also said he was denied the chance to speak with his legal council, who is his sister Ammi Burke.
He also demanded to know why the court had refused to see him in person, instead being forced to appear by video link.
Mr Burke has been behind bars since September this year after not complying with the court injunction from Ireland's High Court.
***************************************************
A hopelessly biased Department of justice
Attorneys for Mark Houck are moving to dismiss federal charges against the pro-life father arrested in a dramatic FBI dawn raid in front of his children.
Houck’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss charges this week in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Justice Department is violating the Constitution by engaging in “viewpoint discrimination” and “selective prosecution” against Houck.
The pro-life father was arraigned on Sept. 27 on two counts of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act when, outside a Pennsylvania abortion clinic, Houck allegedly pushed a pro-abortion activist who was allegedly antagonizing his son. Houck plead not guilty to the federal charges.
The Houck team also accused the DOJ of violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion. The lawyers also challenged the constutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act itself.
“The Biden administration has filed two defective and discriminatory charges against Mark Houck under the FACE Act, and both should be dismissed,” Thomas More Society Vice President and Senior Counsel Peter Breen said in a statement. “Both counts allege that Mark Houck interfered with a volunteer so-called ‘escort,’ when in reality, it was that escort who initiated the incidents and wronged Mark Houck—first obstructing Mark’s sidewalk counseling and then harassing his 12-year-old son.”
The motion to dismiss emphasizes that the government is “brazenly” ignoring the aggressive behavior of the man, “Mr. Love,” who has accused Houck of shoving him to the ground.
It also points out that the Biden administration has “altogether failed to prosecute more than 150 acts of physical damage and destruction inflicted on pregnancy resource centers and churches across the country—in express violation of FACE—since the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in May 2022.”
“Yet it has filed FACE charges against no fewer than 26 pro-life individuals in 2022—an exponentially higher number than any time in recent history, while prominent and nationwide pro-abortion FACE violations remain unpunished,” the motion says (citing The Daily Signal’s deep dive into the DOJ’s apparently selective enforcement of the FACE Act).
“The Department of Justice has demonstrated clear and illegal hostility to the pro-life viewpoint in its statements and enforcement decisions, running roughshod over fundamental religious freedoms and free speech rights, and bringing an illegal selective prosecution here,” Breen said in a statement. He further noted that the Constitution does not grant general police power to the federal government.
“Yet a general police power is what the government seeks to exercise here, indicting Mr. Houck for actions that lack any federal jurisdictional nexus and that are, at most, a matter of state law,” Breen said. “Application of FACE to Mr. Houck exceeds the bounds of any powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution and offends both principles of federalism and the Tenth Amendment.”
“This case is being brought solely to intimidate people of faith and pro-life Americans,” Breen said. “Mark Houck is innocent of these lawless charges, and we intend to prove that in court.”
The DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal.
Houck’s arrest has sparked a national outcry against the Justice Department as conservatives point to the discrepancies between the DOJ’s targeting of pro-lifers and its apparent unwillingness to pursue charges in the vast number of attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches since the leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion indicating that Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned.
The Daily Signal first reported in October that Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Mike Johnson, R-La., launched a congressional inquiry into the Justice Department’s political enforcement of the FACE Act.
“Several recent actions by the Department reinforce the conclusion that the Justice Department is using its federal law enforcement authority as a weapon against the administration’s political opponents,” the Republican congressmen wrote in the October letter. “Since the unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Justice Department has politicized enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.”
They continued: “We write to conduct oversight of your authorization of a dawn raid of the home of a pro-life leader, in front of his wife and seven children, when he had offered to voluntarily cooperate with authorities.”
****************************************
14 December, 2022
NY Times ridiculed for using shotgun shell photo to promote article attacking AR-15s
While attacking America’s "toxic gun culture," the New York Times appeared to have inadvertently used the wrong photo while referring to AR-15s, as many Twitter users pointed out over the weekend.
The paper’s editorial board published an op-ed on Saturday titled "America’s Toxic Gun Culture," claiming that the prevalence of AR-15s among "right-wing" figures is causing a rise in political violence.
"The AR-15 has also become a potent talisman for right-wing politicians and many of their voters. That’s a particularly disturbing trend at a time when violent political rhetoric and actual political violence in the United States are rising," the New York Times editorial board wrote.
However, as many social media users pointed out, the photo used in the article showed rows of shotgun shells, ammo that would not be used in AR-15s which are typically chambered in .223 and/or 5.56.
"Complains about AR15s...with a picture of shotgun shells. This is hysterical," Club for Growth senior analyst Andrew Follett wrote.
"I find it amusing," Townhall.com columnist Kurt Schlichter responded to a tweet pointing out the shotgun shells reading, "I am once again begging the MSM journalists to take just a couple of basic firearms class to avoid dumba--ery like this."
Conservative writer A.G. Hamilton wrote, "Does the entire NYT really not have one editor that can review gun-related articles to notice something as basic as using a picture of shotgun shells for an article about AR-15s? Definitely inspires confidence about the contents of the article
******************************************************
UK: Skin colour is uniquely embarrassing
Though it was sensible for Lady Susan Hussey to resign, I do find the chorus of disapproval that has greeted her unpleasant. Reading a transcript of her exchange with Ngozi Fulani of Sistah Space I feel rather sorry for both of them – the only word springing to mind being ‘misunderstanding’. Such different backgrounds; generations so far apart; these misunderstandings can easily occur. At a Buckingham Palace reception where Ms Fulani may have felt nervous and awkward (as would I) it’s altogether possible she did think Lady Hussey’s asking where she came from was meant rudely. But I think it was not. And if not, shouldn’t the incident just be put down to clumsiness?
That last question is genuine because some do think that, regardless of motive, the very act of asking someone like Ms Fulani about their origins is rude. The question should simply not be asked. It is this and not the Palace encounter that I want to write about. We seem to be getting into an awful muddle.
There can be no doubt we do sometimes feel curious about where someone comes from. We don’t necessarily mean where they were born; Boris Johnson was born in New York but nobody would say he ‘comes from’ America because his family don’t. We often mean where someone’s forebears came from, even if they themselves were born in Britain. It’s fair to say it’s not rude to ask where someone comes from when the most likely answer would name a town, county or even nation within the United Kingdom.
Then how about abroad? Accents interest me and if someone’s accent is foreign I’ll often ask where they’re from, prefacing my question with a reference to their accent. Nobody, so far, has ever taken offence.
Not problematic, then, if the enquiry is about where abroad a foreign accent points. And not problematic if the implied enquiry is about coming from somewhere on our islands.
Well now, by eliminating what’s not problematic, I think we’re whittling down to what is. It’s about race, isn’t it? Race orethnicity. And when people talk about ethnicity they often mean race. And by race they usually mean skin colour. Of course racism can be white-on-white but the word and concept gain their power and notoriety from the history of our relations (and those of other formerly imperial nations) with colonial subjects who were not white.
I put it to you that colour is what’s implicitly under discussion. If Ms Fulani had been of white Swedish ancestry and wearing a thick knitted jumper of recognisably Nordic design, would it have been hurtful or ‘racist’ to ask about her origins, even if she turned out to be a British subject? No, she wouldn’t have minded. Sandi Toksvig, who’s from Denmark, wouldn’t mind being asked about that.
So let’s not beat about the bush. If a person’s skin is not white, and only if a person’s skin is not white, it is coming to be regarded as rude to enquire about their origins. Thus does the class of liberal, tolerant, ‘inclusive’ people (to which it might be said I myself belong) betray – by its embarrassments about language – its hidden condescension. Basil Fawlty’s ‘Don’t mention the war’ becomes ‘Don’t mention colour’. Why not? Is there anything wrong with not being white? Not in my book.
Liberals, however, have redefined the very word ‘ethnicity’ as code for what they must not say: ‘skin colour’. Euphemisms and coy circumlocutions are excellent markers of unacknowledged unease. Out go ‘old’, ‘fat’ and even (these days) ‘Welsh’ (as in ‘the Welsh’) and in come ‘senior’, ‘large’ and ‘the people of Wales’. We may genuinely mean to be kind by skirting a topic, but in fact we’re acknowledging a prejudice. When others politely step around what you are (‘confirmed bachelor’, ‘never married’, ‘lifelong companion’ – I’ve had it all) it serves only as the reminder of an unvoiced embarrassment. Those non-white Brits who complain about being asked where they’re from collude unwittingly in the insulting supposition that there could be anything awkward about their answer.
The headline to a profile in the Times catches my eye. ‘I never thought I’d see a south Asian prime minister.’ South Asian? This is becoming the advised term for someone from what we used to call the ‘subcontinent’. ‘South Asian’ may soon be the only polite way you can describe a non-South-American person whose skin is brown. Discomfort about words such as ‘Indian’ has been increased by the accession of a prime minister whose Britishness is unquestioned but whose origins are Indian. ‘Indian’ sits awkwardly between an ethnicity and a nationality.
I acknowledge the complexities and the anxieties, and have no answers. But is ‘south Asian’ really being used geographically here? If not, then we’re positing an ethnicity that doesn’t exist. Why? People’s origins are so important, yet we seem to be cutting ourselves off from fascinating conversations about when and why a person or their ancestors came to Britain – and all because of our silly and unacknowledged preoccupation with pigmentation.
Because of one thing there can be no doubt: nobody white would qualify as south Asian, whatever their passport. This is equally true of the continent where I was born and raised. Had my youthful dreams of reaching Downing Street come true, the headline ‘First African prime minister of the UK’ would definitely not have been used. Pity, then, the Afrikaners, whose very name means ‘African’ and who have no country but South Africa: they still don’t qualify. Even Egyptians wouldn’t normally be called Africans.
Depressingly to me, it really is about skin colour, but we cast desperately and illogically around, plundering the lexicons of geography, nationality and ethnicity (perhaps we should try geology next) for ways of not saying so. ‘Coloured’ has yielded, shamefaced, to ‘of colour’. Black people alone have stood up for their pigmentation, and reclaimed ‘black’ from what was once abusive territory.
I wish the same could be done for ‘brown’. Golden brown is my favourite skin colour. Perhaps in another life I can be brown. For this blessing I’d happily accept questions where I’m from
https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/the-truth-we-dare-not-speak/ ?
********************************************
UK: With £7billion wasted on diversity and inclusion, it's time to stop banging the drum for workplace wokery
No worries for staff at Warwickshire County Council, where bashing the bongos is all in a day's work. The council organised an African drumming workshop for employees as part of Hate Crime Awareness Week.
Quite what bouncing into Graceland has got to do with encouraging people to report alleged hate crime is anyone's guess. Nor are we told how much this Expresso Bongo session cost. But, hey, it's only taxpayers' money, so who cares?
In recent years, public bodies have frittered away £7 billion of our hard-earned on workplace wokery. It ranges from daft stunts like African drumming sessions to frankly sinister brainwashing seminars on 'unlearning whiteness'.
One million working days in the Civil Service alone are wasted every year on politically motivated 'equality, diversity and inclusivity' training.
Staff at the publicly funded Intellectual Property Office spent 24 days playing a specially designed 'Respect At Work' board game — which sounds a bit like Monopoly for Guardian readers.
'Declare your pronouns or go directly to Jail.'
Public sector organisations, from Government departments and Town Halls to the police and fire brigade, employ more than 10,000 full-time diversity enforcers, on an average salary of £42,000 a year.
Celebrating diversity at the taxpayers' expense is the country's fastest-growing job creation scheme.
Back in the summer I brought you news of a few of the exciting career possibilities being advertised. Here's a couple of examples . . .
The NHS is constantly pleading poverty, but that didn't stop Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals creating a role for a 'Head of Leadership, Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Wellbeing' on the thick end of £76,000 a year — triple the starting salary of a junior doctor.
In Surrey, they were desperately seeking an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Lead on 53 grand, plus an extra five per cent allowance to compensate for the cost of living and commuting in one of the more expensive parts of the country.
But then the advert stressed that working from home was to be encouraged. So why the top-up? Presumably to pay for their Netflix subscription and Hobnobs when they're WFH.
The mystery is how they manage to organise all these workshops and seminars when hardly anybody employed by the Civil Service bothers going into the office more than one or two days a week. Can you do African drumming over Zoom?
And even when they do turn up, in between playing woke board games, ingesting diversity dogma, and taking part in 'self-hate' sessions, it's not surprising they never get any proper work done.
OK, so it's easy to mock. But at a time when so-called public services are a shambles and the country is mired in post-Covid debt, with taxes at a 70-year high, it's nothing short of a scandal that so much is being flushed down the gurgler on political fripperies.
The job of the NHS, for instance, is to treat patients. Full stop.
Not to tell staff how to think. Yet if the salary structure is any indication, the Left-wing bureaucrats who run the health service value equality and diversity officers above nurses, ambulance drivers and junior doctors.
With seven million people waiting for operations, how the hell can the NHS justify spending 76 grand, plus perks, on a 'Head of Leadership, Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Wellbeing'?
What about the wellbeing of patients suffering from cancer, or waiting interminably at the back of the queue for a new hip? As I said, quite apart from the outrageous expense, the really sinister aspect of all this is the entire public sector's ruthless promotion of contentious woke doctrine such as 'critical race theory' — which peddles the lie that Britain is an evil society built on racism.
If staff don't buy into this wicked creed they can forget about promotion. If they openly challenged it, they would probably get the sack after being fitted up on a charge of 'racism' or 'transphobia' or somesuch.
The diversity commissars demand absolute fealty.
It even extends to private companies, who must sign up to the woke agenda if they are to stand any chance of winning contracts from the public sector.
All this has come to pass during 12 years of nominally 'Conservative' Government. This week, 40 Tory MPs finally rebelled, demanding that the Chancellor turns off the tap for everything from hiring diversity tsars to holding woke workshops.
They're wasting their time. There's no more chance of that happening than England winning the World Cup this century. They might as well get with the programme. The game's up.
***********************************************
DOJ Official Admits Targeting Pro-Lifers Is Response to Overturn of Roe
The Justice Department has been targeting pro-life activists through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act as a response to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, according to Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta.
Gupta delivered remarks at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division’s 65th Anniversary earlier this month. The associate attorney general described the overturn of Roe v. Wade as a “devastating blow to women throughout the country” that took away “the constitutional right to abortion” and increased “the urgency” of the DOJ’s work—including the “enforcement of the FACE Act, to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive services.”
Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta looks on as U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice Aug. 2. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services.”
It protects both pro-life pregnancy centers and abortion clinics, as a DOJ official noted to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, last week.
At least 98 Catholic churches and 77 pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life organizations have been attacked since May, but the DOJ has apparently not charged a single person in connection with these attacks. Meanwhile, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has charged 26 pro-life individuals with FACE Act violations this year.
The DOJ has not responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment on this point.
Pregnancy resource centers are typically run by pro-life women who seek to offer expectant mothers alternatives to abortion. Such centers provide diapers, baby clothes, and resources for both mothers and fathers, empowering them to care for their child, overcome addictions, build community, and find jobs.
****************************************
13 December, 2022
Internet dating is big on disappointment
Some excerpts below from a long article about internet dating that discusses "scientific" dating. A scientific approach ought to be helpful but the prevalence of sad stories about failures of internet dating casts doubt on that. The existing matching strategies seem not up to expectations. Why?
I don't have a magic answer to that but since I have been using dating advertisements of one sort or another for around 60 years, maybe my experience could have some lessons. Before the internet there were of course newspapers and they have always carried advertisements seeking relationships. I started using such advertisements when I was around 20 and I am now just months away from 80.
I must add that I have not used advertisements exclusively. I have been married 4 times and I met the first 3 ladies concerned the "old fashioned" way -- through personal social contacts. Sadly, none of the marriages proved permanent so I have had plenty of use for advertisements before, after and in between the marriages.
I like women and get on well with them so I hope to have one in my life at all times. And I have managed that with not much in the way of gaps. I have had long relationships of seven years, ten years and 14 years but in between those long arrangements there have been many shorter relationships. And advertisements have given me both long and short relationships.
And I have in fact found that looking for matching characteristics between myself and a woman has always been a good way to start a relationship. The approach outlined in the excerpts below is correct in my experience. I have met many fine women that way. Matching ideas, ideals, values, opinions and experiences with a woman works as a preliminary to meeting.
But appearance also comes into it. I have only ever had average looks so I have had to have other advantageous qualities. Fortunately many women have liked some of my other qualities. I had to have looks good enough to get a pass and after that other factors came into play
And that worked very well up to and during my 60s. But it has been more difficult in my 70s. I had a significant breakup around 3 years ago and that was not easily remedied. Through internet advertisements I did meet up with about a dozen women but most of them did not wish to continue seeing me. There were also a couple of "near misses" -- women with whom I had a short friendship that did not last.
But finally, almost a year ago, I met my present partner -- via Match.com. And it's a good relationship which looks hopeful for the long term. She looks good too! So advertisements offer hope even to old guys like me. I have met women the old way and the modern way and think both are worthwhile.
So what do I have to say to people who have undergone an inferno of disappointment from internet dating? Mainly some very old-fashioned advice: Persistance pays and it also pays to keep a positive attitude. Don't rush to judgment about another person. Don't go by first impressions. Good qualities can take a while to become evident.
Some less usual advice could help too. As Oscar Wilde may have said: "Life is too important to be taken seriously". And the Hagakure had that idea too: "Matters of great concern should be treated lightly". So relax! Approaching a prospective partner in a cheerful, relaxed way is usually best.
There is a recent picture of me below. If someone as rough-looking as I am these days can get a girl, there is hope for everyone
This is how Helen Fisher, the 77-year-old chief scientific adviser for Match.com and one of the best-known, most-often-quoted experts on romance and “mate choice,” understands life: Personality is a cocktail of hormones; love comes from the buzz of mixing them just right. The human sex drive hasn’t changed for millions of years, she argues, nor has the human capacity for long-term attachment. If, as a cautious, conventional technology journalist, I’m preoccupied with the question of how we live now, Fisher has spent her career exploring the story of how we’ve lived (and loved) always.
Her confidence in this reality—in the static nature of our coupling behaviors—makes Fisher a notable source of comfort in an era of constant worry about the state of romance. Dating on the internet, writers and therapists and mothers and comedians say, is both too easy and too hard. Our social skills are eroding; we are having far too much sex (or maybe far too little); we are suffering from a profound and modern alienation. Fisher is the woman to calm us with the news that actually, we’re fine. Dating apps can’t possibly kill romance, she argues, even if they do make us feel a bit uncomfortable by showing us so many options. “It’s the same old brain,” she told me, as she’s told many other journalists looking to reassure their readers (or themselves) that smartphones haven’t ruined us forever. “The brain hasn’t changed in 300,000 years.” ....
She’s famous for her science books: five volumes, published from 1982 to 2009 (plus a 2016 reissue of her most famous book, Anatomy of Love), that together lay out a theory of how partnership evolved and which parts of human biology are responsible for its particulars. “In short, romantic love is deeply embedded in the architecture and chemistry of the human brain,” she wrote in 2004’s Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. That book may have been the one that brought her to the attention of Match.com, which had launched about a decade earlier as one of the first online-dating sites. (The Match Group, with its dozens of subsidiary dating apps, would develop later.) A representative of the company called Fisher two days before Christmas in 2004 and asked her to come in for a meeting, which turned out to be an audience with “everyone from the CEO on down.” They were looking for insight, they told her. Why does anybody fall in love with one person and not another? Well, people tend to pair up based on where they live, and on having similar education levels and socioeconomic backgrounds, she explained. And as she was sitting there, it hit her that this was not very insightful. You can walk into a room where everyone is of your background and you don’t fall in love with all of them, she thought. “It dawned on me in that moment,” she told me: “Could we have evolved biological patterns so that we’re naturally drawn to some people rather than others?”
Other dating sites already said they were using science to calculate a couple’s compatibility. One of Match’s rivals, eHarmony, was offering a new and allegedly better way of finding people dates: Instead of pairing users according to, say, shared favorite foods or times of year, eHarmony promised to apply a “proprietary matching model” to make “scientifically proven” assessments of compatibility based on a personality test with hundreds of questions. The site even had its own relationship expert: Neil Clark Warren, a clinical psychologist and the author of a book called Date or Soul Mate?
Fisher thought she could come up with a better system, using what she knew about evolution and the human mind. (Match would market her system as being more inviting than the one offered by eHarmony, which was specifically built by its Christian evangelical founder to facilitate heterosexual relationships.) In Why We Love, she’d argued for the existence of “three primordial brain networks that evolved to direct mating and reproduction.” The first was responsible for lust, the second for romantic love, and the third for a specific “male-female attachment” defined by “the feeling of calm, peace, and security one often has for a long term mate.” But this wouldn’t help with suggesting matches. She would have to look elsewhere in the brain.
Her first task, she told me, was to sit down with four sheets of paper, one each for the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin and the hormones estrogen and testosterone. Then she listed personality traits that she thought were associated with each one, according to what she described to me as research from “hundreds of academic articles,” thereby creating four personality styles. “Builders,” high in serotonin, would be logical and traditional. “Explorers,” high in dopamine, would be spontaneous and daring. “Negotiators,” high in estrogen, would be empathetic and imaginative, and “directors,” high in testosterone, would be decisive and competitive. Those categories soon became the basis for Chemistry.com, which was Match’s first entry in the race to build an objective and empirical dating app. Users filled out a questionnaire written by Fisher and were assigned primary and secondary personality styles. These, in turn, were provided to users to help them sift through their matches and find the ones they were more likely to click with. According to Fisher’s system, builders match well with other builders, explorers with explorers, and negotiators with directors.
*********************************************************
Court Permanently Blocks Biden Administration’s Transgender Mandate
A federal appeals court has permanently blocked the Biden administration’s bid to force doctors and insurers to perform or pay for gender-transition procedures even if they object on grounds of conscience and medical judgment, with the court basing its decision on constitutional protections of religious freedom.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit issued a unanimous ruling (pdf) on Dec. 9 blocking the controversial U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) transgender mandate.
