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. 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.
My Home Page. Email John Ray here. My other blogs: "Tongue Tied" , "Dissecting Leftism" , "Australian Politics" , "Education Watch International" , "Immigration Watch" , "Greenie Watch" , "The Psychologist" (A summary blog). Those blogs are also backed up. See here for details
With particular attention to religious, ethnic and sexual matters. By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
This page is a backup. The primary version of this blog is HERE
31 July, 2023
Emil O Kierkegaard
What to say about Emil O Kierkegaard? Undoubtedly the world's most "incorrect" man. An initial caution: Don't confuse him with Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish "existential" philosopher. For my sins I read a book by Soren Kierkegaard in my youth and found only meaningless drivel.
Emil Kierkegaard is a very hard-working Danish statistician who subjects to exhaustive analysis any social or demographic database he can get his hands on. He mostly analyses other people's data -- usually data from very mainstream sources. And what he finds in the datasets makes Leftist hair stand on end. They hate it. What he finds is all there in the data: He just puts it on display, warts and all
I can't do any justice to the full body of his work here so I will just mention what he finds about one current huge controversy: black educational and economic under-achievement.
For a long time Leftist educational and social commentators blamed the spectacular educational under-achievement of blacks on the educational system. They were confident that if they got the teaching and the testing right, the "gap" would vanish. After decades of trying everything the human mind could devise however, nothing worked. The gap remained, unbudged
So they did eventually give up on that and recently moved onto something completely different: Critical Race Theory. According to CRT blacks are "down" because whites are racist and hold blacks down. Black failure is the fault of whites. That whites actually make great efforts to lift blacks up via various types of affirmative action is dismissed as tokenism. Whites don't really mean it, apparently
No evidence is normally put forward for CRT. It is just asserted and has become something of a religion in intellectual circles. It has GOT to be true in order to explain black failure, they seem to think. There is simply no other explanation
But there is another explanation -- one that has been known and exemplified for around a hundred years, one that has a mountain of evidence for it: The large gap in average IQ between blacks and whites. Leftists always pooh-pooh IQ tests precisely because of that gap. The tests must be faulty and not measure what they purport to measure, they say. But they overlook the fact that black failure is precise confirmation that the IQ tests are valid. What blacks achieve is precisely what one would predict from their IQ scores. The tests are in fact a spectacular predictive success. It is hard to imagine better validation for them.
And where the real heartburn originates is that IQ is highly hereditary. To put it bluntly, the implication is that blacks are BORN dumb. I have just been cast into outer darkness for saying that.
Leftists are passionately angry about the world they live in and as a result have a compulsion to change it. So telling them that something is unchangeable grates on their very bones. They cannot and will not have it. Black failure must be the fault of white racism. It cannot be the result of unalterable black genetics. The Leftist response is profoundly dogmatic and intellectually nowhere.
But there are some very bright Leftists who think they see a way out of the dilemma. They say that IQ might be hereditarily determined among both blacks and whites but the DIFFERENCE between black and white IQ might not be genetic. That is very unlikely but it is statistically possible so requires some reply. My reply is that it treats blacks and whites as different SPECIES. They are saying that black brains and white brains differ in how they work. That actually contradicts what they are trying to prove: That blacks and whites are really the same.
I think that is an adequate reply but it is a statistical reply that is really needed. And that is where Kierkegaard comes in. He has recently done a big statistical analysis using many different methods which shows that the IQ difference between blacks and whites IS mainly genetic and, as such fundamentally intractable
So what is the response Kierkegaard gets for all his statistical labours? If they mention him at all, the Left simply dismiss him as a "racist". They don't want any of his goddam facts. They KNOW the truth and Kierkegaard is wrong.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/a-plethora-of-evidence-for-genetic
******************************************
Biden’s White House is stabbing Israel in the back. Ending military aid will be the final twist of the knife
TED CRUZ
Tablet magazine’s recent article “End U.S. Aid to Israel” has sparked a badly needed debate over how American administrations, and especially the Biden administration, have used military assistance to coerce Israel and undermine Israeli national security. Because we rely on our Israeli allies for everything from scientific research to intelligence sharing to military cooperation, the Biden administration’s policies are also undermining the security and prosperity of Americans.
The article describes how the Biden administration has tried to distance the United States from our traditional Middle Eastern allies and boost the Iranian regime, and how the pressure they impose on Israel is both part of their campaign to create that distance and a way to keep the Israelis from objecting. As a solution, the article suggests ending American military aid to Israel.
I believe Tablet magazine is one of America’s premier papers of ideas. I deeply appreciate the outlet and its writers, including Liel Leibovitz, who recently wrote a generous profile of me for the magazine describing me as “America’s most Israeli politician,” and who is also one of the two authors of the article.
Nevertheless, Tablet got this one very wrong.
The authors of “End U.S. Aid to Israel,” Leibovitz and Jacob Siegel, are certainly not wrong that the U.S. benefits immeasurably from the aid we provide to Israel. We get back at least 10 times more than what we send. It would take us uncountable billions to recreate some of the military advances and intelligence capabilities that the Israelis provide to us. There are other capabilities we literally could not recreate, for reasons ranging from geography to institutional capacity. The military and intelligence assets that Israel develops and uses protect American lives.
They are also certainly not wrong about the Biden administration’s hostility toward Israel. President Biden and Biden officials are pathologically obsessed with undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. From the opening days of the administration, they have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. These policies are also uniting Arab countries with Iran, and driving them to shelter beneath a Chinese umbrella.
The problem with the argument made by the Tablet authors is that it still nevertheless underestimates the breadth, depth, and—most importantly—the mechanics of how the Biden administration has been undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel alliance. An enormous amount of how the Biden administration attacks Israel has nothing to do with aid or even pressure. If all military aid was immediately ended, the anti-Israel zealots in the administration wouldn’t miss a beat.
Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.
A crucial and underappreciated benefit of military assistance to Israel is that it provides a framework for American and Israeli officials to discuss our mutual interests and how to pursue them. The article’s authors rightly criticize the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a gambit by the Obama administration to constrain future Israeli actions. One of the most subtly damaging parts of the MOU—and I discussed this with Prime Minister Netanyahu directly at the time—was that it froze levels of military assistance and explicitly prohibited Israeli officials from engaging Congress on the issue. Many members of Congress tend to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel because the American people are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. The Obama officials who penned the MOU knew what they were trying to accomplish by cutting off American lawmakers from Israeli officials by freezing aid levels, and Siegel and Leibovitz understand it as well. However, eliminating aid would repeat exactly that move.
The hostility that the Biden administration has shown toward Israel makes the Obama-era policies look tame by comparison. Again: They have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. Consider 10 examples:
First, in the opening days of the administration the White House instructed the State Department to stop signaling support for the Abraham Accords. The State Department implemented those instructions by issuing guidance that prohibited even using the phrase “Abraham Accords.” None of these changes was acknowledged publicly.
Second, State Department officials issued verbal guidance that prohibited funding for joint U.S.-Israel science and technology projects in Judea and Samaria, including parts of Jerusalem. The guidance did something America has never done before: unilaterally impose territorial restrictions on U.S. scientific research aid to Israel. The projects which are being targeted are for curing cancer and easing aging. It is simply an antisemitic boycott. Decades ago, the U.S. and Israel bilaterally agreed to such limits against the backdrop of unique regional conditions, but in 2020 both sides rescinded and rejected them as discriminatory. But in June 2023 the State Department began distributing in writing their new guidance to all relevant federal agencies—effectively endorsing and implementing BDS. Tellingly, this guidance was not cleared through the State Department’s own special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, and of course administration officials did not formally notify Congress or make the policy public.
Third, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor issued a $1 million Notice of Funding Opportunity grant offer for work by nongovernmental organizations to delegitimize Israel, which likewise was not cleared by the department’s own antisemitism envoy.
Fourth, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) quietly changed the name of the bureau that handles Israel from “Israel and Palestinian Affairs” to “Israeli and Palestinian Affairs,” the idea being to level the relationships that the U.S. has with our Israeli allies and with the Palestinians.
Fifth, the Office of Palestinian Affairs gave a Bronze Age Judean relic to the Palestinian Authority as “an example of Palestinian cultural patrimony,” a literal erasure of the ancient Jewish connection to Israel.
Sixth, State Department diplomats at the United Nations rejoined, engaged, and boosted U.N. organizations that promote anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement.
It is worth pausing here and noting a couple things. None of these policies was advanced by leveraging aid to Israel, and none of it would have been hindered if aid to Israel was reduced. And all those policies were just from inside the State Department. The Biden administration’s assault on Israel, of course, has been whole of government.
Seventh, the Department of Defense and the Israeli military held the “Juniper Oak” military exercises. As with the Obama-era MOU, what could have been a way to enhance military cooperation was instead turned into a way to constrain Israel’s ability to defend itself. According to Dan Shapiro, Obama’s former ambassador to Israel who was on the Biden administration team tasked with securing a new nuclear deal with Iran, the U.S.-Israeli exercises were meant to “make it less likely that one acts independently without close coordination with the other”—in other words, designed to tie the hands of Israel’s military.
Eighth, the Department of Justice unleashed the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Israel in response to an incident in which a Palestinian American journalist was killed covering a firefight between Israeli forces and terrorists, even after other parts of the administration had concluded the death was accidental.
Ninth, the Departments of Justice and State worked together to circumvent multiple congressional sanctions targeting the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group, so they could bring to Washington, D.C., the group’s secretary general for high-level press briefings—while the administration was simultaneously shunning cabinet ministers from Israel’s democratically elected government. Top officials from across the administration publicly told reporters and testified to Congress that such engagement was advancing American national security interests, but in nonpublic notices the State Department expressly confirmed to Congress that the Palestinian Authority continues to pay for acts of terrorism against Israeli and U.S. citizens.
Tenth, despite such terror financing, the State Department and specifically the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Palestinian controlled areas. Tens of millions of dollars of that funding was incorrectly entered into government databases in ways that prevented public and congressional scrutiny. Roughly $20 million sent to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was entered as going elsewhere. In one case a $5 million award to the Gaza Strip was publicly reported with the wrong amount, the wrong location, and deliberately anonymized (had it not been anonymized, it would have been clear the money was going to Gaza). None of these mistakes was made public by the administration.
This list is not comprehensive.
Again, none of these policies would be hampered by reducing military aid to our Israeli allies. Quite the opposite: Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.
Now, some people have called the Biden administration’s policy inexplicable. It’s quite explicable. The Biden administration is controlled by fringe progressives who hate Israel. Their policies are controlled by the Squad, and the Squad detests the Jewish state. As one member of the Squad recently asserted—not even bothering to hide her vicious antisemitism— “we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state.”
There is no doubt that as part of their collective antipathy toward Israel, these Biden administration officials have at times leveraged American aid to Israel to advance reckless policies undermining Israeli security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Eliminating that aid, however, would not counter those policies and would pile on risks.
The obvious, straightforward solution is to continue to provide the military assistance that our Israeli allies need to protect their security and ours—and at the same time, fight to stop the Biden administration’s reckless anti-Israel policies.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/dead-wrong-ted-cruz
************************************************
Public sector staff shortages in ‘hard jobs’ are sparking a wage war as taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions
At the entrance to Missouri prisons, large signs plead for help: “NOW HIRING” ... “GREAT PAY & BENEFITS."
No experience is necessary. Anyone 18 and older can apply. Long hours are guaranteed.
Though the assertion of “great pay” for prison guards would have seemed dubious in the past, a series of state pay raises prompted by widespread vacancies has finally made a difference. The Missouri Department of Corrections set a record for new applicants last month.
“After we got our raise, we started seeing people come out of the woodwork, people that hadn’t worked in a while,” said Maj. Albin Narvaez, chief of custody at the Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center, where new prisoners are housed and evaluated.
Public employers across the U.S. have faced similar struggles to fill jobs, leading to one of the largest surges in state government pay raises in 15 years. Many cities, counties and school districts also are hiking wages to try to retain and attract workers amid aggressive competition from private sector employers.
The wage war comes as governments and taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions.
In Kansas City, Missouri, a shortage of 911 operators doubled the average hold times for people calling in emergencies. In one Florida county, some schoolchildren frequently arrived late as a lack of bus drivers delayed routes. In Arkansas, abused and neglected kids remained longer in foster care because of a caseworker shortage. In various cities and states, vacancies on road crews meant cracks and potholes took longer to fix than many motorists might like.
“A lot of the jobs we’re talking about are hard jobs,” said Leslie Scott Parker, executive director of the National Association of State Personnel Executives.
Lingering vacancies “eventually affects service to the public or response times to needs,” she added.
Workforce shortages worsened across all sorts of jobs due to a wave of retirements and resignations that began during the pandemic. Many businesses, from restaurants to hospitals, responded nimbly with higher wages and incentives to attract employees. But governments by nature are slower to act, requiring pay raises to go through a legislative process that can take months to complete — and then can take months more to kick in.
Meanwhile, vacancies mounted.
In Georgia, state employee turnover hit a high of 25% in 2022. Thousands of workers left the Department of Corrections, pushing its vacancy rate to around 50%. The state began a series of pay raises. This year, all state employees and teachers got at least a $2,000 raise, with corrections officers getting $4,000 and state troopers $6,000.
The Georgia Department of Corrections used an ad agency to bolster recruitment and held an average of 125 job fairs a month. It's starting to pay off. In the first week of July, the department received 318 correctional officer applications — nearly double the weekly norm, said department Public Affairs Director Joan Heath.
Almost 1 in 4 positions — more than 2,500 jobs -- were empty in the Missouri Department of Corrections late last year, which was twice the pre-pandemic vacancy rate in 2019.
Missouri gave state workers a 7.5% pay raise in 2022. This spring, Gov. Mike Parson signed an emergency spending bill with an additional 8.7% raise, plus an extra $2 an hour for people working evening and night shifts at prisons, mental health facilities and other institutions. The vacancy rate for entry level corrections officers now is declining, and the average number of applications for all state positions is up 18% since the start of last year.
At the Fulton prison, where staff shortages have led to a standard 52-hour work week, newly hired employees can earn around $60,000 annually — an amount roughly equal to the state's median household income. The prison also is proposing to provide free child care to correctional officers willing to work nights.
If prison staffing is too low, "it can get dangerous” for both inmates and guards, Narvaez said.
Public safety concerns also have arisen in Kansas City, where a country music fan attacked before a concert last month waited four minutes for a 911 call to be answered and an hour for an ambulance to arrive. About one-quarter of 911 call center positions are vacant — “a huge factor" in the longer wait times to answer calls, said Tamara Bazzle, assistant manager of the communications unit for the Kansas City Police Department.
In Biddeford, Maine, a 15-person roster of 911 dispatchers dipped to just eight employees in July as people quit a “pressure cooker job" for less stress or better pay elsewhere, Police Chief JoAnne Fisk said. The city is now offering fully certified dispatchers $41 an hour to help plug the gaps on a part-time basis — $10 an hour more than comparable new workers normally would earn.
This month, Biddeford also launched a $2,000 bonus for city employees who refer others who get jobs. That comes a year after Biddeford adopted a four-day work week with paid lunch periods to try to make jobs more appealing, said City Manager Jim Bennett.
To attract workers, other governments have dropped college degree requirements and spiced up drab job descriptions.
Nationally, the turnover rate in state and local governments is twice the average of the previous two decades, according federal labor statistics.
Uncompetitive wages were the most common reason for leaving cited in exit interviews, according to a survey of 249 state and local government human resource managers conducted by MissionSquare Research Institute, a Washington, D.C. -based nonprofit. The hardest positions to fill included police and corrections officers, doctors, nurses, engineers and jobs requiring commercial driver's licenses.
Along Florida's east coast, the Brevard County transit system and school district have been competing for bus drivers. On days when drivers are lacking, the transit system has cut the frequency of bus stops on some routes. The school system, meanwhile, has asked some bus drivers to run a second route after dropping children off at school, often resulting in the second busload arriving late.
Since 2022, the county has twice raised bus driver wages to a current rate of $17.47 an hour. The school board recently countered with a $5 increase to a minimum $20 an hour for the upcoming school year. The goal is to hire enough drivers to regularly get kids to class on time, said school system communications director Russell Bruhn.
In Arkansas, the goal is to get foster kids into permanent homes in less than a year. But during the first three months of this year, the state met that target for just 32% of foster children — well below the national standard of over 40%. More than one-fifth of the roughly 1,400 positions in the Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services are vacant.
Many new employees leave in less than two years because of heavy caseloads and the “very difficult, emotionally tolling work,” Mischa Martin, the Department of Human Services' deputy secretary of youth and families, told lawmakers last month.
“If we had a knowledgeable, experienced workforce," she said, "they would be able to work cases in a better way to get kids home quicker.”
*************************************************
The Will to Power
Total power is not something people of strong character feel a need to possess; it is the provenance of the weak: mediocre, unfulfilled individuals of extreme arrogance, who have few moral scruples, and almost no capacity to control their actions, their emotions, their lusts, and their passions—the most dangerous human beings imaginable.
Power consumes those whose vanity and narcissism motivate them to fanciful and never-ending delusions of superiority. Within the human breast, power has its own organic life, worse than the most malignant cancer, ever-growing, never shrinking, with no medicine for its cure, constantly needing to be fed, and that only with more and more of its own kind—the insatiable monster who can never be satisfied, even at the cost of mountains of human skulls. It becomes a disease, an interminable, incurable malady that may not end even at death—it is often passed on to disciples. It is more intoxicating than alcohol or the most addictive drug known to man. Like the hopeless druggie, those craving and possessing power must constantly have their “fix,” and the drug must be increasingly more potent, more costly, and more destructive, to themselves and to others.
When conquered by the will to power, a person convinces themselves they are omnipotent, that only they possess certainty, everybody else is inferior, that they alone have the answers, that the noble ends they seek justify whatever means they deem necessary to obtain them, because, in their high-minded vain egotism, only they have the betterment of mankind in view, and that the world simply cannot survive without their guidance. Those who oppose them are opposing Truth, the Only Truth, the True Progress of Humanity, and thus are evil, and must be silenced by any means necessary. And after extinguishing countless human hopes, dreams, and lives, they sit atop the pile, congratulating themselves on the “utopia” they have built, but ever vigilant for more dragons who need slaying. That is power. That isn’t strength, that is uncontrolled human weakness to its most malevolent extreme. It is the story of human history.
Down through the ages, very few politicians have demonstrated the ability to control the will to power that lurks within the human heart. America’s Founding Fathers understood that perfectly, which is why they wrote a constitution specifically defining and thus restricting the powers national government officials could exercise over other Americans. It’s also why James Madison said we should never trust anybody who has power. The Founders didn’t establish term limits for Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents, and perhaps they should have. But they thought frequent elections would be sufficient. Such hasn’t proven to be so. Our Founders were brilliant men, but no humans are endowed with infinite wisdom.
But their fear of power is not only evident in historical events that took place before and during their lifetime, but are equally evident since they died, especially in the last 100 years. Consider those who had power in the 20th century and how they finally relinquished it. Vladimir Lenin died as the head of Russia. So did Joseph Stalin. Adolf Hitler died in power. As did Mao Zedong, two North Korean Kims, and a host of other megalomaniacs. That is the intoxicating nature of power. Once obtained, only death conquers the craving. These are weak people who cannot control themselves so they must control others.
American politicians aren’t immune to this yearning, this will to power. They are somewhat restrained by our Constitution. Somewhat, but not enough, and many would love to abolish it entirely. Joe Biden is 80 years old. What is he doing still in Washington, D.C.? He has been there for 50 years. Why doesn’t he go home? The reason is simple. He is a very inferior man who covets power, whose power-disease has convinced him that he knows better how to run your life than you do, and, because he has the power, he is going to do everything he can to make you submit to the mythical utopia that delusions his mind. 80 years old, and he wants another four years of power. He is the last person in the country who should have it.
Well, maybe demented Diane Feinstein is his equal. Grassley. McConnell. Pelosi. How many other septua- and octogenarians exist in Washington who have plagued the nation for most of their adult lives? On both sides of the aisle, not just Democrats. They aren’t serving the people, they are inflating themselves in their own eyes. And destroying the country in the process. They want one thing—glory in their vision of themselves. They are no wiser than most Americans, they are only more conceited. Look at the mess they have created in Washington and around the country. Could any other group of people have done any worse?
Americans have given power to inadequate incompetents of mediocre ability, non-existent wisdom because of their ungodly character, but who ache to preserve it--for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this column. It’s a disease, a cancer inside them, ever-growing, never, never satiated, always thinking their Utopia is just around the corner, one vote away, and “I must be here to cast that vote.” But their Utopia never arrives, and it never will. Only the dunghill grows deeper.
Term limits might be a partial answer, but electing better people, humble people, people who truly understand the dangers of power, people who mind their own business except for national necessities—that would be a superior solution. But those kinds of people are not the busybodies who salivate to control others. The sort of people needed are those whose character would largely forbid them from accepting the job.
So, we get Joe Biden for 50 years. And look at the results.
https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/07/29/the-will-to-power-n2626380
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Emil O Kierkegaard
What to say about Emil O Kierkegaard? Undoubtedly the world's most "incorrect" man. An initial caution: Don't confuse him with Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish "existential" philosopher. For my sins I read a book by Soren Kierkegaard in my youth and found only meaningless drivel.
Emil Kierkegaard is a very hard-working Danish statistician who subjects to exhaustive analysis any social or demographic database he can get his hands on. He mostly analyses other people's data -- usually data from very mainstream sources. And what he finds in the datasets makes Leftist hair stand on end. They hate it. What he finds is all there in the data: He just puts it on display, warts and all
I can't do any justice to the full body of his work here so I will just mention what he finds about one current huge controversy: black educational and economic under-achievement.
For a long time Leftist educational and social commentators blamed the spectacular educational under-achievement of blacks on the educational system. They were confident that if they got the teaching and the testing right, the "gap" would vanish. After decades of trying everything the human mind could devise however, nothing worked. The gap remained, unbudged
So they did eventually give up on that and recently moved onto something completely different: Critical Race Theory. According to CRT blacks are "down" because whites are racist and hold blacks down. Black failure is the fault of whites. That whites actually make great efforts to lift blacks up via various types of affirmative action is dismissed as tokenism. Whites don't really mean it, apparently
No evidence is normally put forward for CRT. It is just asserted and has become something of a religion in intellectual circles. It has GOT to be true in order to explain black failure, they seem to think. There is simply no other explanation
But there is another explanation -- one that has been known and exemplified for around a hundred years, one that has a mountain of evidence for it: The large gap in average IQ between blacks and whites. Leftists always pooh-pooh IQ tests precisely because of that gap. The tests must be faulty and not measure what they purport to measure, they say. But they overlook the fact that black failure is precise confirmation that the IQ tests are valid. What blacks achieve is precisely what one would predict from their IQ scores. The tests are in fact a spectacular predictive success. It is hard to imagine better validation for them.
And where the real heartburn originates is that IQ is highly hereditary. To put it bluntly, the implication is that blacks are BORN dumb. I have just been cast into outer darkness for saying that.
Leftists are passionately angry about the world they live in and as a result have a compulsion to change it. So telling them that something is unchangeable grates on their very bones. They cannot and will not have it. Black failure must be the fault of white racism. It cannot be the result of unalterable black genetics. The Leftist response is profoundly dogmatic and intellectually nowhere.
But there are some very bright Leftists who think they see a way out of the dilemma. They say that IQ might be hereditarily determined among both blacks and whites but the DIFFERENCE between black and white IQ might not be genetic. That is very unlikely but it is statistically possible so requires some reply. My reply is that it treats blacks and whites as different SPECIES. They are saying that black brains and white brains differ in how they work. That actually contradicts what they are trying to prove: That blacks and whites are really the same.
I think that is an adequate reply but it is a statistical reply that is really needed. And that is where Kierkegaard comes in. He has recently done a big statistical analysis using many different methods which shows that the IQ difference between blacks and whites IS mainly genetic and, as such fundamentally intractable
So what is the response Kierkegaard gets for all his statistical labours? If they mention him at all, the Left simply dismiss him as a "racist". They don't want any of his goddam facts. They KNOW the truth and Kierkegaard is wrong.
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/a-plethora-of-evidence-for-genetic
******************************************
Biden’s White House is stabbing Israel in the back. Ending military aid will be the final twist of the knife
TED CRUZ
Tablet magazine’s recent article “End U.S. Aid to Israel” has sparked a badly needed debate over how American administrations, and especially the Biden administration, have used military assistance to coerce Israel and undermine Israeli national security. Because we rely on our Israeli allies for everything from scientific research to intelligence sharing to military cooperation, the Biden administration’s policies are also undermining the security and prosperity of Americans.
The article describes how the Biden administration has tried to distance the United States from our traditional Middle Eastern allies and boost the Iranian regime, and how the pressure they impose on Israel is both part of their campaign to create that distance and a way to keep the Israelis from objecting. As a solution, the article suggests ending American military aid to Israel.