Issued in 2016, the mandate interpreted the Affordable Care Act in a way that required doctors to perform gender-transition procedures on any patient, including children, even if the doctor was convinced the procedure could harm the patient.
Controversial Mandate
The mandate also required the vast majority of private insurance companies and many employers to cover the costs of gender-transition therapy or face penalties.
The HHS’s own panel of medical experts acknowledged that gender-transition procedures can be harmful and in many cases not medically justified, with HHS determining that Medicare and Medicaid should not be forced to cover such procedures.
Research has shown that gender-transition procedures carry significant risk for children, including loss of bone density, heart disease, and cancer.
‘Do No Harm’
Religious organizations and states sued to block the mandate, with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the North Dakota Attorney General’s office representing some of the groups.
“The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their consciences or perform controversial procedures that could permanently harm their patients,” Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said in a statement.
“This is a common-sense ruling that protects patients, aligns with best medical practice, and ensures doctors can follow their Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm,’” he added.
Becket filed the lawsuit in 2016 on behalf of a coalition of Catholic hospitals, a Catholic university, and Catholic nuns who run health clinics for the poor.
A federal district court blocked the mandate from taking effect, leading the Biden administration to appeal the case to the 8th Circuit, which in its Dec. 8 ruling concluded that the lower court “correctly held that ‘intrusion upon the Catholic Plaintiff’s exercise of religion'” justified a permanent injunction.
The Biden administration has 90 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court or 45 days to ask the 8th Circuit court to rehear the case. There was no immediate reaction from the White House to the ruling.
Goodrich said in a call with reporters that he doubts the “Biden administration will pursue either of these avenues.”
The case is Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, case No. 21-1890.
Other Case
Besides the Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, Becket also represents plaintiffs in a separate but related case initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
In that case, known as Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra, the Texas court issued a preliminary ruling in December 2016 that the mandate was a likely violation of religious freedom but stopped short of issuing an order that would have blocked the policy from being applied.
After an appeal by the challengers seeking a permanent injunction to block the mandate, the court agreed in 2021 to grant permanent relief to doctors and hospitals.
The Biden administration appealed but lost.
On Aug. 26, 2022, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision and issued a permanent injunction that allows doctors and hospitals to decide whether to carry out gender-transition procedures based on their conscience and medical judgment.
“The government’s attempt to force doctors to go against their consciences was bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for religious liberty,” Goodrich said in a statement.
The Biden administration has made transgender issues a key policy pillar, advocating strongly on behalf of people seeking gender-transition procedures and therapies and opposing policies like so-called “conversion therapy,” as it’s dubbed by critics, and “change-allowing therapy,” as it’s often referred to by advocates.
This type of therapy is basically counseling that helps people who want to change their sexual orientation or who want to de-transition after earlier changing their gender identity or expression.
“The phrase ‘Conversion therapy’ is provocative, pejorative, and ill-defined,” wrote André Van Mol, a board-certified family physician and co-chair of the Committee on Adolescent Sexuality of the American College of Pediatricians.
“It is a jamming tactic that combines both anti-religious allusions (‘conversion,’ implicitly forced) along with intimidation against therapists who allow patient-directed investigation of possible change,” Van Mol added.
Attack on ‘Conversion Therapy’
In a 10-page executive order issued on June 15, 2022, President Joe Biden pledged to defend the LGBT community from various forms of discrimination and expressed opposition to “conversion therapy.”
The order, which was accompanied by a seven-page explanation, describes conversion therapy as “efforts to suppress or change an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”
In the order, Biden called for an administration-wide push to eliminate the use of such therapy by therapists across the nation, describing the practice as “harmful” and “discredited” and that it “can cause significant harm, including higher suicide rates.”
Twenty states and more than 100 municipalities have banned “conversion therapy” for minors.
The American Psychological Association, in a report released in 2009, stated that therapies used to try to change sexual orientation can be harmful and that most don’t succeed.
But some in the medical community have criticized reliance on the American Psychological Association’s report in attacks on change-allowing therapy.
“The habitually misquoted American Psychological Association’s Task Force’s 2009 report (on page 43) stated specifically that modern change-allowing therapy ‘since 1978’ was ‘nonaversive,’ meaning free of infliction of pain or shame,” Van Mol wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.
Van Mol said the Task Force’s report explicitly states on pages 43 and 82 that research meeting scientific standards didn’t allow attributing harm or help, inefficacy or efficacy, to change-allowing therapy.
“Banning counseling choice for gender dysphoria condemns already at-risk sexual minority youth to experimental and unproven hormonal and surgical gender-affirming therapy (GAT), which permanently and prematurely medicalizes children for a condition that overwhelmingly resolves by adulthood,” he said.
Van Mol said GAT hasn’t been proven safe and effective. It doesn’t reduce suicides and isn’t the international standard of care for gender dysphoric minors.
‘State-Sanctioned Viewpoint Discrimination’
Elizabeth Woning of California is a co-founder of the Changed Movement, an international network of people who no longer identify as LGBT.
“So-called conversion therapy is a pejorative phrase that is being used to promote state-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination,” Woning told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview. “LGBTQ-identifying people deserve the right to follow their conscience, even when it means receiving support to diminish unwanted sexual feelings.”
“Such bans dramatically oversimplify the lived experience of anyone who identifies as LGBTQ. They offer only one route for people to follow, no matter their faith or conscience,” she said.
Nevada therapist Robert Vazzo told The Epoch Times that he’s opposed to the Biden administration’s pushback against “conversion therapy,” a concept he said is not clearly defined and so opens the door to government overreach and abuse.
“Don’t ban anything that is poorly defined and can lead to a witch hunt among therapists whose world view regarding homosexuality is different from the mainstream,” he said.
Vazzo said the courts have consistently affirmed a therapist’s right to give his or her opinion during a session as part of free speech.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/court-permanently-blocks-biden-administrations-transgender-mandate_4915913.html ?
***************************************************
Retired Navy SEAL Chris Beck, who came out as trans, announces detransition: ‘destroyed my life’
A retired Navy SEAL who became famous nearly 10 years ago after coming out as transgender announced he is detransitioning and called on Americans to “wake up” about how transgender health services are hurting children.
“Everything you see on CNN with my face, do not even believe a word of it,” Chris Beck, formerly known as Kristin Beck, told conservative influencer Robby Starbuck in an interview published earlier this month. “Everything that happened to me for the last ten years destroyed my life. I destroyed my life. I’m not a victim. I did this to myself, but I had help.”
“I take full responsibility,” he continued. “I went on CNN and everything else, and that’s why I’m here right now, I’m trying to correct that.”
Beck gained notoriety in 2013 when he spoke with CNN’s Anderson Cooper about transitioning to a woman.
“I was used … I was very naive, I was in a really bad way, and I got taken advantage of. I got propagandized. I got used badly by a lot of people who had knowledge way beyond me. They knew what they were doing. I didn’t,” he said during the interview.
Beck served in the US Navy for 20 years, including on SEAL Team Six. He was deployed 13 times and received more than 50 medals and ribbons for his service.
Beck said he’s speaking out about transgenderism to protect children in the current political climate, where there are gender clinics “over all of America.”
“There are thousands of gender clinics being put up over all of America,” he said. “As soon as [kids] go in and say, ‘I’m a tomboy or this makes me feel comfortable’ and then a psychologist says, ‘oh, you’re transgender’. And then the next day you’re on hormones – the same hormones they are using for medical castration for pedophiles. Now they are giving this to healthy 13-year-olds.”
“Does this seem right,” he asked. “This is why I am trying to tell America to wake up.”
Beck said that when he began transitioning, it took just an hour-long meeting at Veterans Affairs to be offered hormones.
“I walked into a psychologist’s office [and] in one day I have a letter in my hand saying I was transgender. I was authorized for hormones. I was authorized all this other stuff,” Beck said.
“I had so much going wrong in my system when I started taking those,” he added. “Some of that was paid for by the VA, and I’m sorry to the American people that I did that.”
Beck said he has been off of hormones for about seven years now.
“This is a billion-dollar industry between psychologists, between surgeries, between hormones, between chemicals, between follow-up treatments,” he continued. “There are thousands of gender clinics popping up all over our country. And each of those gender clinics is going to be pulling in probably over $50 million.”
*******************************************************
The Terrorist Attack On America No One Is Talking About
The (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer, McClatchy’s well-regarded North Carolina regional newspaper, recently reported that, “Thousands of people in Moore County, NC are without power after vandalism of electrical substations.” The article detailed how two Duke Energy electric system substations were damaged by gunfire sometime during Saturday evening. On Monday, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper called the attack a "criminal act" in a press conference.
Moore County (North Carolina) Sheriff Ronnie Field said the person who orchestrated the shooting on the North Carolina power stations, leaving nearly an entire county without electricity for a second straight day, "knew exactly" how to disable the stations, Fox News reported on Monday.
Governor Cooper and the reporters at the Raleigh News & Observer seem to be approaching this matter with the same mindset that establishment media almost always applies to acts of terror – it’s a law enforcement, criminal justice matter, not a national security threat.
We think they have it wrong on this – vandalism is spray painting your school team name on the town water tower – and to our way of thinking about what differentiates “vandalism” from terrorism, this was no prank or act of mindless sociopathy.
Calling the destruction by gunfire of two electric system substations “vandalism” is a lot like calling the Russian bombing of Ukraine’s electric power grid “vandalism” rather than what it was – an attack intended to terrorize an enemy civilian population and interrupt the country’s civil society and military organization.
And the attack on the electrical grid in North Carolina did both.
Moore County — which also includes the town of Southern Pines — lies just west of Fort Bragg. Commands across the installation told the Army Times that they were working feverishly to support their personnel who were impacted.
An unknown number of soldiers have been affected by the outage, which created a last-second childcare crisis and poses other risks such as food spoilage in refrigerators without electric power and water outages for rural residents whose homes rely on electric-pump wells.
Sgt. Maj. Alex Licea, an XVII Airborne Corps spokesperson, the unit which oversees the installation and the majority of Fort Bragg troops, told The Army Times, “soldiers and civilian personnel who reside in Moore County and work for the XVIII Airborne Corps and its subordinate units were authorized late report call…”.
And yesterday marked the second day Moore County schools will be closed. About 38,000 households were still without power as the community suffers from freezing nighttime temperatures. The outage has also rendered wastewater pumps in the area out of order, and traffic lights are also out, with numerous accidents reported.
Emergency shelters have been opened to the public with facilities for charging mobile devices, but no announcement has been made regarding charging facilities for personal electric vehicles.
However, while much of the rhetoric coming from elected officials and local law enforcement appears intended to keep the public thinking of these attacks as “vandalism” and a local law enforcement matter, in January, a bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security, obtained by CBS News, warned that domestic violent extremists "have developed credible, specific plans to attack electricity infrastructure since at least 2020, identifying the electric grid as a particularly attractive target." But DHS has not issued any statement connecting the current situation in Moore County to extremism.
The U.S. has roughly 55,000 substations. Earlier this year "60 Minutes" reported on how vulnerable they often are.
"There's a very few number of substations you need to take out in the entire United States to knock out the entire grid," Jon Wellinghoff, former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told "60 Minutes" correspondent BIll Whitaker.
Our friends at the Center for Security Policy (CSP) have spent years warning elected officials and policymakers about the vulnerability of our power grid and electric distribution infrastructure.
As CSP Executive Vice President Tommy Waller explained in a recent article, these attacks happen much more frequently than most people realize.
Physical attacks on the U.S. grid occur at a frequency of more than one per week according to Michael Mabee, who tracks data on electric outages reported to the Department of Energy (DOE).
According to Mabee’s analysis of DOE data, from January 1, 2010, through August 2022, there have been at least 919 physical attacks on the U.S. grid and the rate of attacks is increasing.
In some cases, these acts are not terrorism but criminal and involve the theft of copper.
In other cases, such as the well-documented 2013 attack in on the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Metcalf substation in San Jose – the attackers did not want to steal copper but rather sabotage the grid, causing costly, life-threatening blackouts. Despite promises from PG&E to improve security, the same substation was breached again in 2014.
So far there have been no credible claims of responsibility for the North Carolina attack, which does not appear to have theft as its motive, leaving terrorism as the most likely motive, and certainly the result. While much of the report focuses on cyber threats to the electric grid, we urge CHQ readers and friends to read the Center for Security Policy February 2022 report warning of a potential increase in national security threats to critical infrastructure and to then contact your federal and state legislators to demand that immediate steps be taken to harden the American energy grid against attacks similar to the one just perpetrated in North Carolina
https://www.conservativehq.org/post/the-terrorist-attack-on-america-no-one-is-talking-about
****************************************
12 December, 2022
So now we know: Twitter secretly erased conservative voices - and let terrorists and vile vermin tweet freely
If free speech is a pillar of democracy, then Twitter should be charged with sabotage, because they've taken sledgehammer to it. And every American has the right to be absolutely outraged.
The latest 'Twitter Files' drop on Thursday night revealed that partisan extremists at one of America's most influential social media platforms wrapped a torniquet around the vein of free thought and wrenched it tight.
And to add insult to injury, the whole time, Twitter was lying about it. Then-CEO Jack Dorsey told Congress that he had no idea why conservatives were moaning about being silenced – a.k.a. 'shadow banned.'
Well, guess what? Conservatives were right.
We learned that in addition to shutting down bombshell reporting, like the New York Post's exclusive on Hunter Biden's laptop, Twitter executives were also suppressing individual Americans who didn't blindly parrot liberal orthodoxy.
The account of Stanford professor, Dr. Jay Battachyara's was muffled for sharing thoughtful criticism of COVID lockdowns.
America's kids were kept out of school and in masks. Businesses were destroyed and churches shuttered, and our dying were kept from seeing family, but Twitter pronounced these ideas verboten.
No wonder famously unprofitable, woke Twitter had trouble making money. They censored anything that was even remotely interesting.
Battachyara's tweets would have been a good read for millions who were locked inside their homes and apartments for months on end. But instead, he landed on a secret 'blacklist,' according to journalist Bari Weiss, who was given access to internal Twitter documents by Elon Musk.
'A new [Twitter Files] investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics — all in secret, without informing users,' Weiss wrote.
What else did a few liberals in Silicon Valley deem off-limits for the rest of us?
************************************************
Court Sides With Catholic Doctors on Biden's Transgender Surgery Policy
A federal appeals court sides with with the Religious Sisters of Mercy and other groups against the Biden Administration’s transgender surgery policy which demanded religious doctors to perform sex change procedures in violation of their beliefs.
The eighth circuit permanently blocked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from mandating Catholic doctors to go along with the Democrat’s radical, progressive agenda.
“We agree with these courts and therefore conclude that the district court correctly held that ‘intrusion upon the Catholic Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion is sufficient to show irreparable harm,’” the eight circuit wrote following their decision.
The vice president and senior counsel at Becket Law who represented the plaintiffs, Luke Goodrich, condemned the federal government for even attempting to forced doctors to perform surgeries they are not comfortable with.
“The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their consciences or perform controversial procedures that could permanently harm their patients,” Goodrich said in a statement, adding “today’s victory sets an important precedent that religious healthcare professionals are free to practice medicine in accordance with their consciences and experienced professional judgment… the government’s attempt to force doctors to go against their consciences was bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for religious liberty.”
Goodrich praised the court’s decision, saying that it will set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
He added that the doctors he represented, including himself, found it deeply disturbing that the Biden Administration allows the procudeures to take place because, based on strong medical evidence, it can be very harmful to patients.
The Biden Administration can appeal the court’s decision, however Goodrich says he think this will be unlikely.
“I doubt the Biden Administration is going to pursue either of those avenues,” Goodrich said, adding “number one, these rulings were on very solid grounds, very strong rulings. It’s kinda hard to even debate that these rulings are wrong.”
*******************************************
City Tells Owner of Nativity Display to Take It Down - Something Amazing Happens When He Refuses to Comply
A dispute between a Arkansas city and a Christian group over a Christmas nativity display has ended with a change of heart on the part of city authorities.
The city of Eureka Springs, Arkansas sought the removal of a nativity scene from Basin Spring Park earlier this month, according to KYTV.
Mayor Butch Berry told the director of the group that set up the display in the public park that the city had been threatened with a lawsuit as a result of its placement.
“That upset me, and I wanted to know why,” Randall Christy stated of the city’s initial decision.
Christy is the executive director of The Great Passion Play, an Arkansas organization that stages a yearly dramatic depiction of Christ’s death and resurrection.
“He said there was a threat of a lawsuit and the city attorney had advised him just to have it removed.”
Christy declined to bow before the demand to end the yearly tradition — all seemingly at the behest of one litigant determined to sink a community fixture that had lasted for decades.
“And I said, no, we’re not going to do that. We don’t believe that one citizen’s opinion can force us to remove the Nativity that has been here for decades.”
The display is a 72-year old tradition in the Arkansas community, according to Christy.
After the city told Christy to take down the nativity scene, something that could’ve been pulled right out of a Christmas movie occurred. Amazingly, people from everywhere, not just Eureka Springs, rose up together to protest having to take down the nativity scene.
Protests on the parts of locals and others determined to defend the Christmas spirit appear to have been enough to set the city straight, according to KYTV.
“The city of Eureka Springs is following its philosophy of being inclusive of all people and all beliefs,” the city and Mayor Berry said of the controversy in a statement provided to KYTV.
“We appreciate the emails and phone calls received from all over the country. And we wish everyone peace and goodwill toward all during this holiday season.”
Christy later thanked Mayor Berry for deciding to allow the Nativity scene in a Facebook post.
Berry had notified Christy that the city would not require his organization to remove the Christian display — and that the city would fight any lawsuit seeking to purge the nativity scene in the courts.
It’s unclear if a lawsuit to purge the nativity scene from the public park will ultimately be filed. Nativity scenes are commonly displayed in American public parks around Christmas, and their presence on public property has been found constitutional before.
The display of nativity scenes are an ancient Christian tradition meant to highlight the miracle of Christ’s virgin birth.
*************************************************************
‘Woke’: Australia’s London embassy erases history by removing high commissioners’ portraits
Australia’s embassy in London has been accused of cancelling more than 100 years of history with the removal of the portraits of the nation’s high commissioners to the UK.
Staff at Australia House on the Strand have quietly removed the photographs of our top diplomats in London, which previously adorned the walls along the stairs.
They will now be warehoused, with the images put on a website instead.
Sources in London claimed the images were stripped because they were of “white men” who were “symbols of patriarchy”, with the embassy wanting to appear more inclusive.
“This is just another woke erasure of history. Just because someone happened to be of a certain gender or race does not mean their contribution should be hidden,” a political source said.
“It’s entirely against the idea of treating people equally, no matter their race or background.
“It’s also terrible for Australia’s global reputation to be endorsing divisive identity politics, to tell the world that we are backwards and embarrassed about our past. Australia’s diplomats should be aware that Brits do not look kindly on cancel culture these days.”
Lynette Wood, Australia’s acting High Commissioner to the UK, denied there was an agenda behind the removal of the portraits. “This is certainly not true at all,” Ms Wood said.
The High Commission said in a statement the portraits would be put online instead of being returned to the walls of Australia House. “The portraits of former High Commissioners are in the process of being digitised,” a statement said.
“Following digitalisation, the portraits will be archived on the Australian High Commission website, enabling greater access to the important historical information on all Heads of Mission who have served in the UK.”
The disappearance of the portraits has been the talk of London’s diplomatic circles, with their absence noted at a recent function.
“The excuse about ‘digitalisation’ is obviously total nonsense. They should at least have the guts to admit their true motivations,” a source added.
There were 26 portraits honouring each of Australia’s High Commissioners to the UK, honouring those who led the diplomatic mission.
Images of former High Commissioners George Brandis, Alexander Downer, Mike Rann and John Dauth all the way back to the first to take on the role, Sir George Reid and former Australian Prime Minister Andrew Fisher.
Foreign dignitaries walked past the portraits on the way to the High Commissioner’s office on the upper levels of the grand building.
Australia House on The Strand stitches together the fabric of expat society in London. The building hosts receptions, including welcoming Australians who were invited to the Queen’s funeral in September.
Australia’s Ashes teams are also usually welcomed at functions there, while business and political leaders from across the world are regularly wined and dined there.
The building was one of the most expensive in the world when it was built, and has featured in movies including as the set of Gringotts bank in the Harry Potter movies.
The office of Foreign Minister Penny Wong was not told about the move before the portraits were taken down.
****************************************
11 December, 2022
‘Men’s Rights are Human Rights:’ Theme for Human Rights Day on December 10
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights unequivocally declares, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, [or] sex.”
(1) Each year, this historic document is celebrated on Human Rights Day, observed around the world on December 10. Accordingly, the Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance (DAVIA) is calling on lawmakers and civil society groups this year to highlight the theme: “Men’s Rights are Human Rights.”
During the days leading up to Human Rights Day, nine separate editorials from around the world highlight a range of human rights concerns of men, especially in regards to domestic violence policies that falsely stereotype males as abusers
(2): Globally, men are disadvantaged, compared to women, in at least five areas: Life expectancy, treatment by the criminal system, child custody, false allegations of abuse, and college enrollments, according to one analysis (3).
In Canada, Janice Fiamengo noted that “men are the preferred targets of accusation, blame, and hatred,” and tartly concluded, “men are rightly tired of being told they must take responsibility for acts of violence they have never committed and which they are powerless to stop.”
(4) In Europe, Stephen Baskerville argued that the Istanbul Convention, which denies the very existence of male abuse victims, is “unnecessary, dishonest, and dangerous.”
(5) In Bermuda, families reportedly are being harmed by domestic violence policies that do not recognize the fact that “Studies show that men suffer equally as women from domestic violence.”
(6) One editorial from the United States argued, “The systemic exclusion of boys and men’s issues from public policy conversations around equity, equality, and human rights is one of the reasons it is so important the legislature creates a commission on boys and men.” [emphasis in the original]
(7) Carl Roberts commented that “Extensive experience reveals a fundamental problem with the family court, child support, child welfare, and domestic violence systems is an unsupported bias and belief that men are less safe than women,” which contributes the problem of fatherlessness
(8). Regarding the global problem of sexual abuse, A Hidden Right of Men Worldwide revealed that “most countries have tended to ignore that males are victims of sexual abuse perhaps as much as females, and certainly to a much greater extent than is reported or recognized.”
(9) Two commentaries urged the United Nations to accord greater emphasis to the human rights of men:
In India, an editorial charged that men often are denied “equal rights, equal justice, equal government facilities, equal benefits, [and] equal say,” and called for the United Nations to establish a UN Men agency
(10). One article highlighted the pervasive role of gender ideology at UN Women, referring to its “16 Days of Activism Against Gendered Violence” campaign as an exercise in virtue signaling
(11). On September 5, 1995, Hillary Clinton gave a historic speech at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in which she uttered the words, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Twenty-seven years later, the Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance urges that Human Rights Day observances declare a parallel principle: “Men’s rights are human rights.”
http://endtodv.org/pr/mens-rights-are-human-rights-theme-for-human-rights-day-on-december-10/
***************************************************
Pre-Musk Twitter: The Multibillion Dollar Marxist Political Operation Masquerading As A Business
The revelations in the Twitter corporate document dump reported by Matt Taibbi last week raised a firestorm on the Right and generate a mass call for a congressional investigation once Republicans takeover the House in January.
Much of the well-justified outrage centered the apparent FBI, DHS and Biden campaign influence behind Twitter decisions to ban or delete content and accounts that undermined Joe Biden’s chances of winning the 2020 election or contradicted the official government narrative on COVID origins and vaccine efficacy.
"Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly," Taibbi wrote. "By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: ‘More to review from the Biden team.’ The reply would come back: 'Handled.'"
Perhaps the most disturbing part of Taibbi’s revelations is that they aren’t that surprising. Everybody knew that Twitter covered up a story that may have harmed Joe Biden. It’s just now we can see the evidence — and for that we should thank Elon Musk.
The focus on “outsiders” contacting Twitter executives to manipulate speech is understandable, but it misses a larger and we think more important point – for a long time, maybe even since its inception, Twitter hasn’t been a business, it has been a political operation.
In 2021, Twitter's annual net loss amounted to 221 million U.S. dollars. Overall, this is a significant decrease from the previous year, in which the micro blogging and social network company saw losses of almost 1.4 billion U.S. dollars. Twitter has been losing money big-time, and the picture was not improving prior to the Elon Musk acquisition. After losing a total of $2.3 billion from 2013 (the year it went public) through 2017, Twitter only booked profits in 2018 and 2019.
Many Twitter employees vocally protested Mr. Musk’s involvement in the company since his investment was announced in early April, arguing that he would shift the company culture and damage its efforts to control problems like bullying, threats and misinformation on the platform.
Prince Al Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who described himself and the conglomerate he represents as one of Twitter’s largest and most long-term shareholders, said in a tweet that Twitter should reject the offer because it was not high enough to reflect the “intrinsic value of Twitter given its growth prospects.” Others said that the offer was sufficient but that Mr. Musk’s proposed changes could spark an advertiser exodus and hurt the value of the company.
“You’re not at some garage sale bidding on a lamp,” Brent Thill, an equity analyst at Jefferies told the New York Times. “It’s a service that is beloved by many throughout the world, and you can’t just make these quick actions.”
What each of the objectors to Elon Musk’s takeover seemed to be saying was they wanted the offer rejected because they don’t want to lose the power to stifle and manage the speech of others that management of Twitter bestowed upon them.
And what the Matt Taibbi reporting revealed was those employees who objected the loudest to the Musk takeover were among those exercising the power to stifle and manage the speech of others most vigorously.
Specifically regarding the Hunter Biden laptop, Matt Taibbi reported, "there’s no evidence - that I've seen" that the federal government had a role in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story but that "the decision was made at the highest levels of the company, but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey.” Taibbi reported Twitter’s Far Left former head of legal, policy and trust Vijaya Gadde played a key role in quashing the Hunter Biden story.
"'They just freelanced it,' is how one former employee characterized the decision. ‘Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it,’" Taibbi wrote, according to reporting by Joseph A. Wulfsohn of FOX News.
The implication of the statement “they just freelanced it” is, Leftwing Twitter executives killed the Hunter Biden laptop story simply because they could – they had the power to use assets owned by their employer’s shareholders to advance their own personal political agenda and they used it – without even informing the CEO of the company.
Remember, at the time the company was not making an operating profit, so the only payout investors were getting for the foreseeable future was appreciation in the value of their shares – and the power to control one very active and important corner of the public square.
Under its previous management Twitter wasn’t a business in the way entrepreneurs of the past thought of a business. It produced no products of value that could be monetized to make an operating profit for its shareholders – its only product was the power to establish and control political narratives – and from that perspective Twitter was never a “business” it was always a multibillion-dollar Marxist political operation. The fact that Elon Musk is dismantling that political operation is one of the most significant defeats the Left has suffered in generations and one that patriots should applaud and vigorously support.
******************************************************
Elon Musk Exposes Real Reason Twitter Censored Former President Donald Trump
Journalist Matt Taibbi published the third volume of the so-called “Twitter files” on Friday, exposing the social media platform’s censorship and deplatforming of former President Donald Trump.
The latest disclosure revealed that Twitter executives used the platform’s formidable “visibility filtering” powers against Trump ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections and that engagement with the FBI intensified before Trump was permanently suspended.
Endorsed by Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk, the “Twitter files” have exposed the social media company’s censorship machine.
The new report, report titled “The Removal of Donald Trump,” is the first of three specifically examining the actions of Twitter executives during the period from October 2020 to when Trump was deplatformed on Jan. 8, 2021.
Internal Slack chats at Twitter reveal that engagement between the company’s executives and federal law enforcement and intelligence organizations surged during this period.
“Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import,” Taibbi wrote. “Even Twitter’s employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech.”
“Is this the first sitting head of state to ever be suspended?” one Twitter employee, whose name is redacted, asked in a Slack chat that day.
Banning Trump
The messages show that Twitter executives removed Trump in part because of what one executive called the “context surrounding” the actions of Trump and his supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.”
In a message to Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former head of legal policy and trust, one executive whose name is redacted provided a “quick take” formulated by internal researchers and external academics to help decide whether to censor a Trump tweet or use it “as a last straw” before banning him.
The executive said the “decision on whether to pull that particular tweet” or use it “as a last straw” for Trump depends on “the overall context and narrative in which that tweet lives.”
“Context matters and the narrative that [T]rump and his friends have pursued over the course of this election and frankly last 4+ years must be taken into account,” the executive said, according to a screenshot of internal messages.
Before Trump was banned, Twitter also created a new tool to censor the then-sitting president after the election when he was vocal with his claims of election fraud. Internally, executives referred to the tool as “L3 deamplication.”
The new tool was announced on Dec. 10, 2020, when “Trump was in the middle of firing off 25 tweets saying things like, ‘A coup is taking place in front of our eyes,'” Taibbi wrote.
On Thursday, The Free Press editor Bari Weiss, another reporter handpicked by Musk as a conduit for releasing the files, published her report on the extent of Twitter’s tools for censorship, revealing the social media company’s secret blacklists. Her report noted that executives refer to “shadow banning” as “visibility filtering.”
*****************************************************
Parks Australia: when bureaucracy turns racist
Imagine telling a Brit of migrant origin that they’re forbidden from visiting the White Cliffs of Dover because they are a spiritually important geological feature – or that anyone with the wrong skin colour looking at them would cause distress and offence. What about if all non-white tourists were banned from Stonehenge because those who aren’t indigenous to the area are somehow violating the spirit of traditional ownership and tarnishing the land with their presence? How about a ‘welcome to country’ to all migrants every time they enter a public hall?
Yeah, I can hear the court cases and media outrage already. What unbelievable racism!!! White supremacy!!! How dare you offend migrants!!! They are just as British as anyone else!!! The press would cry, and they would be right, yet the conversation is identical to what is taking place in Australia.
White Brits are the Indigenous owners of the UK, but they’d be laughed at if they asked for special consideration surrounding their culturally sacred sites. There’s an assumption that Brits – or anyone of European descent – aren’t entitled to a connection to the land or their ancestral places. They’re stuck in racial purgatory because they – alone of all conquering civilisations – must suffer the loss of their identity as penance for dragging the world into the modern era. It doesn’t matter how terrible the sins are of other nations (plenty of which make Europe look like a panda petting zoo), the collectivists want to destroy Western dominance and they’ve decided to use imagined race politics to do it.
For a nation to maintain civil peace and cohesion, there is an understanding that all citizens are equal. Public spaces – such as National Parks – are the property of citizens to be funded by, looked after for, and enjoyed by everyone. Australians are entitled to feel a spiritual connection to their homeland, regardless of the colour of their skin. To suggest otherwise is outright racism and shame on the Liberal Party for failing to stand against Labor and the Greens on this issue that will see the children of this country ranked like a Bunnings paint chart. A sensible person would expect parents to be horrified at their children being saddled with the crimes of people who share their skin colour, but plenty of inner-city affluent families see the sacrifice of their children’s innocence as some kind of social purification. They love watching their children being punished.
The argument that a person’s DNA defines their affinity to the land is nonsense. A ‘white’ person born in Australia, who works the land and spends their whole life in the bush, will have a deep spiritual affinity. They will not have some kind of mystic connection to a country in Europe that they’ve never been to simply because, five generations ago, a distant relative was born there. It makes about as much sense as claiming Aboriginal Australians have a spiritual connection to Africa (instead of Australia) because Africa is the true origin of their genetic ancestry and a place where their elders spent millions, rather than tens of thousands, of years. After all, if we want to play the idiotic game of counting ancestors, all of us spent more time together in Africa than in any other place in the world.
Race politics is a political weapon brought out by the worst regimes as a way to divide society and scam money or power from whichever ‘race’ is being demonised. If our political class had any moral strength, this sort of behaviour would qualify as a crime.
Parks Australia was set up as a benign organisation to take care of national and marine parks, but recently they have turned into the Race Police, locking Australians of the wrong colour out of their publicly funded shared environments.
As an organisation, they have already been savaged by people old enough to remember how much better Australia’s parks did when they were open to the public and managed properly. The ‘lock up’ policies remain widely blamed by people who live around national parks for being the true cause of huge bushfires (that politicians wrongly attribute to climate change) due to poor maintenance of fire trails, the banning of grazing animals, prevention of farmers managing burn offs, and general poor upkeep by park rangers. Of course, Parks Australia gets really nasty when they are criticised by the public, but tough luck – they deserve it. Coastal areas in particular have seen the loss of their native wildflower fields due to management failing to maintain the regular burn-offs required to preserve the habitat with political concerns for ‘koala habitats’ drowning out any reasonable discussion.
Since then, Parks Australia have progressed from locking Australians out of public land due to ‘wildlife protection’ and are engaging in race-based lockouts justified by ‘honouring spiritual connections’ to the land by small Indigenous groups.
These public parks are paid for – and previously enjoyed by – all Australians, but now places like Mount Warning have been locked down. Closed during the pandemic (for reasons that are obviously complete nonsense), the park never re-opened to the public and has been renamed. Not only are people of the wrong race forbidden from walking the previously public track frequented by 120,000 people a year, but Australians are also banned from taking photographs – photographs! I bet Google Maps isn’t stopped from taking satellite imagery of the park.
As one person wrote on Facebook, ‘The whole of Australia will be deemed cultural land before too long, and we won’t be able to climb any mountain or cross any river. Disgrace.’ This sentiment was repeated by another who wrote, ‘My culture says I will climb that mountain whenever I feel like it. Sick of this over-regulated country … time to start giving the finger to authority.’
There are plenty of other similar comments. One might say that Parks Australia is one of the chief bodies responsible for sparking racial tension between Australian citizens by actively discriminating against them.
People are, quite rightly, asking why they should fund the upkeep of public parks if they are not allowed to enjoy or even photograph them. Why should a racist level of bureaucracy receive a single cent of public money?
Mount Warning is a natural geological feature. It was not built by a single Indigenous hand. As such, it is the joint property of all Australian citizens – a shared ancestral land for all who call themselves Australian. That was why national parks were set up in the first place. Any group that claims it is culturally unsafe or offensive to allow another person to visit due to their race – is racist. It is a sentiment that cannot be justified and should instead be openly shamed by all decent and moral people. Imagine if someone banned Indigenous people from climbing the Harbour Bridge because it would be ‘culturally unsafe’. Those times are gone, and allowing Indigenous groups to resurrect racism for political privilege and money is – as one Facebook user wrote – a farce.
Which brings us to what we might hope is the last straw.
Recently, Parks Australia sent out a letter of demand to the Herald Sun wanting them to remove a cartoon of Ayers Rock (Uluru). The cartoon by Mark Knight showed Ayers Rock looming over Parliament to symbolise the coming Voice to Parliament referendum.
Parks Australia attempted to say that drawing the national (and natural) geological feature violated its media guidelines surrounding ‘sensitive and sacred sites’ without a permit.
‘These artworks do not have media permits and breach media guidelines. To comply with the EPBC Act, media guidelines, ICIP (Indigenous Cultural Intellectual Property) laws and show respect for Anangu land and culture, we ask that you remove any artwork breaching these conditions and showing Uluru.’
A permit. To draw Ayers Rock. Most Australians were outraged to discover that such a ridiculous guideline existed and demanded Parks Australia explain itself.
To be frank, most people told Parks Australia to ‘get f—d’ or some variation on the theme of unprintable outrage.
The permits were meant to ‘protect Anangu against inappropriate use and benefits to others from the commercialisation of their Indigenous Cultural Intellectual Property’. What, like the decades of Tourism Australia ads that dug the regional community out of poverty? That kind of commercialisation? Before commercialisation, no one cared about locking people out of Ayers Rock because there was no guilt-money in it. If anything, the actions of Parks Australia is a form of commercialisation by gate-keeping licenses to draw the rock.
The Herald Sun met Parks Australia with a few scary looking lawyers and pretty quickly, Parks Australia replied:
‘Staff sent Mr Knight an email about the Ulu?u-Kata Tju?a media guidelines which was not appropriate. It isn’t a request that should have been made and we apologised for the error.’
An error or an embarrassment? Legal demands are rarely sent ‘by accident’. Someone made a conscious decision to draft it, pen it, approve it, and hit ‘send’.
Telling a cartoonist that they cannot draw Ayers Rock is pretty close to banning images of Mohammad. Roping off sections of culture for ‘special groups’ is not just a slippery slope – it’s a nightmare cliff that ends in division, hatred, and animosity.
‘It made me feel like I had done something wrong. I thought it was a very nice image and low and behold, ironically, I was asked to take it down,’ said Mr Knight.
That’s the point of race politics. Australians are being made to feel like they’ve done something wrong by enjoying an afternoon on their favourite walking track – or taking a selfie in the middle of the bush. It’s the art of creating outrage out of nothing and then shaking the collection bucket for reparations.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/12/parks-australia-when-bureaucracy-turns-racist/
****************************************
9 December, 2022
India to make Russia its number 1 oil supplier in move that could scupper impact of price cap
Russia is on its way to becoming India’s top oil supplier this month, with Moscow making huge inroads into the Asian giant’s energy sector in a move that will likely undermine the impact of a price cap imposed by G7 countries and their Western allies.
India’s imports of Russian crude oil climbed to the highest level ever in November as refiners purchased more than 1.03 million barrels per day (bpd), according to data provided to The Independent by commodities tracking firm Kpler.
The Narendra Modi-led government has been snapping up crude at discounted rates from Russia since the Ukraine invasion, as Western nations looked to pivot away from their reliance on Moscow for energy supplies.
From almost nothing in January and February this year, Russia’s oil exports climbed to 902,000 bpd by October and rose to a record high of a little more than 1 million bpd in November, according to preliminary data.
“This will likely result in Russia being India’s number 1 supplier in December,” Matt Smith, lead oil analyst at Kpler, told The Independent, overtaking its traditional Middle Eastern partners – Saudi Arabia and current top supplier Iraq – for the first time.
Delhi has not committed to the $60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil set by the G7 countries, including the European Union and Australia, in a bid to squeeze the Kremlin’s earnings from oil exports and stymie the money flowing to Vladimir Putin’s war chest.
It also comes as the European Union’s own partial embargo on Russian seaborne crude oil announced in May came into force on Monday, the same day the G7 enforced its price cap. The EU ban covers more than two-thirds of Russian oil imports coming into European countries.
India and China have become the two largest growing economies to buy Russian oil as Western democracies devised ways to squeeze the Russian economy and deepen its isolation. Delhi has repeatedly defended its imports from Russia, saying it has a responsibility to Indian citizens to get the best deal and that it will not be “pressured” by the West.
Rajeev Jain, additional director-general at India’s petroleum ministry, told The Independent that India’s ranking in Russia’s energy trade is “not a matter for our calculations” as Delhi’s only interest is in buying the cheapest oil.
“We will buy from wherever we get the cheapest oil. We are not concerned about becoming the number one or number two country [as] our interest lies in buying [wherever] we get the cheapest oil,” Mr Jain said.
He added that the G7 price cap will not affect Indian imports as the refiners buy through the best route and what is best available to them.
“We don’t negotiate on the route aspect. They buy as per their requirements and they negotiate as per the best rate available,” he said, referring to the entities involved in the trade.
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/russian-oil-prices-ukraine-war-india-b2240471.html
*******************************************
Brittney Griner release shows what real privilege is
Americans for LimitedGovernment President Rick Manning today issued the following statement inresponse to the Russian release of Brittney Griner:
“The Biden administration showed theworld what privilege really looks like when they agreed to exchange a WNBAbasketball player for a Russian arms dealer known as the Merchant of Death.
“Every American knows that if you,your son or daughter were caught carrying drugs in Russia, tried, convicted andsentenced, you would be doing everything you could to survive the next decadein a Russian gulag. LeBron James would not be advocating for you,sportswriters like theinsufferable Bill Plaschke would not be writing columns on your behalf,various interest groups wouldn't mobilize on your behalf, and needless to say,the president would have no idea who you were.
“But Brittney Griner is aprofessional athlete. An athlete who a vast majority of Americans had noidea who she was until she decided to go through Russian security with a vapingpen and hashish oil, which is a serious crime in Russia. Griner was notkidnapped, she was arrested, caught dead to rights. No allegations have beenmade that she was not guilty, or that her confession was coerced. Yet, she,unlike you, is worth the release of someone who was responsible for thousands,if not tens of thousands of black deaths in Africa due to his trade.
“As you are fed the celebration ofGriner's release today, just remember the cost of that release. The message hasbeen sent about what the Biden administration values. As for me, I am glad thatI am not a high-profile US athlete travelling the world, after all, if you can getthe Merchant of Death for Griner imagine what any run of the mill kidnapper canget out of the US government for a celebrity someone the American publicactually knows.”
https://getliberty.org/2022/12/brittney-griner-release-shows-what-real-privilege-is/
****************************************************
The Pleasures — and Pitfalls — of Paranoia
A couple in New Zealand have demanded that surgeons use only non-vaccinated blood to perform a life-saving heart operation on their baby.
Since the New Zealand blood transfusion service does not categorize blood into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and it would be futile even to try, this amounts to the parents refusing to allow the surgeons to operate.
Not surprisingly, the hospital has gone to court to have the parents replaced, at least temporarily, as legal guardians of the child.
Man is supposed to be the rational animal, and so he is — in part. After all, only the prolonged exercise of rationality could have resulted in even the possibility of a life-saving operation on the heart of a baby.
On the other hand, there is a strong strain of irrationality in humanity as well. Humankind, said T.S. Eliot, cannot bear very much reality: to which he might have added, or long remain entirely rational.
The parents of the baby are more concerned with a completely conjectural and notional danger, that has probably emerged from a paranoid mindset fed or even created by too assiduous a frequentation of certain websites on the internet, than with an immediate and serious hazard to the life of the child.
This is interesting from the psychological point of view. It is an extreme example of something that affects us all, namely a failure to understand, assess, and fear risks according to their objective likelihood of eventuating.
I am sure that more people experience a frisson of fear when the plane takes off than when they get into their car, though the likelihood of being involved in a fatal accident in the latter is many times as great.
It stands to a certain kind of reason that sitting in a metal tube that leaves the ground at high speed must be more dangerous than going at a relatively low speed on four terrestrial wheels, but such reason is wrong by orders of magnitude.
In the early days of railways, passengers were terrified of accidents, and it is true that by the standards of later railways they were frequent. But the passengers of the time were not to know this. By contrast, they could have known that traveling by horse-drawn carriage was many times more dangerous than traveling by train, yet it was the latter of which they were deeply afraid.
People vary in their ability to assess the statistical likelihood of dangers and their ability to conform their behavior to that likelihood, and the parents of the baby are obviously at one extreme of the spectrum.
Then there is the paranoid aspect of the parents’ mentality. I hesitate to refer to the pleasures of paranoia: perhaps the rewards of paranoia would be a better way of putting it.
The paranoid person is assured that he is at least worth persecuting: it lends him an importance of a kind that he would not otherwise have. I remember a patient who lived in the most terrible squalor, having been separated by madness from his family for several years.
He believed himself to have been followed, tracked, traced, and sometimes even poisoned by the KGB, though to all outward appearances he was of the utmost insignificance. Being the object of the KGB’s attention, however, lent meaning to his life, and purpose, too, since he spent his time thinking about how to evade the murderous attentions of that omnipresent organisation.
It would have been cruel to deprive him of his delusions, for then he would have had to face up to the reality of his madness and the irreparable wreckage of his life that it had wrought.
Paranoia lends meaning and importance to a life that is otherwise without one, but also to the world of events that seem so various, trivial, arbitrary, and incomprehensible that they have no overall meaning. Paranoia is like giving a shake to the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in a box and tipping them out so that they form a perfect picture.
There is another psychological advantage of paranoia, too: the paranoid think that they have an insight into the workings of the world that is not given to others. It gives them a certain sense of superiority, therefore. The refusal of others to accept their delusions only reinforces them and goes to show how right they are.