I believe Tablet magazine is one of America’s premier papers of ideas. I deeply appreciate the outlet and its writers, including Liel Leibovitz, who recently wrote a generous profile of me for the magazine describing me as “America’s most Israeli politician,” and who is also one of the two authors of the article.
Nevertheless, Tablet got this one very wrong.
The authors of “End U.S. Aid to Israel,” Leibovitz and Jacob Siegel, are certainly not wrong that the U.S. benefits immeasurably from the aid we provide to Israel. We get back at least 10 times more than what we send. It would take us uncountable billions to recreate some of the military advances and intelligence capabilities that the Israelis provide to us. There are other capabilities we literally could not recreate, for reasons ranging from geography to institutional capacity. The military and intelligence assets that Israel develops and uses protect American lives.
They are also certainly not wrong about the Biden administration’s hostility toward Israel. President Biden and Biden officials are pathologically obsessed with undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. From the opening days of the administration, they have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. These policies are also uniting Arab countries with Iran, and driving them to shelter beneath a Chinese umbrella.
The problem with the argument made by the Tablet authors is that it still nevertheless underestimates the breadth, depth, and—most importantly—the mechanics of how the Biden administration has been undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel alliance. An enormous amount of how the Biden administration attacks Israel has nothing to do with aid or even pressure. If all military aid was immediately ended, the anti-Israel zealots in the administration wouldn’t miss a beat.
Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.
A crucial and underappreciated benefit of military assistance to Israel is that it provides a framework for American and Israeli officials to discuss our mutual interests and how to pursue them. The article’s authors rightly criticize the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a gambit by the Obama administration to constrain future Israeli actions. One of the most subtly damaging parts of the MOU—and I discussed this with Prime Minister Netanyahu directly at the time—was that it froze levels of military assistance and explicitly prohibited Israeli officials from engaging Congress on the issue. Many members of Congress tend to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel because the American people are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. The Obama officials who penned the MOU knew what they were trying to accomplish by cutting off American lawmakers from Israeli officials by freezing aid levels, and Siegel and Leibovitz understand it as well. However, eliminating aid would repeat exactly that move.
The hostility that the Biden administration has shown toward Israel makes the Obama-era policies look tame by comparison. Again: They have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. Consider 10 examples:
First, in the opening days of the administration the White House instructed the State Department to stop signaling support for the Abraham Accords. The State Department implemented those instructions by issuing guidance that prohibited even using the phrase “Abraham Accords.” None of these changes was acknowledged publicly.
Second, State Department officials issued verbal guidance that prohibited funding for joint U.S.-Israel science and technology projects in Judea and Samaria, including parts of Jerusalem. The guidance did something America has never done before: unilaterally impose territorial restrictions on U.S. scientific research aid to Israel. The projects which are being targeted are for curing cancer and easing aging. It is simply an antisemitic boycott. Decades ago, the U.S. and Israel bilaterally agreed to such limits against the backdrop of unique regional conditions, but in 2020 both sides rescinded and rejected them as discriminatory. But in June 2023 the State Department began distributing in writing their new guidance to all relevant federal agencies—effectively endorsing and implementing BDS. Tellingly, this guidance was not cleared through the State Department’s own special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, and of course administration officials did not formally notify Congress or make the policy public.
Third, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor issued a $1 million Notice of Funding Opportunity grant offer for work by nongovernmental organizations to delegitimize Israel, which likewise was not cleared by the department’s own antisemitism envoy.
Fourth, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) quietly changed the name of the bureau that handles Israel from “Israel and Palestinian Affairs” to “Israeli and Palestinian Affairs,” the idea being to level the relationships that the U.S. has with our Israeli allies and with the Palestinians.
Fifth, the Office of Palestinian Affairs gave a Bronze Age Judean relic to the Palestinian Authority as “an example of Palestinian cultural patrimony,” a literal erasure of the ancient Jewish connection to Israel.
Sixth, State Department diplomats at the United Nations rejoined, engaged, and boosted U.N. organizations that promote anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement.
It is worth pausing here and noting a couple things. None of these policies was advanced by leveraging aid to Israel, and none of it would have been hindered if aid to Israel was reduced. And all those policies were just from inside the State Department. The Biden administration’s assault on Israel, of course, has been whole of government.
Seventh, the Department of Defense and the Israeli military held the “Juniper Oak” military exercises. As with the Obama-era MOU, what could have been a way to enhance military cooperation was instead turned into a way to constrain Israel’s ability to defend itself. According to Dan Shapiro, Obama’s former ambassador to Israel who was on the Biden administration team tasked with securing a new nuclear deal with Iran, the U.S.-Israeli exercises were meant to “make it less likely that one acts independently without close coordination with the other”—in other words, designed to tie the hands of Israel’s military.
Eighth, the Department of Justice unleashed the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Israel in response to an incident in which a Palestinian American journalist was killed covering a firefight between Israeli forces and terrorists, even after other parts of the administration had concluded the death was accidental.
Ninth, the Departments of Justice and State worked together to circumvent multiple congressional sanctions targeting the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group, so they could bring to Washington, D.C., the group’s secretary general for high-level press briefings—while the administration was simultaneously shunning cabinet ministers from Israel’s democratically elected government. Top officials from across the administration publicly told reporters and testified to Congress that such engagement was advancing American national security interests, but in nonpublic notices the State Department expressly confirmed to Congress that the Palestinian Authority continues to pay for acts of terrorism against Israeli and U.S. citizens.
Tenth, despite such terror financing, the State Department and specifically the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Palestinian controlled areas. Tens of millions of dollars of that funding was incorrectly entered into government databases in ways that prevented public and congressional scrutiny. Roughly $20 million sent to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was entered as going elsewhere. In one case a $5 million award to the Gaza Strip was publicly reported with the wrong amount, the wrong location, and deliberately anonymized (had it not been anonymized, it would have been clear the money was going to Gaza). None of these mistakes was made public by the administration.
This list is not comprehensive.
Again, none of these policies would be hampered by reducing military aid to our Israeli allies. Quite the opposite: Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.
Now, some people have called the Biden administration’s policy inexplicable. It’s quite explicable. The Biden administration is controlled by fringe progressives who hate Israel. Their policies are controlled by the Squad, and the Squad detests the Jewish state. As one member of the Squad recently asserted—not even bothering to hide her vicious antisemitism— “we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state.”
There is no doubt that as part of their collective antipathy toward Israel, these Biden administration officials have at times leveraged American aid to Israel to advance reckless policies undermining Israeli security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Eliminating that aid, however, would not counter those policies and would pile on risks.
The obvious, straightforward solution is to continue to provide the military assistance that our Israeli allies need to protect their security and ours—and at the same time, fight to stop the Biden administration’s reckless anti-Israel policies.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/dead-wrong-ted-cruz
************************************************
Public sector staff shortages in ‘hard jobs’ are sparking a wage war as taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions
At the entrance to Missouri prisons, large signs plead for help: “NOW HIRING” ... “GREAT PAY & BENEFITS."
No experience is necessary. Anyone 18 and older can apply. Long hours are guaranteed.
Though the assertion of “great pay” for prison guards would have seemed dubious in the past, a series of state pay raises prompted by widespread vacancies has finally made a difference. The Missouri Department of Corrections set a record for new applicants last month.
“After we got our raise, we started seeing people come out of the woodwork, people that hadn’t worked in a while,” said Maj. Albin Narvaez, chief of custody at the Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center, where new prisoners are housed and evaluated.
Public employers across the U.S. have faced similar struggles to fill jobs, leading to one of the largest surges in state government pay raises in 15 years. Many cities, counties and school districts also are hiking wages to try to retain and attract workers amid aggressive competition from private sector employers.
The wage war comes as governments and taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions.
In Kansas City, Missouri, a shortage of 911 operators doubled the average hold times for people calling in emergencies. In one Florida county, some schoolchildren frequently arrived late as a lack of bus drivers delayed routes. In Arkansas, abused and neglected kids remained longer in foster care because of a caseworker shortage. In various cities and states, vacancies on road crews meant cracks and potholes took longer to fix than many motorists might like.
“A lot of the jobs we’re talking about are hard jobs,” said Leslie Scott Parker, executive director of the National Association of State Personnel Executives.
Lingering vacancies “eventually affects service to the public or response times to needs,” she added.
Workforce shortages worsened across all sorts of jobs due to a wave of retirements and resignations that began during the pandemic. Many businesses, from restaurants to hospitals, responded nimbly with higher wages and incentives to attract employees. But governments by nature are slower to act, requiring pay raises to go through a legislative process that can take months to complete — and then can take months more to kick in.
Meanwhile, vacancies mounted.
In Georgia, state employee turnover hit a high of 25% in 2022. Thousands of workers left the Department of Corrections, pushing its vacancy rate to around 50%. The state began a series of pay raises. This year, all state employees and teachers got at least a $2,000 raise, with corrections officers getting $4,000 and state troopers $6,000.
The Georgia Department of Corrections used an ad agency to bolster recruitment and held an average of 125 job fairs a month. It's starting to pay off. In the first week of July, the department received 318 correctional officer applications — nearly double the weekly norm, said department Public Affairs Director Joan Heath.
Almost 1 in 4 positions — more than 2,500 jobs -- were empty in the Missouri Department of Corrections late last year, which was twice the pre-pandemic vacancy rate in 2019.
Missouri gave state workers a 7.5% pay raise in 2022. This spring, Gov. Mike Parson signed an emergency spending bill with an additional 8.7% raise, plus an extra $2 an hour for people working evening and night shifts at prisons, mental health facilities and other institutions. The vacancy rate for entry level corrections officers now is declining, and the average number of applications for all state positions is up 18% since the start of last year.
At the Fulton prison, where staff shortages have led to a standard 52-hour work week, newly hired employees can earn around $60,000 annually — an amount roughly equal to the state's median household income. The prison also is proposing to provide free child care to correctional officers willing to work nights.
If prison staffing is too low, "it can get dangerous” for both inmates and guards, Narvaez said.
Public safety concerns also have arisen in Kansas City, where a country music fan attacked before a concert last month waited four minutes for a 911 call to be answered and an hour for an ambulance to arrive. About one-quarter of 911 call center positions are vacant — “a huge factor" in the longer wait times to answer calls, said Tamara Bazzle, assistant manager of the communications unit for the Kansas City Police Department.
In Biddeford, Maine, a 15-person roster of 911 dispatchers dipped to just eight employees in July as people quit a “pressure cooker job" for less stress or better pay elsewhere, Police Chief JoAnne Fisk said. The city is now offering fully certified dispatchers $41 an hour to help plug the gaps on a part-time basis — $10 an hour more than comparable new workers normally would earn.
This month, Biddeford also launched a $2,000 bonus for city employees who refer others who get jobs. That comes a year after Biddeford adopted a four-day work week with paid lunch periods to try to make jobs more appealing, said City Manager Jim Bennett.
To attract workers, other governments have dropped college degree requirements and spiced up drab job descriptions.
Nationally, the turnover rate in state and local governments is twice the average of the previous two decades, according federal labor statistics.
Uncompetitive wages were the most common reason for leaving cited in exit interviews, according to a survey of 249 state and local government human resource managers conducted by MissionSquare Research Institute, a Washington, D.C. -based nonprofit. The hardest positions to fill included police and corrections officers, doctors, nurses, engineers and jobs requiring commercial driver's licenses.
Along Florida's east coast, the Brevard County transit system and school district have been competing for bus drivers. On days when drivers are lacking, the transit system has cut the frequency of bus stops on some routes. The school system, meanwhile, has asked some bus drivers to run a second route after dropping children off at school, often resulting in the second busload arriving late.
Since 2022, the county has twice raised bus driver wages to a current rate of $17.47 an hour. The school board recently countered with a $5 increase to a minimum $20 an hour for the upcoming school year. The goal is to hire enough drivers to regularly get kids to class on time, said school system communications director Russell Bruhn.
In Arkansas, the goal is to get foster kids into permanent homes in less than a year. But during the first three months of this year, the state met that target for just 32% of foster children — well below the national standard of over 40%. More than one-fifth of the roughly 1,400 positions in the Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services are vacant.
Many new employees leave in less than two years because of heavy caseloads and the “very difficult, emotionally tolling work,” Mischa Martin, the Department of Human Services' deputy secretary of youth and families, told lawmakers last month.
“If we had a knowledgeable, experienced workforce," she said, "they would be able to work cases in a better way to get kids home quicker.”
*************************************************
The Will to Power
Total power is not something people of strong character feel a need to possess; it is the provenance of the weak: mediocre, unfulfilled individuals of extreme arrogance, who have few moral scruples, and almost no capacity to control their actions, their emotions, their lusts, and their passions—the most dangerous human beings imaginable.
Power consumes those whose vanity and narcissism motivate them to fanciful and never-ending delusions of superiority. Within the human breast, power has its own organic life, worse than the most malignant cancer, ever-growing, never shrinking, with no medicine for its cure, constantly needing to be fed, and that only with more and more of its own kind—the insatiable monster who can never be satisfied, even at the cost of mountains of human skulls. It becomes a disease, an interminable, incurable malady that may not end even at death—it is often passed on to disciples. It is more intoxicating than alcohol or the most addictive drug known to man. Like the hopeless druggie, those craving and possessing power must constantly have their “fix,” and the drug must be increasingly more potent, more costly, and more destructive, to themselves and to others.
When conquered by the will to power, a person convinces themselves they are omnipotent, that only they possess certainty, everybody else is inferior, that they alone have the answers, that the noble ends they seek justify whatever means they deem necessary to obtain them, because, in their high-minded vain egotism, only they have the betterment of mankind in view, and that the world simply cannot survive without their guidance. Those who oppose them are opposing Truth, the Only Truth, the True Progress of Humanity, and thus are evil, and must be silenced by any means necessary. And after extinguishing countless human hopes, dreams, and lives, they sit atop the pile, congratulating themselves on the “utopia” they have built, but ever vigilant for more dragons who need slaying. That is power. That isn’t strength, that is uncontrolled human weakness to its most malevolent extreme. It is the story of human history.
Down through the ages, very few politicians have demonstrated the ability to control the will to power that lurks within the human heart. America’s Founding Fathers understood that perfectly, which is why they wrote a constitution specifically defining and thus restricting the powers national government officials could exercise over other Americans. It’s also why James Madison said we should never trust anybody who has power. The Founders didn’t establish term limits for Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents, and perhaps they should have. But they thought frequent elections would be sufficient. Such hasn’t proven to be so. Our Founders were brilliant men, but no humans are endowed with infinite wisdom.
But their fear of power is not only evident in historical events that took place before and during their lifetime, but are equally evident since they died, especially in the last 100 years. Consider those who had power in the 20th century and how they finally relinquished it. Vladimir Lenin died as the head of Russia. So did Joseph Stalin. Adolf Hitler died in power. As did Mao Zedong, two North Korean Kims, and a host of other megalomaniacs. That is the intoxicating nature of power. Once obtained, only death conquers the craving. These are weak people who cannot control themselves so they must control others.
American politicians aren’t immune to this yearning, this will to power. They are somewhat restrained by our Constitution. Somewhat, but not enough, and many would love to abolish it entirely. Joe Biden is 80 years old. What is he doing still in Washington, D.C.? He has been there for 50 years. Why doesn’t he go home? The reason is simple. He is a very inferior man who covets power, whose power-disease has convinced him that he knows better how to run your life than you do, and, because he has the power, he is going to do everything he can to make you submit to the mythical utopia that delusions his mind. 80 years old, and he wants another four years of power. He is the last person in the country who should have it.
Well, maybe demented Diane Feinstein is his equal. Grassley. McConnell. Pelosi. How many other septua- and octogenarians exist in Washington who have plagued the nation for most of their adult lives? On both sides of the aisle, not just Democrats. They aren’t serving the people, they are inflating themselves in their own eyes. And destroying the country in the process. They want one thing—glory in their vision of themselves. They are no wiser than most Americans, they are only more conceited. Look at the mess they have created in Washington and around the country. Could any other group of people have done any worse?
Americans have given power to inadequate incompetents of mediocre ability, non-existent wisdom because of their ungodly character, but who ache to preserve it--for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this column. It’s a disease, a cancer inside them, ever-growing, never, never satiated, always thinking their Utopia is just around the corner, one vote away, and “I must be here to cast that vote.” But their Utopia never arrives, and it never will. Only the dunghill grows deeper.
Term limits might be a partial answer, but electing better people, humble people, people who truly understand the dangers of power, people who mind their own business except for national necessities—that would be a superior solution. But those kinds of people are not the busybodies who salivate to control others. The sort of people needed are those whose character would largely forbid them from accepting the job.
So, we get Joe Biden for 50 years. And look at the results.
https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/07/29/the-will-to-power-n2626380
****************************************
30 July, 2023
Men have a problem – and it won’t be solved by either Andrew Tate or Caitlin Moran
Talking about "men" in general is typical feminist brainlessness. Men are all different and the differences between them are great. Are a professional footballer and a celibate priest the same?
I can think of nothing that is true of all men. These days some "men" do not even have penises. According to the screed below, men "make endless jokes about their balls". I have NEVER made such a joke. And do I have a "fondness for super-skinny jeans "? I have nothing like that in my wardrobe. The generalizations below are just stupid and entirely counterfactual. Nothing is to be learned from them.
And even if she confines her universe of discussion to men's relationships with women it does not help. One example of how reality is more complex than any feminist allows: I regularly open car doors for women but I have long been tolerant of my girlfriend going out with other men. What generalization covers that? There is none. I am an individual, not an "example" of anything. My attitudes are mine, not anybody else's
So do I have problems? Sure do. I sometimes fall in love with wildly "inappropriate" women. That is not common so what does it tell you about "men"? Nothing at all. Despite my XY chromosomes, I don't exist in the sad little world of feminist stereotypes
Caitlin Moran has some questions for men. Why do they only go to the doctor if their wife or girlfriend makes them? Why do they never discuss their penises with each other – but make endless jokes about their balls? Is their fondness for super-skinny jeans leading to an epidemic of bad mental health? Are they allowed to be sad?
Published earlier this month, Moran’s What About Men? sees one of the nation’s most prolific feminist writers turn her attention to the problems facing men and masculinity. Marketed as a deep dive into the modern man, the book interrogates a range of issues, from mental health to sexuality. It’s a noble pursuit. And yet, it’s one that has been ruthlessly torn apart. Critics have labelled it everything from “patronising” to full of “flagrant stereotypes”. One reviewer described it as “rhetorical essentialism that lucratively pigeonholes men and women even at the risk of misconstruing both”.
But in 2023, a time when misogyny is rife online and the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are upheld as stalwarts of masculinity, Moran’s questions are the kind we need to be asking more than ever. Why is it, then, nobody wants to answer them?
Moran has since responded to the backlash in an article in The Times, claiming that she’s been confronted by two different kinds of critics: “The first were all like, ‘How dare you suggest men have problems with communicating their emotions? That is an incredibly old-fashioned and patronising generalisation’,” Moran writes. “And the other half were like, ‘How dare you suggest that men should communicate their emotions? We’re not biologically designed to be emotional – you’re just trying to turn us into women.’”
Even this response, though, came under fire, with further critics arguing that Moran seemed to misunderstand why so many people were troubled by the book. That, rather, What About Men? flouted individualism to instead present men as one universal body with shared belief systems and behavioural traits, all of which seemed wildly outdated. And that the implication of her book was that men are in trouble and Moran is here to fix them.
According to gender studies academics, there are several issues with this thesis. The first is that men might not really be in trouble at all, at least not in the way Moran suggests. “Historians have found people worrying about [the] ‘crisis of masculinity’ throughout history,” says Dr Ben Griffin, associate professor in modern British History at Girton College, University of Cambridge. “But if a crisis is perpetual, it’s not really a crisis – it’s just the way of things.”
The real problem, he claims, is that masculinity cannot be discussed in such singular terms. “If we asked a football fan, a vicar, and a banker to define ‘manliness’, we would probably get three very different answers,” he says. “When people talk about a ‘crisis of masculinity’, they are usually complaining that their preferred variety of masculinity seems to be losing prestige or influence relative to other forms of masculinity.” Today, we have ideas of masculinity coming from all angles, whether it’s in sociology, pop culture, advertising, charities, TikTok, government campaigns, or around a table in the pub. “Amid this cacophony of competing voices, it is harder than ever for any one form of masculinity to establish itself as culturally dominant,” says Dr Griffin. “To some people, that looks like a crisis.”
A lot of men hear phrases like ‘toxic masculinity’ and they simply withdraw. Or worse, it serves to confirm their sense of victimhood, so they chase insalubrious gurus who provide cheap hope and unhealthy ideology
That’s not to say, though, that there aren’t issues that need solving. In her book, Moran cites a range of shocking statistics, among them that boys are more likely than girls to be medicated at school for disruptive behaviour, less likely to go on to further education, and more likely to become addicted to alcohol, drugs or pornography. Men also make up the vast majority of the homeless and prison populations. And on top of all that, the leading cause of death for men under 50 is suicide.
Other concerns have also emerged of late. Since the pandemic, there has been a notable rise in penile enlargement surgeries, for example, a trend that highlights society’s obsession with defining masculinity in sexual terms by placing social currency on penis size. “A different kind of ‘crisis’ talk occurs when men find themselves incapable of performing their preferred variety of masculinity,” explains Dr Griffin. For some, this might be aligned with sexual prowess and performance. Any sense of a shortcoming could then lead someone to feel as if it’s not possible to do the things that make you a “real man”. But then another question emerges: what does?
It’s this lack of identity that seems to be at the heart of some of the biggest problems facing men today. “We don’t know how we are meant to be anymore,” says Max Dickins, comedian and author of Billy No-Mates: How I Realised Men Have a Friendship Problem. “What Moran’s book represents is a stylish exemplar of a discourse that has become stuck. The think pieces [and] the books all tend to have the same form: ‘Here are men’s problems!’ ‘The reason for said problems is that men are stuck in a box of toxic masculine norms!’ If only men could behave more like… women!’”
Of course, the fact any book is prompting further interrogation into these issues is largely a good thing. But perhaps something has to change about the tone of that interrogation if we’re ever going to make progress. “We need a shift that encourages men to get involved in the conversation, or at least, stops casually insulting them,” says Dickins. “A lot of men hear phrases like ‘toxic masculinity’ and they simply withdraw. Or worse, it serves to confirm their sense of victimhood, so they chase insalubrious gurus who provide cheap hope and unhealthy ideology.”
In her response piece, Moran speculates that one of the reasons why her book prompted such a backlash is because it was written by a woman. “It was the first question on [the] first night of the tour that resolved my confusion over the backlash,” she writes. “‘You joke that you wish a man had written this book,’ said a man in the audience. ‘But how could he? Can you imagine a man saying, ‘What about men? Pay us attention! It’s our turn now!’ We’d be torn to bits. It had to be a woman who said it first.’”
It’s a fair point, one that highlights how far we have to go in order to achieve meaningful change. After all, no one’s denying that Moran’s book isn’t at least attempting to do something important. But perhaps the response illustrates just how complex an attempt it is given how charged conversations around gender can be; whatever you say, and whoever says it, there’ll inevitably be a group of people armed to attack or discredit your argument.
That being said, Moran’s book went straight to Number One on the Sunday Times bestseller list. Evidently, and despite people’s protests, there is clearly an audience for her perspective. And progress is being made, even if it might not feel like that. Would a book like this even have been published five years ago? And if it had, would anyone have wanted to actually read it? Would Moran fill out rooms of people on a nationwide book tour, all of whom had paid to listen to what she has to say about men?
The truth is that there are always going to be certain belief systems holding people back, no matter how hard Moran or anyone else tries. That’s just the nature of conversations around masculinity. “In general, it’s a good thing for people to recognise that there is no one way of being a man,” says Dr Griffin. “It might also be useful to acknowledge that the same man performs many different masculinities in the course of a day. The individual who is a devoted family man caring for a dying parent might be a ruthless businessman in the office and a clown in the pub.”
The important thing that’s often missing from these conversations, both online and off, is nuance. Accepting that one person’s definition of being a man is different from another’s, and that no two men perform masculinity in the same way, is key to becoming a more progressive and inclusive society that can benefit all genders. But getting there could take some time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/caitlin-moran-men-book-andrew-tate-b2382259.html
**************************************************
What the Oppenheimer movie does not tell you
Why was this film even made?
Here is a rather simple story. The US government grasps that, with a huge concentration of brilliant minds and vast sums of money, it may be able to make a weapon more destructive than any in history.
The possibility is not a secret. Scientists in several major powers, including Britain, had been examining this since 1939. British experts have already made major advances but the country lacks the money to carry them through. A large team of British scientists go to the US to help in what they think (wrongly) will be a joint Anglo-American project.
Hollywood, typically, makes little of the British contribution or of the later freezing out of Britain, which led to the 1945 Labour government restarting the UK's own independent nuclear weapons programme. A brilliant, brutal bureaucrat, General Leslie Groves, has proved he can work wonders by building the Pentagon in no time. He is picked to build the bomb, and chooses Oppenheimer as his scientific chief, a Left-wing eccentric with a messy sex life and a tragic marriage (his wife is an ex-Communist who drinks too much), who reads the Hindu scriptures for relaxation.
He is not your ordinary suburban person. He has Communist friends but he is good at nuclear physics and managing scientists. Oppenheimer duly delivers the bomb, too late to be used on the Nazis but in time to be dropped on Japan.
Bang. Hurrah. The war ends. Sorry about all the innocent people who got burned to death but that's war and they shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor. The end.
Except that it isn't the end.
All kinds of worrying things are buried in the story. At one point, in 1942, one of Oppenheimer's Communist friends suggests that Oppenheimer gets in touch with the Soviet Union about the bomb project through a British scientist (and Soviet asset). Oppenheimer realises the suggestion is treasonous and refuses it. But he does not report the contact for eight months. When he does, he tries to cover up his friend's role for four months.
All this matters because soon after the German defeat, it becomes clear Stalin has penetrated the bomb project, and has known for ages about it.
And the US, having been Stalin's close ally until 1945, violently switches to being Moscow's bitterest enemy.
Suddenly, now that the Soviet Union is the enemy, all those Communist dalliances in the 1930s start to matter. Just because the stupid, gristle-brained Senator Joe McCarthy says so, doesn't mean the American establishment hasn't been infiltrated by pro-Soviet Communists. Subsequent intelligence disclosures confirm that it was. Oppenheimer, later in life, ceases to be indispensable to the US nuclear bomb programme. Plenty of others can handle it. He has also become politically awkward as he clearly suffers from remorse over the uses made of his discoveries.
But why is so much of the film devoted to an attack on an obscure US politician, Lewis Strauss, who took part in the campaign to remove Oppenheimer's security clearance.
Hollywood was badly scorched by crude witch-hunts during the McCarthy years and has never really seen straight over such issues since.
The danger was not imaginary, or purely the result of American hysteria. The truth is that there were Communists, and fellow-travellers, in the US and in Britain, and that quite a few became agents of Stalin. Many probably got away with it.
In unhysterical Britain, the nuclear scientist Alan Nunn May, an actual Communist, was jailed for ten years for giving secrets to the Soviets. The German refugee Klaus Fuchs, who also gave British nuclear secrets to Stalin, was jailed for 14 years and went to live in Communist East Germany when released.
All of this has been known for years. But a film made in 2023 needs to get past these ancient 1950s Hollywood resentments. Here are several huge issues barely touched on.
The scientists knew they were building a weapon of mass destruction but excused themselves because Hitler might build one, too. We now know that Hitler never got near building a bomb.
The whole moral driving force of the project was a fantasy.
In the summer of 1945, British intelligence assembled a group of captured German scientists at a picturesque old house in Godmanchester, near Huntingdon. The house was bugged from basement to attic. The Germans were astonished at news of the bomb and plainly had never got within miles of making one. This has been public knowledge since 1992.
Even more devastating is modern historical research about Japan.
It is clear that Japan's surrender was not forced by the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Japan's fanatical leadership cared little about civilian deaths (they had not blinked when a firebomb raid in March 1945 killed 100,000 in Tokyo itself). By the time the bomb was ready, there were few Japanese cities of any size left standing.
The scholar Tsuyoshi Hasegawa concluded from Japanese and Soviet records that Japan's surrender was mainly caused by Stalin's decision to enter the war. The military leadership feared he would invade Japan from the north and seize large parts of the country.
It has long suited Japan and the US to pretend that the two A-bombs ended the war. Japan can pose as a victim nation. The US, which is embarrassed about being the only country to use the bomb in war, can soothe consciences by saying the action saved tens of thousands of Allied troops from death. But the worrying truth is known to academics and diplomats. So the second great justification for the use of the bomb in 1945 melts away.
President Truman's airy dismissal of Oppenheimer as a 'crybaby' for doubting the morality of using the bomb now looks callous and self-serving. Truman was a nobody promoted to power by the crooked Tom Pendergast machine in Kansas City, Missouri. For sure, he was no great intellect.
Oppenheimer, by contrast, was a powerful thinker. A great film could have been made out of this huge story. But this wasn't it.
*******************************************
FDA Commissioner: No One 'Envisioned' the Consequences of New Sesame Seed Labeling Rule
One of the better recent examples of how government officials do a poor job of anticipating the consequences of their actions occurred after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated warning labels for products containing sesame seeds.
The unexpected result: Suddenly everything seems to contain sesame.
In case you missed it at the time, here's what happened: In an attempt to aid those with allergies to sesame seeds, the FDA added the ingredient to a longstanding list of items—including eggs, milk, and shellfish—whose presence must be noted on the packaging of food products and at restaurants. In response, food producers started adding sesame to products that previously contained none.
The food producers were simply doing what made economic sense. The FDA's fines for not disclosing the inclusion of sesame are steep, and it's much cheaper to add a few seeds to everything than to face potential penalties for accidental mixing. "Rather than worry about how to prevent potential cross-contamination in products that don't contain sesame, some restaurants and food makers—including Olive Garden, Chick-fil-A, and Wendy's—are simply adding sesame to their products. That way they can list it as an ingredient and not worry about being faulted for accidental contamination," Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote last year.
The result? Fewer sesame seed–free products are now available for people who are allergic.
But the cherry on top of this sundae of government failure—or perhaps the sesame seed atop the FDA's bun of bureaucratic bungling—was provided this week by none other than the agency's own chief.
"Some manufacturers are intentionally adding sesame to products that previously did not contain sesame and are labeling the products to indicate its presence," acknowledged FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf in a statement. Califf went on to say that the FDA's goal, of course, was to help individuals with sesame allergies "feel more confident" about their choices.
"I don't think anyone envisioned there being a decrease in the availability of products that are safe choices for sesame-allergic consumers," he concluded.
Yes, no one could have possibly envisioned this outcome—except, perhaps, for the many food processing facilities that immediately responded to the FDA's new rules by doing exactly this.
What Califf means, of course, is that no one within the FDA considered this possibility. That's a telling statement. It indicates that the FDA likely didn't do a good job of investigating how the businesses affected by its rules would respond to the placement of sesame on the federal allergens list. It also suggests that the FDA's staff lacked the ability to see beyond the good intentions—helping allergy sufferers—of the policy to interrogate how such a rule might be implemented in the real world.
There is a recurring idea that advancements in technology and data processing can allow governments to solve the so-called knowledge problem—Friedrich A. Hayek's observation that central planning will always fail because government officials cannot aggregate all the necessary information to make better decisions than the decentralized ones made by individuals acting via markets.
But Califf's remarks show just how difficult solving that problem is. The FDA has virtually unlimited access to public health data and can easily acquire whatever information it might need to make any decision. And yet no one at the agency was able to predict how a regulation of a tiny seed would have huge unintended consequences.
*****************************************************
Michigan Bill Making ‘Misgendering’ a Hate Crime Is Unconstitutional
Last month, the Michigan House passed HB 4474—legislation that would expand the state’s existing Ethnic Intimidation Act beyond current protections for religion, ethnicity, and race to categories including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
HB 4474 would make it a felony hate crime offense to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened” with words—deliberately “misgendering” someone, for example—subject to a potential penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The Left has been pushing its “words are violence” premise for some time. But Michigan’s willingness to go the extra mile and criminalize gender-related speech has summoned a ghoul from some dystopian fever dream.
HB 4474 is unconstitutional, and I’m not the only lawyer who thinks so. To argue otherwise ignores two of the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly minted rulings on what speech the First Amendment protects—and what it doesn’t.
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs conveying messages on same-sex marriage with which she disagrees.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, recited a long line of precedents establishing that the First Amendment not only protects an individual’s right to speak her mind but prohibits the government from compelling her to “speak its own preferred messages.”
Yet that’s precisely what Michigan proposes to do. Its preferred messages require affirmation of another’s gender identity on pain of criminal penalty—even if the speaker believes that sex is binary and immutable and that there are only two genders.
In Counterman v. Colorado, the court examined the interplay between the First Amendment and criminal conduct—specifically, making “true threats” that are unprotected speech. The court held that for Colorado to prosecute someone for making a “true threat” of violence, it must prove a defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan noted that even though a true threat “lie[s] outside the bounds of the First Amendment’s protection,” prosecution of true threats poses “the prospect of chilling non-threatening expression, given the ordinary citizen’s predictable tendency to steer wide of the unlawful zone.”
By requiring a showing that a defendant recklessly disregarded a substantial risk that his words could be perceived as threatening, a speaker would be prevented from—as Kagan wrote—“swallow[ing] words that are in fact not true threats.”
That means a prosecution under Michigan’s hate crime law would require proof that the speaker knew his or her speech on gender identity or expression was likely to be perceived as threatening but acted with that knowledge by issuing the threat anyway. The speaker would therefore be acting “recklessly.”
Yes, as the gender juggernaut sprints ever forward, it’s certainly likely that “transgender” individuals could perceive misgendering as “threatening.” They are, after all, the fraternity of the perpetually offended. However, to qualify as a prosecutable “true threat,” the speech must convey a threat to commit an act of violence—speech that is hurtful or offensive does not qualify and is protected speech under the First Amendment, regardless of whether the majority of Michiganders agree or not.
Further complicating Michigan’s intention to silence dissent is the fact that at least one federal appellate court has held that gender identity is a “hotly contested issue,” one on which reasonable people can and do disagree.
Indeed, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Meriwether v. Hartop that “the premise that gender identity is an idea ‘embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.’”
Despite Democratic characterizations that HB 4474 is “commonsense hate crime legislation,” the expansion of hate crime laws to speech concerning an individual’s subjective self-identification is anything but common. It compels alignment with the state’s preferred orthodoxy, something the Supreme Court has routinely struck down. What’s more, it points the way toward even bolder government efforts to censor unpopular or politically inexpedient speech.
Whether concerning hate crimes, stalking, or public accommodations, no law, as Gorsuch wrote in 303 Creative, “is immune from the demands of the Constitution.” A law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (such as Colorado’s public accommodations law) or establishes criminal penalties for speech based on gender identity or expression (like HB 4474) must still conform to the First Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech.
The government may not prohibit expression merely because it might prove offensive to some or run contrary to its stated policy objectives. Disagreement is not discrimination, and while Michigan’s House Democrats appear to have forgotten this, their Senate colleagues would do well to remember it.
****************************************
28 July, 2023
Regulatory group for psychologists ordered Jordan Peterson to undergo 're-education' after he expressed his opinions online. He's taken it to court, and the result might prove seismic.
Beyond his work as a cultural commentator, a professor, and a bestselling author, Dr. Jordan Peterson has also made a name for himself as an accomplished clinical psychologist.
Following complaints — not by clients but by strangers — about some of Peterson's publicly-stated views unrelated to the practice of psychology, the Canadian governing body for psychologists in his home province of Ontario ordered him late last year to submit to mandatory media training at his own expense.
Rather than submit to the procrustean re-education scheme, Peterson, who no longer has a clinical practice but intends to maintain his clinical license, elected to take the College of Psychologists of Ontario to court, stressing that its order runs afoul of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court now appears set to reveal its decision in the case, which could prove greatly consequential.
According to Jonah Arnold of the Association of Aggrieved Regulated Professionals of Ontario, a non-profit advocacy group that represents health care workers and other professionals who have experienced mistreatment by their regulators, "the outcome of this case may affect the fundamental rights of about 400,000 professionals from all 29 regulated health professions in Ontario. It could even affect other professionals including teachers, accountants, and lawyers."
What's the background?
Peterson was previously in good standing with the CPO and had no public record of any complaints, reported the Toronto Star.
Then he expressed personal opinions online that evidently did not resonate with everybody.
Peterson retweeted a comment made by the leader of Canada's official opposition party, Pierre Poilievre, concerning the unnecessary severity of COVID lockdowns.
He criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trudeau's former chief of staff, Gerald Butts, who resigned amidst the liberal leader's damning SNC Lavalin scandal.
Peterson also took Ottawa city councilor Catherine McKenney to task over her use of "they/them" pronouns and suggested the doctor who removed actress Elliot Page's breasts was a "criminal physician."
It appears these and other remarks were too much for some people to handle.
Individuals whom Peterson indicated were neither clients nor familiar with his clients complained to the CPO.
According to Canadian state media, the CPO then launched an investigation into Peterson.
The CPO's inquiries, complaints, and reports committee determined in November 2022 that the doctor's comments were "degrading, demeaning and unprofessional," adding that his conduct "poses moderate risks to the public," and runs the risk of "undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the college's ability to regulate the profession in the public interest."
Peterson claimed that he was further accused of tweeting his opinion "'disrespectfully,' ... in a 'horrific' manner that spread 'misinformation'; that was 'threatening' and 'harassing'; that was 'embarrassing to the profession,'" adding that he was also accused of being "sexist, transphobic, incapable of the requisite body positivity in relationship to morbid obesity and, unforgivably of all, a climate change denialist."
Peterson told Canadian state media that the committee had proven itself unable to demonstrate any harms to the targets of his tweets.
Nevertheless, the committee concluded that he must complete a "specified continuing education or remedial program" at his own expense or face an allegation of professional misconduct, which would result in the termination of his license to practice psychology.
Peterson takes the college to court
Peterson wrote in a Jan. 4 National Post article that in agreeing to the CPO committee's re-education order, he would have to admit that he has been unprofessional in his conduct and to have that noted publicly.
"I’m not complying. I’m not submitting to re-education. I am not admitting that my viewpoints — many of which have, by the way, been entirely justified by the facts that have emerged since the complaints were levied — were either wrong or unprofessional," he stated.
"I have done nothing to compromise those in my care; quite the contrary — I have served all my clients and the millions of people I am communicating with to the best of my ability and in good faith, and that’s that."
Peterson told the Toronto Sun that he determined "the best way to challenge [the college's order] would be in the courts on constitutional grounds. ... I don't trust the process at the College and no one should."
The psychologist filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a review of the ruling by the committee.
His notice of application for judicial review stated that the committee's decision as well as certain bylaws and policies of the CPO infringed upon his freedom of expression rights. It also highlighted how his impugned statements "do not relate to the 'practice of psychology.'"
A panel of three Superior Court judges is expected to reveal its decision in the case any day now.
*************************************************
New Residents Flooding Into Florida Bring Billions With Them
People moving to Florida have brought with them almost $40 billion in net annual income, according to a report by the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
In the organization’s 2023 Florida Business and Economic Mid-Year Report, chamber president Mark Wilson wrote that this year, “Florida is reflecting another year of population growth, wealth migration, more jobs, and a flourishing economy.”
The chamber’s goal is to make Florida a “Top 10 Global Economy” by 2030, Mr. Wilson wrote.
If the state were an independent country, its economy would be ranked 16th globally, figures from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) show.
As the state’s population grows, so does its wealth, thanks to the income of newcomers moving from other states.
More than half of the $39.2 billion income influx from 2020 to 2021 came from residents moving in from just five states.
The states that lost the most annual net income to Florida with those relocations were New York by $9.8 billion; Illinois by $3.9 billion; New Jersey by $3.8 billion; California by $3.5 billion; and Pennsylvania by $1.9 billion.
The figures are based on the latest available data from the IRS, a chamber spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in an email.
4x Bigger than Texas
Florida’s net migration revenue, at $39.2 billion, was four times that of the second-ranking state, Texas, which gained $10.9 billion over the same period.
“I think we’ve had more wealth move into Florida in the last three years than has ever moved into a single state over a similar period of time in all of American history,” Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, told members of the American Legislative Exchange Council at their annual meeting in Orlando on July 26.
Much of the money has flowed to South Florida. Miami-Dade County gained $7.4 billion in net annual income and Palm Beach gained $7.2 billion.
The next three highest gains were in Southwest Florida: Collier County gained $4.9 billion, Lee County gained $2.4 billion, and Sarasota County gained $2.3 billion of net annual income.
A popular retirement destination, Florida is seeing its demographics change. Those 80 and older now number 5 percent of the population.
The chamber projects they will make up 8 percent by 2035 and 10 percent by 2050.
The group made up of residents 65-79 is expected to remain about the same. Younger age groups are expected to drop by a percentage point or two, chamber analysts predict.
Hispanics, now making up about 27 percent of the Florida population, will reach 32 percent by 2050, analysts predict.
As he runs for president, Mr. DeSantis likes to talk about residents of blue states—like those bringing the Top 5 amounts of wealth— as “voting with their feet.” They’ve made Florida the No. 1 state where people have relocated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
“I would point out, though, that the people are leaving those woke states and they’re migrating to states like Florida who are doing it differently,” Mr. DeSantis, a Republican, said in an interview with actor, activist, and podcaster Russell Brand on July 21.
Mr. DeSantis touts Florida’s pro-business and anti-regulatory climate as part of the reason it’s drawing so many new residents. He also points to the state’s radical departure from the federal government’s public-health policies in response to the pandemic.
And he believes the state’s cultural stance against wokeness is another reason individuals and businesses have pulled up stakes elsewhere and planted roots in Florida
*************************************************
Criminalize Misgendering? Yes, Say Millennials
In a poll conducted by Newsweek, respondents were asked about their thoughts on preferred pronouns and “misgendering.” The prompt stated, “Referring to someone by the wrong gender pronoun (he/him, she/her) should be a criminal offense.”
First of all, we won’t use scare quotes every time, but in the Left’s lexicon, “misgendering” means using pronouns corresponding to biology regardless of a person’s chosen “identity.”
One may assume that Gen Z would be the generation most ardent to support this. Surprisingly, it is the Millennials who are calling for the criminalization of misgendering. According to the poll, 44% of respondents aged 25-34 (Millennials) said they agreed that misgendering should be illegal. Only 31% disagreed. Millennials were the worst, but Gen X wasn’t far behind them. While the 35- to 44-year-old cohort includes some Millennials, 38% of that group think misgendering should be a criminal offense, with only 35% disagreeing.
Interestingly enough, Gen Zers (age 18-24) seem to have the most common sense. Thirty-three percent agree with criminalizing misgendering, and 48% oppose.
This seems like a far-fetched idea, but people have been thrown in jail for using the wrong pronouns. PJ Media lists several examples in Europe and Canada where people have been arrested or investigated as criminals. Townhall cites an Irish school teacher who lost his job for refusing to use a student’s declared pronouns.
If the Newsweek poll is to be believed, then who’s to say that the U.S. won’t start making misgendering illegal? Except we already are trying. In California, students were suspended for using a teacher’s “incorrect” pronouns. In Michigan, House Bill 4474 passed. This legislation would make it a felony to intimidate someone and misgender them. It is classified as a hate crime.
Preferred pronouns are perhaps the most confusing and egotistical part of the transgenderism canon. People who claim they are the opposite gender believe a delusion and aren’t satisfied unless you affirm their delusion. The next step is always force for this ideology.
People resist this ideology because it is a lie. A man cannot become a woman or a woman a man. A singular person is not a they/them, zhe/zher, or whatever other linguistic concoction they make up. Preferred pronouns are based on a lie, foisted on the public, and can be changed on a whim.
Preferred pronouns are also pretty egotistical because the user forces people to adhere to a personal whim, the results being that people are confused or exhausted trying to remember and insert the correct preferred pronouns for people.
Who’s to say a person can’t get legally charged if they “misgender” someone simply because the object of their misgendering had changed their pronouns half a dozen times? “Misgendering” might be considered a hate crime, but unlike race, age, biological sex, or physical/mental ability, gender expression and preferred pronouns aren’t immutable characteristics.
Why are so many younger and middle-age adults on the censorship and cancellation bandwagon? Some have speculated that these generations are simply the product of Boomer Hippie parenting, which is fair. It is far more likely that these people have bought into this ideology because they have children who are living the ideology. Our Nate Jackson recently wrote about such parents, who would rather go down with the transgenderism ship than admit they permanently damaged their kids.
Millennials have also been strenuously taught to respect everyone — even if that means lying to them, apparently. Hopefully this generation will wake up to the dangers of going down this road. Transgenderism isn’t the next civil rights movement. It is an ideology that preys on the vulnerable and should be refuted at every opportunity.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/99186-criminalize-misgendering-yes-say-millennials-2023-07-27
*************************************************
Tyrannical banks in Australia too
The heads of two major British banks lost their jobs over their Fascist attempt to "debank" Nigel Farage. One hopes that Australian bankers will take a lesson from that.
I recently went through an elaborate auhentication process that the Commonwealth Bank required of me. Like anying over the net, it was difficult but I eventually got an approval mark. So I may be in the clear.
But I am going to keep a fair bit of cash on hand from now on. I do mostly pay by cash these days. Tyrannical bank behaviour has become another good reason to stick with cash. Nobody has ever rejected one of my $50 notes
Many Australians are unaware that they can be denied access to their money if they break rules buried in the fine print of opening an account.
The Commonwealth Bank states a customer may not use their banking services if they engage in conduct 'that in our opinion' is 'offensive, harassing or threatening to any person' or 'promotes or encourages physical or mental harm of any person'.
Professional poker player and author Crispin Rovere, who is in dispute with Westpac after they froze his account, highlighted the Commonwealth Bank's terms and conditions in a tweet last week.
A Commonwealth Bank spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia the terms were to prevent 'to address the issue of financial abuse in the context of domestic and family violence'.
'In 2020, we updated our Acceptable Use Policy to address technology-facilitated abuse and to provide a safer banking experience for customers,' the spokesperson said.
'Any customer found to be using NetBank or the CommBank app to engage in unlawful, defamatory, harassing or threatening conduct, promoting or encouraging physical or mental harm or violence against any person may have their transactions refused or access to digital banking services suspended or discontinued'.
But some Aussies said the rules were too vague.
'Since when are banks the arbiters of moral and legal conduct? Especially the Commonwealth Bank? Do they even remember The Royal Commission findings????' one said.
'Setting themselves up to freeze people's bank accounts for wrong speak,' another added.
Others said the rules were justified.
'Classic example is abusive ex's harassing their ex-partners with 1c transfers that include threats in the description. In support services you see this all the time as a modus operandi. In the normal world, most don't even know it happens.'
In July, Mr Rovere slammed Westpac as 'totalitarian', claiming the bank froze his accounts after he made a 'modest' cash deposit following a poker win.
The bank demanded to know where Crispin Rovere's funds came from, which were 'way, way under' $10,000 and refused to unblock his account until he told them.
Last Wednesday the Commonwealth Bank came under fire after it announced it had opened a cashless 'specialist branches', where customers would no longer able to access their money over-the-counter a trend also happening with NAB branches.
'The specialist centre branches focus more on business customers and loan products and are located nearby to traditional branches,' a spokesperson said.
'We continue to maintain Australia's largest branch network for customers.'
However, the news did draw favourable responses on social media.
'Bank branches without money? WTF! That's like having a petrol station with no fuel! Do they expect people to call into the branch just to say hi and have a chat,' one said.
Another joked: 'A bank without cash, that makes real sense.'
'I suggest everyone to change their bank where this is happening,' a third said.
Mr Rovere told Daily Mail Australia he only realised there was a problem when he tried to make a card payment at a hotel he was staying in, but the bank rejected it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12330529/Commonwealth-Bank-rules-stop-accessing-money.html
****************************************
27 July, 2023
Protest over police treatment of Black mother handcuffed and wrongly accused of dodging bus fare
The London police do seem to have a problem. But it has an explanation. Blacks commonly exhibit hostility to the police and actively resist attempts to arrest them. This does tend to develop a belief among police that they have to go in hard from the beginning to get control of black offenders. It is a vicious circe
But it doesn't have to be that way. In my 80 years on this earth I have had various interactions with police -- even with the California Highway partrol -- which have never resulted in anything more than a polite conversation -- even when I was at fault. Because I am white? Perhaps in part. But mainly because I always spoke to the police officer in a polite way -- addressing them as "Officer", for instance. And I NEVER raise my voice in speaking to them.
The result? I would often be let off any penalty and the officer would shake my hand as we parted.
Does that sound like an ideal world? It IS an ideal world. But we do live in it. We largely create the world we live in. And how to create a good world is no mystery. It's all in Matthew 7:12.
I will never forget the relief evident in the face and bearing of the CHP officer when he got a polite response after approaching me. Police are people too
Anti-racism protesters gathered in Croydon on Tuesday night in response to the wrongful arrest of a Black mother for bus fare evasion in front of her tearful young son.
Video footage of the woman shouting as two male Metropolitan Police officers hold her arms and handcuffed her in the south London town on 21 July has sparked fierce criticism and prompted an investigation by the police watchdog the Independent Police Conduct Authority.
The woman was arrested after being accused of failing to pay a bus fare but was later de-arrested when it was confirmed she had paid.
Around 100 people joined a demonstration outside the town’s police station to call out her treatment, organised by Stand Up To Racism (SUTR), Black Lives Matter Croydon, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and RMT Black & Ethnic Minority Members on Tuesday night.