The paranoia of the couple who would rather see their baby dead than given the blood of those who have been vaccinated is of a milder kind, probably more a mood of mistrust than a fully-fledged delusion, and therefore (paradoxically) all the harder to treat.
They probably have sheaves of evidence, or pseudo-evidence, at their disposal. It is also entirely possible that they are, in their own way, quite learned, like those who maintain that Shakespeare (the author of the plays, that is, not the ignorant hick from Stratford) was really the Earl of Oxford.
This mentality, I suspect, is more and more common, as trust declines and mistrust grows, and egoism combines with the explosion of undigested information that is available to all.
https://www.nysun.com/article/the-pleasures-and-pitfalls-of-paranoia
*********************************************
True Diversity Is Viewpoint Diversity, and It Allows All of Us to Show Up
Patrice Onwuka
Diversity emphases are popping up everywhere from business to academia. One of the top business schools in the country, Wharton, is going to offer a diversity major for students. The Wall Street Journal is reporting more companies are trying new tactics to add greater diversity to their supply chains. As a black woman who immigrated to America, while I celebrate the vast array of backgrounds that can add to our culture and economy, I wonder if we are really focusing on true diversity.
On paper, I might fit a gender and race diversity goal that some are seeking to emphasize, but in reality, I don’t fit neatly into anyone’s boxes.
I’m a former subject of the British monarchy and have been a proud naturalized U.S. citizen since I was a teenager. I am also a wife of six years, a mother of three boys, and a Christian who attends a nondenominational church each week. I was elected the Republican committeewoman for my ward in Boston several years ago. I am now a dot of red in my very blue Maryland county. Those identities hardly scratch the surface of who I am.
Each person brings a kaleidoscope of experiences and characteristics that inform who they are, what they believe and value, and how they live their life. We are all unique individuals, and there is so much more to us than what can be seen on the outside or defined by the demographic boxes of gender and race that we so often fill out on forms for work, school, or government agencies.
One would expect that any effort to promote diversity would take this complexity into consideration.
Yet, so many diversity, equity, and inclusion—also known as DEI—efforts in corporate, nonprofit, and government settings today tend to prioritize gender and race in a way that leaves no room for the other facets individuals bring to the table.
While the intent of these efforts is to give an advantage to someone who looks like me, I reject the assumption that I am too weak to compete on merit alone, I oppose being reduced to my immutable characteristics, and I don’t desire to be a victim of tokenism. In addition, some diversity efforts can unintentionally spur racial animosity that undermines the goal of workplace or societal unity.
Like many, I have been frustrated by efforts focused on reducing racial disparities in America that minimize the role of the individual and dismiss the impact of personal choices on an individual’s outcomes.
Remedies meant to correct disparities may be well-intended but are ineffective at best. The real solution comes from an evolution away from box-checking, quotas, and assumptions based on physical traits to a celebration of the wide range of identities and characteristics that make each person special.
For example, some of my friends told me I was the first black female conservative they had ever met. Yet when I describe my views on the importance of charity, a strong family, and educational choices for kids, we quickly find areas of agreement. Optimism for the future and a strong sense of personal agency and responsibility are common values I share not only with these friends but with others I know from poor, white communities and immigrant families alike.
Current DEI efforts are based upon the unfounded belief that demographic diversity is equivalent to diversity of viewpoint—and that demographic diversity is what leads to better outcomes. But what a person believes, how she thinks, and more specifically, how she approaches challenging issues is not dependent on her skin color or sex, but on life experiences.
On a larger scale, one effort to increase diversity that has not had the expected impact is that of increasing female representation on boards of directors. Many rigorous peer-reviewed studies of companies in the U.S. and abroad find no causal link between board gender diversity and corporate performance.
Even if headcounts are the measure of success, the needle has not moved much even after decades of attempts to increase racial diversity in corporations and management. Corporate DEI trainings have, at best, no impact and, at worst, negative impacts if the training is compulsory.
Some propose taking data-driven approaches to combat the lack of minority representation in the workplace. Others would overhaul DEI training to refocus on outcomes rather than focusing on checking boxes when it comes to hiring. Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative is encouraging the charitable sector—donors and nonprofits alike—to move beyond fulfilling quotas as the end goal and instead pursuing a holistic, equality-based approach to diversity as a means of more effectively serving communities and those in need.
True Diversity values each individual for the experiences that shape him or her rather than categorizing a person by physical traits. It challenges organizations to build cultures that embrace viewpoint diversity: Consider a person’s religion, worldview, values, knowledge, and socioeconomic background rather than just membership in a particular demographic group.
True Diversity can also enrich the decision-making process even as it forces tough conversations. It creates space for individuals to bring their varied knowledge and lived experiences to bear. It is the antidote to quotas. Instead of forcing an ideal of diversity based on physical traits, it values differences, whether physical, experiential, or cultural.
In the charitable sector, this is particularly key as local issues need local solutions. When we allow organizations to harness the power of all the facets that make each of us human, they can identify what types of diversity in leadership and staffing will best support their missions and strengthen their communities. Freeing donors and nonprofits from arbitrary standards and expectations to allow them to focus their attention on getting the job done the best way possible helps uplift those being served.
Whatever the approach, the time is now to shift away from those who treat demographic diversity as the Holy Grail. Our lived experiences and values are the true diversity this moment calls for.
****************************************
8 December, 2022
The Indian diaspora has arrived
Rishi Sunak’s ascent to the pinnacle of British politics has sparked celebrations across India.
But while a brown-skinned devout Hindu leading the United Kingdom is certainly remarkable, Sunak’s rise points to a broader, longer-term phenomenon: the growing prominence of the Indian diaspora across the Western world.
This trend has been evident for some time, especially in the private sector, where Indian-born executives have risen to leadership positions at major U.S.-based multinational corporations. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and former PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi are probably the best-known examples, but there are many others.
According to S&P Global Ratings, no fewer than 58 Fortune 500 companies are currently run by CEOs of Indian descent. This list does not include Nooyi, who stepped down in 2018, and former Twitter chief Parag Agrawal, who was fired last month by new owner Elon Musk. But it is still long and varied, ranging from technology powerhouses like Adobe (Shantanu Narayen) and IBM (Arvind Krishna) to coffee powerhouses like Starbucks (Laxman Narasimhan).
As Sunak’s promotion demonstrates, the phenomenon has crossed over into politics, too. United States Vice President Kamala Harris was born to an Indian mother and Nikki Haley — a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a potential presidential candidate in 2024 — is the daughter of Indian Punjabi Sikh parents. Antonio Costa, whose father was part Indian, has been Portugal’s Prime Minister since 2015. Ireland’s half-Indian former Prime Minister Leo Varadkar is expected to regain the premiership later this year, owing to a rotation agreement. The thorny post-Brexit negotiations between England and Ireland could soon be conducted by two leaders of Indian heritage.
What explains this trend? Why do Indian immigrants and their children often thrive in Western systems designed to benefit Western-born, Western-educated local talent?
One possible explanation is Indians’ familiarity with English, owing to two centuries of British colonial rule. But language alone hardly guarantees success. And in any case, this does not explain Indians’ accomplishments in non-Anglophone European countries. In Germany, for example, 58% of Indian-origin workers hold jobs that require university degrees or equivalent specialist skills.
Another explanation is that Indian immigrants are more motivated. That is true, but Indians seem to outpace other immigrant communities. Of the many nationalities and ethnicities in the U.S., people of Indian descent have long had the enviable record of earning and maintaining the highest per-capita income.
First-generation Indian emigrants have grown up without taking affluence for granted, overcoming adversities such as limited resources, heavy-handed government regulation and bureaucratic inertia. Most have either experienced deprivation or witnessed enough of it to try to escape it. They have the “fire in the belly” that many in the West, raised in freer, more affluent environments, may have lost.
Moreover, India’s history and pluralism have exposed Indians to people of different languages, religions and cultures. Adjusting to the “other” is a deeply ingrained practice. It follows that Indian emigrants would be very comfortable working in multinational corporations. Growing up in a democratic country has equipped Indian-born workers with habits and values such as individual initiative, critical thinking and free expression, which are typically considered assets in the business world. At the same time, respect for hierarchy enables Indians to be seen as original and creative but “safe,” rather than threatening or revolutionary — a combination that facilitates their acceptance in their new societies and their ascent within firms.
Likewise, India’s encouragement of diversity and discouragement of excess make it easier for Indians to adapt to competitive environments. A cultural emphasis on education and learning, close-knit families and a strong work ethic also serve Indians well. Most Indians from middle-class backgrounds probably have grown up seeing merit honored and seeking to earn such praise themselves.
While such characteristics are frequently noted among first-generation immigrants, the success of Sunak, Varadkar and Harris suggest that Indians have passed these traits to their offspring. Sunak, in particular, seems to embody the aspirations and values of many Indians who celebrate him as a poster boy for the “New India.”
Ironically, some of the traits that Indians celebrate when applauding the success of their diaspora are rooted in values and traditions that India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is seeking to suppress. In BJP-ruled India, chauvinist Hindutva hypernationalism threatens diversity, and uniformity and obedience to the new national narrative have come to trump individual initiative and freedom of thought. It is sobering that the virtues being hailed in Indians around the world might soon be more apparent in the diaspora than they are at home.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2022/12/05/commentary/world-commentary/indian-diaspora-thrive/
*********************************************
"Growing Pains" actor Kirk Cameron is banned from hosting readings of his children's Christian book at more than 50 publicly funded libraries - despite most hosting 'drag queen story times' for kids
Actor Kirk Cameron has repeatedly been denied the opportunity to share his new Christian children's book at community libraries because the publicly funded institutions have rejected the traditional messaging of the story or opted not to reply to requests on his behalf.
It is common for community libraries to run story-hour programs for kids and parents that correspond with the release of a new book
In recent years, libraries have come under fire for promoting drag queens and other LGBTQ+ centric story hours for young children. It now appears to be the case that those same libraries, which are largely funded by taxpayers, have decided there is no space in their programming lineups for more traditional and faith-based titles.
Cameron's book, As You Grow, 'teaches biblical wisdom and the value of producing the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control,' according to the author.
Cameron is himself a married father of six children, four of whom are adopted. He has recently spoken out about parts of the left-wing establishment attempting to indoctrinate children as early as possible with progressive ideology.
Several months back, he spoke out against the US public school systems, which he said had been taken over by radical progressives who wish to impart lessons about Critical Race Theory and gender ideology to young children.
'It's sad to say they're doing more for grooming, for sexual chaos and the progressive left than any real educating about the things that most of us want to teach our kids,' he said during a promotion for his film, The Homeschool Awakening.
Now, he is working with conservative children's book publisher Brave Books, which produces 'pro-God, pro-America and anti-woke values.'
Brave Books told Fox News that it had been denied a story hour slot at several libraries explicitly due to the ideology of Cameron's book.
In Providence, Rhode Island, the Rochambeau Public Library told the publisher over the phone, 'No, we will pass on having you run a program in our space.'
'We are a very queer-friendly library. Our messaging does not align,' the library employee added.
When asked about filling out paper work to apply for a story hour, the employee said, 'You can fill out the form to reserve space, to run the program in our space — but we won’t run your program.'
The Rochambeau Public Library regularly hosts a program it calls 'Queer Umbrella,' which is a 'club and safe space where teens can learn, discuss and connect over queer history, art, community resources, and more,' according to its website. It is available to all members of the LGBTQ+ community who are aged 12 and up.
The San Diego public library told Brave that the As You Grow story hour likely isn't 'something we would do.' 'Because of how diverse our community is, I don’t know how many people you would get,' said the library representative. The library, however, does host a teen queer book club and a range of other 'LGBTQIA events.'
The San Lorenzo public library in Alameda County, California is yet another venue that told Brave they were 'not interested' in his book.
That library recently hosted a legal clinic for individuals interested in 'completing name and gender marker change court paperwork and updating identity documents such as CA birth certificates, driver’s licenses/IDs, passports and Social Security cards.'
The event was part of its 'Every Month Is Pride Month Series.'
The San Lorenzo Public Library made headlines over the summer when its Drag Queen Story Hour was disrupted by five men who were described as members of the far-right Proud Boy organization.
The Indianapolis Public Library said Cameron's book did not comport with its 'strategic plan' to promote 'diverse' authors.
'Generally when we have author visits, those are coordinated through our departments. We really have a push. We have a strategic plan in place, so we are really looking at authors who are diverse. Authors of color. That’s really been our focus,' is what an employee told Brave Books.
When the Texas-based publishing house pointed out that Cameron's book contributes to a diversity of ideas, they were told the library is 'focusing on racial equity.'
In response to his inability to be booked at more than 50 libraries that Brave reached out to, Kirk said, 'This is proof that more than ever, we are getting destroyed in the battle for the hearts and minds of our children.'
'Publicly funded libraries are green-lighting ‘gender marker and name change clinics’ while denying a story time that would involve the reading of a book that teaches biblical wisdom. How much more clear can it get?
'We have to start fighting back, or we will lose our kids and this country,' he said.
Brent Talbot, Brave's CEO, said it is 'devastating to discover that many of our publicly funded libraries have now become indoctrination centers that refuse to allow biblical wisdom to be taught to our children.'
'The woke left understands that morality is instilled by the age of 10, and they want their morality to win, not the morality that the Bible teaches,' he added.
Though Cameron and Brave say they will continue pushing the title among America's roughly 9,000 public libraries, the start of their effort has been a series of disappointments.
Public libraries are primarily funded by local governments. A very small portion of library funds come from the federal government, grants and donations.
In general, public funding is dolled out by the local government and is generated by tax dollars, library fines, parking tickets and other ways the city or municipality generates revenue.
************************************************************
While No One Was Looking, FCC Quietly Gave Soros-Linked Group Major Win Over Conservatives
In a rather alarming development, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has handed a major victory to a liberal group trying to buy out a conservative radio station.
On November 22, Fox News reported that the FCC cleared the Latino Media Network to purchase Miami’s Spanish-language conservative radio station, Radio Mambi, from Televisa Univision for $60 million.
Radio Mambi is associated with Miami’s large population of Cuban exiles and is known for bringing anti-communist and conservative viewpoints to Miami’s large Latino audience.
But now, it will be under the control of the Latino Media Network, a liberal group run by Jess Morales Rocketto and Stephenie Valencia, a former employee of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and a former President Barack Obama staffer respectively. Effectively, a conservative media outlet is being bought out by liberals and now Miami’s Latino population will be deprived of a prominent local conservative voice.
But here’s the kicker — Latino Media Network is in part financed by an investment group associated with financier George Soros!
Yes, this is the same Soros who famously donated millions in order to help Stacey Abrams in her 2018 and 2022 campaigns to become governor of Georgia.
Yes, this is the same Soros who this past summer used the Fourth of July as an occasion to talk about how American democracy was under attack by former President Donald Trump, the Republicans, and the judges he appointed to the Supreme Court.
Yes, this is the same Soros who has helped back extreme leftist candidates in key battleground elections.
Now, a conservative news network is under the control of a group associated with this radical leftist billionaire.
Unsurprisingly, many staffers at Radio Mambi are unhappy that their network is now being bought out by a Soros-affiliated group. According to Fox News, one host, Lourdes Ubieta, quit in July saying she would never accept any paycheck from Soros.
“America is a free country. Even an avowed global socialist with a clear radical political agenda can buy our media outlets to silence their opposition,” she said.
This is a development that should alarm conservatives for many reasons. First, there is the obvious fact that a radical leftist billionaire is buying media outlets seemingly with the intention of silencing any opposing voices.
But perhaps more importantly, this will make it harder for Republicans to win over one key demographic that could very well swing in their favor: Hispanics.
Hispanics, especially in Florida, have been trending right for the past few years. They played a major role in Gov. Ron De Santis’ landslide re-election victory a few weeks ago, in which he won many historically liberal counties thanks in no small part to the Hispanic vote.
Joe Biden’s approval rating among Hispanic voters has plummeted, with many Hispanics saying that they favored Trump’s border policy as opposed to the open-border policy of the current administration.
All this has been a sign of hope for the Republicans. Democrats, with their support for open borders, historically held a firm grasp on the Hispanic vote, but that all seems to be slipping away.
Yet the left will not give up so easily. They will go so far as to enlist the help of a radical leftist, foreign financier to use his deep pockets to crush Hispanic voices who dare dissent from the Democratic orthodoxy.
America is a free country where everyone has a right to voice their opinion without the fear of reprisal, but now it seems that the left is willing to use billionaire elites to crush the freedom of speech that we hold so dear.
*****************************************************
Virginia Restaurant Kicks Out Family Foundation Over Abortion, Traditional Marriage
A Virginia restaurant told the Family Foundation that it was no longer welcome to dine at the establishment because of the organization’s views on abortion and traditional marriage.
The Daily Signal spoke with Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb on Monday morning outside the Supreme Court as the justices heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case examining “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
Cobb shared that about an hour and a half before the Family Foundation party was scheduled to take place in a private dining room at Metzger Bar and Butchery located in Richmond, Virginia, the restaurant announced that was “unwilling to serve” the organization.
“They did a little research, found out who we are. We are unapologetically pro-life and stand for traditional marriage,” she explained.
Cobb said the owner of the restaurant then called and informed the Family Foundation that it was no longer welcome to hold an event at the establishment.
“They seem more than willing to defend their ability to deny access to food. That’s, I think, the stunning part about it, we’d like to think that in America, even though we have political differences, even though we don’t see the world the same day, we’d like to believe that we can all dine in the same places,” Cobb said.
“Metzger Bar and Butchery has always prided itself on being an inclusive environment for people to dine in. In eight years of service we have very rarely refused service to anyone who wished to dine with us,” the restaurant said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal.
“Recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of Metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia,” the statement continued. “We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision. “
Many of the restaurant’s staff are women or “members of the LGBTQ+ community,” the restaurant said.
“All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment,” the statement continued. “We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety. We hope you will understand our decision as we understand it is your choice to dine with us or not.”
Cobb said Americans should be shocked at such behavior.
“We all need to [have a] heightened sense of awareness that that is the polarized environment that is now created,” said Cobb. “We really need to simply be willing to be brave and still hold our views and not let this chilling effort take place for those who believe things that maybe aren’t mainstream in some secular circles.”
“Most Virginians are happy to sit down and have meals with people they disagree with. This just doesn’t reflect the heart of the freedom that we want to see in our culture and our society,” she added.
************************************************************
7 December, 2022
The Verdict against the Trump Organization
The conviction today of the Trump Organization in a tax-fraud scheme certainly represents a remarkable moment in the epic legal campaign against the former president. Mr. Trump himself was not convicted, or even charged, in the case, but the prosecution argued at trial that he was “explicitly sanctioning tax fraud,” the AP reported, and accused the company of having a “culture of fraud and deception.”
The conviction, brought in by a jury in state Supreme Court at Manhattan, was of the corporate entity, which could end up being hit with as much as $1.6 million in penalties. That may not be much for a company as large as the Trump Organization, but it underlines the seriousness of the criminal activities and could whet the appetite of investigators to wheel on the former president himself. It’s not our intention to make light of any of it.
At the same time, the pursuit of the Trump organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, leaves us with an uneasy sense. It is that none of this would be in criminal court in the ordinary course of criminal justice had Democratic prosecutors not been out for the former president himself. That speaks to the danger of politicized prosecution laid out by FDR’s attorney general, and, later, a Supreme Court justice, Robert Jackson.
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,” Jackson said in remarks to prosecutors, “a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.” This raises the danger of a prosecutor with an ulterior motive “picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.”
That, Jackson warned, is where “the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies,” when “law enforcement becomes personal.” The insight resonates following today’s conviction. The outcome of the case is likely to fuel the pursuit of Mr. Trump by others, including Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who just hired an ex-Justice department prosecutor to “ramp up” his office’s “investigation into the former president,” the Times says.
The fact that the new hire, Matthew Colangelo, was an Obama administration official and had also worked on the New York Attorney General’s civil investigation of Mr. Trump made it likely to “set off protest from the former president,” the Times reported, especially since the former president has already characterized the civil and criminal investigations against him as “a unified ‘witch hunt.’”
Mr. Bragg had expressed doubts about the merits of the fraud case against Mr. Trump, prompting two senior prosecutors in his office to step down. One of them was so enraged by Mr. Bragg’s decision to hold off on the case until his team of prosecutors could nail down the charges that he leaked his retirement letter to the Times. “I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations,” Mark Pomerantz wrote.
Conceding the case may have had flaws — among them the finding that the purported “victims” of Mr. Trump’s alleged fraud had profited by their dealings with him — Mr. Pomerantz said: “No case is perfect,” and averred that “a failure to prosecute” would endanger “public confidence in the fair administration of justice.” Such prosecutorial overzealousness is precisely what Jackson sought, some seven decades ago, to warn against.
Which brings us back to the case against the Trump organization and the general sense that these charges wouldn’t have been brought against a mere citizen. We’ve just seen federal fraud and bribery charges against a former Democratic lieutenant governor, Brian Benjamin, get thrown out by a district judge. It’s a reminder that prosecutorial overreach against public officials is a problem that crosses party lines.
https://www.nysun.com/article/the-trump-organization-verdict ?
*********************************************************
Hungary takes on the EU again
Tit for tat
A rift between the European Union and member state Hungary deepened Tuesday when Budapest vetoed an 18-billion euro ($18.93 billion) financial aid package to Kyiv, exacerbating a dispute over the rule of law in the country and Prime Minister Viktor Orban's outlook over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
EU finance ministers also postponed any decision to punish Hungary by withholding billions of euros for failing to implement solid rule-of-law reforms.
Instead of ensuring unanimous support for aid to Ukraine, Hungary's veto made sure that the EU's other 26 member states would need work out a more complicated technical plan to make sure aid can keep flowing to Kyiv in the new year.
"In the end agreement was found on formulations that allow a flexible and quick way to deploy funds to Ukraine without fundamentally changing the way the EU manages its funds. I say agreement, but in the reality that agreement was minus one,” said Tuomas Saarenheimo, the chairman of the EU Council Economic and Financial Committee.