Speakers addressed the crowd to voice concerns about how the woman was treated amid a national discussion about the lack of trust in policing among Black communities.
Benjamin Clement, 53, who filmed the woman’s arrest told The Independent: “I saw just another Black person being abused by the police.”
“I just couldn’t believe the way they were handling the woman. They were trying to get her onto the floor at one point – she was so distressed and it just seemed like no one cared. Everyone was just standing around watching. So, I felt like I had to start filming.”
While Mr Clement said he was “blown away” by the public response to the video and solidarity with the woman, he said he expects similar incidents to happen in the future while a crisis in policing prevails.
“I’ve been stopped and searched; it’s happened to my kids who are in their early twenties. Nothing’s really going to change. But as a father of six, with four daughters, I had to do something.”
Following the protest, Glen Hart, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Croydon, told The Independent: “We feel that the way this woman was treated was a total abuse of authority, an act of race discrimination with impunity – and the officers tend to get away with this all the time.
“It doesn’t make sense that they would handcuff her in front of her crying child – she wasn’t a threat.
Marc Wadsworth, founder of The Liberation Movement, said: “As a Black parent in Croydon, I’m appalled at what has happened with a Black mother at a bus stop with a valid ticket to travel in front of a young child.
“But this will keep happening sadly, because there’s something rotten at the heart of the Metropolitan Police as the Louise Casey report uncovered saying that it is institutionally racist, misogynist and homophobic.”
Mr Wadsworth, who founded the Anti-Racist Alliance in 1991 which went on to become Europe’s largest Black-led movement, continued: “There will be many more cases like this: the George Floyd’s, Chris Kaba, Mark Duggan, Roger Sylvester until we clear up the s**t house which is the Met police.”
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) confirmed on Tuesday that it would investigate the response of the officers involved after it received a complaint accusing police of racially profiling the woman.
Footage posted online of the arrest shows the woman shouting “What the hell?” and “What the f*** is going on?” while handcuffed, as two male officers hold her arms.
She repeatedly asks one of the officers to let go and says “I haven’t done anything wrong”, while a member of the public filmed what is happening and asked why she is being arrested.
On Monday, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said: “It is clear from the video that has been shared online that this incident was distressing for the woman involved and particularly for her child.
“We understand why it has prompted significant public concern and we want to be transparent about our position and the role of our officers.”
****************************************************
Israel’s judicial reform of its courts’ unchecked power is not as radical as activists would have you believe
Israel has been roiled by protests, boycotts, airport and road closures, wildcat strikes and refusals to perform army service, in scenes reminiscent of France, for half a year. The cause is judicial reform.
The government announced plans to revitalize Israel’s parliamentary democracy by restoring separation of powers and curbing judicial overreach.
Protesters demand the government shelve the reform, arguing Israel cannot be a democracy unless the country’s Supreme Court enjoys unchecked powers, unbounded by law.
This week saw the passage of the first of the planned reform bills, a so-called “reasonableness amendment” that tackles one of the most egregious forms of judicial self-aggrandizement.
The amendment addresses an issue of administrative law. Israel, like every modern democratic state, has a vast unelected bureaucracy that governs many of the most important aspects of citizens’ lives.
Administrative law is the set of legal tools courts use to ensure bureaucrats exercise only the powers they have according to law.
Controversially, in 1980, Israel’s Supreme Court created a new administrative-law rule called the “reasonableness doctrine,” under which the court second-guesses the wisdom of bureaucrats’ otherwise-legal policies.
Even more controversially, in the 1990s the court expanded the reasonableness doctrine to grant itself power to second-guess the wisdom of the most senior elected officials including the prime minister and members of the Knesset (the parliament).
There is no parallel to either of these developments anywhere in the democratic world.
From the beginning, reasonableness review was controversial. Then-chief justice Moshe Landau derided it as superfluous and improper. He said interference with the “reasonableness” of officials’ policy decisions was unwarranted and courts had enough tools to review administrative action without the new doctrine.
Controversy only grew as the court inflated “reasonableness” to relegate all elected officeholders to the status of junior clerks.
Over the years, the court, and later the attorney general, used reasonableness to force the firing of senior officials including cabinet members, block and delay military operations, raise and lower taxes and welfare benefits and bar major foreign-policy initiatives.
Elsewhere in the West, such judicial actions would be considered plainly illegitimate.
With the US Supreme Court embroiled in controversy over its rightward tilt in recent years, both right and left agree that, as Justice Elena Kagan said in her recent dissent in Biden v. Nebraska, the court “is supposed to stick to its business . . . to stay away from making this Nation’s policy. . . . The policy judgments, under our separation of powers, are supposed to come from Congress and the President. . . . [If] the Court becomes the arbiter — indeed, the maker — of national policy,” it exceeds its proper role. “And it is a danger to a democratic order.”
The new legislation is extremely modest. It leaves reasonableness review intact except where used to second-guess the decision-making of elected officials.
Israel’s high court remains the most powerful administrative-law court in the Western world.
The importance of the reasonableness amendment right now is largely political.
It will prove significant only if Israel’s parliament adopts the remainder of the reform without excessive delay.
The new law brings the center of the debate over judicial reform from the streets back to where it ought to be — the chambers and hallways of the elected legislature.
The prime minister has asked opposition leaders to join him in hammering out a compromise version of judicial reform that can enjoy broader public support.
One can only hope opposition leaders rise to the occasion.
The fear now is that Israel’s Supreme Court will declare it can ignore the legislation and continue to exercise “reasonableness” review, enacted law be damned.
Israel, of course, has no constitution, and there is no legal precedent for such an action by the court.
It’s hard too to ignore the questions of legitimacy raised by a court declaring itself above the law to aggrandize its already-excessive authority.
Unfortunately, Israeli Supreme Court decisions, particularly in recent years, have exhibited neither moderation nor restraint.
The political chaos that will follow the court’s overreach could be devastating.
************************************************
Andrew Tate as a product of feminism
Feminists have gone way too far in their demonization of men and that has produced an equal and opposite reaction
Among the many norms of society that the Left has sought to destroy over the last several years, men's inherent drive to be protectors, providers, and defenders has become a target for belittlement and minimization.
I'm old enough to remember when allowing boys to play with dinosaurs and cars wasn't a sign of wanting to further some kind of oppressive patriarchy. A man in a dress generally caused a natural response within most people that something unnatural was happening within that individual.
Yet, in a single generation, a major switch has been flipped. The consistent and daily message is that men are the cause of all problems in society and that the patriarchy (both within each individual man and across society as a whole) needs to be dismantled.
Leftists have been relentless in attempting to accomplish this. It manifests in the feminization of men — replacing strong, masculine, honorable role models with men who prefer makeup over muscle and heels over hard work.
It's no wonder that men's mental health has plummeted and male suicide rates have surged. When men are no longer respected and expected to fulfill the roles that their biology, minds, and hearts have driven them to pursue in the past, they suffer from a deep lack of purpose and direction. Many of their natural counterparts (women) seem to have little to no use for them anymore.
So, what's the solution?
Or, should we say ... who's the solution?
A man by the name of Andrew Tate has been all too ready and willing to capitalize on a market of directionless men who are looking for the antidote to the pandemic of male feminization. He's drawing them in with his brand of "masculine excellence."
Tate, a former professional kickboxer and reality TV personality, has become a popular figure amongst young men over the last several years. His message resonates, particularly as the effort to reduce men's physical, mental, and emotional strength has been kicked into high gear. He has attempted to set an example of what hard work can achieve while selling his advice and "wisdom" to like-minded men through podcasts and social media.
His Twitter feed sets the stage for positive advice and male empowerment. Reading much like a fortune cookie on steroids, he repeats lines like, "Do not fail your bloodline" and "life on expert mode." His declarations are frequently accompanied by numerous pictures of himself — often shirtless and/or showing off his many expensive possessions. He tells men to accept that life is challenging, but to get to work and avoid the temptation to be lazy.
During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Tate criticized many leftist ideas. He rebuked the idea that raising taxes will affect the weather, and he challenged the racist tenets of CRT — that your skin color determines your abilities and your destiny.
He seems to be skilled at articulating conservative ideas, which adds to his appeal and fuels his popularity amongst men who are trying to act as defenders of moral communities.
However, Tate has a past that cannot be ignored, and even some of his current ideas should give men reason to pause when choosing him as their role model.
Tate is famous for running a "webcam business" and proudly boasting about how he coerced women into becoming employees of his — meaning subjects of online pornography. He has publicly shared tactics, which he calls the "loverboy method," that involved pretending to want a meaningful connection with a woman, using her trust to take things to physical intimacy, and then springing the idea of nude camera work for money on the unsuspecting, now-vulnerable female.
It appears as though these activities have been left in his past, and Tate even recently converted to Islam.
The question remains: Does this make him a suitable mentor for men, particularly those who have a desire to promote both masculinity and morality?
Tate has come under fire from numerous right-wing influencers, including Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Liz Wheeler, who warn young men that Tate's messages contain more sin than sense.
Naturally, Tate argues that the only reason conservatives would attack him is because he's "too rich to buy." That idea alone seems to demonstrate a lack of humility and self-reflection that conservative, Christian men should aspire to have.
Tate is also not shy about his love of material possessions and pursuit of wealth. "A real man," he says, "is ultra rich and provides his woman with the most expensive things money can buy."
It's almost impossible to take seriously his promotion of being a high-value man who looks for a high-value woman when his past record of abusing and belittling women is public knowledge. He has yet to acknowledge this as egregious and contrary to everything he promotes today.
What Tate offers lost men is the opposite end of the spectrum from the men in skirts praised by the Left as exhibiting expressions of true self. Unfortunately, it is masculinity at the cost of women and, in turn, at the cost of moral male leaders.
Tate believes himself to be a sign from the universe for positivity and strength.
Yet while he tries to paint his image as a male messiah of sorts, he has far more in common with a golden calf.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/99145-andrew-tates-toxic-masculinity-2023-07-26 ?
*********************************************
Food Service Giant Sued Over ‘White-Men-Need-Not-Apply’ Program
Courtney Rogers worked for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Compass Group USA Inc. from her home office in San Diego, California.
The company had more than 280,000 employees and $20.1 billion in revenue in 2019, according to its LinkedIn profile. One of the world’s largest employers, the company has thousands of employees in California and counts among its clients Dodger Stadium, San Francisco International Airport, Uber, Snapchat, Netflix, Disney Studios, and NBC Universal.
The company has won recognition for promoting so-called diversity, including appearing on the Forbes list of Best Employers for Diversity from 2018 through 2022.
Its corporate parent, U.K.-based Compass Group PLC, had $32.2 billion in revenue in 2019.
Ms. Rogers was hired in August 2021 and given the job title of “Recruiter, Internal Mobility Team.”
Her responsibilities included the processing of internal promotions, which encompassed posting job listings, reviewing applications, conducting interviews, writing and sending offer letters, carrying out background checks, ordering drug tests, initiating and reviewing onboarding, and ensuring that personnel updates were reflected in the system.
Compass created a program it called “Operation Equity” in March 2022, a purported diversity program that offered qualified employees special training and mentorship and the promise of a promotion upon graduation, according to the legal complaint that was filed in Rogers v. Compass Group USA Inc.
The lawsuit was filed on July 24 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under the auspices of the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm headquartered in Chicago that organized the legal action.
But participation in the program was restricted to “women and people of color.” White men were not allowed to participate and receive the associated benefits of training, mentorship, and guaranteed promotion.
By calling it “Operation Equity,” the company “used a euphemistic and false title to hide the program’s true nature.” The program would more accurately be called the “White-Men-Need-Not-Apply” program because it is an example of “‘outright racial balancing,’ which is patently unlawful,” and is the kind of program “promoted by people … who harbor racial animus against white men,” according to the legal complaint.
Ms. Rogers claims she informed management that high-level employees said of the program, “This is the direction the world is going, jump on the train or get run over,” and “We are not here to appease the old white man.”
Ms. Rogers claims she also informed management that the program was illegal and requested that she be allowed an accommodation because the program “violated her ethical beliefs.” Management assured her she would be exempted from participating in it and that she would not be retaliated against for sharing her concerns with management.
Ms. Rogers claims she was fired in November 2022 after she refused to participate in the program that discriminated on the basis of race and sex, even though she received positive performance feedback from supervisors and colleagues. The stated reason for termination was “failure to perform job duties,” the legal complaint stated.
In the lawsuit, Ms. Rogers is seeking relief for religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as wrongful termination.
An attorney for Ms. Rogers, Robert Weisenburger of LiMandri and Jonna in Rancho Santa Fe, California, told The Epoch Times in an interview that his client’s personal, religious beliefs as a Christian prevented her from being part of “Operation Equity.”
She believes that “everyone is created equal,” and she, therefore, “could not in good faith be a part of implementing a program that would discriminate against people on the basis of race and color,” said Mr. Weisenburger, who is also a special counsel at the Thomas More Society.
She also believes that the program violates “federal and state laws that prohibit race and sex discrimination,” which provide “no exclusion for white males,” he said.
The company fired her “for objecting to discrimination,” the lawyer said.
“Not only was she trying to do the right thing by standing up to this, but she was also trying to protect Compass Group because Compass Group was doing something illegal. And so she was standing up to this injustice, and as a result, she was fired.”
Ms. Rogers is seeking financial compensatory damages for discrimination and retaliation. She is also asking for a court order requiring the company’s senior management in human resources to participate in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Fair Treatment training, classes, and oversight to make sure that the company does not discriminate and retaliate against other employees the way it did with Ms. Rogers.
****************************************
26 July, 2023
Farage is still having Fun
Like Trump, he is always in the news. They try to suppress him but can't
Dogs bark, cows moo and the BBC makes a hash of it. After holding out for a week, the Corporation has today thrown in the towel and issued a belated and grovelling apology to Nigel Farage for misreporting the reason his bank account at Coutts was closed. The Beeb’s original report by its Business Editor Simon Jack claimed that the reason for the closure was that Farage’s account had fallen beneath the bank’s wealth limit.
But following last week’s revelation that Farage’s account was shut because he was not ‘compatible with Coutts… as an inclusive organisation’, the BBC has been left with a substantial amount of egg on its face once again.
On their Corrections and Clarifications website, the Beeb now says that ‘we acknowledge that the information we reported … turned out not to be accurate and have apologised to Mr Farage.’ Jack has also tweeted that:
The information on which we based our reporting on Nigel Farage and his bank accounts came from a trusted and senior source. However the information turned out to be incomplete and inaccurate. Therefore I would like to apologise to Mr Farage.
Farage himself has posted his own gloating video on Twitter to mark Jack’s apology and reveal that Deborah Turness, the BBC News Chief Executive, has also said sorry to the staunch Brexiteer:
Well, well, well. The BBC’s Business Editor Simon Jack has fully apologised to me publicly and I thank him for that. It’s not often that the BBC apologise. I’ve also got a letter I’ve just received from Deborah Turness at the BBC and I’m going to absorb it and talk more about that at 7 o’clock tonight on GB News. But for the BBC to apologise, I’m very, very pleased. Jack says in the tweet that his information came from a trusted and senior source. I would suggest it may well have been a very senior source.
That is, of course, a reference to Alison Rose, the NatWest boss who is accused of being a potential source for the BBC story. The Beeb’s apology comes after City Minister Andrew Griffith summoned nineteen bank chiefs to give assurances that customers ‘can access payment accounts without fear of being de-banked for their lawful expression.’
And with Farage’s lawyers demanding that the Information Commissioner investigate the disclosure of his banking details, you can be sure that you haven’t heard the last of this matter…
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/bbc-finally-apologises-to-nigel-farage/
***********************************************
Leftists: Continually Creating Controversy out of Thin Air
It seems to be open season for country western singers. You already know about the Jason Aldean song, “Try That in a Small Town.” It is firmly atop the country's Western song charts and high up on other charts. Concurrently, the Left has gone completely bonkers. Because he used the backdrop of the Maury County Courthouse in Columbia, Tennessee, where a lynching occurred 96 years ago, the accusations about the song and videos have been flying out of the woodwork.
The attacks are complete balderdash. That same building has been used for movies, other videos, news reporting, and a variety of documentary, entertainment, and civic productions. In all those instances, who raised an eyebrow?
Those on the Left NEED to be upset about something, or they don't know they're alive. Next week, they’ll find some other story that they can twist and parade all over the airwaves and the Internet.
A Candle in the Wind
Here's one Leftist gripe that you might not yet have encountered: In 1988, 24-year-old American singer-songwriter, Tracy Chapman, stunned the British audience of 72,000 on hand for Nelson Mandela’s 70th birthday tribute concert at England’s Wembley Stadium.
Offering her unique vocals, she sang her song “Fast Cars.” With its captivating lyrics, haunting melody, and irregular syncopation, her performance was unlike anything most of the people in the crowd had ever heard. Over the years, the song has become iconic and when you hear it, you really can't forget it.
Flash forward 35 years: Luke Combs produces a ‘countrified’ version of “Fast Cars,” which quickly becomes a mega-hit, climbing to the top of the charts everywhere.
Immediately, the mainstream media experiences a writhing fit. How dare this white male country western dude usurp the creativity, words, and genius of Tracy Chapman!
The very nerve of him! This is just another indication of how white males have dominated society at the expense of everyone else. Boycott the record. Boycott anybody who endorses it. Hell, string him up.
To the Left, Facts Don’t Matter
Only one itty bitty little problem with this crazed collective mindset: Luke Combs asked Tracy Chapman for permission to record her song. On top of that, he included a royalty percentage of the sales. Last week, Chapman earned $500,000 from the Luke Combs recording. That is not bad for a song introduced 35 years ago. In addition, Ms. Chapman, who will be 60 next March, has been thrust back into the limelight. Pretty cool, considering that her last album was produced 15 years ago.
Does it matter that numerous other artists have recorded “Fast Cars?” The Jonas Blue version from 2015 is particularly noteworthy, with its captivating, upbeat dance tempo and vocals from British singer Dakota. Other artists have offered sterling renditions of “Fast Cars.” Moreover, virtually any value song has been covered by other artists over the years for as long as you wish to research.
When Joe Cocker sang “With a Little Help from My Friends,” the Beatles didn't go nuts. When Elvis Presley recorded “Hound Dog,” originally sung by Big Mama Thornton only a few years before, the press said nothing. Of course, this was long before wokesters even knew they were wokesters. No one batted an eyelash when Isaac Hayes recorded “The Look of Love,” a Brazil ‘66 song.
The press was silent when that paragon of progressive virtue, Sheryl Crow, recorded “Wild Horses” by Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones. Covers of popular songs happen all the time. Get used to it.
Set Your Timer
When will those on the Left learn their lessons about jumping to ridiculous conclusions about matters of which they have little to no knowledge? We know by now never to hold our collective breath, because they'll never learn. They will continue with their kneejerk reactions to all that they deem to be offensive. They will defend those who don't want or need it. They will rush to the aid of those whom they deem to be downtrodden, whether such parties are or not.
In a matter of days or weeks, the Left will get furious about the subsequent ‘infraction’ perpetrated by somebody on the Right. They hope it will be a white male, then Leftists can once again feel morally justified in their disdain, create a bevy of false narratives, spread them around the globe, sit back, and feel proud of themselves.
*****************************************************
Getting at the Truth will Solve Intractable Problems and Save America
Americans who hoped for a return of normalcy after the Covid-19 pandemic passed have been disheartened and shocked. The trajectory of abnormalcy and dysfunction has continued to bend up, causing unprecedented demoralization and suicides in American society.
Our governing authorities have contributed to people’s estrangement by their lack of transparency, blatant dishonesty, unprecedented corruption, disrespect for the Constitution, disregard of its provision for equal justice under the law, and total Ponzi scheme-like fiscal irresponsibility. And the Biden administration's Ukraine policy—backed by many Republicans—invites escalation and a potentially catastrophic nuclear war with Russia.
At home, a majority of Americans now find that many virtues and norms they had honored for generations are being demeaned. The entry of as many as seven million people over the southern border in the last two and half years has subjected Americans to record crime levels, over-taxation of schools and healthcare facilities, and unprecedented levels of rural and urban decay. The explosive box office success of the new film “Sound of Freedom,” is waking up people to the fact that America is now the number one destination for child and sex traffickers. Thus, President Biden, DHS Secretary Mayorkas and others assisting them in maintaining an open border policy are effectively facilitators and accomplices to this large-scale horrendous capital crime.
The most important corrective to all these intractable problems is the sunlight of truth. But often truth, that used to be objective and based on factual reality, is now blocked by powerful forces that benefit from corruption, and by others whose subjective perception of reality is governed by narratives—political and otherwise, group think, self-interest and preservation of power and status, or a combination thereof.
The pursuit of truth used to be encouraged. Not so much now. Many vitally important topics fundamental to the survival of the United States are simply verboten to talk about. The Constitution guarantees citizens’ fundamental rights and the government’s Constitutional legitimacy comes from the people. But in our present environment people’s First Amendment Rights are violated with no consequences. Consider how much more able Americans would be in solving our most pressing problems if there was freedom of speech, debate, and media attention on topics such as:
Sources of wealth that Congressmen, Senators, and U.S. government officials accumulate that exceed their public service salaries.
Sources of election irregularity and vote fraud, a complex and fundamental problem that must be cleared up if we are to maintain the legitimacy of our government as a Constitutional Republic.
The agendas of international organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.
A full accounting and cost benefit analysis of the Green New Deal and its attendant goal of Net Zero Carbon Emissions.
The funding and organizational infrastructure of Black Lives Matter and Antifa—the primary organizations, which wrought $2 billion of property destruction on Americans—the most costly in our history.
An accounting of all U.S. funds sent to Ukraine, presently estimated at some $113 billion.
Exposure of actions taken by pharmaceutical companies and the myriad of government health care regulatory agencies to block public awareness of safe and effective therapeutic drugs for the treatment of Covid-19 to create a monopoly pathway for unproven and risky emergency use authorized vaccinations.
The truth on these subjects and others, such as the previously mentioned child sex trafficking crisis in America, and the accounting of vaccine injuries and deaths, is very hard for many to handle. But facing truth is as necessary for the survival and recovery of America as a Constitutional Republic as the Nuremberg trials were to the recovery of Germany and the soul searching that restructured Japan after World War II.
We have all heard that “the truth that will set you free.” While true, not everyone is ready for the full truth at the same time. Consider the difficulty that Japan faced at the end of World War II. Previously, for centuries, under the influence of Shintoism, the Japanese people universally believed they were a superior race, invincible and destined to rule the world because their emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu. Their shocking military defeat left the Japanese utterly despondent and demoralized—with suicide rates rising dramatically. With time, an orderly and benevolent post-war U.S. occupation and restructuring administered by General MacArthur—who arranged for a huge increase in Christian missionary presence and the distribution of ten million Bibles translated into Japanese—gradually a spiritual regeneration began to take root. Japan became a vibrant democracy and within thirty years became the number two economy in the world.
It’s become self-evident that there is a greater concentration of corruption among American elites than among the people, which reassures us of the virtue and inherit strength of the American government system “of the people by the people and for the people.” What’s now desperately needed to save this great country, is the rediscovery of the conviction and courage of our founders—each of whom were willing to sacrifice everything to defend life, liberty, and happiness.
In closing, the advice that Paul gave to believers in Corinth nearly 2,000 years ago, who were experiencing a spiritual-culture war similar to ours today, to “stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong.” is what is needed today. For without God, it will surely be tyranny that awaits us.
*********************************************
Why haven't you heard about the jihadi attack in North Dakota?
His name gives no doubt about his religion
Mohamad Barakat is the 37-year-old Fargo, North Dakota, man who is accused of shooting three Fargo police officers on July 14, 2023, killing Officer Jake Wallin, according to a statement from Fargo police. Barakat was fatally shot by another officer, police said.
This week, emerging accounts would indicate that a jihadi terrorist ambushed and murdered 23-year-old Fargo, North Dakota, rookie police officer Jake Wallin, a Minnesota Army National Guard vet who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamist assailant wounded two other officers and a civilian bystander before a fourth officer, Zach Robinson, killed the assailant.
The assault was reminiscent of a jihadi ambush on a Tennessee military installation almost eight years ago to the day. Both the attacks occurred in the week of Eid al-Ghadir on the Islamic calendar, observed by Shia Muslims as among the most significant Islamic holidays.
Authorities believe that the assailant, a Syrian national who was granted entry into the U.S. on a 2012 asylum request, was on his way to commit mass murder of those attending the second day of a Fargo Street festival — where thousands were in attendance. It is believed he used an auto accident involving other vehicles as a diversion to begin his assault before moving to his primary target, the festival. This is also similar to the Tennessee attack, as that Islamist began his attack in one location, believed to be a diversion to draw police away from his primary target so he could inflict maximum carnage.