Many nations see Orban's evasive tactics as a thinly veiled attempt to blackmail the EU into releasing billions in regular funding and pandemic recovery cash that has been held up.
The EU’s 27 nations have until Dec. 19 to make a decision, and EU leaders meet for a two-day summit next week, increasing chances that the issues would still need to be grappled with at a later date.
EU nations have been mulling for years now whether to punish Orban for what he calls his brand of “illiberal democracy” but what is seen by many others as unfit for the EU's traditional sense of Western democratic liberalism.
On top of that, Orban has also angered the bloc’s officials with his repeated criticism of EU sanctions targeting Russia for its war in Ukraine.
The EU’s executive branch proposed that the bloc suspend around 7.5 billion euros ($7.5 billion) in regular funding to Hungary over concerns about democratic backsliding and the possible mismanagement of EU money. The Commission also wants to put conditions on Hungary’s pandemic recovery plan worth 5.8 billion euros and insists Budapest implement 27 “super milestones” on democratic reforms to unlock the funding.
Hungary already agreed on 17 anti-corruption measures, including the creation of an anti-corruption task force and changes to its public procurement rules, but the Commission wants to see more action. The money can be frozen under a recently introduced conditionality mechanism that allows the EU to take measures to protect its budget.
Any action to suspend the funds must be approved by the EU member countries, and this requires a “qualified majority" — at least 15 countries representing at least 65% of the total EU population.
*****************************************************
Sorry, Zelensky, Americans see a STALEMATE
Americans by wide margins support continued arms and economic aid for Ukraine, but increasingly see the war as a stalemate and want Washington to push Kyiv to cut a peace deal with Russia soonest, a poll shows.
A survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs think tank found that, despite recent military gains by Ukrainian forces against their Russian foes, US support for Kyiv appears to be waning — especially among Republican voters.
This is worrisome for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government, which has depended on multi-billion dollar US support and military equipment to counter Russia's invasion, which began on February 24.
Crucially, Americans do not appear to see Ukraine's recent military wins in Kherson and elsewhere in the east as a military game-changer, with polling suggesting the war is ultimately viewed as a stalemate.
'As the fighting drags into winter, the overall US public is now divided on whether the US should support Ukraine as long as it takes or if it should urge Kyiv to settle for peace as soon as possible,' researchers said.
Nearly half of respondents said neither country had an advantage in the conflict, while an equal percentage held the view that Russia (26 percent) and Ukraine (26 percent) had an upper hand in the fight.
The survey of 1,030 adults last month nevertheless found solid support for continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons (65 percent) and economic aid (66 percent), accepting Ukrainian refugees (73 percent), and sanctioning Russia (75 percent).
But public opinion is qualified — only 40 percent of respondents say US support should be indefinite, and 29 percent say Washington should gradually reduce the amount of weapons and cash Kyiv receives.
Likewise, 47 percent of respondents say the US should push Ukraine to cut a peace deal with Russia, even if that involves Kyiv ceding territory, so that US householders don't shoulder higher gas and food prices — up from 38 percent in July.
Another 48 percent of Americans say Washington should support Ukraine 'as long as it takes,' down from 58 percent in July
Support for Ukraine's fight has fallen sharply among Republican supporters.
Only 55 percent of GOP voters support US giving military aid to Ukraine currently, down from 80 percent in March, even as support among Democrats and independents has held high.
House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy warned before the midterm elections that Republicans will not write a 'blank check' for Ukraine, reflecting his party's growing skepticism about financial support for Kyiv as it prepares to take control of the chamber next year.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and other House Republicans critical of US assistance to Ukraine took steps last month to audit the funds allocated to the nation by Congress.
President Joe Biden's administration announced its latest tranche of military aid to Ukraine in November — a $400 million package of gear, including the ammunition for air defenses and long-range artillery needed to repel Russian forces.
The US is also giving Ukraine more than $53 million to help repair electrical infrastructure damaged by Russian attacks in recent weeks as Kyiv seeks to restore power to homes as winter sets in.
Ukraine launched a major counteroffensive this autumn, recapturing the northeastern Kharkiv region and forcing Russia to pull out from the southern city of Kherson.
Kyiv has vowed to press on and recapture all territory seized by Russia — including eastern Ukraine and Crimea, which Russia captured in 2014 — and return those lands to Ukrainian control.
NATO allies are currently in talks to supply advanced air defenses, including Patriot missiles, to Kyiv in order to protect its power plants and water pumping stations after they were hit by Russia in a bid to freeze people out of their homes.
***********************************************
‘War on Christian Culture’: UK Prosecutor Called Bible Passage ‘No Longer Appropriate in Modern Society’
A Christian street preacher faced charges of violating the Public Order Act by engaging in “threatening,” “abusive,” and “insulting” speech in telling a lesbian couple that homosexuals will not “inherit the kingdom of heaven,” citing the Bible. In defending the case against him, a prosecutor wrote that “there are references in the bible [sic] which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be offensive if stated in public”
The court dismissed the case against the preacher, John Dunn, because the lesbian couple declined to testify, but a prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service, the office of England’s government prosecutors, claimed before the trial that some Bible passages are “no longer appropriate in modern society.”
When reached by The Daily Signal, a CPS spokesperson declined to address the claim.
“On the day of the trial the complainants could not be located to provide vital evidence for the prosecution, which resulted in us offering no evidence,” a CPS spokesperson told The Daily Signal. “It is not the function of the CPS to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments of the evidence to put our case before the court.”
The spokesperson did not respond to multiple questions about whether England’s official government prosecution office endorses the claim that some Bible passages are “no longer appropriate in modern society.” Prosecutors made the claim in a document sent to the defense, not stated in court, but the office did not disavow the claim, nor apologize for making it.
“The non-response from the CPS speaks volumes,” Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which represented Dunn in the case, told The Daily Signal. “The CPS should be offering a full explanation and apology, not ducking the seriousness of what they have wanted to argue against the Christian faith in court.”
“This would not happen to another sacred text, such as the Quran,” Williams added. “This is a war on Christian culture, with the aim of removing it from the public square. If the CPS had won, this would have set a precedent that put Christians on the wrong side of the U.K. law.”
The United Kingdom does not have a First Amendment to protect free speech, although the Christian Legal Centre cited the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in defending Dunn’s free speech and religious freedom. The prosecution argued that Dunn impinged on “the similarly protected rights of the aggrieved parties.”
According to Christian Concern, an organization connected to the Christian Legal Centre, the case traces back to Nov. 1, 2020, when two women walked past Dunn, holding hands. Dunn told them, “I hope you are sisters,” at which point they replied that they were in a same-sex marriage.
According to Dunn, he replied out of “genuine concern for the women” that “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God” (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). He insisted that he intended to declare God’s truth out of love and compassion for the couple.
The women reported Dunn to the police, describing his comments as “biblical speak.” They alleged that Dunn had shouted at them, “You are going to burn in hell,” referring to one of them as “devil woman.” Dunn categorically denied making either comment. Christian Concern noted that Dunn “lost his voice box following throat cancer,” so he would not have been able to shout at the women.
“Defendant denies saying to the women that ‘they will burn in hell’ or to one of them ‘you are a devil woman’ – presumably because this would be ‘crossing a line’ into unacceptable behaviour,” Hoyle wrote. “It is precisely these phrases which form the crux of the prosecution case.”
“The Crown does contend that ‘you will burn in hell’ is intrinsically threatening, as well as abusive and intimidating,” Hoyle added. “Targeting comments through a megaphone at specific members of the public is similarly behaviour which the court can legitimately conclude is disorderly. The complainants are clear that the behaviour was ‘offensive’ and ‘upsetting’ – clearly consistent with an interpretation of ‘Harassed, alarmed or distressed.'”
“Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the Court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress,” Hoyle added. “This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27). There are references in the bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public.”
Hoyle did not explain why passages “recognising” various practices are supposedly inappropriate in modern society. While passages in the Bible allowed slavery, the Bible also set down principles that encouraged the abolition of slavery.
Hoyle’s Bible passages suggest a level of biblical illiteracy. His slavery passage—Exodus 21:7—stipulates that a Jewish man may sell his daughter as a servant, but the passage adds that he cannot sell her to foreigners (differentiating the practice from modern views of slavery). One of his passages on capital punishment involves Moses saying that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death, something Christians consider to have been superseded by Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels.
Deuteronomy 28:27 does not mention cannibalism, but rather God punishing the Israelites with tumors if they disobey His commandments. The passage goes on to mention cannibalism (Deut. 28:53-57), but not as an endorsement of the practice. Rather, the passage prophesies that if the Jews disobey God, a foreign army will besiege them and they will resort to cannibalism “because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you.”
Hoyle did not explain why any passages noting the existence of now-defunct slavery laws or death sentences, or predicting the horrors of cannibalism are “no longer appropriate in modern society.” He did not put forth a standard for endorsing or condemning Bible passages, but his decision to include this statement suggests that he considers 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 to be inappropriate in English society.
CPS did not respond to The Daily Signal’s question about the prospect that other street preachers may face similar prosecution if they cite certain Bible passages that CPS considers inappropriate for modern society.
Williams, the Christian Legal Centre CEO, argued that “The view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and contains illegal speech which should not be shared in public.”
England’s government prosecution office had the opportunity to disavow the statement and clarify that it does not consider the Bible offensive and illegal, but it declined to do so.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/11/30/war-christian-culture-uk-prosecutors-wont-say-they-stand-attack-bible/ ?
****************************************
6 December, 2022
The bedside manner of Elon Musk
An amusing article below. One of many. It attempts to "psychoanalyse" Musk on the basis of woefully insufficient information. Musk was obviously provoking commentary by putting up the picture so is probably by now reading the comments with amusement. He is too sophisticated to have been unaware of what he was doing. He probably saw the assemblage as confusing and quietly laughed at the maundering it would provoke.
I wonder what Jo Ellison would make of what is on my small bedside table: Three doilies, a handkerchief, a decanter of water and a drinking glass. Those three doilies would be very suspicious. My mother would undoubtably get a mention
Ellison may have revealed more about herself than she intended. What does it mean that she attributes 1 Corinthians 13:11 to Shakespeare?
Jo Ellison
A long, long time ago, I went out with a man who packed a piece. By which I mean, I went out with a man who wore a toy gun. By which I mean, he strapped a replica gun that fired blanks into a cross-body “gun holster” which he would wear underneath his coat.
As red flags go, this was a pretty big one. Quite apart from the fact that he was basically inviting armed police to shoot him dead in the street — and who would have blamed them? The whole look was deeply unsexy. His relationship with the toy long outlasted our relationship.
I recalled this dark moment in my junior history with a shudder this week while examining the inventory displayed on Elon Musk’s nightstand, a subject presented in a Twitter post earlier this week with the caption “My bedside table”. The tableau revealed four open cans of caffeine-free Diet Coke, an unfinished bottle of water, a Buddhist amulet apparently used as an aid for meditation, a replica Revolutionary war-era pistol in a box decorated with the Emanuel Leutze painting “Washington Crossing the Delaware” (1851) and a handgun, understood to be a copy of one from the video game Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
Now, I’m no Luke Edward Hall, but when it comes to the art of projecting taste and personality into my decorative surroundings, I would argue that abandoning a few unfinished cans beside my pistol of an evening is probably not what interior design gurus have in mind. Commentators were quick to point out that his bedside table featured what seemed to be an even greater offence than the presence of a Diamond Back .357 handgun beside his pillow: the surfacetop was covered in unsightly water stains. Even Musk seemed a little shamefaced about the whole arrangement: “There is no excuse for my lack of coasters,” he wrote in the comments field.
Nevertheless, as a glimpse into the mind of one of the great technological provocateurs of recent times, the tweet offered an unexpected portal. Musk’s nightstand immediately conjured the image of a lonely, very thirsty man-child, suspended in the forever fantasy that he might one day rule the world. Furthermore, for a man who has been three times married and sired 10 children, the table gives off a ferocious smack of “single”. The internet has since been occupied with making tragic nightstand memes.
Rather like the power desk, the bedside table offers its own story for psychological evaluation. But where the power desk is a public tool on which to project status among one’s peer group, the bedside table is more intimate, a tiny vestibule of quiet neuroses, thwarted ambitions and psychic ills. My own, for example, features a towering pile of highly curated books still awaiting my attention, a small porcelain dish in which I collect discarded hairclips, an inhaler, a vat of gummy, full-strength melatonin (for the “jet lag”) and an assortment of adapter plugs.
Unlike other bits of status furnishings — our bookshelves, desk tops or kitchen cabinets — the nightstand exposes our frailer, older, more decrepit selves. My husband stores a lifetime’s supply of ear plugs, as though he were living through the Blitz on our no-through road, while I remember my father’s bedside table featuring a buffet of indigestion tablets which he monitored as closely as those Beefeaters mind the crown jewels.
Musk’s bedside table offers fresh insight into his public image in the world. But does he identify with Washington, championing freedom and democracy with his flintlock pistol, or Page, the villainous protagonist of Deus Ex, in search of immortality and willing to sacrifice the lives of billions in order to achieve that goal? According to Wikipedia, Deus Ex is a role-playing franchise about “the conflict between secretive factions who wish to control the world by proxy, and the effects of transhumanistic attitudes and technologies in a dystopian near-future”. No wonder Musk must guzzle golden cans of Coca-Cola if he’s going to bed with two such extreme totems of progress on his mind. At least both factions can be clearly represented through their choice of weaponry. Nothing helps an American sleep more soundly than the knowledge he’s got a pistol by his head.
“When I became a man, I put away childish things”, says Shakespeare’s Prince Hal as he recognises the weight of responsibility that must come with taking on the crown. But maybe he also had a nightstand where he could pile discarded cans of soda and secrete his treasured toys?
However superhuman we tell ourselves we are, the bedside table is the last repository for all our very human sorrows, our loneliness, addictions, our shifty sinuses, our bloated guts. That they reveal the detritus of human failing turns out to be quite reassuring. Even when that failing is forgetting to put a coaster underneath one’s drinks cans or pretending to be Elon Musket while waving a toy gun.
https://www.ft.com/content/48852b79-ff29-40dc-bb3c-8358a96a4fa5
***************************************************
FULL INTERVIEW: Dr Jordan Peterson on COVID hysteria and the culture wars
Clinical psychologist, author and public intellectual Dr Jordan Peterson sits down with Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi for a wide-ranging exclusive interview which covers toxic femininity, climate change activism, Islam, Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter, COVID hysteria, the culture wars and how conservatives can fight back.
*************************************************************
Elizabeth Warren Believes She's Got Perfect Rebuke of Musk, Doesn't Realize She Just Made His Case
Leftists’ collective meltdown over Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter has made them careless, and their unchecked reactions have exposed their undeniable hypocrisy to the world.
Perhaps no Democrat’s remarks were more revealing than those of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday.
When questioned about Musk’s leadership of the social media platform by Fox News reporter Hillary Vaughn, she replied: “I think that one human being should not decide how millions of people communicate with each other.
“One human being should not be able to go into a dark room by himself and decide, ‘Oh, that person gets heard from, that person doesn’t.’ That’s not how it should work.”
The irony is rich.
Warren was employing that time-honored and frequently used tactic of accusing one’s enemies of what you are doing, a strategy handed down to liberals decades ago from the late community organizer and communist Saul Alinsky.
Prior to Musk’s takeover of the company, one human being — namely, former Twitter chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde — had been doing just that for years.
In fact, Gadde was behind the decision to permanently suspend the president of the United States from the platform. She also reportedly spearheaded the banning of the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story to shield her preferred presidential candidate from scandal less than three weeks ahead of the 2020 election.
Rather than censoring content, Musk is doing the opposite. He is opening up free speech and allowing those who were wrongly suspended back on the platform regardless of beliefs.
And rather than going into a dark room and making decisions, Musk is being extremely transparent about it.
The left has lost control of a tool it had counted on for years to do its dirty work, and now it is reeling. The ability to manipulate which content voters were and weren’t allowed to see gave leftists tremendous power to influence political opinion in the U.S. and thus shape the national conversation. Understandably, they are grieving their loss and haven’t quite come around to the stage of acceptance.
Twitter may lack the size of Big Tech giants such as Apple and Google, but the company is the go-to platform for politicos and plays an outsize role in controlling the flow of information to the public. No wonder they’re incensed.
But this will be the song they sing now. Democrats will use another one of their favorite tools, the Department of Justice — which has made a sport out of pursuing those who disagree with left-wing ideology — to crack down on Twitter. They will investigate Elon Musk because he won’t bow down to them.
But in doing so, they risk running afoul of another Alinsky rule: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. ‘Don’t become old news.
********************************************************
Junko Takase’s Akutagawa Prize-winning novel is a feminist’s nightmare
Traditional female traits are the winners
Junko Takase’s “Oishii Gohan ga Taberaremasu Yoni” is a rare work that makes good food seem rather unsavory.
The novel that won the Akutagawa Prize this July is a deceptively mundane story depicting the everyday work life of three co-workers. It seems at first like a typical Japanese work place drama, poking fun at various office stereotypes. But the book also takes to task a “given” of urbane society (not just in Japan, although it’s certainly a mainstay of Japanese pop culture): the exaltation of foodie culture and the pursuit of deliciousness. The title, which roughly translates to “I wish to be able to eat delicious food,” suggests a story filled with loving depictions of gourmet scenes and smells — but the reality is much less appetizing. (At time of writing an English translation hasn’t been announced.)
The story is told through the alternating points of view of a woman named Oshio and a man named Nitani. The plot revolves around their shared disgust and fascination toward a third co-worker, a woman named Ashikawa. All three are around 30 years old and go by their surnames.
Oshio comes across as a whip-smart, hard-working, physically tough woman whose inner life is dominated by resigned observations about social hypocrisies. In Ashikawa, she sees a sweeter, more feminine counterpart, something of a rival who she nonetheless feels compelled to protect without really understanding why. Nitani is another familiar type fully realized by Takase: a smart man with the potential for an intellectually rich inner life, but who routinely shuns challenging people and conversations in favor of helpless girls who bore him.
Nitani’s most interesting trait is that he despises food and, more than that, he’s irked by the expectation that he should enjoy it. He prefers to pour garbage into his body, subsisting on a diet of mostly convenience store food and instant meals.
“Do you like good food?” he asks Oshio at one point. She gives him a look and says, “Are there people who dislike good food?” Nitani smiles darkly and responds, “I dislike people who chose a lifestyle based around eating good food.” The performance of being “into” food, he thinks ruefully throughout the book, is a waste of time.
Nitani is so convincing that readers may find themselves disgusted by breathless scenes of beautiful cakes, and instead mysteriously craving cup ramen. Layered underneath the themes about food and office politics, though, is a more sinister commentary on feminism and social currency.
Ashikawa is physically weak, prone to headaches if she does overtime, makes mistakes in her work and generally can’t be relied on by the people around her. At one point, Oshio meets Ashikawa’s brother and notices he won’t even trust her to look after his dog when he’s out of town. Oshio and Nitani, by contrast, work late hours and are diligent, highly competent go-getters.
And yet it’s Ashikawa who is the unlikely company favorite. No one protests when she leaves at 6 p.m. on the dot, though everyone else stays behind to pick up her slack. She also has an endearing out-of-office talent: She makes painstakingly detailed desserts and baked goods, which she brings into the office as an apology for the fact that she can’t (or won’t) work overtime. To the reader, Ashikawa is the only character who seems to have a healthy work-life balance. Yet, the subtext is obvious: If she has so much energy to travel all over town for cooking classes and to spend the weekend baking, why can’t she use that for work?
Oshio and Nitani bond over the mix of revulsion, jealousy, pity and resentment they feel toward her. Even after Nitani and Ashikawa grow closer in secret, his confused feelings of attraction and disgust toward her don’t seem to abate.
Ashikawa is an amusingly portrayed “cute” girl stereotype, down to her concerted effort to always be smiling, even when she’s alone, and her habit of saying “That’s good” and “I’m glad to hear that” for no apparent reason. The more helpless Ashikawa acts, the more likable she becomes to those around her. The reader, like Oshio and Nitani, is drawn into the mysterious force of this otherwise unremarkable dead-weight co-worker. Though we never hear her inner thoughts, this doesn’t act to disempower Ashikawa; rather, she gains more of a mythical status, an impressive untouchability.
Takase’s book is written in simple, straightforward language, compared to the more typically literary Akutagawa winners. (As such, it also makes useful reading practice for Japanese learners.) It’s sometimes funny and feels true to life, but that’s what makes the story all the bleaker. Ashikawa represents a nightmarish yet entirely real version of female social Darwinism, one in which intellect and diligence are found low on the food chain, and high up are naivete and the ability to curry sympathy.
In the view of this book, it’s surely better to be loved than to be feared, and even better to be loved for making fancy shortcakes. But readers, be warned: The ending may leave you with a feeling of queasy discomfort, as if you ate too many sweets.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2022/12/03/books/book-reviews/junko-takase-akutagawa-prize
****************************************
5 December, 2022
Elon Musk slams NY Times for ignoring his exposé of how Twitter censored Hunter Biden laptop - as woke outlets including Washington Post, CBS News and ABC all avoid the story too
Elon Musk attacked The New York Times on Saturday for not covering his exposé of how Twitter executives were urged by Biden staff to delete tweets relating to the damaging contents of Hunter Biden's laptop.
Other left-leaning outlets including CBS News, ABC and The Washington Post are also yet to cover the 'Twitter Files', despite their contents causing a sensation among American conservatives and free-speech advocates.
In response to the alleged lack of coverage from the Times, Musk described the newspaper as an 'unregistered lobbying firm for far left politicians'.
The comment came in response to a tweet from conservative radio host Clay Travis, who said, 'There is not one single article about @elonmusk or the @twitter email release last night on @nytimes app this morning.'
Musk responded: 'That is because The New York Times has become, for all intents and purposes, an unregistered lobbying firm for far left politicians'.
On Friday Musk promoted a Twitter thread by journalist Matt Taibbi in which, among other things, he published correspondence between Twitter staff in 2020.
In it they discuss censoring a New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop and allude to requests from Biden's team to do so - something Twitter went on to do.
'Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be 'unsafe.'
'They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography,' Taibbi said in one tweet that was part of the thread.
Notably, in one exchange one Twitter executive emailed another a list of tweets with the instruction, 'More to review from the Biden team.'
The other executive responded: 'handled these'.
Publications that have covered the story include POLITICO, NBC and CNN. The latter dampened the news by suggesting the leaked emails 'corroborated what was already known about the incident'.
The Daily Beast echoed that sentiment but discussed the Twitter Files in a story headlined: ''Deeply Underwhelmed': Right-Wingers on Musk's Overhyped 'Twitter Files''
Although the New York Times is yet to write about the thread, it did publish two different stories relating to Musk and Twitter on Saturday, the day after it was posted.
The first of those stories, 'Hate Speech's Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find' criticized Musk for a rise in hate speech since his takeover of the social media company.
The other, 'Twitter Keeps Missing Its Advertising Targets as Woes Mount', was also critical of Musk's management of the platform and suggested that its current ad revenue in the US is 80 percent below internal expectations.
The Washington Post followed a similar trend. The lead story on its website on Saturday night, 'Surging Twitter antisemitism unites fringe and encourages violence, officials say', similarly cited sources who suggested that anti-Semitic speech on Twitter had been on the rise since the Musk takeover.
POLITICO was a major publication that did address the Twitter Files as early as Friday night. Although it did not delve into Taibbi's specific allegations it did link to his 35-tweet thread.
*********************************************************
Left-wing journos attack reporter Matt Taibbi for exposing Musk’s Twitter files
I have always had some time for Taibbi. He always seemed to have an ability to think outside the guardrails -- a rare thing in a Leftist
Mainstream news reporters — in lockstep with Democratic strategists — rushed to social media to smear journalist Matt Taibbi as a “sad” “fraud” as he released his bombshell report on political censorship at Twitter.
“Matt Taibbi…what sad, disgraceful downfall,” Daily Beast columnist and New York Times contributor Wajahat Ali posted. “Selling your soul for the richest white nationalist on Earth.”
On Friday, billionaire Elon Musk — who vowed to give the social media giant a free-speech overhaul when he bought it last month — released to Taibbi a shocking collection of inside correspondence proving that Democrat insiders leaned on Twitter’s censors to suppress The Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
While Ali was hitting send, Dem pollster Matt McDermott tweeted a nearly identical put-down.
“Matt Taibbi always was, and still remains, a fraud,” McDermott wrote. “Doing PR for the richest person in the world should come as no surprise.”
The Democrat’s words appeared to have been cut-and-pasted from a tweet NBC’s Ben Collins had posted moments before.
“Imagine throwing it all away to do PR work for the richest person in the world,” Collins wrote. “Humiliating s–t.”
Conservatives on Twitter pummeled Collins, who has made a specialty of attacking Republicans.
“You have so much bitterness and contempt against other people,” wrote independent journalist Andy Ngo. “I hope you find healing in your life.”
“Please keep tweeting,” GOP rapid response staffer Jake Schneider told Collins. “Your meltdown is hilarious.”
Dozens of journalists — including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, NBC’s Brandy Zadrozny, and the New Republic’s Jacob Silverman — and Democrat partisans piled on, drawing the scorn of investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald.
“The whole sleazy, in-group liberal gang from NBC, Daily Beast, etc — all the censorship advocates who think censorship advocacy is somehow compatible with journalism — are furious that the the acts of their Dem Party allies in getting the Biden story censored are being exposed,” Greenwald posted.
Meanwhile, Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety who left the company when Musk completed his takeover, accused the site’s new owner of endangering the censors.
“Publicly posting the names and identities of front-line employees involved in content moderation puts them in harm’s way and is a fundamentally unacceptable thing to do,” Roth posted Friday on Mastodon, the Twitter-like site where many Musk opponents have decamped.
Roth admitted Wednesday that the social media giant “has interfered in elections.”
https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/journos-attack-reporter-matt-taibbi-for-exposing-musks-twitter-files/
***********************************************
Olivia Wilde was wrong: Jordan Peterson is not 'insane' and is a hero to many young men from all walks of life because of ONE simple reason
On Saturday night I braved the hordes of 'incels' who flocked to worship their 'hero', the psychology professor turned online superstar Jordan Peterson.
Incel stands for 'involuntary celibate', and according to actress Olivia White the label fits the angry sexually deprived young men who idolise 'this insane man' Peterson, and who regard him as their 'pseudo-intellectual hero'.
The tweeted accusation brought Peterson to tears when he discussed it with Piers Morgan on his talk show Uncensored in September. 'I thought the marginalised were supposed to have a voice?' Peterson said.
'People have been after me for a long time because I have been speaking to young men, what a terrible thing to do.'
For a close up look at who Peterson's audience actually is, I attended his 'Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life' national speaking tour in Sydney.
The bulk of his audience were young men but it certainly wasn't exclusively so, there were a substantial number of women plus some distinguished older looking attendees.
After talking to many, the main theme behind their devotion to Peterson was based on his courage ' to say things that are meant to be said'.
Ben, 22, said he was there after reading Peterson's 2019 bestseller '12 Rules for Life'. 'I did think it motivated my own personal life and I think for today’s society he's a good role model. I think he's someone people my age or adolescents should be looking up to,' Ben said.
'Especially for males in our age, he makes us be more accountable for our day-to-day lives in little things and simply just cleaning up your own act, in your own house and then broadening that out to the wider range of society.'
Ben did not think he was an 'incel' or that Peterson's audience was predominantly 'incels'.
'I think there are a lot of different people here, there are a diverse group of people, you just can't put up an umbrella over all these different people because they like Jordan Peterson,' he said.
Connor, 25, said he had been a Peterson fan for a couple of years after discovering him on YouTube, which has been the Canadian academic's springboard to global fame.
'His (Peterson's) first book is a great message – clean yourself up, get your basic variables in order try to maximise them before you go out into the world,' Connor said.
'There's a lot of traps that young men can fall into and I think that’s really great advice to counter those ideas.'
********************************************************
Transgender Surgeries Are No ‘Cure’ for Distressed Youths, Doctor Says
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—Surgically removing body parts and destroying healthy human function “violates one of the most fundamental principles of plastic surgery,” Dr. Patrick Lappert testified, explaining why he refuses to remove breasts from females who seek to appear male.
Lappert took the stand on Nov. 29 in federal court here as a witness for the state of Arkansas, which is defending a legal attack on a law banning transgender medical procedures for minors.
Those measures include hormones and surgeries, such as double mastectomies that “gender-affirming care” proponents champion as a cure for girls who are distressed over their bodies’ female attributes.
Earlier this year, Lappert testified in favor of a similar bill in Alabama, where he is based.
The Arkansas trial began in October but recessed for a month before resuming with testimony intended to support the Arkansas Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. That law has been on hold while the legal battle, which started right after its passage in April 2021, continues.
Judge James Moody Jr. will decide the case known as Brandt v. Rutledge; it is the nation’s first legal test of such a law.
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) want the law struck down as unconstitutional. One of their main contentions: it’s discriminatory for the state to prohibit medical procedures for transgender purposes yet allow them for other reasons.
But Lappert testified that in his private surgery practice he refuses to perform certain procedures depending on the intended purpose—a nod to the law that seeks to forbid procedures for gender-transition purposes.
It’s acceptable to enhance breasts for a grown woman who has finished her childbearing years; it’s not appropriate to do that for a teen who isn’t finished growing and may jeopardize her future ability to breastfeed an infant, he said.
Inside the Patient’s Mind
As a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, Lappert said he must dabble in psychology, too. It’s essential to consider the patient’s reasons for wanting the surgery, along with the form and function of the body parts that the patient wants to surgically alter, he said.
For example, there’s a difference between breast augmentation surgery for a woman who just finds that look “aesthetically” pleasing, versus one who thinks having bigger breasts would prevent her from losing her intimate partner, Lappert said.
Likewise, it’s one thing to remove breasts from a cancer patient; it’s another, he said, to do double mastectomies on young patients who believe that body alteration will cure them of distress over their transgender identity.
Yet that is among the procedures labeled “gender-affirming care”—procedures that the SAFE Act seeks to outlaw.
Surgeons are responsible for ferreting out patients who harbor unrealistic beliefs about the benefits of the surgeries they seek, Lappert said. These patients have “an expectation of happiness that is not achievable through plastic surgery,” he said.
They may blame their sorrows on a physical attribute “because they don’t want to look at the actual cause of their sorrow,” Lappert said.
These patients are seeking a surgical solution to an internal conflict, he said.
As Lappert pointedly stated in a written court filing: “You cannot heal a psychological wound with cosmetic surgery.”
Dismissing such concerns and giving patients what they want in the pursuit of happiness is unethical, Lappert said. “You’re abusing the patient.”
Because after an initial period of post-surgery euphoria and novelty wears off, such a patient “is left with the same sorrow and a bill for plastic surgery, and their hopes have not been realized,” Lappert said.
**********************************************
Conservatives who have not moved with the times
What George Will and Karl Rove Get Wrong About Current Conservatism
Are modern conservatives just unthinking rubes who want to be angry?
That was the tenor of a discussion Wednesday on the “future of conservatism” featuring former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove and columnist George Will, who announced that he’d left the Republican Party in 2016.
The event was sponsored in part by the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation, a curious choice to discuss the future of conservative ideas. Johnson was the architect of the Great Society, the largest expansion of the federal government in our history alongside the New Deal.
Rove said that many of the conservative “touchstones” of the past, such as federalism and limited government, have been diminished and replaced by populists and European “blood-and-soil-style” conservatism.
Will acknowledged that “the Democratic Party used to be the party of the New Deal, [and] now it’s the party of new genders.” But the veteran columnist saved most of his fire for Republicans and the Right.
Will said the country is crying out for Ronald Reagan’s cheerfulness, patriotism, and economic dynamism.
“If that’s zombie Reaganism, sign me up,” he said.
Will later said that viewers of Fox News “only feel alive when they are angry.”
Will also took a shot at my employer, The Heritage Foundation, saying that it is “taking the think out of think tank” because by urging more scrutiny of Ukraine aid packages, Heritage is leading the U.S. toward “isolationism.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)
That “isolationism” charge is just lazy. Being skeptical about money and resources that the U.S. sends abroad—even for causes we Americans believe in—isn’t isolationism, it’s prudence.
‘Dystopian’ Right?
Aside from that shot at Heritage, Will and Rove launched a more serious broadside at the Right.
First, they charged that conservatives have abandoned the principles and character of Reagan. Second, that the Right is now angrier than in Reagan’s day and angry populism isn’t “conservative” at all.
Finally, Will and Rove advocated returning to a type of court conservatism that they attribute to Reagan, but that actually has a lot more in common with the governing philosophy of former President George W. Bush.
Rove said that many on the Right now sound like the Left because they reject the optimism of Reagan and paint a dark, “dystopian” picture of America.
For those who continually harp on the “angry” tenor of our age in relation to Reagan’s cheerfulness, we should consider a few things. In his own day, Reagan often was ridiculed and denounced as an affable but radical right-winger. He certainly was by the Republican establishment of the time.
“This country needs a new administration, with a renewed dedication to the dream of America—an administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again.”
That wasn’t Donald Trump in 2016, that was Reagan in 1980, making his final appeal to American voters as a presidential candidate that year.
“The populism that we have today … is based on a belief that the whole system is rigged, that the elites have rigged the entire system against ordinary Americans,” Rove said.
Perhaps Rove should consider that the populists have a point.
The daily reality of conservatives across the country is that of fighting an onslaught of powerful institutions, both public and private, arrayed against beliefs that even 10 years ago would be considered basic and foundational.
A Distorted ‘Normality’
Today’s citizen has no reason to believe that his news outlets will report the truth, his child’s school will teach anything good about his country, or that any potential legal accusations will be adjudicated without regard to political perspective. He has every reason to be afraid that exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech by voicing beliefs completely ordinary by the standards of his countrymen—but contrary to the new dogmas of the elite class—will result at least in Big Tech censorship, and if he is unlucky, losing his job or even access to important private services such as banking.
If that’s not a rigged system, what, in Rove’s estimation, qualifies?
Rove said that what the country wants is “what we thought we’d get with [President Joe] Biden—normality.” The hard reality is that “normality” is now dictated by institutions wholly captured by the radical ideology of the hard Left.
So, what would that return to normality even look like now?
The brand of “conservatism” that Rove and Will argue for is one that tacitly concedes that the institutions and levers of power in American society will be free to take the country in an implicitly left-wing and radical direction.
The Left’s long march through the institutions is complete. Defenders of a rote and milquetoast “conservatism” offer no answer to reversing or even slowing down that march into the lives and homes of the American people.
A “conservatism” that has no solution to this crisis other than gauzy appeals to free trade, markets, and the opportunity society is not conserving anything at all.
In Reagan’s day, Super Bowl ads were full of American flags and appeals to patriotism to sell everything from beer to cars. Today, corporate America has become one of the key pillars of institutional wokeness. The most powerful corporations in the world often are in lockstep enforcing left-wing cultural orthodoxy, trusting to the common faculty-lounge politics of most of their competitors’ workforces and c-suites to hold conservative consumers as a captive audience. They often do this in collusion with the federal government, but this isn’t just a government problem.
Confronting the Left
This left-wing, institutional, hybrid, public-private takeover provides a challenge that hadn’t yet reached its crescendo in Reagan’s time. These new cultural values are ruthlessly enforced internally and externally.
As activist-journalist Christopher Rufo has demonstrated time and again, the cult of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” preaches noxious racialism and disturbing, farcical gender ideology behind closed doors at the largest corporate entities in America, and gets paid well to do it.
The Right must confront the power of Google and Amazon while the Left spends its time trying to destroy a small-time Christian baker in Colorado because they worry that somebody, somewhere isn’t going along with the program.
Serious challenges to left-wing control of institutions are taken to be apocalyptic events, worthy of pulling out every stop to counter.
Take, for instance, the current panic about billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s taking over Twitter. Musk isn’t an orthodox conservative by any stretch, and really has committed only to making the social media platform more amenable to free speech without censorship. But that’s apparently a bridge too far.
Not only has the corporate media treated Musk’s Twitter deal as the end of the world, but the Biden administration made threatening statements about “keeping an eye” on “misinformation” from the platform. Half of Twitter’s top advertisers immediately pulled their ads.
That’s the kind of overwhelming institutional grip the Left has on corporate America. Musk may survive that onslaught, but he will do so as the richest man on the planet. What are average Americans, those of us who don’t have billions of dollars, teams of lawyers, and a legion of lobbyists at their disposal, to do?
Will and Rove also repeated the usual tiresome litany of complaints that populist conservatives have disappointed them on issues such as immigration, same-sex marriage, and foreign policy.
Will quipped that “if Donald Trump were ever to build his wall, he would have had to do it with immigrant labor.”
Ah yes, the people stink.
Things Have Changed
Maybe instead of just calling for replacing unemployed Americans with foreign workers, conservatives’ goal should be to create the conditions where more Americans will seek and find meaningful work so they can strengthen themselves, their families, and their country too.
Just a little over a decade ago, President Barack Obama said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. We are now transitioning to an America in which believing that will provoke an investigation by the Justice Department.
The conservatism that Will and Rove are advocating is effectively a return to the foreign policy of George W. Bush, an abandonment of foundational cultural issues, and policies that foster unrestrained immigration. Worst of all, it doesn’t address the radical transformation of our institutions.
This is no way forward. Their nostalgia for the sunny optimism of the Reagan era is built on the false premise that we are living in the Reagan era. But the country and the world have changed, and we do a disservice to ourselves—especially as conservatives—if we don’t acknowledge that.
In Reagan’s farewell address, he spoke about tax cuts and foreign policy but saved his most important message for the end.
Reagan celebrated the new spirit of patriotism in America and the economic prosperity unleashed during his presidency. However, he warned that what we needed was “informed patriotism,” and that the nation was losing its institutional, cultural support for the kind of love of country he had grown up with. The world was changing.
“Younger parents aren’t sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children,” Reagan said. “And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven’t reinstitutionalized it.”
We still haven’t. That’s not Reagan’s fault, but we must acknowledge that it’s why the country is in crisis and why a healthy dose of populism is a healthy counterweight to institutions and an elite class that not only have lost their way but are actively harming our society.
The Corrupted Elite
Here is Irving Kristol, one of the godfathers of neoconservatism no less, writing in 1985 that “populism” was perhaps the best, commonsense response to the country’s unthinking elites:
To put it simply: The common sense—not the passion, but the common sense—of the American people has been outraged, over the past 20 years, by the persistent un-wisdom of their elected and appointed officials. To the degree that we are witnessing a crisis in our democratic institutions, it is a crisis of our disoriented elites, not of a blindly impassioned populace.
Kristol hit the nail on the head as far as where the corruption and failure is coming from in America and in other Western societies. If anything, the corrupted elite has amassed more power and is even less thoughtful today.
It’s the elites who are our age’s Jacobins. They are the ones overturning and perverting American institutions. They are the ones who’ve accepted that America was built on a legacy of “white supremacy” and justify racialized policies under the false idea that the system is “rigged” by institutional racism.
It’s our elites who say nonsense like “free speech is a danger to democracy,” and suppress the truth because it doesn’t conform with their approved narratives.
It’s our elites who not only stood by while our history was being torn down by mobs, but also often openly embraced and furthered the project. When the National Archives is reorienting itself to portray celebration of the Founding Fathers as “structural racism,” that should be a DEFCON 1 alert that there’s something fundamentally wrong.
To push back against these forces, a daunting task, requires conservatives—if they want anything decent left to conserve at all—to recognize what is arrayed against us and fight back, not to mindlessly pledge loyalty to the exact program that made sense in 1983 while looking contemptuously at voters pointing out the five-alarm fire in our midst.
A little populist anti-elitism and anger at the destruction of the American way of life may be exactly what our ailing republic needs.
****************************************
4 December, 2022
The Problem of Patriarchy Finally SOLVED
Is feminism a Catch 22? Can you win if you do what feminists ask?
There is eerie logic in the reasoning below. And I think I have seen the process being described in my own life. I am a naturally dominant personality and for 60 years I have found that to go down well with women. It may be some evidence of that that I have been married 4 times and have a chic chick in my life right now in my 80th year. I live a life that incels only dream of.
And I have never been good-looking. Recent pic below
So what the feminists idealize is NOT what most women want. Feminists are screwed-up personalities who are shooting themselves in the feet. Most women in fact LIKE patriarchy in moderation. So I find the reasoning below confirmed in my own life
I finally have it figured out for all of us, fellas. I have finally figured out the problem of patriarchy and toxic masculinity. And the solution is remarkable simple. Read below to find out.
Women have greater sexual value than men, which gives women sexual power over men, and thus more bargaining power in the game of dating, mating, and procreating. This greater bargaining power creates a sexual selection pressure that women then exert on men. In response to this sexual selection pressure, men seek to embody what women want men to be in order to earn sexual access to them. So, to put it quite simply: women created patriarchy.
Patriarchy is the peacock’s tail, the lion’s roar, and the stag’s antlers. Women used their great sexual selection pressure to compel men to make themselves, or become, more dominant, ambitious, confident, independent, self-reliant, and wealthy relative to women. Modern feminists call this biological reality of intersexual dynamics “patriarchy” and “male privilege”. Feminists claim that we have categorized these personality traits as “masculine” or “manly” because the patriarchy rewards men, and not women, for embodying those traits. This argument is actually correct because only women have the social-sexual power to compel men to meet these expectations.
However, as our modern feminist society clearly demonstrates, these “masculine”, “manly”, or “patriarchal” traits are actually gender neutral to a degree given how many modern women seem to currently embody them. In reality, for the most part, these traits are just the traits of adulthood. If men had the social-sexual power to command that women embody these traits then women would have come to embody them in far more significant numbers long before the advent of the modern, postindustrial age. Modern women do not embody these traits in our modern society because men commanded it from them. Modern women have come to embody these traits because they demanded the option to do so, and more importantly because women no longer need to rely on an individual man, or even a group of male relatives, to provide for them and protect them. These roles and services have been outsourced to governments and corporations. Modern women have come to embody these traits because they have been set free to pursue them for their own benefit in a world explicitly designed to advantage them.
The modern, post-industrial economy is the first economic system in human history to produce a plethora of jobs and professions that pay reasonably well and are within the average woman’s capacity to perform that work without enormous personal sacrifice to her life, mind, and body. Prior to the middle of the 20th Century, most jobs that paid a living wage were hard, uncomfortable, dirty, disgusting, dangerous, and/or back breaking work. Women were not mentally, emotionally, and/or physically equipped to do those jobs. Primarily because their biology often made it virtually impossible, but more importantly, women lacked a social system incentivizing and conditioning them to toughen up, in order to cope with being expected to perform that work without complaint, as was the case with boys and men.
Incredibly, despite living within a social and economic system designed deliberately to advantage them, feminists claim that we still live in a patriarchy where women experience discrimination on a regular basis. A common example of this “patriarchal oppression” or “male privilege” is the wage gap. Feminist’s cite the fact that the average income of all American men is slightly higher than the average income of all American women because of discriminatory employment practices. Let us ignore the fundamental issue with how they frame this conversation around a meaningless comparison of average income based on gender; a fact that is no different than, and just as meaningless as, the reality that tall people have a higher income on average than short people. I don’t think our society is deliberately discriminating against short people. There are clearly other factors at play. Ignoring that, there is a very obvious, logical, and meaningful explanation for why men on average make more money than women on average: women want it that way.
The wage gap, better understood as an achievement gap (or even an earnings gap), is the direct result of the sexual selection pressure that women exert on men. If women are capable of using their greater sexual value to compel men to pick up the slack in the personality traits I just explained as being essentially the traits of adulthood, then women have no incentive to be more dominant, ambitious, confident, independent, self-reliant, and/or wealthy relative to men when they can just get men to do all that work for them. This intersexual dynamic makes an achievement gap inevitable.