The Fargo assailant attack plan was clear. State Attorney General Drew Wrigley noted investigators had thus far determined that the assailant had Internet searches for terms including "kill fast," "explosive ammo," "incendiary rounds," and "mass shooting events," all of which indicated he had been planning this attack for some time. The night before his assault, he searched for "area events where there are crowds," which resulted in headlines for two events, the Red River Valley Fair and the Downtown Fargo Street Fair.
He was armed with more than 1,800 rounds of ammunition, three containers of gasoline, and two propane tanks, one of which was, according to Wrigley, half-filled with "explosive materials concocted at home, purchased lawfully."
If not for the actions of Officer Robinson, the news about this incident would be very different. Wrigley said that Robinson was "the last man standing in that blue line at that moment. What he was standing between was not just the horrible events that were unfolding there, but between the horrible events that Mohamad Barakat had envisioned, planned, and intended and armed himself for that day."
Fargo Police Chief David Zibolski added: "It is clear that this individual was a calculated, insidious, murderous individual dead set on hurting, killing as many people as possible. He had the intent, he had the commitment, he had the means. There is evil in the world, this guy was one of them. He was an evil individual."
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/99124-the-jihadi-attack-in-north-dakota-2023-07-25
****************************************
25 July, 2023
Republicans Act Against Obama Policy That Risks Airline ‘Passengers’ Lives’ to Advance a ‘Woke Agenda’
House Republicans took action this week to reverse an Obama administration policy that critics claim prioritizes diversity over skills for hiring air traffic controllers and could be “risking passengers’ lives to advance their woke agenda.”
In passing the $4 billion Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill Thursday, the House included a provision to eliminate the “biographical assessment.” Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, sponsored the amendment.
The assessment reportedly gives more points to applicants who have not been employed for the last three years than to an applicant who answers that he has been a pilot or a veteran with an air traffic control-related military background.
“The FAA’s biographical assessment penalizes air traffic controller candidates who demonstrate a high aptitude in science. It’s insane,” Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., chairman of the House Anti-Woke Caucus, told The Daily Signal.
In 2013, the FAA scrapped a skills-based test and a certification program, and replaced it with a biographical questionnaire to attract more diverse applicants to become air traffic controllers. The FAA previously drew most candidates from the military and a group of 36 colleges that include air traffic control colleges.
“When Americans board a plane, they should be confident that the best pilot is flying it, the best engineers built it, and the best air traffic controllers are managing flight traffic,” Banks continued. “Unfortunately, the far Left is so radical they’re risking passengers’ lives to advance their woke agenda. I’d like to thank Rep. Babin for leading this potentially lifesaving and commonsense effort to restore meritocracy at the FAA.”
“Under this administration, we’ve repeatedly seen diversity and inclusion prioritized over competence and ability,” Babin told The Daily Signal in a statement. “This amendment ensures we hire the best, most qualified candidates at the FAA—based on merit instead of skin color. We cannot allow the Left’s political games to endanger American air crews and passengers.”
The FAA funding legislation passed on a bipartisan vote with 351 members backing it. It now goes to the Democrat-controlled Senate.
******************************************************
Following Affirmative Action's Demise, Slay the DEI Leviathan
On Thursday, Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez announced that its embattled associate dean for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI), Tirien Steinbach, has resigned. Steinbach's all but assuredly forced "resignation" followed an outpouring of disgust from Americans revolted by her disgraceful antics during the Stanford Federalist Society student chapter's attempted hosting in March of a speech by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, which was constantly disrupted by outlandish student behavior and ultimately canceled. Steinbach's resignation represents a modicum of justice following a grievous wrong. Steinbach will have plenty of time to mull over whether the "juice" of her abetting an obstreperous law school student-woke mob was worth the "squeeze" of her eventual dismissal.
Steinbach's overdue "resignation" is the latest domino to fall in a rapid succession of righteous pushbacks against the roving academic and corporate diversity-cart commissars who collectively comprise America's DEI regime. Perhaps not coincidentally, these dominoes have all fallen after last month's landmark vindication of constitutional colorblindness, and defeat for race-conscious affirmative action programs, in the consolidated U.S. Supreme Court cases of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. Following the demise of affirmative action at the Court, the next goal for proponents of colorblindness and foes of racial determinism is clear: Slay the DEI Leviathan.
Last Thursday, a coalition of 13 Republican state attorneys general, led by Kansas' Kris Kobach and Tennessee's Jonathan Skrmetti, sent a letter to the CEOs of all Fortune 100 companies "to remind (them) of (their) obligations as ... employer(s) under federal and state law to refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' or otherwise." The attorneys general cite numerous laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to bolster their anodyne contention that racial discrimination in the workplace is "both immoral and illegal." While the Court's opinion in SFFA did not directly touch on Title VII, Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion correctly noted that Title VI, a sister provision of Title VII, demands the same colorblindness that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause demands. Naturally, therefore, so too does Title VII.
The result: Fortune 100 CEOs are now "on notice of the illegality of racial quotas and race-based preferences in employment and contracting practices." An employer's subjective intent, whether invidious or purportedly benign, is irrelevant. Fortune 100 DEI commissars, consider yourselves warned.
Similarly, on Monday, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sent a letter to 51 of the largest global and national law firms to put them on notice that the "same principles" the Court relied upon in SFFA and the "plain text" of both Title VI and Title VII "cover private employers" just as clearly as Chief Justice John Roberts held the Equal Protection Clause covers universities. Accordingly, Cotton, himself a lawyer and former Fifth Circuit law clerk, warned the Big Law juggernauts that "Congress will increasingly use its oversight powers -- and private individuals and organizations will increasingly use the courts -- to scrutinize the proliferation of race-based employment practices." Cotton ended his missive by specifically flagging DEI programs, whether those operating at law firms' corporate clients or in-house at law firms themselves, as implicating these same legal concerns.
The upshot could not be clearer: Following the legal triumph of genuine human "equality" and the defeat of vogue leftist notions of "equity" in SFFA, DEI apparatuses nationwide should tread extremely carefully. Better yet, leading state attorneys general and members of Congress will be watching corporate diversity-crats like a hawk, threatening to sue, investigate or subpoena them if they stray too far and engage in race-conscious hiring, firing, or other personnel decisions. Considering that the entire raison d'etre of the DEI regime is to do precisely this, the Republican attorneys general and members of Congress should find themselves with an overabundance of possible legal targets.
Following the abolition of the affirmative action regime in SFFA, the Right must now prioritize the abolition of the DEI regime. After all, the two regimes are but two sides of the same coin: Affirmative action and DEI both place a premium on something as arbitrary as one's race, which Justice Clarence Thomas correctly noted in his SFFA concurring opinion is an artificial "social construct."
Whatever DEI commissars' subjective intentions may be, the truth is that America endured a bloody, horrible Civil War to definitively settle the question of whether race is inherently determinative (a la Chief Justice Roger Taney in the infamous Dred Scott case) or, per Thomas, a mere social construct. The answer provided by the tragic death of 618,000 Americans in the Civil War, to say nothing of America's second founding via the Reconstruction Amendments and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is clear: Our nation is colorblind to its very core. Race, accordingly, is just what Thomas says it is: an artificial social construct.
Like all other forms of race-centricity or race-consciousness, DEI is cancerous to free people. It must be destroyed.
************************************************
The Dark, Untold Truth of Transgenderism
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
— Quote commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels
There is a new stock-in-trade in the American domain today – human beings. Even children are being used in Mengelian experimentations that might have given Hitler pause.
The tragedy of sexual-reassignment surgery has a terrifying history. The popularization of medically sanctioned sexual mutilation began with well-known sexual perversion advocate, Alfred Kinsey.
Kinsey contended that people are “sexual from birth” and experimented on babies in the 1940s and 50s. His legacy stands largely unchallenged today by the American Medical Association, despite his advocacy of bestiality, pedophilia, sadomasochism, and incest.
His experiments largely led to the so-called Sexual Revolution.
In 1967, a student of Kinsey named John Money was asked by a set of desperate parents to repair a botched circumcision on their baby boy, David, who was a twin. Rather than repair the damage, Money advised the couple to raise the baby as a girl and remove his genitalia.
By age 12, David was struggling mentally in addition to his physical malformities. By 14, he begged to be made male again. Throughout his teens, he became severely depressed. Ultimately, both brothers ended their own lives.
It was later reported that Money sexually molested both boys, and forced them to have incestuous relations with one another at age 7.
This tragic case prompted further study, and the not-yet-corrupted medical establishment opted to largely end sanctions of the mutilation experiments, for a time.
So if we, as a nation, researched this and even the left agreed to end such studies because the outcomes were so grim, why have the powers that be reinvented this cause at this point in time?
The American Medical Association stands to gain millions of dollars between surgeries and medicines from each transition. The American Psychological Association will have its membership explode when all of these children and their parents and families need a lifetime of therapy and drugs for what they have done.
Big Pharma can’t even calculate the money that will rush to them. And the Democrats have taken up their cause calling it “gender affirming care,” (as if there were anything “caring” about it, considering the real data). The Democrats will be richly rewarded by all of those profiting off of these children, and the cycle will continue.
They will hire their own corporate “scientists” to conduct “research” to confirm their propaganda, and just like that – a total fraud will be imposed on the American people.
Those imposing this horror will clutch their pearls and deny their collusion or a profit motive, and sadly many Americans and others who stand to be bilked (or worse) will overlook the undeniable truth of this. But data exposes their profit motive.
Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic tracked those who forewent gender reassignment, and found that 70-80% of those who face gender confusion but do not have transition surgery, lost their feelings of confusion over time and ultimately were considered “recovered.”
Johns Hopkins ended their sexual reassignment surgery in 1970 for that reason. Their chief psychiatrist called sex change “biologically impossible” in the Wall Street Journal.
He cited a 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden that followed 324 sex reassignment patients for decades. After 10 years, patients had increased mental difficulties. Suicide mortality rose to almost 20 times the rate of those who did not transition.
Why aren’t we reading this or hearing it from the “experts” on our televisions?
Many sober-minded professionals point to the reality that in no other dysmorphic disorder, do professionals advise that we “equip” the disorder by prescribing diets to anorexics, or sharp knives to Borderline Personality “cutting” patients, for example.
If the real concern is suicide, why is the AMA/APA/Democrat party not studying the use of gender affirming hormones rather than prescribing hormones and mutilation contrary to their natural birth gender?
It certainly cannot be the multi-million dollar price tag on the head of every child they transition. Surely not. Because “the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”
*********************************************
Kentucky-based nurses have recently been issued a directive by the Kentucky Board of Nursing, instructing them to attend and complete an implicit bias training
According to an investigation by The Washington Examiner, this directive warns nurses they could face disciplinary action for non-compliance.
The mandatory training demands the acknowledgement of a “history of racism in healthcare,” an aspect that has stirred controversy among the participants.
This order came into effect on July 1 and also included controversial discussions that declared it racist to deny the existence of “institutional racism” or to advocate for personal advancement through hard work.
The training material, presented by Kentucky Nurses Association Board of Directors Treasurer Arica Brandford and CEO Delanor Manson, includes a slide that emphasizes, “In order to lead to meaningful change, any exploration of implicit bias must be situated as part of a much larger conversation on racism and bias.”
Moreover, the training defined instances of “covert racism” to include “white silence,” denial of institutional racism, declaring “there’s only one human race,” promoting the “bootstrap theory,” endorsing “Eurocentic school curricula,” exploiting “whiteness,” objectifying people of color, asserting “reverse racism,” making excuses or ‘white-splaining’ racism, and refuting the existence of white privilege.
This approach has been met with significant pushback from the nursing community, with many expressing concern that their jobs could be at risk if they chose not to participate.
Rebecca Wall, a seasoned nursing professional with 40 years of experience, expressed her frustration to The Washington Examiner, saying, “They pretty much said we’re all guilty of being racist, and we need to examine the way that we take care of patients and change our behaviors because we are giving substandard care.”
She further stated, “It’s offensive to be told if you don’t do this course, you’re out after 40 years,” adding, “A whole career spent in the field because you don’t agree to the one dogma: you’re done, you’re valueless, you’re not worth it anymore.”
As per the nursing board, this training is mandated by a committee of the Kentucky General Assembly, and non-compliance may lead to civil sanction or disciplinary action.
Wall stated the people mandating the training are “academics entrenched in woke ideology.”
“So we hear from academic nurses who haven’t been on the floors or in the hospitals for decades, telling us how to do the job,” she added.
According to Laura Morgan, a program manager at Do No Harm—an organization committed to safeguarding healthcare from radical and divisive ideologies—these so-called woke concepts are being pushed down to the state level from the national American Nurses Association.
She pinpointed former ANA President Ernest Grant as having shifted the organization to the Left in the aftermath of the riots that followed George Floyd’s death
****************************************
24 July, 2023
Miss Italy bans transgender contestants, must be a woman from birth: 'Will not jump on the glittery bandwagon of trans activism'
The Miss Italy pageant has banned transgender contestants from taking part in the beauty contest.
"Lately, beauty contests have been trying to make the news by also using strategies that I think are a bit absurd," Miss Italy Official Patron Patrizia Mirigliani said, according to TND. "Miss Italia, on the other hand, will not jump on the glittery bandwagon of trans activism."
"Since it was born, my competition has foreseen in its regulation the clarification according to which one must be a woman from birth. Probably because, even then, it was foreseen that beauty could undergo modifications, or that women could undergo modifications, or that men could become women," Mirigliani said during an interview with Radio Cusano earlier this month.
The Miss Italy pageant banning transgender contestants arrives just weeks after a transgender beauty queen contestant was crowned Miss Netherlands 2023. Rikkie Valerie Kolle – a 22-year-old biological male – defeated a field of nine biological women to be named Miss Universe Netherlands. Kolle will represent the Netherlands at the 72nd Miss Universe competition in El Salvador.
Kolle wrote in another Instagram post, "Hey darlings, as you know, I proudly admit that I wasn't born as the woman I wanted to be, but I have developed myself into the woman I am. Over four months ago, I had my surgery. For ME, it completed the circle and brought me happiness."
The Miss Universe changed its rules to allow transgender contestants to compete in 2012.
In October 2022, transgender billionaire Anne Jakkaphong Jakrajutatip purchased Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA.
"It’s the No. 1 beauty Olympics in the world, but it’s not just about beauty, it’s about the iconic woman — beauty, brains and leadership," the new owner with two children said at the time. "I believe in the power of women to transform into the best versions of themselves."
Jakrajutatip added, "I was bullied a lot in school, because I was a woman trapped in the wrong body."
In 2022, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Miss United States of America contest could not be forced to allow transgender contestants to compete in its pageants.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/miss-italy-transgender-canidates-ban
****************************************************
A stupid bank: Coutts’ reputation committee has destroyed its own reputation
Justin Doherty
Nigel Farage has been cancelled by his bank because their reputation risk committee doesn’t approve of his political views and has branded him a ‘chancer’ and ‘grifter’. This matters to him because, having been cancelled by one bank, it is almost impossible to get an account with another – you are obliged upon opening a new account to reveal if you have ever been turned down or thrown out of a bank before.
Reputation risk has become all the rage in recent years as companies, governments and individuals scramble to protect themselves from the fate suffered by trial by media and powerful regulators. PR firms and management consultancies charge high fees to advise people how to avoid the ‘Ratner moment’ or the fate of Bud Light where poor judgment wreaks havoc and destroys valuable businesses.
A reputation can evaporate in an instant and in NatWest’s case the damage may already be too late
I advise many charities, companies, a leading public school, Lloyds of London, a major defence firm and celebrities on protecting their hard-earned reputations. The work is important because in every single case the aim is to ensure credit is given where credit is due, and that everyone has the reputation they deserve. It has nothing to do with PR and spin. Indeed, believing that PR is the answer to managing a reputation is in itself a red flag and a risk.
NatWest and Coutts have jumped on the reputation bandwagon but fundamentally misunderstood what reputation is and how it works. The minutes of their ‘wealth reputation risk committee’, revealed in Farage’s data access request, reveals not only an organisation in the grip of trendy woke ideology, but no clue about its own reputation and how to manage it.
Reputations are complex, hard-earned and take time to build. They are based not on what you say but what you do. Those reputations that stand the test of time are based on solid diligent focus on doing your job and doing it well. In Coutts’ and NatWest’s case that is all about providing decent banking services.
What you don’t do is fall for trendy ideology or partisan political views, and use ‘reputation’ as a cover to promote contested causes because your CEO is desperate to signal how right-on she is to her chums at Chelsea dinner parties.
A reputation can evaporate in an instant and in NatWest’s case the damage may already be too late. Hundreds if not thousands of cases are now emerging of the bank’s scant regard for its customers. My friend Alexandra Tolstoy, whom I also represent, a single mother of three, has been cancelled by them too in the most callous manner, with no possible justification other than her link with a Russian partner she has not seen for years.
The bank remains part-owned by the taxpayer thanks to a huge bailout in 2008, and therefore we all have an interest in how it manages itself. I offer, for free, some advice to Dame Alison Rose, NatWest’s CEO.
Firstly, you must understand what you are for, who are your customers, and who else matters for your ability to operate. In NatWest’s case, this is account holders, shareholders and regulators. And you must ensure you meet their expectations. This means good service, integrity and competent banking. It doesn’t mean taking sides on Brexit – that’s for the electorate to decide. And it doesn’t mean wading into the gender wars or other causes of your choosing.
Secondly, ensure that what you do is matched by what you say. If your company brand promises excellent customer service and doesn’t deliver, then you can predict reputational trouble. BA has discovered this to its cost. If you demand people lock down and then throw parties, you are done for, as Boris discovered. The front page of Coutts’ website states ‘Modern banking underpinned by a renowned tradition of service.’ This tradition of service rings hollow when you are caught cancelling customers.
NatWest needs to find a new CEO, a new leadership team, and fire its self-destructive reputational risk committee. Otherwise, it is not fit for purpose, will haemorrhage customers, and may well lose its banking licence.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/coutts-reputation-committee-has-destroyed-its-own-reputation/
*************************************************
Former commander of USAF Civil Air Patrol: 'Stop hiring middle-aged white people, especially dudes that are pilots'
The former commander of the Civil Air Patrol, the U.S. Air Force auxiliary, has suggested that CAP officials overlook white, male pilots with age and experience and instead embrace "diversity and being inclusive" in their hiring practices.
In a video that has since gone viral on social media, Col. Mark "Woot" Wootan, who commanded CAP-USAF from April 2019 until April 2022, apparently received a request for suggestions or "guidance" to those now in charge. He responded by telling them not to hire "middle-aged" white "dudes" since, according to the apparently middle-aged white dude, "we all think alike."
"The only really guidance I could put out there for them to consider is stop hiring middle-aged white people, especially dudes that are pilots," he told the unidentified audience, "because honestly we all think alike too much." In saying so, he seemed to presume uniformity of thought among white men of a certain age and implied that a much-needed "diversity" of thought can come only from nonwhites and women.
As might be expected, he then appeared to demonstrate fealty to the idea that "diversity" is America's strength and that, to their detriment, American institutions have historically excluded women and nonwhite men from participating in them. "If we’re gonna be preaching diversity and being inclusive," he argues, "then, for crying out loud, let's back it up...
"Let's make the rhetoric meet the reality," he said. Though his word choice is vague, he appears to have meant that he wants CAP-USAF officials to stop "preaching" about "diversity and being inclusive" and instead make diversity and inclusivity a "reality."
TRMLX, an account that claims to "maintain accountability in the Armed Forces," shared the video on Twitter on Monday morning, and as of early Tuesday afternoon, it already has over 1.6 million views. It also has over 25,000 views on TikTok, where user @airforceamnncosnco shared it last week. However, according to Jim Thompson of Red State, Wootan actually made the remarks sometime last year.
****************************************************
CNBC names Texas worst state to 'live and work' in for not bending to far-left agenda — but census data blows apart that narrative
CNBC has declared that Texas is the worst state in the United States to "live and work."
Last Friday, the news outlet published its annual list of "America's 10 worst states to live and work in for 2023." Unsurprisingly, the list features 10 red states — but, surprisingly, claims the Lone Star State is the worst of them all.
So what exactly makes Texas so bad? Is it the freedom? No income tax? Lots of space to build? Nope. According to CNBC, Texas is the worst U.S. state to live and work in because of its laws protecting unborn life, laws "targeting" LGBT people, and the state's overall issues with "inclusiveness."
From CNBC:
With the nation’s highest percentage of people without health insurance and the second lowest number of primary care physicians per capita, all those new Texans are arriving to find a dismal health care system. Texas has the nation’s thirteenth-highest violent crime rate, and it ranks thirty seventh for licensed childcare facilities per capita.The Lone Star State keeps hacking away at inclusiveness, with laws targeting the LGBTQ+ population, voting rights, and the nation’s strictest abortion ban.
Ironically, CNBC admitted that "there are enormous economic opportunities in Texas." But apparently, that doesn't matter.
"Yes, there are enormous economic opportunities in Texas, and it is attracting people from far and wide," CNBC said. "But this state also has some Texas-sized issues when it comes to life, health and inclusion."
They don’t want you to see this … Big Tech does its best to limit what news you see. Make sure you see our stories daily — directly to your inbox.
The other states on CNBC's list, from second to tenth worst, are: Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Florida. "Inclusiveness" and "reproductive rights" are among the chief problems with each of those states, CNBC claimed.
The list is especially ridiculous when you consider that data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Texas experienced a net population growth of 230,000 people in 2022, second only to Florida's nearly 319,000 net growth.
Those figures prove average Americans prefer the "enormous economic activity" to whatever CNBC says is desirable for residency and business.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/cnbc-texas-worst-state-live-work
****************************************
23 July, 2023
An anonymous site enables even highly educated people to say "incorrect" things
As far as one can tell, it is realism that is being described as "toxic" below. Saying that men and women are born different and that blacks have a lower average IQ is pure reality but the Leftist elite have managed to demonize any mention of such things. So it is actually rather good that there is a place where people can describe reality freely
Anonymous comments with racist, sexist and abusive messages that were posted for years on a jobs-related website for economists originated from numerous leading US universities, according to research released Thursday.
Some economists have long condemned the website, Economics Job Market Rumors, for its toxic content.
The site, known by its acronym EJMR, is run by an anonymous individual and is not connected to a university or other institution.
That fact had fed speculation that those who posted hateful messages on it were mostly online cranks who might not be economists.
Yet the new research indicates that users of the website include individuals at top-tier colleges and universities, including Harvard, Stanford and the University of Chicago, and many others.
“Our analysis reveals that the users who post on EJMR are predominantly economists, including those working in the upper echelons of academia, government, and the private sector,” the paper concluded. It was written by Florian Ederer, a management professor at Boston University, Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham, a finance professor at the Yale School of Management, and Kyle Jensen, an associate dean at Yale.
“It’s not just a few bad apples,” Ederer said in a presentation Thursday at a conference sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass. “It’s very, very widespread. And the toxicity is widespread.”
The revelations have provoked debate on social media among economists about privacy, free speech and online abuse.
Some economists, particularly women who have been attacked on the site, say they hope the revelations lead colleges and universities to investigate the postings.
Others have expressed concern that the research could lead to a “witch hunt” among those who posted on the site.
Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Goldsmith-Pinkham sought to dispel those concerns, saying the group does not plan on “releasing anything identifying” individuals.
Nearly 2,000 people watched a livestream of the paper’s presentation Thursday on YouTube.
That was far more than the 100 or so who watched other NBER presentations the same day, suggesting widespread interest in the topic among academic economists.
Some economists, particularly women who have been attacked on the site, say they hope the revelations lead colleges and universities to investigate the postings. Above, Harvard University.
The bigoted content on the website makes women and nonwhite economists often feel unwelcome in a profession that is already struggling to diversify, Goldsmith-Pinkham said.
Black Americans, for example, are more likely to earn a Ph.D. in mathematics or other social sciences than in economics.
“The idea that in an anonymous space, people behave in this way, it reflects pretty poorly on the profession,” Goldmsith-Pinkham said.
The researchers used publicly available data to determine the internet addresses for about two-thirds of the more than 7 million posts that have been made on the site since 2010.
They classified about 10% of those posts as “toxic” because of their racist or sexist content.
These posts included the use of racial slurs and assertions that women have smaller brains than men.
About 11% of the postings on EJMR, the researchers found, originated from among several hundred universities, including those they classified as the top 25 research universities.
On average, 13% of the posts from universities were considered toxic.
“Things were WAY better when women were focused on rearing children and feeding their husbands,” said one post highlighted by the researchers.
“The biggest enemies of America are: Blks,” read another.
The site has drawn criticism since at least 2017, when Alice Wu, an undergraduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote a paper highlighting the sexist nature of many of the postings on the site.
********************************************
Minimum Wage Laws Increase Homelessness, New Study Finds
One thing Lang Martinez said he learned after living on the streets of Ventura County, California , was that being homeless was worse than being in prison.
“It’s a different lifestyle. You think prison is bad? No. Prison’s got structure,” Martinez, a former Los Angeles gang member-turned-advocate against homelessness, recently told California Insider. “The streets got what they call rules of engagement.”