How ironic that this “male privilege” maps exactly to what women already expect from men! How is a man supposed to demonstrate dominance, ambition, confidence, independence and self-reliance without a hierarchy? How is a man supposed to be dominant and ambitious without aggression? How is a man supposed to create wealth without capitalism? Without equivalent sexual value and equivalent sexual selection pressure on women, how are men supposed to command the same level of dominance, ambition, confidence, independence, self-reliance, and wealth in women as women are capable of commanding from men? They cannot. If men are the ones responding to women’s sexual selection pressure then men cannot command particular personality traits of any kind from women. That is why we have the dating, mating, and procreating marketplace that we have today.
Men do not have the power to fulfill the expectations of the modern feminists. Men do not have the power to liberate women from the already MORE POWERFUL POSITION that women occupy. Patriarchy did not create women’s sexual selection pressure. It has always existed. It has existed since the day the first male hominid gave the first female hominid a handful of berries. Male hominids started giving female hominids food to provision for them during the process of gestation, lactation, and childrearing. In return, female hominids developed emotional attachments to the male hominids that provisioned for them and protected them. From this development human pair bonding emerged. Pair bonding could not have emerged if no emotional attachment developed between the two. This evolution in intersexual dynamics made it possible for hominid children to have an extended period of socialization in which multiple adult members of the community raised them; primarily and most importantly, their fathers. This development enabled the evolution of increasingly complex thoughts, concepts, languages, societies, and eventually civilizations. All the accomplishments of the human species, rooted most fundamentally in the male instinct to protect and provide for females, not only at the level of the individual man, but also in cooperative competition with other men.
Feminists argue that patriarchy hurts men too. Women may be the primary victims, but men do not escape unscathed from these rigid gender role expectations. Feminists argue that patriarchy hurts men by claiming that it refuses to respect or acknowledge the legitimacy of men’s emotions; it robs them of their families; makes their sexuality less valuable than women’s; and reduces their value down to their ability to provide for others. I wonder. Why would patriarchy do all of those horrible things to men? Could it be because there is a direct causal connection between all those expectations of men and how those expectations happen to benefit women when they are met?
It is pretty incredible when you consider it. Feminists observe the consequences of women exerting their greater sexual selection pressure on men, in order for women to get what women want from men, and then turn to blaming and shaming men for conforming to what women want from men in the first place. Not only that, feminists then make the case that this blaming and shaming of men is actually some kind of disturbing, dehumanizing “feminist love” whereby men will one day be liberated from their traditional gender role just so long as they continue giving women even more power. Apparently, if men ever want to be equally valued by women than men must give up all their “male privilege”. Which is the same as saying that in order for men to be valued by women men must abandon everything that makes men valuable to women. If men want women to value them equally then men must discard everything that men must become in order for women to even consider them remotely attractive. To be honest, this sounds like an abusive relationship in which the man is prohibited from burdening anyone with any acknowledgement of any aspect of his internal life or humanity. All for the sake of meeting the expectations of women. That is the “solution” that feminists recommend to the “problem” of “patriarchy”.
We have solved it, gents! How do we eliminate patriarchy once and for all: men need to stop meeting women’s expectations.
https://medium.com/@revolutionarymale/the-problem-of-patriarchy-finally-solved-17063f4a8d99
***************************************************
Balenciaga Photo Fiasco Just Latest Attempt to Mainstream Sexualization of Children
A major scandal at luxury fashion brand Balenciaga has exposed the sexualization of children in our culture and highlighted a problem no one wants to address—the fact that our cultural “elites” seem to think this is OK.
The design company—well known for its collaboration with entrepreneur Kim Kardashian and for producing some of the ugliest, overpriced items on the market (think stiletto Crocs)—plunged into controversy following publication of photos in two Balenciaga advertising campaigns.
One photo features very young children posing with teddy bears dressed in sexual fetish apparel. Another, bizarrely, includes excerpts from the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in United States v. Williams, which upheld federal statutes on child pornography.
As public backlash built against the blatant impropriety and sinister nature of these campaigns, Paris-based Balenciaga removed the images from their platforms and issued an apology. The company claimed that it “strongly condemns child abuse; it was never our intent to include it in our narrative,” adding that the campaigns reflect “a series of grievous errors for which Balenciaga takes responsibility.”
In light of the controversy, Kardashian said she is “reevaluating” her relationship with the brand.
The whole sordid mess raises many questions that deserve to be answered. The most obvious: How on Earth were these campaigns ever released to begin with?
Balenciaga casts much of the blame on an outside production company (the fashion brand filed a lawsuit against it seeking $25 million in damages), while claiming to take accountability for its “lack of oversight.”
This response rings hollow. Regardless of how many outside contractors contributed, most people understand that for such a costly project to reach the public, it first must go through rounds of approvals. There are planning meetings and design meetings and production meetings.
Apparently, at no point did anyone involved say, “Stop.” It didn’t occur to any designer or photographer or executive that people might object to the sexualization of children.
This speaks to the heart of the problem. The producers of these campaigns either a) didn’t realize exploiting children in this way is wrong or b) they knew it is wrong, but wanted their audience to accept it. Either option is abhorrent.
Whatever the case, in these instances, Balenciaga was participating in a larger push that we have witnessed from far-Left cultural institutions: the attempt to mainstream the sexualization and exploitation of children.
We have seen this played out many times in the past few years. Parents increasingly have grown outraged and spoken out about the problem of graphic sexual content in public schools—only to be shut down and silenced by leftist, activist school boards.
Drag queen story times and children’s events have become pervasive across the country. Celebrated by the Left as progressive and empowering, these events expose kids to sexual content.
In July, Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed a complaint against a Miami bar that hosted “sexually explicit” drag shows for kids. A video from one event showed a drag queen, dressed only in a thong stuffed with dollar bills, strutting around a bar with a little girl.
In Tennessee, conservative lawmakers are trying to ban drag performances that target children but already are facing pushback from LGBT activists.
It’s encouraging that, despite the cultural pressure from the media and academia to accept such immoral behavior, Americans are rooted enough in reality to recognize evil when they see it. But it isn’t likely that cultural elites will learn anything at all from the Balenciaga scandal.
Already, major media outlets, including The New York Times and Rolling Stone, seem to suggest that “far-Right influencers” and Fox News are fueling the outrage against Balenciaga.
Alyssa Farah Griffin, one of the hosts of ABC’s “The View,” went so far as to suggest that the real issue is that, by publishing these photos, Balenciaga made a “misstep” that “gives credence to those kind of insane takes” from conservatives opposed to transgender ideology.
To stop the slow progression of this insidious effort that seeks to normalize exploitation of children, Americans must remain vigilant. We must call out this evil for what it is. We must check its supporters at every turn. We must support policies that protect kids.
If we don’t, the Left will push the line for what is acceptable further and further into dangerous territory. And our kids will be the ones who suffer for it.
*****************************************************
Democrats' Staggering Hypocrisy
Leftists in Western societies tend to LIKE Communism, seeing them as "just socialists in a hurry". So they rarely condemn anything done by Communist regimes. They defended the Soviet horror right up to its implosion
As protests against the Chinese Communist Party’s tyrannical rule continue to spread among those subjugated under Xi Jinping’s genocidal government, a sane person would expect the free world to support those bravely speaking out against the CCP, amplify the cries for freedom, and do what is possible to support the freedom fighters.
The left, however, is not sane. And so they’re not doing what those pleading for freedom in China might expect based on the reputation the free world previously built for itself as a beacon for oppressed peoples elsewhere. Especially after seeing the world’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Chinese dissidents likely expected more from the leaders of free nations. Yet, that hasn’t been the case.
By falling silent and failing to stand up for freedom against CCP tyranny, the left is demonstrating a staggering amount of hypocrisy, not just because of the disparity between their outcry against Russia and silence on freedom fighters in China, but because of their handling of other protests.
Let’s start with President Joe Biden. He has not officially addressed the uprising against China’s zero-COVID and other tyrannical policies but was palling around with Xi Jinping recently after routinely bragging about how much time the two have spent together.
In a press briefing earlier this week, the White House’s John Kirby was asked for Biden’s response to the protests erupting across China and whether the president had a message for those demanding freedom. Kirby’s response was tepid and sanitized, “Our message to peaceful protesters around the world is the same and consistent: People should be allowed the right to assemble and to peacefully protest policies or laws or dictates that they take issue with.”
The lukewarm statement from Kirby drew a follow-up question: Does the White House support the efforts of Chinese citizens to regain some personal freedoms? Kirby again failed in his response, saying, “The White House supports the right of peaceful protest.” Really?
Neither response cuts it, and both betray those crying out for freedom in China. They expect and deserve better from the country that is supposed to be the last hope for freedom on earth.
A review of White House statements shows that the Biden administration has not hesitated to issue strongly worded statements endorsing protesters and the causes they represent against totalitarian regimes. President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have issued multiple statements supporting protests in Iran and Cuba during their nearly two years in office. So why not the same for freedom fighters in China?
And let’s not forget that it was Kamala Harris who helped raise money for a bail fund to get violent BLM rioters out of jail during the “summer of love.” Yet now she can’t be bothered to speak up or otherwise support the cause of peaceful protesters in China with her platform as supposedly the most powerful woman in the free world? It’s shameful.
On a different but equally damning level, Apple Inc., a company that rose to become one of the most successful in U.S. history as a result of the economic and personal freedom that exists in the United States, has turned around and used its power to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party as it works to squash the liberty of its citizens.
Earlier this week, I wrote about how the company surreptitiously included a change to the iOS operating system’s file-sharing tool — AirDrop — in a recent software update, but only for iPhones in China. The device-to-device ability provided by AirDrop was relied on by freedom fighters in China to pass along protest messages and videos of CCP oppression by circumventing the CCP’s stranglehold on the internet. Thanks to Apple, freedom fighters are now less able to communicate and spread their message in China, a massive win for Xi Jinping and his tyrant government.
One of Apple’s iPhone factories in China was even the site of a protest this week, but Apple — after handing another advantage to CCP censors — obviously hasn’t spoken out on the protest at its manufacturing plant or elsewhere in China in yet another staggering show of hypocrisy.
Following the death of George Floyd, Apple CEO Tim Cook published a lengthy essay in which he said his company’s “mission has been and always will be to create technology that empowers people to change the world for the better,” except apparently when Apple is stripping critical functionality from iPhones in China to limit the ability of dissidents to communicate.
The essay also claimed that “[i]ssues of human dignity will not abide standing on the sidelines,” even though Apple and Cook are now comfortably resting on the sidelines and remaining silent about the gross human rights violations — even genocide — being perpetrated by China’s communist thugs.
The United States, the businesses its freedom allowed to flourish, and the leaders who run the country and its biggest companies ought to be using their power to do whatever possible to shun and punish China’s despotic government while helping the people being crushed under it to speak up and achieve the very basic freedoms they’re being denied — not feigning ignorance of the problem and undermining their efforts.
Rather than speaking out as it has on other uprisings, the Biden administration is negotiating to allow TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. without changing its corporate structure and playing coy with Xi Jinping while refusing to endorse the freedom fighters on college campuses, city centers, and village squares in China. And Apple is actively undermining the peaceful protesters’ attempts to expose the CCP’s tyranny while comfortably profiting from sales in China from the cozy Democrat enclave in Palo Alto
**********************************************
NYT Finally Admits 'Gender Affirming Care' Is Dangerous
The New York Times published a lengthy story admitting that “gender-affirming” care could be harmful to kids.
The article titled: “They Paused Puberty, But is There a Cost?” acknowledges that scientific evidence trumps what the woke media wants you to believe.
The authors cite that over 300,000 adolescents between the ages of 13 to 17 are concerned with medical professionals about the consequences the drugs will have on them.
“The questions are fueling government reviews in Europe, prompting a push for more research and leading some prominent specialists to reconsider at what age to prescribe them and for how long. A small number of doctors won’t recommend them at all,” the NYT article reads.
The authors, Megan Twohey and Christina Jewett point out that an increasing amount of minors are regretting their choices to have life-alternating procedures done and take medication.
Democrats and the liberal media have played their hand in fueling the epidemic of children thinking they were born in the wrong body.
A report published earlier this year argued that the Biden Administration blatantly ignored the many harmful side effects their push for gender-affirming care has on teens.
Joe Biden’s policy claimed that if trans kids were not able to transition, not just socially, but permanently, then they might consider killing themselves.
The report argued that not only was it out of line, but it was also inaccurate and had little to no evidence to back up its claims.
The Times article notes how woke activists pressured authorities into approving medication and surgeries before doctors were even able to understand them.
Biden has continually promoted the use of gender-affirming care, with states such as California declaring it a “sanctuary” for trans kids and their families.
***************************************************
Monks or monkeys? Monks in Buddhist monastery all drug dependent
Bangkok: A small Buddhist temple in northern Thailand has been left without monks after the entire monastery was found to have been using methamphetamine, according to local officials.
Following orders to investigate drug use in Phetchabun province, the local sheriff and village headman in Bung Sam Phan subdistrict, some 240 kilometres north of Bangkok, poked around schools, factories and temples searching for drug addicts and dealers so they could be sent for rehabilitation.
“As a community leader, I was frightened because I never thought the monks would be addicted to drugs,” said Sungyut Namburi, the village headman. “I never thought that drugs would spread to temples.”
Monks are revered figures in Thai culture. In Bangkok’s metro system, seats are reserved for them alongside pregnant and elderly individuals. Particularly in rural areas outside of Bangkok, monks are trusted advisers, often serving as counsellors and role models to the community.
So it was much to Sungyut’s surprise that all four monks in one small temple tested positive for methamphetamine use when he and the sheriff paid a visit to the monastery on Friday. At another small temple, two monks tested positive, he said.
But the writing was on the wall: the monks’ personality and behaviour gave them away as drug users, Sungyut said. Some villagers had tipped him off, telling him to check on temples in the community.
Even the abbot – the head of the monastery, who had served as a monk for 10 years – was found to be using drugs. “When I inspected the abbot’s shelter, I was stunned because it was a mess,” Sungyut said. After the drug tests came back positive, he said, the monks confessed to using drugs. Some of them admitted to being longtime addicts.
****************************************
2 December, 2022
Asian faiths try to save swastika symbol corrupted by Hitler
In India, the symbol is ubiquitous and its arms normally point in oppposite directions to the Nazi symbol. I am under the impression that arms pointing in the Nazi diretion are particularly asssociated with devotion to Ganesha, the elephant god. Pictured is one of my images of Ganesh.
And the Nazis never called it a swastika anyway, They called it a hooked cross -- Hakenkreuz. It was only English propagandists who misappropriated the Indian term to refer to the Nazi symbol
Nazi leaders wearing "Swastika" armbands would probaby have been seen as devout in India
Sheetal Deo was shocked when she got a letter from her Queens apartment building’s co-op board calling her Diwali decoration “offensive” and demanding she take it down. “My decoration said ‘Happy Diwali’ and had a swastika on it,” said Deo, a physician, who was celebrating the Hindu festival of lights.
The equilateral cross with its legs bent at right angles is a millennia-old sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism that represents peace and good fortune, and was also used widely by Indigenous people worldwide in a similar vein.
But in the West, this symbol is often equated to Adolf Hitler’s hakenkreuz or the hooked cross – a symbol of hate that evokes the trauma of the Holocaust and the horrors of Nazi Germany. White supremacists, neo-Nazi groups and vandals have continued to use Hitler’s symbol to stoke fear and hate.
Over the past decade, as the Asian diaspora has grown in North America, the call to reclaim the swastika as a sacred symbol has become louder. These minority faith communities are being joined by Native American elders whose ancestors have long used the symbol as part of healing rituals.
Deo believes she and people of other faiths should not have to sacrifice or apologize for a sacred symbol simply because it is often conflated with its tainted version.
Yet to others, the idea that the swastika could be redeemed is unthinkable.
Holocaust survivors in particular could be re-traumatized when they see the symbol, said Shelley Rood Wernick, managing director of the Jewish Federations of North America’s Center on Holocaust Survivor Care.
“One of the hallmarks of trauma is that it shatters a person’s sense of safety,” said Wernick, whose grandparents met at a displaced persons’ camp in Austria after World War II. “The swastika was a representation of the concept that stood for the annihilation of an entire people.”
For her grandparents and the elderly survivors she serves, Wernick said, the symbol is the physical representation of the horrors they experienced. “I recognize the swastika as a symbol of hate.”
New York-based Steven Heller, a design historian and author of “Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption?”, said the swastika is “a charged symbol for so many whose loved ones were criminally and brutally murdered.” Heller’s great-grandfather perished during the Holocaust.
“A rose by any other name is a rose,” he said. “In the end it’s how a symbol affects you visually and emotionally. For many, it creates a visceral impact and that’s a fact.”
The symbol itself dates back to prehistoric times. The word “swastika” has Sanskrit roots and means “the mark of well being.” It has been used in prayers of the Rig Veda, the oldest of Hindu scriptures. In Buddhism, the symbol is known as “manji” and signifies the Buddha’s footsteps. It is used to mark the location of Buddhist temples. In China it’s called Wàn, and denotes the universe or the manifestation and creativity of God. The swastika is carved into the Jains’ emblem representing the four types of birth an embodied soul might attain until it is eventually liberated from the cycle of birth and death. In the Zoroastrian faith, it represents the four elements – water, fire, air and earth.
In India, the ubiquitous symbol can be seen on thresholds, drawn with vermillion and turmeric, and displayed on shop doors, vehicles, food packaging and at festivals or special occasions. Elsewhere, it has been found in the Roman catacombs, ruins in Greece and Iran, and in Ethiopian and Spanish churches.
The swastika also was a Native American symbol used by many southwestern tribes, particularly the Navajo and Hopi. To the Navajo, it represented a whirling log, a sacred image used in healing rituals and sand paintings. Swastika motifs can be found in items carbon-dated to 15,000 years ago on display at the National Museum of the History of Ukraine as well as on artifacts recovered from the ruins of the ancient Indus Valley civilizations that flourished between 2600 and 1900 BC.
The symbol was revived during the 19th century excavations in the ancient city of Troy by German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann, who connected it to a shared Aryan culture across Europe and Asia. Historians believe it is this notion that made the symbol appealing to nationalist groups in Germany including the Nazi Party, which adopted it in 1920.
In North America, in the early 20th century, swastikas made their way into ceramic tiles, architectural features, military insignia, team logos, government buildings and marketing campaigns. Coca-Cola issued a swastika pendant. Carlsberg beer bottles came etched with swastikas. The Boy Scouts handed out badges with the symbol until 1940.
***************************************************
This Couple Died by Suicide After the DEA Shut Down Their Pain Doctor
Killer bureaucracy
It was a Tuesday in early November when federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration paid a visit to the office of Dr. David Bockoff, a chronic pain specialist in Beverly Hills. It wasn’t a Hollywood-style raid—there were no shots fired or flash-bang grenades deployed—but the agents left behind a slip of paper that, according to those close to the doctor’s patients, had consequences just as deadly as any shootout.
On Nov. 1, the DEA suspended Bockoff’s ability to prescribe controlled substances, including powerful opioids such as fentanyl. While illicit fentanyl smuggled across the border by Mexican cartels has fueled a record surge in overdoses in recent years, doctors still use the pharmaceutical version during surgeries and for soothing the most severe types of pain. But amid efforts to shut down so-called “pill mills” and other illegal operations, advocates for pain patients say the DEA has gone too far, overcorrecting to the point that people with legitimate needs are blocked from obtaining the medication they need to live without suffering.
One of Bockoff’s patients who relied on fentanyl was Danny Elliott, a 61-year-old native of Warner Robins, Georgia. In March 1991, Elliott was nearly electrocuted to death when a water pump he was using to drain a flooded basement malfunctioned, sending high-voltage shocks through his body for nearly 15 minutes until his father intervened to save his life. Elliott was never the same after the accident, which left him with debilitating, migraine-like headaches. Once a class president and basketball star in high school, he found himself spending days on end in a darkened bedroom, unable to bear sunlight or the sound of the outdoors.
“I have these sensations like my brain is loose inside my skull,” Elliott told me in 2019, when I first interviewed him for the VICE News podcast series Painkiller. “If I turn my head too quickly, left or right, it feels like my brain sloshes around. Literally my eyes burn deep into my skull. My eyes hurt so bad that it hurts to blink.”
After years of trying alternative pain treatments such as acupuncture, along with other types of opioids, around 2002 Elliott found a doctor who prescribed fentanyl, which gave him some relief. But keeping a doctor proved nearly impossible amid the ongoing federal crackdown on opioids. Bockoff, Elliott said, was his third doctor to be shut down by the DEA since 2018. As Elliott described it, each transition meant weeks or months of desperate scrambling to find a replacement, plus excruciating withdrawals due to his physical dependence on opioids, followed by the return of that burning eyeball pit of despair.
After the DEA visited Bockoff on Nov. 1, Elliott posted on Twitter: “Even though I knew this would happen at some point, I'm stunned. Now I can't get ANY pain relief as a #cpp [chronic pain patient.] So I'm officially done w/ the US HC [healthcare] system.”
Privately, Elliott and his wife Gretchen, 59, were frantically trying to find another doctor. He sent a text to his brother, Jim Elliott, saying he was “praying for help but not expecting it.”
Jim, a former city attorney for Warner Robins who is now in private practice, was traveling when he received his brother’s message. They made plans to talk later in the week, after Danny had visited a local physician for a consultation. In subsequent messages, Danny told Jim that Gretchen had reached out to more than a dozen doctors. Each one had responded saying they would not take him as a patient.
Jim recalled sensing in Danny “a level of desperation I hadn't seen before.” Then, on the morning of Nov. 8, he woke up to find what he called “a suicide email” from his brother. Jim called the local police department in Warner Robins to request a welfare check. The officers arrived a few minutes before 8:30 a.m. to find both Danny and Gretchen dead inside their home.