Though Martinez agrees with the conventional wisdom that mental illness and drug abuse are the primary catalysts for homelessness, new academic research suggests the picture is more complicated.
A fresh study out of University of California, San Francisco suggests that losing income is the single biggest driver of homelessness—ahead of mental illness, drug addiction, and other causes—the study authors say.
“I think it’s really important to note how [desperate] poor people are, and how much it is their poverty and the high housing costs that are leading to this crisis,” said Margot Kushel, a physician and leader of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, which conducted the study.
California is home to approximately 30% of the entire U.S. homeless population (115,491 people as of 2022 ), and some advocates expressed hope that the new research would “inform a statewide strategy” to combat the problem.
Separate research, however, suggests California’s own policies have exacerbated its homelessness epidemic, including a new paper written by University of California economist Seth J. Hill titled “ Minimum Wages and Homelessness ” published last month.
Utilizing data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other sources, Hill examined 100 cities from 2006-2019 to determine the relationship between wage floors and homelessness. The findings are bleak.
“Merging administrative data from HUD to state and local minimum wage laws suggests that minimum wages induce increases in homeless counts,” Hill writes. “When cities raise their minimum wage by 10%, relative homeless counts increase by three to four percent.”
Hill’s paper will not be the last word on the relationship between minimum wage laws and homelessness, but it provides yet more evidence of a stubborn reality minimum wage proponents often overlook: Minimum wage laws often harm the very people they are designed to help.
For decades, it was an all but universally accepted economic gospel that increases in the minimum wage came with adverse trade-offs. Many economists often pointed out these adverse consequences, including job losses, often fell on workers with the least skills and those who were the least valued.
“Among the effects of a minimum wage law, when it is effective, is that many unskilled and inexperienced workers are priced out of a job, when employers do not find them worth what the law specifies,” the economist Thomas Sowell once observed.
This is why even left-leaning publications such as the New York Times, until relatively recently, conceded that using minimum wage laws to combat poverty was an “old, honorable — and fundamentally flawed” idea because it would “price working poor people out of the job market.”
That minimum wage hikes increase unemployment was once hardly a debatable subject among economists, and even today a scouring of the literature shows that a “clear preponderance” of the scientific research shows a job-killing impact.
So in light of this evidence and the more recent UCSF findings, Hill’s conclusion should not surprise us.
“To the extent minimum wages cause disemployment of low skill-workers, the lost job can exacerbate existing economic insecurity and lessen ability to pay for housing,” he writes.
This finding is not just tragic but ironic. Politicians and wage-justice fundamentalists, who take pride in the idea they are fighting poverty by advocating for higher minimum wage laws, are not just costing countless lower-skilled workers jobs. They are actually pushing many of them into homelessness.
Again, this should not be a surprise. Decades ago, the economist Murray Rothbard famously observed the absurdity in the idea that banning jobs was a path to prosperity.
“Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs,” Rothbard wrote , “it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.”
This is not to say wage floors are the sole cause of homelessness, which is a subject as complicated as human beings. Lang Martinez is no doubt correct when he says substance abuse and mental illness play a significant role.
But these realities should not overshadow another truth: For many struggling people, a lower-paying job is not “exploitation.” It’s a lifeline.
https://blog.independent.org/2023/07/12/minimum-wage-increase-homelessness/
**************************************************
"Barbie" runs on hatred of men
It's feminist fanaticism
Reviews from director Greta Gerwig’s live-action “Barbie” film are starting to come in, but unlike the doll that American girls have played with since 1959, they are anything but glowing.
I refused to take my daughter to see the film with a good, old-fashioned father’s “Maybe next week,” which is almost always a softer way of telling a child “no.”
But others have boldly gone to theaters, paid for tickets for the film and have done a lot of us a service by taking one for the team.
The consensus is that “Barbie” is every bit as “woke,” anti-man and pro-feminist as one might have predicted for such a Hollywood creation in the Year of Our Lord 2023.
A story about a diverse cast of Barbie dolls where the lead escapes a fictional paradise could never rely on plausibility in its story. It wouldn’t need to, if it simply made itself entertaining and perhaps avoided forcing a “trans woman” on its viewers.
No one complained that April’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” was unrealistic — like the game, it is a story of an Italian plumber designed by Japanese people who saves a princess from turtles.
But that story was fun, true to its subject matter, loyal to its fans and was the antithesis of “woke.”
According to film reviewer Christian Toto, “Barbie” had an opportunity to similarly cash in on its position as an institution, but took a predictable feminist route, spoiling all the fun.
Toto is a rational cinephile with a great eye for details and a nose for agendas, so his review was all I needed to read.
According to Toto, the film ultimately throws nostalgia and fun out the window for an opportunity to force its audience to hear an unrelenting message about “patriarchy.”
Toto was generous to a few individual performances and complimented some of the movie’s visual effects.
But he concluded, “Don’t let ‘Barbie’s’ dreamy, Day-Glo visuals fool you… This movie hates men so much it hurts.”
Toto added:
“Gerwig, along with [writing] collaborator Noah Baumbach, have an agenda to push that drains the joy from their creation time after time. And it starts from the opening minutes with a cringe-worthy close-up of the all-female Supreme Court (where’s Amy Coney Barrett?).
“Feminism! Empowerment! Down with the Patriarchy!”
Toto concluded the movie, which he said “runs on hate,” had numerous chances to become fun, but derailed itself every few moments when another character delivered a predictable speech with political undertones.
Writing for The New York Post, Johnny Oleksinksy also panned the 114-minute flick.
While awarding the film one star out of a possible four, Oleksinsky described “Barbie” as “an exhausting, spastic, self-absorbed and overwrought disappointment” that attacks consumerism and mentions the alleged fascism of its leading character.
Laughably, this film was produced while someone, somewhere at Mattel probably rubbed their hands together and thought of all the incoming sales.
Oleksinsky said the film’s numerous Ken dolls are all portrayed as imbeciles.
“If you’re hoping to experience a multiverse of unique, strong-personality Barbies, you’re better off going to Toys “R” Us after a few martinis,” the reviewer stated.
As Jack Posobiec, the film might be “the most anti-male film ever made.”
In short, “Barbie” is not a harmless children’s story about a doll every American girl either owned or was aware of while growing up.
The film is another “woke” propaganda engine that focuses more on the agenda of those who made it than potential box office returns.
That is the same mindset that has cost Disney an estimated $900 million over recent flops that insisted on forcing identity politics into stories that are supposed to be an escape for the moviegoing public, Marca reported.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/warning-barbie-not-harmless-nostalgia-agenda-runs-hate
*************************************************
Bank licences at risk if UK customers dumped over views
Coutts is the prestige tentacle of NatWest Bank
British banks risk having their licences stripped from them if they dump customers because of their political views under a crackdown aimed at protecting freedom of speech.
The move by the British government to make the right to free speech a condition of banking permits follows a decision by Coutts – the bank of choice for the royal family – to close the accounts of Nigel Farage because his right-wing views did not “align with our values”.
In the wake of an uproar over Coutts’ treatment of the former leader of the UK Independence Party (Ukip), banks will also be required to give an “explicit” reason for closing accounts, and customers will have the right to appeal.
A government source told The Times that people’s right to express their views was sacrosanct. The source added that ministers believed “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and greater transparency would force banks to change their ways.
Coutts was condemned by ministers on Wednesday (Thursday AEST) for its decision to close Mr Farage’s accounts after an internal review referred to him as a “disingenuous grifter” whose views could be regarded as “xenophobic and racist”.
“This is wrong. No one should be barred from using basic services for their political views. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy,” Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said. Home Secretary Suella Braverman accused the banks of “politically biased dogma” bordering on “sinister”.
The BBC had reported Coutts closed Mr Farage’s accounts because he did not have enough money. However, a 40-page dossier obtained by Mr Farage from the bank states the decision was made because of his views.
The dossier included the minutes from a November 17, 2022, meeting when the Coutts wealth reputational committee settled on cancelling Mr Farage’s accounts.
“The committee did not think continuing to bank NF (Nigel Farage) was compatible with Coutts given his publicly stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation,” the report says. “While it is accepted that no criminal convictions have resulted, commentary and behaviours that do not align to the bank’s purposes and values have been demonstrated.”
Andrew Griffith, the economic secretary to the Treasury, has asked officials for advice on legislation to protect free speech, with the focus now on inserting those protections into banking licences.
“It would be of serious concern if financial services were being denied to anyone exercising their right to lawful free speech,” he said. “Businesses have the right to protect against reputational risks, eg criminal activity, but the privilege of a banking licence in a democracy should imply a duty not to ‘debank’ because you disagree with someone’s views.”
Mr Farage is threatening to take legal action against Coutts over claims his accounts were closed for financial reasons. He did not dispute that his finances fell below the Coutts threshold of £3m ($5.68m) in savings or £1m in loans or investment, but said that had not been an issue in the past.
Mr Farage told The Times that he had been informed that an individual at NatWest, which owns Coutts, was behind the briefing to the BBC. He said Dame Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest, had “questions to answer”.
“I am told that the briefing given to the BBC about my personal finances – and I question whether it was ethical or legal to do so – was given by NatWest,” he told The Times.
“This is not just about Coutts, this is about the whole banking group. Ultimately in any organisation the fish rots from the head down. Alison Rose has questions to answer.”
Mr Farage was one of the leaders of the Brexit campaign and on Thursday it emerged that Coutts’ managing director and head of private clients, Camilla Stowell, had pushed for Britain to remain in the EU and believed Brexit had damaged the economy.
Ms Stowell was asked last year whether there needed to be a “conversation in respect of Brexit” and the economy. She replied: “Personally, I was a Remainer. So I fear that, yes, we know that Brexit is having an impact.”
Mr Farage told London’s Daily Telegraph that it was unwise for a banking executive to reveal how they had voted in the EU referendum and that he believed the opinions expressed by Ms Stowell were reflected in the bank’s report on him.
“That report had a special kind of prejudice that you could only get from upper middle-class white living in London,” he said.
“It’s a twisted sense of priorities, it is absolutely metropolitan elite prejudice.”
Conservative MP David Davis said NatWest’s conduct “ought to jeopardise” its banking license and worry its 19 million customers. He also asked Mr Sunak to force every British bank to inform the government of all accounts cancelled for non-commercial reasons.
NatWest and the BBC declined to comment. Coutts issued a statement saying: “It is not Coutts’ policy to close accounts solely on the basis of legally held views. Decisions are not taken lightly and involve a number of factors, including commercial viability, reputational considerations and legal requirement.”
It added Mr Farage had been offered a NatWest account
****************************************
21 July, 2023
Toby Young becomes a victim of the Leftist tendency to make negative things up about conservatives
No evidence is needed for Leftist accusations. And courtesy flies out the window
I first met Caitlin Moran at Julie Burchill’s flat in Bloomsbury. This was in the early 1990s and she was a precocious teenager who’d written a play and published a few pieces. Julie had asked her to write for the Modern Review, a magazine I co-owned with Julie and her then husband Cosmo Landesman, and Caitlin’s stuff was really good. After that, she became a kind of junior member of our gang and I remember liking her a great deal – she was warm and funny and didn’t seem remotely intimidated by older, more experienced journalists. It was obvious that she was going to have a brilliant career.
Fast forward about 15 years, by which time we’d lost touch, and I was somewhat taken aback by her reaction to my appearance on a BBC2 discussion programme with Germaine Greer. As the two of us duelled away, Caitlin shared her feelings about me on Twitter. My ability to irritate, she said, was so reliable it ‘could be used to power an atomic clock’. She continued: ‘Oh, Germaine Greer. You’re still MAGNIFICENT. Please end this brilliant monologue by running a sword through Toby Young’s face.’
I joked about this at the time, particularly when Caitlin raised the alarm in a hand-wringing, deeply concerned way about how often women are threatened with violence on Twitter. She campaigned for a ‘report abuse’ button on the platform and launched a ‘boycott Twitter’ day in 2013 because of its failure to deal with offensive comments directed at journalists and politicians. Talk about hypocrisy! If she thought users should be banned from social media for encouraging people to assault those with whom they disagreed, shouldn’t she start with herself?
But the truth is, I was quite upset. I racked my brain, trying to think of something I’d said or done to her that could have prompted such a visceral hatred – and came up blank. On the contrary, I could only remember behaving decently to her when she worked for the Modern Review, always trying to be encouraging, telling her she was going to go far, etc. Since those days, I’d looked at her burgeoning career with a kind of paternal pride. I knew her politics were different from mine, but I didn’t let that colour how I felt about her. I was pleased she’d become so successful. So her comments cut me to the quick.
The only explanation I could come up with is that sending the right signals to her political tribe – saying something she knew they’d approve of – trumped any other considerations. She was just joining in the chorus of abuse I routinely get on Twitter, without giving a thought to how it might make me feel. Our little scrap of shared history, which I looked back on so fondly, meant nothing to her.
I find it a bit embarrassing to talk about this, but I’ve been reading Caitlin’s new book – What About Men? – and the advice she gives to the opposite sex is to talk more about our feelings. Like Prince Harry, she believes men are in the throes of a ‘crisis’ that’s rooted in our unwillingness to talk about our vulnerabilities, ideally accompanied by floods of tears. The rot starts in the playground, apparently, and she quotes approvingly from a book called Why Does Patriarchy Exist? by Carol Gilligan and Naomi Snider. She summarises their analysis as follows: ‘Boys being put in a “masculine” environment – say, a school with hundreds of other boys, many of them older – quickly learn they must hide “their tenderness, their empathy, their vulnerability”, as it will not be responded to positively. Or at all. No hugging, no crying, no fear.’
Having wheeled out this cliché, she then ignores her own advice by ridiculing Jordan Peterson for crying on a podcast with Russell Brand. Crying is marvellous, she emphasises, but can you imagine how a successful woman would be treated if she cried at work? In any event, she says, what does he have to cry about? She contrasts his difficulties with those faced by notable female public figures she met with shortly after listening to the podcast: ‘All have had rape and death threats: two have panic buttons in their houses. One has never even mentioned she has children – as the police told her there was the very real possibility that, if the knowledge became public, there would be threats made against the children’s schools.’
Encouraging men to cry, only to accuse them of being crybabies, is typical of the book. Caitlin purports to be in earnest about helping men with their problems, but cannot resist scoring points at their expense. Anything for a laugh, or a nod of approval from a fan – as with her comments about me. Maybe I’m a bitter old man, but I expected more from that witty teenager who so impressed me 30 years ago.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-expected-more-from-caitlin-moran/
***************************************************
Fascist China
It seems to me, the Chinese Communist Party, CCP, gave up on communism and turned to fascism in the 1980s. Since then, their economic fortunes have gone up dramatically, while the liberty of the people has flat lined. Today’s CCP is a full blown nationalist, imperialist and expansionist power. They seek Lebensraum in the First Island Chain and have marshaled their society along military lines. Just as Hitler envisioned it. The fascism practiced by the CCP is a blending of Nazism and mercantilism. Very effective at increasing national prosperity at the cost of other nations. With the added benefit that the subjects are told they are supermen and so are willing to die for their oppressors. Which makes a war over Taiwan, another war between fascists and the rest of the world, almost inevitable.
Racism is inseparable from classical fascism. Even the globalist fascists, like George Soros, have racism as one of their core principles. In the case of Nazi Germany, they hated the Jews, today’s globalists hate Europeans. The CCP hates everyone, who is not Han Chinese, and doesn’t especially like them either. The racism that fascists promote fuels nationalism based on race. When Chinese students attack students from Hong Kong in Canada, over protesting the suppression of Hong Kong by the CCP, it’s nationalist expansionism that’s their justification. Is Hong Kong seeking to Invade mainland China and impose freedom on its people? Of course not. Hong Kong is occupied by the CCP… as is Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. The Han are expedient… but any race would do.
Communism is united in one thing… economic disaster. It may be wonderful at marshaling the poorest into a fighting force, to usurp power, but it fails miserably at producing enough food to feed those people once in power. The CCP discovered this first hand. Tens of millions starved to death by economic centralization. Mao saw that there wouldn’t be enough food to go around, so he made the hard decision, to round up all the food from everyone’s pantry, at gunpoint, and store it in a central location. To be handed out at a rate so it would last until the next season’s harvest. The result was, as Mao became obese… some say, fifty million people starved to death. Others say it was only ten million. No one will ever know because records were not kept and most died in the bar ditch.
Fascism and mercantilism, are good at hoarding money, but poor at leading a people to anything but oppression. The CCP gave up on communism and instead embraced fascist economics, Corporatism as Goebbels and Mussolini called it. Privately owned publicly controlled is another way to describe fascist economic theory. All for one and one for all, led by a single titular head, who chooses the overall path and takes responsibility for the results. No need of elected representatives, who talk incessantly and do nothing, and take responsibility for nothing. It has been a process though. The economy was mutated first, and now, the CCP may have found the leader it’s looking for… in the personage of Xi. A lifetime dictator who will lead the CCP to ultimate victory and Lebensraum!
What we have in the CCP, is an expansionist, fascist empire (in the classic definition) that’s cut from the same cloth as Nazi Germany. Our globalist rulers appear to be on the same track as Xi. They are expansionist fascists as well. We’re advancing to Russia, for the glory of globalism, while creating a valid excuse why we can’t come to the aid of Taiwan. In WWII, Japan was busy in the Pacific, while Germany expanded throughout Europe, and into Russia. Just as NATO controls Europe and is expanding into Russia. Almost like the new Axis is NATO and the CCP. The thing that stands in the way of that beautiful friendship, is the military industrial complex. They’ve never seen a war they didn’t like. I suspect they’re licking their chops at the idea of war with the PLA. Korea was a moneymaker.
https://www.thinkspot.com/discourse/dlukry/post/numapepi/is-fascism-the-future/dQtPaNK
*****************************************************
New York agrees to pay more than $19 million to George Floyd death protesters in class action
Protesters who were arrested or beaten by police during George Floyd death protests in 2020 could receive a share in more than $US13 million ($19.2 million) after New York City agreed to pay them in a civil rights settlement.
The class action on behalf of 1,300 people, focused on 18 of the many protests that erupted in the city the week after Mr Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis.
The settlement which was filed to Manhattan federal court on Wednesday, will be among the most expensive payouts ever awarded in a lawsuit over mass arrests if approved by a judge.
With certain exceptions, people arrested or subjected to force by NYPD officers at those events will each be eligible for $US9,950 in compensation, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.
The agreement, one of several stemming from the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, allows the city to avoid a trial that could be both expensive and politically fraught.
Many other cities across the US are negotiating their own settlements with protesters who spilled into the streets to decry racist police brutality after Mr Floyd's death, a period of unrest that saw 10,000 people arrested in the span of a few days.
Adama Sow, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said their group of marchers were trapped by police without warning.
They said the other arrestees were placed in zip ties until their hands turned purple, then held in a sweltering correctional bus for several hours.
"It was so disorganised, but so intentional," they said said. "They seemed set on traumatising everyone."
'Indiscriminate brutality'
Lawyers with the National Lawyers Guild, which represented the plaintiffs in New York, accused NYPD leaders of depriving protesters of their 1st Amendment rights through a "coordinated" campaign of indiscriminate brutality and unlawful arrests.
"The harmful realities we were protesting in 2020 persist. Black and brown people are disproportionately harassed, prosecuted, jailed and killed by police," Savitri Durkee, one of the named plaintiffs, said in a statement.
Through more than two years of litigation, lawyers for the city maintained that police were responding to a chaotic and unprecedented situation.
They pointed to some unruly protests in which police vehicles were set on fire and officers pelted with rocks and plastic bottles.
A spokesperson for the NYPD deferred questions to the city's Law Department, which did not respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.
During some of the 2020 protest marches, officers deployed a crowd control tactic known as "kettling" against peaceful protesters, corralling them in tight spaces and attacking them with batons and pepper spray before making mass arrests.
Protesters who were arrested on certain charges — including trespassing, property destruction, assaulting an officer, arson or weapons possession — will be excluded from the settlement.
Those who were seen on video blocking police from making arrests may also be ineligible.
**************************************************************
Louisiana Overrides Dem Governor to Ban ‘Transgender’ Surgeries, Puberty Blockers for Minors
Louisiana has become the 20th state to protect minors from irreversible “transgender” procedures, including surgeries and cross-sex hormone injections, over the veto of its Democratic governor.
Members of the state Legislature assembled in a special veto override session in Baton Rouge Tuesday to pass the Stop Harming Our Kids Act (HB 648), which prevents surgical or chemical conversion therapy to create an underage person’s “gender identity” that is “inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”
The bill forbids the “removal of any healthy or non-diseased body part or tissue”—such as mastectomies, hysterectomies, and sterilizations—and the construction of artificial breasts or genitalia. The bill also forbids placing children on puberty blockers or administering cross-sex hormone injections.
Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed the bill on June 29, asserting it “needlessly harms a very small population of vulnerable children, their families, and their health care professionals.”
The Legislature’s Republican supermajority then called a special veto override session where the child protections passed the state House of Representatives by a 76-23 vote—a larger margin than their initial passage on May 3. The bill then cleared the state Senate, 28-11. It takes effect on Jan. 1.
Public health and child protection advocates cheered the outcome. “Detransitioner” Chloe Cole, who has lamented losing organs as a result of her teenage “transition,” noted the tremendous progress the state had made in one year. Before Tuesday’s vote, Louisiana stood as “the last state in the South that was sterilizing and cutting up children,” she noted.
“Last year, Louisiana tried to ban talk therapy for kids with [gender dysphoria]. As of today, Louisiana has done a full 180 and has now placed age restrictions that prevent what happened to me from happening to any child in the South,” she said. “To the Louisiana Legislature, thank you so much for listening to my cautionary tale” and handing the Pelican State’s children a “major win!!”
Family Research Council also played a role in lobbying legislators to enact these child protections. Jennifer Bauwens, director of the Center for Family Studies at the Family Research Council, testified that lawmakers should ban “scientifically unsupported, highly invasive, and potentially irreversible interventions” for children whose brains have not yet fully developed—a process that ends in the early to mid-20s.
In a letter to Louisiana state Senate President Page Cortez, a Republican, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (himself a former Louisiana legislator) urged the senator to heed “valid medical evidence,” “tragic personal stories of regret by people who tried to medically ‘transition’ from their biological sex,” and “heartbroken parents” victimized by counselors and school personnel who “encouraged their children to ‘identify’ as something they can never be.”
The leaders of both chambers of the state Legislature met with dozens of pastors for a time of prayer and to hear their concerns as the veto override session came into session, Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Monday.
“We had robust participation from the public today here at the Capitol, and I appreciate how involved average citizens have been in our important discussions this year,” said Speaker of the House Clay Schexnayder.
In the end, six House Democrats joined all of that chamber’s Republicans on Tuesday’s veto override: state Reps. Roy Daryl Adams of Jackson, Robby Carter of Amite, Chad Brown of Plaquemines, Mack Cormier of Belle Chasse, C. Travis Johnson of Vidalia, and Dustin Miller of Opelousas.
Two Democratic state senators also crossed the aisle: Katrina Jackson of Monroe and Greg Tarver of Shreveport.
Two Democratic state legislators, Reps. Francis Thompson and Jeremy LaCombe, switched parties to the GOP due, in part, to the governor’s position on the Stop Harming Our Kids Act.
U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., offered his “congrats to my former colleagues in the Louisiana legislature who stood up for children today” and assured “children will not be mutilated in the South.”
The State Freedom Caucus Network called the override “a major victory to protect children.”
The bill makes an exception for children who enter puberty too early, for those born intersex, or who require such actions to treat a separate physical injury.
Edwards, who tried to kill the bill in a procedural move during the legislative session, said on Tuesday, “I expect the courts to throw out this unconstitutional bill.” Yet U.S. District Judge David Hale, an Obama appointee, allowed a Kentucky bill protecting children from transgender procedures to take effect last Friday.
The veto override session is the state’s third since 1974—all in Edwards’ second term as governor. The override puts Edwards in the history books as the only modern Louisiana governor to have lawmakers override more than one veto.
Lawmakers previously had a showdown with Edwards over the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which prohibits men from competing against women in most sports activities. Edwards allowed the law to take effect without his signature after a strong bipartisan coalition of legislators, led by sponsor state Sen. Beth Mizell, a Republican, passed the bill with enough votes to override his veto. The governor called that bill “very distressing” and “mean-spirited.”
Nearly two-thirds of Americans (61%) say males should not be allowed to compete in women’s K-12 and collegiate sports.
In addition to the 20 states that have signed such bills, similar bills have passed three additional states.
****************************************
20 July, 2023
New national legislation targets U.S. loneliness crisis: 'It’s irresponsible for policymakers to continue ignoring this epidemic'
I do agree that it is a problem. Ever since "The Lonely Crowd" by Riesman et al. in 1950, it has been accepted that loneliness is one of the regrettable effects of modern society. That the government might be able to fix it is however a surprising proposition. Surely social connections are ineluctably personal. It is notable, however, that the proposition comes from a Democrat
Conservatives are generally better off when it comes to avoiding loneliness. They usually have church, military and valued family connections, whereas Leftists often have none of those. Conservatives are by far the most likely to stress the family whereas Leftists from Karl Marx onward have tended to deplore the family. And when Leftists do have famiiies, they will often be such miserable souls that their families will tend to avoid them. The world is all wrong to a Leftist.
Nonetheless anybody can lose social connections through death, illness and much else so the problem is not confined to Leftists. At my age (80) half of my friends are dead and I do feel that loss. I have always however managed to have good relationships with women and I still do. And that helps big-time. I even got myself a bright and attractive new girlfriend 18 months ago and we have become firmly attached. My lifelong appreciation of women is still having benefits. I recommend it.
This week, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) introduced national legislation to address the loneliness epidemic.
“Loneliness is one of the most serious, misunderstood problems facing America today. It may not sound like a problem government should care about, but I believe it’s irresponsible for policymakers to continue ignoring this epidemic,” Murphy said in a press release on the legislation released Tuesday.
The proposed legislation, the National Strategy for Social Connection Act, would require the White House to have an Office of Social Connection Policy to advise the President and “work across federal agencies to develop effective strategies for improved social infrastructure and issue national guidelines for social connection similar to existing guidelines on sleep, nutrition, and physical activity,” according to the senator’s press release. Improving social connections in transportation systems, housing environments, and schools is a part of the act.
This legislation comes on the heels of the U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy’s advisory on the healing effects of social connection and community earlier this year.
“The harmful consequences of a society that lacks social connection can be felt in our schools, workplaces, and civic organizations, where performance, productivity, and engagement are diminished,” the advisory read. “We are called to build a movement to mend the social fabric of our nation…each of us can start now, in our own lives, by strengthening our connections and relationships.”
At Fortune’s Brainstorm Health conference in Marina del Rey, Calif., in April, Murthy said loneliness was a public health crisis. It increases the risk of developing heart disease, dementia, and mental health issues, and its health consequences are comparable to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.
“The pandemic has had a number of invisible costs in our country, and the increase in loneliness, the increase in mental health strain, these are part of those costs,” Murthy said at the conference. Nearly 25% of adults 65 and older are socially isolated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“The data is clear about the risks to our physical and psychological health, though before the introduction of this act, we appeared stagnant as a nation to take this on,” Dr. Jeff Katzman, the Director of Education at Silver Hill Hospital, tells Fortune. Katzman studied human relationships and psychiatry and recently attended the Hull International Loneliness Conference in England.
“The concept of loneliness hasn’t been a true component of the mental health conversation—not part of the diagnostic lexicon, not a real target of prevention strategies, and evidence-based interventions lacking organization into a guideline for care.”
The success of this type of legislation will be seen in the ability to address loneliness across generations within systems and communities to instill a sense of belonging and trust, Katzman says.
“We need to consider those interventions that can help facilitate trust and assist individuals in abandoning practices of isolation that may have become comfortable yet dangerous and ultimately self-punishing,” he says.
The act would also ensure funding for the CDC's research on the effects of social isolation.
https://fortune.com/well/2023/07/19/new-national-legislation-targets-u-s-loneliness-crisis/
*********************************************
Trudeau scorched as ‘stupid,’ ‘ignorant’ for response to Muslim parents’ concerns over school curriculum
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was called out by critics for his response to Muslim parents protesting LGBTQ curriculum and gender ideology in schools.
Trudeau spoke with a Muslim man who asked the prime minister to "protect our culture [and] our belief[s]."
"First of all, there is an awful lot of misinformation and disinformation out there [from] people on social media, particularly fueled by the American right-wing [who] are spreading a lot of untruths about what is actually… in the curriculum…," Trudeau said in a July 9 video posted to TikTok.
"If you look at the various curriculums, you'll see that there is not what is being said out there about aggressive teaching or conversion of kids to being LGBT. That is something that is being weaponized," he added.
Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro argued on "The Five" Tuesday that Trudeau’s definition of "right-wing" was anyone who questioned ideology or had a difference of opinion.
"Muslims at night in Canada are going online to see what the ‘right-wingers’ are saying in the United States. I mean, it is so ignorant for him to say this. Does he not know anything about the Quran? Does he not know anything about the religion? Maybe he ought to take a course on religion so he doesn't sound so stupid," Pirro said.
Muslim parents angry with Trudeau over dismissing their LGBTQ curriculum protestVideo
Co-host Greg Gutfeld said it’s almost as if Trudeau was complaining that word about what was being taught in schools got out.
"It's like it was so much better when we only knew about this stuff. But now parents are actually finding and reading and seeing what's in the paraphernalia and watching this movement and realizing this is really dangerous and it's bad. If Trudeau wants to know whose fault it is, he should look in the mirror," he explained.
Gutfeld argued the pendulum has begun swinging back to "common sense."
"People are no longer afraid to say 'Sorry, we believe in science,' right? He [Trudeau] is the reason because he pushed it so far. He became a traitor to men and to women. He's a self-emasculating Peter Pan, and he elevated trans above boys and girls," he added.
"He elevated nonbinary boys over the toxic masculinity of young boys, right? And then he elevated men who say they're women over real women when it comes to playing sports. So he actually operates on a really kind of a cloaked misogyny. He looks so nice and so...but he'll throw anybody under the bus if it helps him, you know, politically. That's why he embraced woke culture and he embraced every bad idea."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trudeau-scorched-stupid-ignorant-response-muslim-parents
***************************************************
GOP Doctors Slam CDC Guidance on Transgenders
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is being questioned by GOP doctors in the Senate about its controversial guidance saying that transgender people can breastfeed children and suggesting that such individuals take drugs for lactation.
According to the CDC, transgender and non-binary individuals “may give birth and breastfeed or feed at the chest (chestfeed).” The agency has also published that transgenders can take “medication to induce lactation” so as to “chestfeed” infants. On July 13, Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kans.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) issued a letter (pdf) slamming the CDC for its “chestfeeding” guidance.
“I am writing to you with serious concern about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidance for biological men who identify as women (transgender individual) who wish to breastfeed,” said the senators, who have a doctor of medicine (M.D.) certification.
“CDC’s Pledge to the American People commits that the basis of all public health decisions will be made on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively. This guidance, however, seems driven by political considerations rather than science, and the Agency has provided no explanation of the reasoning and data behind these recommendations.”
The letter, addressed to CDC director Mandy Cohen, points out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has currently not approved any medication to increase the supply of breast milk.
Two drugs that are most commonly used for this purpose are metoclopramide and domperidone, both of which “come with significant risks and side effects.”
The drugs are actually intended for other health conditions and are used off-label to boost milk supply. “Off-label” means using a medication for a purpose different from what it was approved for.
The FDA has warned about “serious risks” in using metoclopramide to raise milk supply. The drug’s label says that the medication can “pass into your breast milk and may harm your baby,” the letter notes.
With regard to domperidone, the FDA has “explicitly warned” using the drug for raising milk supply since 2004 due to safety concerns. In countries where the oral form of the drug is being sold, labels warn that the medication is “excreted in breast milk that could expose a breastfeeding infant to unknown risks.”
In addition to potentially being dangerous to the baby, the drugs also have side effects that can harm the person consuming them, the letter notes.
“It is shocking that CDC would directly contradict FDA by recommending the use of an unapproved drug, without any context about the dangers of the product … The CDC should not be recommending drugs that are not approved in the U.S., and otherwise blatantly contradicting FDA, the agency that Congress has tasked with reviewing the safety and effectiveness of drugs.”
The letter asked the CDC director to provide a scientific basis for its chestfeeding and lactation drug intake guidance, like submitting any peer-reviewed studies to inform its guidance on transgender individuals breastfeeding; data relied upon by the agency which compared nutritional benefits of biological women’s breast milk with the breast milk produced by a transgender individual; and data on evaluate long-term health risk evaluation to an infant from being breastfed by a transgender individual who has received hormonal therapy to transition genders.
“According to the data CDC reviewed in developing these recommendations, how many transgender individuals have been able to produce breast milk?” the letter asks.
“What data did CDC evaluate regarding the ability of transgender individuals to produce sufficient breast milk to exclusively breastfeed an infant for the CDC-recommended minimum of six months?”
And, “What is the review process for CDC to publish guidance that has little scientific backing on its website?”
The senators have required that the CDC provide answers to the questions by Aug. 1.
Harming Children
The CDC’s guidance has triggered massive criticism. In an interview with Daily Mail, Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said that “we have no idea what the long-term effects on the child will be” if a breastfeeding transgender uses “all kinds of off-label hormones.’”
“A lot of people are pushing for off-label use of a drug … it’s become so politicized that you can do all kinds of things for a politically approved purpose,” she said. “The CDC has a responsibility to talk about the health risks, but they have been derelict in doing that.”
In a recent episode of the Washington Watch show, Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, stressed the health risks posed by the CDC policy.
Ms. Szoch pointed out that when a mother breastfeeds a child, the milk provides the infant with benefits like protection from infection and diseases.
“We know that that’s certainly not happening with this drug-induced secretion that is very much not breast milk,” she said about transgenders taking drugs to lactate and breastfeed. “Furthermore, we know that what is being produced has the potential to cause heart problems for this child.”
“We are putting a brand new baby, a child who has no defenses at all, who can’t speak for himself, we’re putting that child’s life at risk. We’re putting that child at risk of having heart palpitations and various difficulties so that we can encourage this woke culture,” she said.
Pamela Geller, editor in chief at the Geller Report, blamed Democrats for the CDC guidance. “Lunatics at CDC Gives Guidance to Trans Biological Males Looking to ‘Chestfeed’ Infants. Madness. Under the Democrats, lunacy is encouraged, rewarded,” she said in a July 8 tweet. “The horror here is the harm to the infant. The mission is to erase women.”
******************************************
Biden’s new student-loan giveaway — another cynical con job
After the Supreme Court struck down his blatantly unconstitutional bid to have the taxpayers pick up $430 billion in student-loan debt, President Joe Biden on Friday came back with a scheme to pay off “just” $39 billion, plus unknown billions more as long as he remains in the White House.
It looks to be on firmer legal ground, but as a matter of policy and even politics it’s a giant middle finger to average Americans.
His original scheme at least would’ve meant some relief to the younger folks it was designed to please.
This one only covers some 800,000 people who’ve been paying for at least 20 years, so no one under 40 wins.
And nearly everyone over 40 (especially those who’ve kept up their payments for decades) is financially secure enough to keep paying.
These winners don’t need the help.
Biden must figure that if you were foolish enough to vote Democrat thanks to his earlier plan, maybe you won’t notice that this one doesn’t help you at all.
This is purely the White House chasing good headlines, at the cost of $40 billion in new deficit spending that can only feed the inflation the Federal Reserve has been fighting with soaring interest rates already at risk of tanking the US economy.
Not to mention that each major loan giveaway only encourages universities to keep hiking tuition and pushing kids to borrow to cover it, on the expectation that they’ll eventually get the debt forgiven.
Only 17% of Americans have any student debt, so these schemes inevitably slam the other 83%, who either paid off their loans, or never borrowed — mostly because they didn’t go to college and so don’t enjoy the higher incomes a degree leads to.
This giveaway will come as the federal Education Department “recalculates” its individual reads of who has been actually made regular payments for 20 or 25 years under various “income-driven repayment plans.”
Those plans were already generous, by the way: Your minimum payment is adjusted according to how much you earn, so many borrowers weren’t actually even paying much for many of those years.
And bureaucrats will be under pressure to err on the side of generosity, since that’s the whole point.
The taxpayers have already eaten $116 billion thanks to a three-year holiday on any student-loan payments, supposedly justified by the pandemic that ended two years ago.
None of it makes any sense except as vote-buying.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/14/biden-student-loan-plan-is-just-another-con/
****************************************
19 July, 2023
Black man in NYC who failed teacher's test many times will receive over $2 million in compensation after court determines test was racist
A black man in New York City appears to have failed his way into millions of dollars. According to a report from the New York Post, he has been awarded more than $2 million in supposed lost compensation plus interest after he repeatedly failed a mandatory teacher's test that a court later determined was racially biased.
On July 5, Herman Grim, 64, of Queens was awarded $2,055,383 as part of a series of judgments expected to cost NYC perhaps more than $2 billion. The judgments stem from the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test, which all NYC teachers and prospective teachers were required to pass in order to receive a teaching license between 1994 and 2014. Between 1993 and 1995, 90% of white teachers and prospective teachers who took the test passed, compared to just 53% of their black counterparts. Hispanic test-takers performed even worse, passing just 50% of the time.
Because of the supposed "disparate impact" of the test, a class-action suit was filed against NYC's Board of Education in 1996. Even after a court ruled in favor of the city in 2003, the plaintiffs refused to give up and eventually secured a victory in 2012 when Manhattan federal Judge Kimba Wood claimed that the test violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Post reported. The city has repeatedly claimed that it had no control over teacher testing, which was then mandated by the state.
Eventually, the city exhausted its resources — and perhaps its will — to continue fighting and stopped fighting the lawsuit. In November 2021, just before he left office, Mayor Bill de Blasio earmarked $1.8 billion in payouts in connection to the suit. Thus far, Grim, who took the test multiple times in the 1990s but never passed, has been granted the largest judgment.
"I can’t tell you how many times I took them. A lot! A lot!" Grim told the Post in an interview that was occasionally interrupted by the chirp of a smoke detector. He could not provide the outlet with any examples of racial bias in the test.
Though several failed attempts to pass the test might have put a teaching career out of reach for most applicants, Grim defied the odds. He opened a preschool business in the mid-90s and kept it open until 2015. He also spent time as a substitute teacher in the city until last year when he passed the current certification exam and became a special education teacher in Harlem.
Judgments may be awarded to as many as 5,200 failed test-takers like Grim. Thus far, about 3,000 judgments have been issued, ranging from a few hundred dollars to Grim's $2 million. At least 225 awardees have received at least $1 million. And many of these recipients will continue to receive money well into the future, as some judgments will provide recipients with a pension and health insurance once they pass retirement age.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/black-man-in-nyc-who-failed-teacher-s-test-many-times-will-receive-over-2-million-in-compensation-after-court-determines-test-was-racist ?
*********************************************
Oh, So That's Why We Haven't Heard About This 'Transphobic' Murder
Courtesy of Multnomah County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)
Earlier this month, a Portland man was brutally stabbed to death protecting his transgender-identifying friend from a convicted criminal, who was allegedly targeting the "LGBTQ+ person." More than two weeks later, why haven't we heard about this seemingly "anti-trans" hate-fueled murder on the streets of an ultra-liberal haven? It's self-evident: The suspect is black.
The homicide victim, 32-year-old Colin Michael Smith, a white male, was with friends outside of the High Dive Bar in the early hours of July 2 just before 2:00 a.m. when a black man—whom authorities have now identified as 24-year-old Rahnique Usef Jackson—targeted and harassed an LGBTQ+ member of Smith's group, witnesses allege. Smith reportedly stepped in, sticking up for his friend, who identifies as a transgender woman. That's when Jackson allegedly stabbed Smith several times, killing him.
"It was a hate crime," the victim's sister, Danielle Smith, told KOIN News in a TV interview. "She was trans [allegedly the intended target], he [the suspect] didn't like it, and Colin—defending his friend—was in the way. And that's what happened. It's just tragic."
Fleeing the scene of the fatal Sunday stabbing, Jackson evaded law-enforcement capture for days until he was arrested by members of the U.S. Marshals Service on Friday, July 7, the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) announced in a press release. Jackson was then transferred to the bureau's homicide unit, interrogated by PPB detectives, and booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center on charges of second-degree murder, a Class A felony, and unlawful use of a weapon, a Class C felony.
And last week, a grand jury indicted Jackson, represented by a court-appointed public defender, on those charges plus a bias crime in the second degree, a Class A misdemeanor, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced Thursday via press statement his office issued. Jackson is scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday when he's slated to plead guilty or not guilty.
While the vast majority of national news sites have yet to pick up this story of anti-transgender persecution resulting in a late-night street slaying, the local media have sanitized their headlines. The Oregonian, the Portland-based newspaper of record, titled its article on Jackson's arrest, "Man arrested in last week's stabbing in SE Portland," and the Portland Tribune similarly published a piece, "Suspect arrested in killing of popular Portland restaurant worker," with no mention of the apparent motive.
Like illegal alien Gerson Fuentes, who repeatedly raped a 10-year-old Ohio girl, and Black Lives Matter ideologue Darrell E. Brooks, who mass murdered senior citizens and a child attending a Christmas parade, Jackson is afforded non-editorialized descriptors absent of modifiers and the go-to flourishes that the vulturous, pouncing media oft-employs to politicize a tragedy.
Of course, if the races were reversed in this tragic case of interracial violence, and Jackson were a white man accused of murdering a black victim, we would know every single aspect of the suspect's life down to the most minute details: where he went to high school, his mother's maiden name, the first car he owned, etc. Reports of a "white supremacist," "transphobic" murderer knifing an "LGBTQ ally" would be spotlighted on the front page of The Washington Post and be center stage in CNN's coverage.
****************************************************
Man Arrested While Preaching at Pennsylvania Pride Event Sues Police
The street preacher who was arrested by police shortly after arriving at a June 3 LGBT pride event sponsored by the city of Reading, Pennsylvania, is suing the police, the city, and Reading Mayor Eddie Moran.
The group Reading Pride Celebration partnered with the city for a ceremonial raising of the rainbow flag at Reading City Hall for the start of LGBT pride month, followed by a short parade to a park where there was a rainbow pride celebration with speakers and free food.
About 50 people, including Mr. Moran, attended the flag raising and stood on the sidewalk at City Hall. Organizers had a loudspeaker to make speeches.
Across the street, a handful of people gathered to protest the event, none with loudspeakers. Police stood in the street between the groups.
Damon Atkins 41, arrived at the event carrying a sign with a slogan that showed his opposition to the event, police said in the criminal complaint describing the arrest.
The offending two-sided sign had Bible verses. On one side it said, “Jesus said go and sin no more,” and the other side said, “Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life.”
The arrest was caught on video by another street preacher, Matthew Wear. The men had seen each other before, but did not know each other and did not arrive together or coordinate anything. Mr. Wear arrived first, and previously told The Epoch Times that he preached until police told him to stop, then started shooting video of the event.
He captured Mr. Atkins arriving on the scene and his interaction with the arresting Reading Police officer.
The officer approached Mr. Atkins and told him to be respectful and to “let them have their day,” referring to the LGBT pride gathering.
“Oh, I’m respecting,” Mr. Atkins said in the video. “You know who is cheering for us? The people that are in hell. So, you do you, and I’ll do me. This is public property.”
The officer turned his back and walked a few steps into the street. Mr. Atkins raised his voice and got out part of a sentence.
“Yo. God is not—,” Mr. Atkins began saying, but the officer turned back to Mr. Atkins, put him in handcuffs, and had him transported to a police processing center where he spent a few hours in police custody.
According to court papers filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mr. Atkins’ attorney argued the arrest was in retaliation of his client’s viewpoints and in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Mr. Atkins is also suing for defamation of his character and reputation; placing him before the public in a false light; malicious prosecution; assault and battery; and false imprisonment.
Joel Ready, an attorney with Cornerstone Law based in Blandon, Pennsylvania, is representing Mr. Atkins and says the video is compelling evidence.
“You have a very clear indication that an officer told him to stop speaking simply because he didn’t like the content of the sign that he was carrying. You have less than 30 seconds from when he arrived on scene. And then you have an arrest halfway through a sentence because basically, you use the word God,” Mr. Ready told The Epoch Times.
“I don’t think it gets much clearer that the police officer is engaged in content-based discrimination, and that he’s also engaged in religious discrimination, and of course, both of those things are unconstitutional. I’ve done a decent amount of First Amendment litigation at this point, and I have to say it’s rare to see a case that’s so startlingly clear.”
Charges Withdrawn
A representative from Reading Police told The Epoch Times the department cannot comment on pending litigation. The Berks County District Attorney’s office withdrew the charges four days after the arrest citing insufficient evidence and prosecutorial discretion.
Mr. Moran did not respond to a request for comment, but he did release a comment after the event.
“First and foremost, I consider myself lucky to have been able to participate in the Reading Pride March and Rally. It truly was a wonderful event, and I look forward to continuing to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community throughout the month of June,” Mr. Moran’s statement said.
“With regard to the incident, the City respects the First Amendment rights of all individuals. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to disrupt an organized event and interfere with the rights of others.”
But court papers say at no point did Mr. Atkins engage in vulgar, obscene, or profane language, shout any insults, or hurl any object directed toward the flag-raising ceremony. In fact, the documents say, Mr. Atkins was deprived of any meaningful opportunity to participate in the demonstration.
“You have a lone dissenter, a lone voice speaking an unpopular message, and the police are arresting this person, and to the cheers of a crowd,” Mr. Ready said.
“That should disturb any American, that the police can come and say, because your message is unpopular, we’re going to—in front of a crowd—declare on behalf of the government of the city in which you live, that your words are not welcome here, that your particular viewpoint is wrong. And that is what I think is particularly chilling.”
**********************************************
When there is a Presumption of evil not innocence
Gross injustice in Australia
How can it be that a man of impeccable character in his late 70s is convicted of 28 nasty sexual and physical abuse offences between 1964 – 1973, simply on the say-so of half a dozen late middle-aged women who were juvenile delinquent inmates at an institution?
Because if you are named in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, you are guilty, right? The legal process is just a formality. From the start you are referred to as an abuser and the complainants as victims.
From being so named in the Royal Commission to being charged, tried and found guilty by a jury, the process is guilt by accusation. It replaces the presumption of innocence with the presumption of evil.
The law relating to sexual abuse allegations is now so deformed as to allow such miscarriages of justice to occur with ease. The innocent get shoved in with the guilty.
That is what happened to Noel Greenaway, now in his mid-80s, sentenced (in 2020) to 20 years in jail. Attracted by the promise to be believed, some unscrupulous women joined the thousands of genuine abuse victims to claim rewards (tangible or otherwise) on offer.
On 8 February 2018, Malcolm Turnbull made a short statement to Parliament about the Royal Commission’s work. ‘Reading some of the witness statements, it’s clear that being heard and being believed means so much to the survivors, so much more than many of us would imagine. Three words: “I believe you,” coming after years, often decades of authorities’ denial of responsibility.’
On 23 October 2018, Scott Morrison apologised to victims of child sexual abuse in a speech in Parliament. ‘I simply say, I believe you, we believe you, your country believes you,’ he said.
On 22 October 2020, Anthony Albanese echoed that sentiment in Parliament: ‘We will always hold in our hearts those who didn’t live to hear the words, ‘We hear you. We believe you.”’
Bill Shorten added his voice to the chorus of shame: ‘But know that today Australia says sorry. Australia says we believe you,’ he said.
The sentiment is right and commendable, but the application of it has led to other injustices.
Notorious Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s undoing as a serial abuser of women set off the rush to ‘believe all women’, with society licensing the courts to reverse the onus of proof from the accuser to the defender. But there was an important element in the Weinstein case that has been abandoned by the courts in recent years, notably in Noel’s case.
That was the testimony from supporting witnesses. The purpose of such witness testimony was ‘to show when the disclosure was made to someone, that a disclosure was made, and that it was made against the defendant,’ as the Weinstein prosecution argued. There was no such testimony in Noel Greenaway’s case. On the contrary, the claimants all said they never told anyone at the time in the 1960s, when they were youngsters, or since. Until the Royal Commission.
Greenaway’s life began to unravel on the eve of ructions that would catapult sexual abuse to the top of the world’s consciousness. What the Royal Commission started, the #MeToo movement turbocharged. Like a volcano building up its explosive load, the topic engulfed corporations as well as institutions and the Catholic church, until it blew its top in 2017, ejaculating Harvey Weinstein.
Under current rules in Australia, when it comes to sexual abuse, it is innocence that must be proved, not guilt. Innocent men have become collateral damage. Teen Vogue columnist and outspoken feminist Emily Lindin came under fire on social media in November 2017 after tweeting that she was ‘not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs’ over false allegations of sexual assault or harassment.
In his summing up to the jury, the judge at Greenaway’s trial explained: ‘The evidence comprises the answers that witnesses gave to questions asked of them. So the evidence then is the answers that the witness gives in the course of their evidence and the exhibits that you will have with you in the jury room. On that material, and on that material alone, you arrive at your verdicts.’
Greenaway writes from his prison cell, notepad on his knees: ‘The prosecution of individuals was also designed to appease those in the community who were naïve enough to believe the fabrications, lies and general criticism which was designed by ex-inmates and their supporters to name individuals out of revenge and to enhance their chances of claiming redress for concocted crimes committed against them.’