A police report obtained by VICE News lists a handgun as the only weapon found at the scene. Warner Robins police said additional records could not be released because the case is “still active.” The department issued a press release calling the deaths a “dual suicide.”
Jim shared a portion of a note that Danny left behind: “I just can't live with this severe pain anymore, and I don't have any options left,” he wrote. “There are millions of chronic pain patients suffering just like me because of the DEA. Nobody cares. I haven't lived without some sort of pain and pain relief meds since 1998, and I considered suicide back then. My wife called 17 doctors this past week looking for some kind of help. The only doctor who agreed to see me refused to help in any way. What am I supposed to do?”
At a joint funeral for Danny and Gretchen Elliott on Nov. 14 in Warner Robins, mourners filled a mortuary chapel to overflow capacity. Eulogies recalled a couple completely devoted to each other. They were doting cat owners, dedicated fans of Georgia Tech and Atlanta sports teams, and devout Christians, even as Danny’s chronic pain increasingly left him unable to attend church. In photos, the Elliotts radiate happiness with their smiles. But their lives were marred by pain: Gretchen was a breast cancer survivor. She married Danny in 1996, well after his accident, signing up to be his caregiver as part of their life partnership.
“It was a Romeo and Juliet story. They didn't want to live without each other,” said Chuck Shaheen, Danny’s friend since childhood and Warner Robins’ former mayor. “I understand the DEA and other law enforcement, they investigate and then act. But what do they do with the patients that are no longer able to have treatment?”
Shaheen and Danny both worked in years past for Johnson & Johnson, which is among the companies sued for allegedly causing the opioid crisis. Shaheen was also previously a salesperson for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, another company blamed for spreading addiction. But Shaheen said Danny was not among those chasing a high—he, like others with severe chronic pain, was just seeking a semblance of normalcy.
“They're not doctor shopping,” Shaheen said. “They're not trying to escalate their dose. They're trying to function.”
Danny told me in 2019 that the relief he obtained from fentanyl didn’t make him feel euphoric or even completely pain free. He was using fentanyl patches and lozenges designed for people with terminal cancer pain, at extremely high doses that raised eyebrows whenever he was forced to switch doctors. But it was the only thing that worked for him.
“I call it turning the volume of my pain down from an eight or nine or even 10 sometimes to a six or a five,” he said. “The pain doesn't get much lower than that, but for me, that's almost pain free. It was the happiest thing I've ever experienced in my life.”
There are millions of chronic pain patients suffering just like me because of the DEA. Nobody cares
Gretchen’s brother, Eric Welde, choked up as he spoke with VICE News at the funeral about his perspective on the family’s loss: “In my mind, what the DEA is essentially doing is telling a diabetic who's been on insulin for 20 years that they no longer need insulin and they should be cured. They just don't understand what chronic pain is.”
So far, no criminal charges have been filed against Bockoff. In response to an inquiry from VICE News about the deaths of Danny and Gretchen Elliott, the doctor emailed a statement that said: “I am unable to participate in an interview except to say: Their blood is on the DEA’s hands.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxnyb9/dea-fentanyl-doctor-patient-suicide ?
***********************************************
What is Ozempic and why is there a shortage of it?
Judie Thompson recently drove to a pharmacy 45 kilometres from home to replenish her dwindling supply of the drug she says changed her life. Thompson, 64, from Brisbane, began using the drug in March to manage her type 2 diabetes. Since then, she has lowered her insulin usage from five injections a day to just two – and lost 20 kilograms.
“It’s changed my life totally,” she says. “I was 107 kilos when I went on it, and I started losing weight as well as noticing how well my insulin was working.
“I walk my dogs, which I haven’t done in 10 years. I’m so happy to be me now.”
The drug, Ozempic, which comes as a weekly injection, has been approved in Australia for treating type 2 diabetes but is also sought after because it can help with weight loss, as is its weight-loss-specific counterpart, Wegovy, in the United States. Ozempic is now a “Hollywood drug”, according to some reports. Asked how he got to look “so ripped”, billionaire Elon Musk tweeted it was down to “fasting … and Wegovy”.
Now there’s a global shortage of Ozempic. It will not be available in Australia until April, affecting people who use the drug to manage their diabetes.
What’s causing the shortage? Who should be using Ozempic? And is it a magic shortcut for weight loss?
Ozempic was created by Danish drug company Novo Nordisk in 2012 and approved for use for type 2 diabetes in the US in 2017 and in Australia in 2019. In July 2020, it was listed on the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme (PBS) so that it costs about $40 (or $6.60 with a concession card) for a monthly course of weekly injections. The same amount on a private script, or “off label”, can cost $130 or more.
About 1.3 million Australians were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes between 2000 and 2020, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Diabetes is caused by the body’s inability to use and/or produce insulin, a hormone that controls blood glucose levels.
In clinical trials by Novo Nordisk, it was discovered that semaglutide, which Ozempic contains, had a dual effect: it could also lead to weight loss in patients.
Semaglutide stimulates cells that make insulin while suppressing glucagon, affecting blood glucose levels, says leading endocrinologist and obesity specialist Professor Joseph Proietto at the University of Melbourne. “Semaglutide is an analog of one of our own hormones that we make in our small bowel called glucagon-like-peptide-1 [GLP-1],” adds Proietto, who established the weight control clinic at Austin Health. He says GLP-1 slows gastric emptying “so that it makes you feel fuller for longer, and then it goes to the brain and suppresses hunger. And both of those actions help with weight loss.”
********************************************************
The lost shrunken heads of Oxford and the museums hell bent on erasing our past
By PETER HITCHENS
The most frightening thing in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is not the torture or the naked terror. It is the obliteration of the past. This makes it impossible to know what life was once like, or to know if it has improved or grown worse.
So far, much of Orwell's prophecy has yet to come about. There are no actual Thought Police, though there are a lot of people who would fit well into such a body. The surveillance he describes is in its infancy here — though far advanced in China. But much of the past is being erased.
If a piece of information is not on the internet, most people have no idea how to find out about it. Modern books and media actually alter the truth for political reasons. But the most startling example of the wiping out of the past can be found in museums.
For example, the Wellcome Trust has just closed a permanent display in London because it 'perpetuates a version of medical history that is based on racist, sexist and ableist theories and language'.
Allegedly, the display also told a story of 'a man with enormous wealth, power and privilege'. And we can't have that. The museum claimed that 'we can't change our past', though surely that is exactly what you do when you close such exhibits. It added: 'But we can work towards a future where we give voice to the narratives and lived experiences of those who have been silenced, erased and ignored.'
I'd say that this process ends up erasing, ignoring and silencing voices from the past that we still ought to know about, even if — especially if — we do not like what they say.
This sort of thing is very common now. No museum or gallery is safe from it. As the years pass, the labels on pictures and the notes in exhibition catalogues grow more and more politically correct.
In one rare case, the historian and biographer Andrew Roberts (now Lord Roberts of Belgravia) was able to reverse highly political changes made to the National Army Museum in London. Before his victory, the corrected museum boasted that it 'challenges you to think again about what an army museum is'.
But as Roberts rightly asked: 'Why should it? Why can't it just be a museum that houses the paraphernalia of the national Army? Why should it be somewhere that leaves visitors ashamed of the Army's supposed legacy of colonialism, imperialism and slavery, when that constituted only a tiny part of its story and isn't accurately portrayed anyhow?
'On a greater issue, when will the long march of political correctness through our great national institutions be finally checked?'
The answer to that is that it probably won't be. Much credit goes to Roberts for fighting in this case. But most of us do not know where to start.
This week, impelled by the sour news from the Wellcome Trust, I forced myself to visit, for the first time in years, what was once one of my favourite museums in the world. This is the once-enchanting Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford.
You will almost certainly have heard of its gruesome collection of shrunken heads. The Pitt Rivers appears in Colin Dexter's Inspector Morse story The Daughters Of Cain and in the TV version of it.
Morse found the place uncanny (as I did) and mused that it might not be pleasant to be locked in its sinister clanging galleries after dark when everyone had gone. Who knew what might stir? The museum's uncorrected delights were also celebrated by that fine poet James Fenton, half a century ago.
He describes it as I first saw it, a shadowy series of iron floors in a sort of barn, dominated by a 35 ft carved totem pole and crammed with often quite creepy trophies of intrepid Victorian and Edwardian expeditions to the remote places of the world.
Whatever you actually think of the British imperial era, I doubt whether there was ever a better place to find out what it had felt and looked like, when it was still flourishing.
As Fenton said: 'You have come upon the fabled lands where myths go when they die.' Peering at the tiny ancient labels in Indian ink, you might spot 'the hair of a witch, earth from the grave of a man killed by a tiger'.
The whole thing was supposed to have been based on some sort of Eurocentric idea of civilisation. Yet the second most potent exhibit (after the shrunken heads) was from a 19th-century Oxfordshire country estate.
It was a vicious and cruel 'spring-gun' — a blunderbuss set off by a hidden tripwire to blast buckshot into an unwary poacher. This item is still there (though easy to miss) but has been inexplicably separated from the sign-board which once accompanied it.
This said in chilly, severe lettering: 'Take notice. Men traps and spring-guns are set on these premises.'
This is as nasty in its way as any of the other more alarming exhibits from various jungles.
This week I found a far more brightly-lit place, with much bigger labels and righteous notices explaining that during the recent refit, 'displays with problematic case labels using derogatory language or reinforcing negative stereotypes were identified as requiring urgent attention'.
A prominent poster declared the museum 'a footprint of colonialism', explaining that although the colonial era is over 'the past is still present, and the invisible structures of colonialism still persist today. These invisible structures, known as coloniality, shape our ideas about race, class, culture, gender and sexuality'.
It announced that, 'Coloniality divides the world into 'the West and the rest' and assigns racial, intellectual and cultural superiority to the West.'
Many surviving labels, it warned, use language which is 'derogatory, racist and Eurocentric'.
I couldn't help thinking, as I read this, that another purge surely cannot be far off, along with even brighter lights, tedious interactive displays and perhaps a top-floor vegan cafe.
The shrunken heads, unsurprisingly, have now gone for good. I had feared for years that this would happen. Once just on show without fuss, then rather apologetically explained, they are now apparently not fit to be seen.
But, like the Oxfordshire spring-gun, the shrunken heads told the raw truth about man's capacity for savagery in all places and at all times. Anyone who saw them was a better person for it.
Outside lay the tree-shaded, gentle world of Oxford with its colleges, churches and tea-shops. Inside crouched this sinister, evocative treasure house, evidence that our planet contains more wonders and terrors, and more beliefs about them, than we begin to know.
****************************************
1 December, 2022
Musk Confirms: Yes, Twitter Has Interfered in Elections
Newly minted Twitter CEO and owner Elon Musk revealed Wednesday that under previously leadership, the social media giant did in fact interfere in elections. Musk promised "Twitter 2.0" will change course and operate transparently on the issue.
Most infamously, Twitter banned any mention of Hunter Biden's "laptop from hell" in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. By default, they also censored Joe Biden's deep involvement and shady business dealings with foreign adversaries.
At the time platform executives, including then CEO Jack Dorsey, justified the multi-month banning of the account belonging to the New York Post -- the nation's oldest paper -- whose reporters broke the laptop story in October 2020. They also banned White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany after she shared the story, along with countless others who did the same.
During testimony on Capitol Hill in 2021, Dorsey admitted the social media platform had no factual basis for censoring the story.
Twitter doesn’t have a “censoring department” that blocked The Post from tweeting last fall, CEO Jack Dorsey said Thursday — but he wouldn’t reveal who was responsible for the blunder.
At a congressional hearing on misinformation and social media, Dorsey said Twitter made a “total mistake” by barring users from sharing The Post’s bombshell October report about Hunter Biden’s emails.
Twitter also locked The Post out of its account for more than two weeks over baseless charges that the exposé used hacked information — a decision Dorsey chalked up to a “process error.”
Polling taken after the 2020 presidential election showed a significant number of voters would not have cast their ballots for Biden if they had known about the contents of the laptop.
Nearly four of five Americans who’ve been following the Hunter Biden laptop scandal believe that “truthful” coverage would have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to a new poll.
A similar percentage also said they’re convinced that information on the computer is real, with just 11% saying they thought it was “created by Russia,” according to the survey conducted by the New Jersey-based Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics.
And an even higher number — 81% — said US Attorney General Merrick Garland should appoint a special counsel to investigate matters related to the first son’s infamous laptop, the existence of which was exclusively revealed by The Post in October 2020.
*************************************************
Workers stand down as Apple store raided in California
Shocking footage has shown an Apple store in California being raided by a group of looters.
Viewers were stunned at the moment an Apple employee appeared to hand one of the thieves an iPad as they tore through the display units and shoved devices into backpacks.
Staff did not try to interfere with the thieves and were instead shepherding other customers away from the scene.
Video uploaded @CryptoKaleo said it was indicative that “society is broken in California”, referencing the nonchalant way the staff and public reacted to the striking scene.
However, others believed the Apple employees did the right thing, arguing they aren’t paid enough to put themselves in harm’s way to protect merchandise.
Others noted the display devices would be shut down by Apple remotely once they were reported stolen.
*************************************************
The incorrect David Mamet
America’s most daring and insightful playwright tried to warn us that we were going haywire. By making him a hate object, American theater has made us all poorer.
In response to a positive review in The New York Times of the recent revival of David Mamet’s American Buffalo, one young theater maker, @harharharbour wrote, “Fuck Mamet, there’s nothing he has to say worth hearing. Stop giving racist transphobic playwrights platforms. This show is shit.”
This tweet epitomizes what is now an entirely mainstream, and in some circles mandatory, view of David Alan Mamet, 74, of Chicago, the great American writer of Glengarry Glen Ross, The Verdict, The Untouchables, Hoffa, Wag the Dog, Oleanna, and a mountain of other novels, books, essays, plays, and even cartoons. Mamet must be canceled. The “trash”—as Tony-winning actor and writer Colman Domingo writes—must be taken out. But as we Jews have learned all too often the hard way, silencing our prophets is usually a mistake.
Mamet’s most recent book, Recessional: The Death of Free Speech and the Cost of a Free Lunch, came out in April. It’s very good, though on the surface at least not nearly as thrilling as his 2012 The Secret Knowledge, a book of political essays which in turn seemed cranky when it was first published but predicted with shocking acuity the cultural and political turmoil we now face.
Rereading The Secret Knowledge 10 years on it is impossible to deny that Mamet has a prophetic gift for understanding American life, honed in his drama, perfected in his prose, and that there’s a lot that Americans of all political leanings could probably stand to learn from reading his work. But for the past 14 years, the cognoscenti have ignored, shunned, and demonstratively not read, David Mamet. His crime? Abandoning his tribe.
Since Mamet’s 2008 essay in The Village Voice, “Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal,” he has been subject to a towering wave of enmity from the community to which he has devoted his life. (There has always been the absurd accusation that he is a misogynist, a view presumably predicated on his ability to give idiomatic voice to male longings and terrors. That Speed-the-Plow, Oleanna, and Race all feature brilliant female roles, and that Boston Marriage and The Anarchist have all-female casts, affects this point of view not at all.)
A cursory Twitter search for “Hate Mamet” or simply “Mamet” reveals a consistent pattern of antipathy. The chief film critic of The Hollywood Reporter isn’t even able to get through an Anne Heche RIP post without mentioning that it pains him to “draw attention to a David Mamet movie these days.” In 2020, Pulitzer Prize winner Paula Vogel made very clear she does not consider Mamet an “artist.” In April, Tony winner Jason Robert Brown retweeted a photo from outside the theater where American Buffalo is being performed on Broadway; someone has written on the sidewalk, “David Mamet Is An Asshole.”
These examples are contemporary, and so one might be fooled into thinking that the vitriol for Mamet from within his community (and the greater left) is due solely to his public adoration of President Trump, or his comments on schoolteachers and pedophilia (which have been grossly misrepresented as anti-gay, when in fact they might be characterized as anti-male), or some lack of interpersonal skills or worse that must be obvious to cognoscenti, if not to the rest of us.
But I can attest from personal experience that the Hate Mamet movement predates any of his recent offenses. When I was a student at Mamet’s Atlantic Acting School back in 2007-10, it was au courant to dunk on him. The mere act of announcing he’d had a political epiphany to the right was too much for the theater community to bear; we instantly wrote him off.
Meanwhile, we continued studying his and William H. Macy’s “Practical Aesthetics” acting technique—we weren’t going to allow our reflexive attitude toward conservatives to prevent us from becoming Great Actors!—and found that their method has a lot to offer. (When I recounted my memory of this to Mamet in a recent interview, telling him that in retrospect I felt I was young and stupid for writing him off, Mamet responded, “Yeah, well, as you said, young people are stupid.”)
In 2009, when his play Race came to Broadway, I did not go because I didn’t “want to hear David Mamet try to teach me about race.” I was studying at the acting school he founded, could very likely have gotten free tickets, and chose not to go. My loss. A recent reading of the play reveals it to be an American masterpiece, and probably his best play since Oleanna. The cast featured James Spader and David Alan Grier, two actors I adore. Yet I gladly deprived myself of the opportunity to spend an evening in the theater with two great actors while they performed a David Mamet play about America because, after all, it was David Mamet.
David Mamet’s excommunication was a warning that something nasty was brewing in our discourse. This new Puritanism has been brutal on the creative soul of this nation (and possibly Mr. Mamet’s work) but it is especially a pity that it sidelined Mamet, an American prophet with a profound mastery of the rhythms of American speech and thought. Are there two plays more in touch with the viscera of the American obsession than American Buffalo (1975) or Glengarry Glen Ross (1983)? Does not the avarice of the men in Glengarry—or perhaps better yet Speed-the-Plow (1988)—predict the decade in which it was written, the crash in 2000, the crash in 2008, the crash that will be coming by this year’s end or truthfully is already here? Is there a better play about the spiritual cost of being a part of those systems (and the resulting madness of the white American male) than Edmond (1982)? Is there a better play on the late-stage conflagrations of the ’60s’ campus revolution than Oleanna (1992)? Is there a better play on American race relations than Race (2009)?
None of Mamet’s plays are works of prophecy, of course. They are dramatic fictions. Mamet’s prophet’s mantle is The Secret Knowledge. I don’t remember when I first came to read it, sometime last year, only that in reading it I was struck by the near-constant prescience of his observations.
Toward the end of the book, Mamet opens a chapter by quoting Christopher Hollis from Foreigners Aren’t Fools, “The Left is atheist, and, simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than any of the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, been restrained by the memory that God is Truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint.” That was written in 1936, and quoted by Mamet in 2012. Just this summer, noted atheist Sam Harris confirmed this insight by acknowledging that blatant suppression of truth is acceptable in certain circumstances, i.e., to prevent the reelection of Donald Trump. Hey, maybe David Mamet and his long-ago pals were onto something!
So if Mamet had his finger on the pulse of where we were headed so acutely in 2012, what truths is he sitting on in 2022? This summer, I called him on the phone to find out. I tried to get him to discuss prophets and prophecy, but he’s a wily subject. Contrary to the image of him frequently portrayed—as a bombastic and aggressive David Mamet character—I found him to be very thoughtful, measured, and full of humor and sincerity. When I told him that my father, a Chicago Jew of Mamet’s generation, loved his book, he said, “That means a lot.” When we concluded the call, he asked me to wish my father well. Like so many cultural boogeymen, it’s not that the person is actually dangerous or interpersonally threatening and obnoxious, but, most often, including in Mamet’s case, that his ideas threaten the comfort of the comfortable.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/fuck-david-mamet
****************************************************
Under Biden America Has Become A Net Food Importer
In a recent edition of his must-read Unleash Prosperity Hotline, our friend Stephen Moore alerted us to another troubling data point about the Biden economy.
New USDA data as first reported by Fox News, indicates that for the first time in decades, the U.S. is now buying more food from the rest of the world than the amount of our domestic agriculture products that are sold abroad. In 2022 the U.S. is expected to end the year with a small net IMPORTER of food. If present trends continue, by 2032 the U.S. is expected to run a $75 billion annual agriculture trade DEFICIT.
And what a difference a year of Joe Biden as President has made.
In 2021 the American agricultural industry posted its highest annual export levels ever recorded. The final 2021 trade data published by the Department of Commerce on February 8, 2022 showed that exports of U.S. farm and food products to the world totaled $177 billion and the March 2022 FDA data pegged imports at almost $167 billion.
In one short year that $10 billion surplus has been wiped out.
For at least the last half-century America was the breadbasket of the world. We have by far the most productive Farmers and much of the world’s most bountiful farmland with massive livestock. We have fed the world.
For decades, reported Agriculture.com, ag exports turned a reliable surplus in a U.S. balance of trade that routinely ran an overall deficit, although there were small deficits on the ag ledger in fiscal 2019 and 2020. They got little notice. Exports provide 20¢ or more of each $1 of farm income, so the farm sector avidly follows export data. The United States is the largest agricultural exporter in the world. The productive capacity of U.S. agriculture often is regarded, at least in the industry, as a safeguard against domestic hunger and a cornucopia for less-fortunate nations.
Now, not so much.
As Stephen Moore noted, there are many disturbing reasons for this development, but one major one is rising energy costs during the Biden years here at home. So, we are now in the red on energy and food – which under Trump were major American exports. Good going, Joe!
https://www.conservativehq.org/post/under-biden-america-has-become-a-net-food-importer
****************************************
Sidebars
The notes and pix appearing in the sidebar of the blog that is reproduced above are not reproduced here. The sidebar for this blog can however be found in my archive of sidebars
Most pictures that I use in the body of the blog should stay up throughout the year. But how long they stay up after that is uncertain. At the end of every year therefore I intend to put up a collection of all pictures used my blogs in that year. That should enable missing pictures to be replaced. The archive of last year's pictures on this blog is therefore now up. Note that the filename of the picture is clickable and clicking will bring the picture up. See here (2021). See also here (2020).
My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal); My Home page supplement; My Alternative Wikipedia; My Blogroll; Menu of my longer writings; Subject index to my short notes. My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;
Email me (John Ray) here.