The Board of Inquiry into the Justice System in the ACT, chaired by Walter Sofronoff KC, was established in the wake of the abandoned prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann, accused of rape by Brittany Higgins. Chief Justice Lucy McCallum was critical of the intense media response and that much of the material had ‘obliterated the distinction between an allegation and guilt’. Police told the inquiry that they have been operating under ‘victim-centric’ guidelines for some time. Perhaps it’s time to amend those guidelines to urge investigations to be ‘evidence-centric’.
It was lack of evidence that has kept the fires of outrage burning against the conviction of then 56-year-old Sue Neill-Fraser, charged with the murder of her then 65-year-old partner Bob Chappell. She was arrested 14 years ago this August, sentenced to 23 years, and released on parole in October last year.
Long story short, their brand new yacht was found without Bob on board on the Derwent River in Hobart on Australia Day 2009. His body has never been found – yet at trial, the prosecutor speculated about what sort of injuries might have been found on him.
The prosecution could not establish a credible motive. The prosecution speculated how Bob might have been killed with a wrench. No wrench was produced in evidence. The prosecution could not place her on the yacht at the relevant time – because it had no evidence as to when Bob Chappell was murdered – or even if he was dead. The prosecution speculated how Neill-Fraser would have dragged the body up from down below deck (where she had left him at work before she went ashore for lunch with his sister), bundled him into the dinghy, and then dumped him in the water. Somewhere. On her own. The trial judge went along with the prosecution’s case. (He mentioned the imaginary wrench six times in his summing up to the jury.)
There was DNA found on the deck, traced to a then homeless 15-year-old girl. Clinging to the Crown’s case theory and fearing the DNA would upend its case, the prosecution dismissed the DNA as a red herring. They had their suspect. The only suspect.
She was characterised as cold and scheming because the prosecution case demanded it. But the prosecution’s presumption of evil doesn’t comfortably fit Neill-Fraser. Like Noel Greenaway, she has impeccable character references and lived an average, middle-class life free of blemish.
Lawyers have challenged the conviction – and the judges’ 2:1 decision to dismiss her appeal. A former Hobart prosecutor felt obliged to challenge his ‘legal family’ to correct ‘this injustice’. It hasn’t gone down well with his ‘legal family’.
A report co-authored by a lawyer and a barrister about the police investigation tabled in Parliament in 2021 reveals incompetence and withholding of evidence.
To add insult to injury, Tasmania’s Attorney-General has resisted many calls for a review of the case – preferably a Commission of Inquiry – making excuses that don’t hold water.
Greenaway and Neill-Fraser are but two sorry examples of a criminal justice system trampling the rule of law. There are plenty more. The criminal justice system spends little effort to repair the damage caused by wrongful convictions. In many cases, the appeal system actively hinders efforts to correct mistakes.
As someone once said, ‘Justice won’t be served until those not affected are as outraged as those who are.’
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/presumption-of-evil-displaces-presumption-of-innocence/
****************************************
18 July, 2023
Does cricket suffer from ‘institutional racism’?
Cricket has always had some moral claims so this is a potential real issue. Cricket was long regarded as a gentleman's game and the social instincts of the British upper class became the official and unofficial laws of cricket. Some things were simply "not done" and a man must never "go too far". It was a coherent ethical system but was vague at many points so could break down. Examples
1). "Bodyline bowling" by English sides designed to get ace Australian cricketer Donald Bradman out were widely deplored.
2). Underarm bowling by an Australian cricketer designed to confuse an opposing batsman at the last minute were raged against by many.
3). And Sri Lankan bowler Muralitharan's "action" was widely criticised as he did not always keep his arm exactly straight.
4). And dare I mention the recent controversy over an English batsman being dismissed when he left his crease prematurely?
So there are big social issues in cricket but the unfounded accusations mentioned below are not one of them. Underarm bowling is much more serious
What a strange document the Independent Commission on Equity in Cricket (ICEC) has produced, in its ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’ report. Rambling, explicitly political, antagonistic and poorly-argued, it ignores some obvious explanations for the ills it discusses, and fixates on irrelevancies. The authors situate their conclusions within the world of intersectionality and other well-worn academic buzzwords. This limits the usefulness of its conclusions because every problem is shoehorned into a particular framework, rather than being carefully considered on its own terms.
Take, for example, the identification of a severe decline in cricket participation by black Britons. ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’ ascribes this decline to various causes, but an obvious structural reason – namely, the changing composition of the black British population – is not even considered. Two or three decades ago most black Britons had Afro-Caribbean heritage. Nowadays black Britons increasingly have backgrounds in places like West Africa, where cricket is relatively unpopular compared to the West Indies – and even in the West Indies the popularity of cricket is not what it once was. This is not, of course, the whole story, but it is certainly a significant part.
This is not careful analysis but blunt ideological prescription
Similarly, the report totally ignores one of the most significant barriers to the popularity of cricket among young people of both sexes and all races: the disappearance of almost all live cricket from free-to-air television. I am only 40, and well into my adult life all home Test Matches were shown in full on terrestrial TV. If the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), who asked the ICEC to prepare this report, are really interested in sparking a love of cricket among children from diverse backgrounds, they could do a good deal worse than giving ball-by-ball broadcast rights back to the BBC or Channel 4.
The ICEC call for parity in remuneration for men’s and women’s cricket. Entirely absent from their deliberations, if we can call them that, is the simple recognition that women’s cricket is less popular – and hence less lucrative – than the men’s game. Stokes, Root and co. pack out stadiums, and people pay well into three figures for tickets to watch them play. The TV rights are worth a fortune. Now it might plausibly be argued that women’s cricket is only unpopular because of historic discrimination and the patriarchal history of the game. Even if that is true, the fact remains that the women’s cricket funding gap is to do with the laws of the market and is not simply the result of unfair discrimination or old-fashioned attitudes.
This naivete about commercial aspects is matched by a general refusal to be honest about the realistic constraints on participation in cricket. No doubt there is a good deal more that can be done to open up the game to those from less privileged backgrounds. But this is not easy. Cricket is a technically complex, expensive, time-consuming game to play and organise. That is no one’s fault. It is the nature of the beast. There are ways round these difficulties, but we are not going to find them by searching for people to blame, or by the invocation of trendy but vague spectres like ‘institutional racism’.
Overall there is a noticeable, and remarkable, strain of animosity running through much of the report. I have read a good many reports by various organisations, on all kinds of subjects. I cannot recall encountering one which singles out specific responses to a consultation for scolding, as ICEC have seen fit to do. That scolding is followed up with a passive-aggressive dig at anyone with reservations about the authors’ worldview, which reveals that they have no serious interest in any discussion which does not confirm their prior assumptions.
This animosity manifests in the report’s conjuring of a pantomime villain – the so-called Type K, a white straight ‘cisgender’ privately-educated able-bodied white male – but also in its frankly unpleasant elision of conservative preferences about the game with racial bigotry and animus. So people who don’t like, for example, Twenty20 or loud music at cricket grounds, and prefer ‘batsman’ to ‘batter’, are described as holding the game back, with a strong implication of nefarious motives.
Working through certain sections of ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’, one senses a deep antipathy to anything remotely redolent of Old Britain; anything which lies outside the ambit of the modern managerial state. The ultimate aim of the report, consciously or not, is to place the entire ecosystem of English cricket – from the village sides turning out three times a year for a beer match, through the clubs and schools and counties, right up to the Test team – under the direct control of political commissars. Every traditional institution must be brought to heel, to satisfy the complicated resentments of Britain’s new elites, and the mechanism for this process is the laundering of left-wing political conclusions via supposedly independent reports. If you doubt this, note the recommendation that the Spirit of Cricket section in the Laws be rewritten to directly embed the equality, diversity and inclusivity ideology.
This agenda is most obvious in the ICEC’s persistent hostility to two of the oldest sporting fixtures in Britain, the Eton v Harrow and Oxford v Cambridge matches, held at Lord’s every summer. ‘As a Commission’, they announce with comic grandiosity: ‘we are clear that the Historic Fixtures should end, whether or not there is room for them in the Lord’s fixture list.’ The authors barely bother to hide their indignation at the members of the Marylebone Cricket Club, which owns Lord’s, for daring to continue with the fixtures after the Committee attempted to end them.
It is worth dwelling on what exactly is being said here. ICEC’s position is not that the MCC should expand access to their facilities to non-Oxbridge universities or to schools other than Eton and Harrow. It is not that the so-called Historic Fixtures are taking up room in the schedule that could be used for more inclusive events. These are both defensible positions. Rather, their position is that the matches should be stopped outright regardless of any other consideration, i.e. that the MCC – a 236 year old voluntary association in a nominally free country – should be compelled to end a tradition which has endured for two centuries. We are not given any serious indication of how this would improve the inclusivity of cricket, for the simple reason that it wouldn’t, in the same way that the destruction of grammar schools did not improve standards in comprehensives. The game is well and truly given away by the report’s blunt statement that the Historic Fixtures ‘no longer have a place in contemporary Britain.’ This is not careful analysis but blunt ideological prescription.
Scepticism about these kind of reports is liable to be construed as indifference to real problems. That is certainly not my position. Obviously there are genuine serious barriers to participation in cricket for some minorities, alongside other structural issues – although it’s worth noting that ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’ builds a large superstructure of conclusion on a fairly flimsy foundation of self-reported and subjective experience, which the ICEC was unable and unwilling to subject to any kind of meaningful scrutiny or analysis.
But equally, we cannot simply roll over in the face of reports that draw tendentious and highly political conclusions based on faulty reasoning. If ICEC really claim to be holding up a mirror to English cricket, all I can say is that we are seeing through a glass, darkly.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/does-cricket-suffer-from-institutional-racism/
*************************************************
At War With the Middle Class
Inflation numbers are out. The costs of living are trending down, but that does not mean things are cheaper. It just means things are not getting more expensive as quickly as they were. The cost of living is still high, and rental and mortgage prices continue to rise. During these times, the Biden administration has found a new target for their ire: airplane bathrooms.
Over the past few years, morbidly obese and mentally ill TikTok “influencers” have raised a ruckus on airplanes because the aisles are not wide enough, the seats are not big enough and the bathrooms are not expansive enough for them. In the past few years, airlines have made bathrooms uncomfortably small. But they did so for a specific reason: They need more seats.
Every seat added to a plane is a reduction in price for travelers. In the ‘70s and early '80s, only the rich and business travelers could afford to fly. People dressed up. Meals were served. It was an experience, and one that cost a pretty penny. Today, thanks to former President Ronald Reagan’s deregulation plans, air travel has democratized. It is more cramped. It is more crowded. It has few amenities. But a family of four can now take a trip without taking out a second mortgage. The trade-offs have reduced ticket prices.
The Biden administration, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the frontwoman, want to mandate larger bathrooms for the small contingent of inconvenienced TikTok influencers of America. Doing so will price the middle class out of air travel. It is all part of the plan. The Biden administration and the Left, in general, are at war with the middle class.
If you want your child educated in much of America now, you must pay for private school or quit your job to home-school. At the government schools you are already paying for, the teachers unions, when not shutting them down, have filled elementary school libraries with gay pornography. Teachers are teaching gender unicorns. Gone are the ABCs and in are the LGBTQs. One plus one no longer equals two because that would be white supremacy, like proper grammar, the Founding Fathers and the United States generally. Washington politicians lament that our kids are not keeping up but are more insistent on them learning about gender transitions than sentence transitions.
At the grocery store, food costs are up. For years, the government has told us to shop the outer aisles with the least processed food, i.e., vegetables, fruit, meats and dairy. Now, the government wants to push you toward lab-grown chickens and synthetic-hemoglobin-filled plant-based “meat” — so long as you do not cook them on a gas stove.
Driving to work is more expensive. While energy prices are down year over year, they are still too high. The Biden administration intends to force everyone into electric cars by 2030. To do so, they are consciously making gas-powered cars more expensive and problematic. A large family is hard-pressed now to find a large car because the Left has advanced every incentive to keep a family small, including pricing large cars out of the market for most. A used car even costs too much now.
Like the costs of airplane tickets going up to expand bathrooms for the morbidly obese, the Biden administration plan for electric cars would force Americans to stay put. One cannot plan a week’s vacation across America when you have to add extra charging hours for the car.
Everything is more expensive by design. Everything else is more inconvenient by design. A dishwasher takes over two hours to wash the dishes. Appliances are more prone to failure. The power grid fails more often and does not even work when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. It is all the logical and intentional outcome of progressive policy at work.
By burdening your life, driving up your costs and inconveniencing your family, the Left, via the Biden administration, hopes you travel less, eat less and have fewer kids. The kids you have will be secretly transitioned and, they hope, sterilized, to produce fewer humans. The middle class will lose, but the Left will have saved Mother Earth.
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/98865-at-war-with-the-middle-class-2023-07-14
***************************************
The Labor Participation Rate Better Tells the Story About the U.S. Economy
Is the media trying to make President Joe Biden "look good" instead of reporting the news as news, along with analysis?
For example, are we being misled about the condition of our economy? Does anyone not understand the following: If you are not working, you are unemployed?
Biden's claim that the unemployment numbers are some of the best has been an enigma for me. The fact that the vast majority of Americans seem not to be "feeling" all this good news per the direction of the country in polling is not surprising, however.
The labor force participation rate indicates the percentage of all people of working age who are employed or are actively seeking work. In conjunction with the unemployment numbers, it can offer some perspective into the state of the economy. This is a standard definition of labor force participation used by experts.
The truth is we have altered what the truth is. Back in the 1950s, we had a labor force participation rate of over 85% for males. Today that figure has dropped to 62%. So much for the 3.6% unemployment rate reported this month.
The truth, but truly not the truth. And we are not including any of the remaining group - 38% of our eligible workforce population - when accounting for our unemployment rate (granted, retirees and disabled people are part of this number). But still, how does this make any sense?
It must be noted that labor participation rates for our weakest economic links - Black people and Hispanics - are even lower, with no genuine plans to lift them up.
Today public assistance costs $1.2 trillion annually. Medicaid, healthcare for the poor, is $750 billion of those dollars. This contributes to our $32 trillion national debt. Remarkably, the public assistance total is over $300 billion more than our national defense budget. This unsustainable debt, and the policies adding to it, are totally ignored by the media. And obviously, they are not even whispered by the folks in the Biden administration.
When asked, the administration usually gives its patented response: "The labor force participation rate was about that bad for other presidents of late, too (Trump)." OK. Maybe? But that does not make it any better.
To boast about the "low" unemployment rate today under Biden's watch disrespects tens of millions of Americans who we do not count in our evaluation of the unemployment rate. They do count, however, per the cost of public assistance.
The even bigger question is, why do we see such a dramatic change? And what can we do to reverse this trend?
Without more people working, it can be troublesome for society. The situation can also affect people's mental health. Are millions of Americans too discouraged from seeking employment? Does it have something to do with the increasing cases of mass shootings or our climbing crime rate? We simply do not know definitively.
I am also hoping that the media will not continue to influence the upcoming elections in other ways overly. Too frequently, they push false or misleading narratives to help Biden improve on his job approval numbers.
The liberal media talks incessantly about former President Donald Trump, giving him more "oxygen" than all the GOP candidates running for president combined. Then they falsely act surprised to see that Trump is the favorite for the GOP nomination. The liberal media realizes that Trump is Biden's best opponent - the only one Biden can beat.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are frozen in time with the oldest man ever to hold the presidency. The media repeats Biden's boasts, some at times amazing in their simplicity.
Point one - Biden's silence when Wagner mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin led his soldiers in a mutiny march against Moscow. The liberal media called Biden's silence "a brilliant tactical move." Yes, left-wing media voices were praising him for doing "nothing."
Point two - a Biden official remarked that "America had nothing to do with Prigozhin's march into Russia." Question: Who ever said we did? We cannot protect our drones from Russian fighter planes. And we do little to nothing when incidents do occur.
Point three - Biden has high-stakes meetings with NATO leaders.
If we cannot get along with the E.U. and NATO when a European country is fighting Russia, we will never be able to get along with Europe and NATO. This could not be easier.
On the other hand, thanks to the media, we are kept in the dark about the alleged contributions made by NATO and other European countries in helping Ukraine fight Russia compared to our massive contributions. As Ukraine's largest military supporter, we deserve to know.
In conclusion, we must not be misled or be allowed to believe things simply because the liberal media wants us to believe a certain narrative that would promote Biden. Facts. Just give us the facts.
Let us remember the basics: Working is "employment," not working is "unemployment." To leave out the indigent in calculating our unemployment rate does not seem appropriate.
We do not need the liberal media, which reports what the politicians are saying after they hear it from the economists, to tell us differently.
And, over a professional baseball career getting hits at a .380 pace would put you in the Hall of Fame. However, in our economy, 38% of folks are, for the most part, forgotten Americans, at least until it is time for public assistance.
******************************************************
The WaPo Explains ‘Book Banning’
The Washington Post recently published a diatribe against parents “banning” children’s books, particularly picture books.
Picture books are generally used as teaching tools in preschool and elementary school classrooms. We’re talking three-years-olds to 10-year-olds — the most vulnerable and impressionable period for children. Kids in this age range will generally believe anything you tell them.
The article goes on to lament the various reasons parents objected to these books for their children’s consumption. The top three reasons for book challenges were because the content was LGBTQ+, inappropriate, or anti-police.
Let’s unpack the flawed thinking behind this perspective of The Washington Post. Most importantly, there is a distinct difference in challenging books versus a book ban. Those challenged books can still be sold at any bookstore or borrowed from many libraries. The challenges are more focused on the wisdom of introducing topics and ideas to children at inappropriate ages in their schools — an arena where teachers and administrators choose the material. Granted, some books that have made their way onto classroom shelves are not appropriate for any age. However, calling these active and concerned parents “book banners” is a massive overstatement.
The WaPo author takes for granted that readers will immediately agree with her political leanings and is completely obtuse to parents’ legitimate concerns. It prompts one to ask: Why are leftists so eager to have books in the classroom that introduce ideas like LGBTQ+ lifestyles, critical race theory, or gender theory? Because planting ideas into young children’s heads is a way of brainwashing them into an ideology. Radical gender ideology (which includes transgender ideology) and critical race theory, in particular, promote a Marxist worldview whose ultimate goal is to destroy the family. This is grooming of an underlying political ideology.
There is also an element of actual sexual grooming mixed in, particularly with the LGBTQ+ stories. Gender Queer illustrates a sexual act and Lawn Boy describes a sexual act between a man and a child. Introducing children to sex and sexuality is actually grooming in the predatory sense. Learning about these sexual concepts and their deviations too early warps children’s brains and makes them more vulnerable to predators and risky behavior.
Also, not all behaviors are morally equivalent. There is a significant moral and cultural difference between books that portray a mother, father, and children (the nuclear family) versus any other kind of family. The nuclear family is the norm and is also the one most likely to foster human flourishing.
Finally, the WaPo article implies throughout that a one-party, “certain type” of parent flags and reports these books. This is incredibly disingenuous. There are plenty of parents on both sides of the aisle who are against the political and sometimes sexual grooming that these books are promoting. Just look at Virginia, for crying out loud. It was precisely critical race theory and gender ideology that flipped the Commonwealth blue and won Republican Glenn Youngkin the gubernatorial race.
A more recent example came from Georgia, where State Representative Mesha Mainor declared that she was switching parties from Democrat to Republican. In a social media post, Mainor wrote: “I represent a blue district in the city of Atlanta so this wasn’t a political decision for me. It was a MORAL one.” In an interview, Mainor went on to explain: “For far too long, the Democrat Party has gotten away with using and abusing the black community. For decades, the Democrat Party has received the support of more than 90% of the black community. And what do we have to show for it?”
The Left understands that if it can control the books, it can control the minds of the next generation. Leftists have already shown they are willing to change the meaning of words to fit their own ends (see racism and femininity). When we can’t even agree on a common language and words, how can we have a functioning society? Answer: We can’t. And perhaps that is the ultimate goal.
For leftists, clinging to the “book ban” lies in order to undermine parents is one of the last tools they can wield to break down the family. Their stake in this game is power, but for these parents it is the hearts, minds, and innocence of their children.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/98836-the-wapo-explains-book-banning-2023-07-14
****************************************
17 July, 2023
MSNBC roasted for article linking physical fitness to white supremacy
There is a brilliant specimen of dishonest Leftist argumentation below. What the author says is broadly true: The Nazis did stress physical fitness -- but but that does not show that ALL devotees of physical fitness are Nazis. "Some" does not equal "all".
In the paranoid fantasy world inhabited by leftists, there are few things that aren’t viewed as being impacted by the phantom threat of white supremacy and MSNBC invited an onslaught of ridicule upon itself for tweeting out an article sounding the alarm that staying in shape could be a sign a person might be a neo-Nazi.
On Monday, the leftist cable network posted a link to an article that was originally written last year by Cynthia Miller-Idriss who is proclaimed to be an “expert on extremism” in which she claimed “white supremacists’ latest scheme to valorize violence and hypermasculinity has gone digital” and that the far-right is exploiting physical fitness as a means to lure new recruits.
“The intersection of extremism and fitness leans into a shared obsession with the male body, training, masculinity, testosterone, strength and competition,” the article states.
In the article, which appeals to both the physical and mental slothfulness of MSNBC’s audience, the author sets the tone by invoking a familiar figure who is often used by intellectually lazy leftists to smear people with whom they disagree.
According to Miller-Idriss, “Physical fitness has always been central to the far right. In ‘Mein Kampf,’ Hitler fixated on boxing and jujitsu, believing they could help him create an army of millions whose aggressive spirit and impeccably trained bodies, combined with ‘fanatical love of the fatherland,’ would do more for the German nation than any ‘mediocre’ tactical weapons training.”
“With recruitment now moving from physical gyms to chat rooms, livestreamed fights, tournaments, festivals, and even combat sports video games, we’re seeing extremist fighting culture being combined with an entertainment culture that already valorizes violence and hypermasculinity,” she wrote.
The network’s tweeting out of the article and its ridiculous assertion was rightfully roasted by Twitter users with some big names weighing in.
“MSNBC thinks you’re a nazi if you work out lmaooo,” tweeted Tesla/SpaceX CEO and “Chief Twit” Elon Musk.
******************************************************
One Bubble Is About to Pop...and No One Is Talking About It
The collapse in commercial real estate values will hurt everyone
The Biden administration, the media, Democrats, and Republicans are all either willfully ignorant or blithely unaware of the looming economic crisis that's about to hit. Inflation is part of the problem, but we're going beyond job creation reports and the fallout from Silicon Valley Bank. It's a crisis that could cause all the dominoes to fall, and it doesn't help that we have a president who gets outright exhausted after a few days of work. A looming real estate crisis threatens to nuke the whole system. The bleeding has already begun, and it could take decades for some "superstar cities" to recover, while some will tragically remain lost in the wilderness.
Office space and commercial real estate have become the Achilles heel of the economy, made even more vulnerable thanks to the COVID pandemic. Working from home exposed some companies to the benefits of not having an office, leading to cost-saving decisions to cut overhead costs. J.P. Morgan thought its office culture would return to normal once the COVID Nazis allowed us to go outside. Instead, he's cutting his New York footprint.
In June, Dror Poleg had a lengthy piece in The Atlantic that gave an apocalyptic economic projection, breaking down this pending crisis where banks and cities are about to endure a brutal blow to their balance sheets. With interest rates rising, landlords big and small are looking to turn their keys over to the bank in strategic foreclosure. Poleg, a financial investor and author who concentrates on technology's impact on urban economies, even quotes John Maynard Keynes regarding this trend: if you owe the bank $1,000, you're at their mercy, but if you owe them $1 million, the roles are reversed.
You see that in San Francisco, where downtown property values have plummeted by hundreds of millions of dollars. The owners of the Westfield San Francisco Centre shopping center gave their vote of confidence regarding a potential Bay Area comeback: they left. Seeing a $558 million mortgage on their books, they opted to give up the property to the bank. And they're not the only ones; there's a retail exodus occurring in the city.
Inflation and interest rates devalue these assets, impacting the banks and those who have invested portions of their portfolios in commercial real estate. Some pension funds have invested in these so-called "alternative investment" opportunities within real estate and private equity. The loans will be called in, and the pain will be indescribable.
More people working from home and cutting into public transit revenue, coupled with a less than rapid return in the retail sector, have contributed to less cash flowing into the coffers of urban America. Suppose you've ever watched the movie "The Irishman." In that case, there's a quote from Christopher Walken, who played real-life mobster and loan shark Shondor Birns, which feels appropriate given urban America's decreasing revenues and debt payments: "There's going to be interest on the money."
Poleg gives a detailed breakdown of how everything is interconnected and what it could take to reverse course. It will take years of government spending and a bailout to ensure everything doesn't go to hell. He also adds that the 1990s internet craze provided the theory that superstar cities would create a perpetual revenue base since the best and brightest in the fields of innovation would concentrate in these areas, despite the flow of goods being more efficient than ever. The problem, as he saw it, was that once online innovation became established, you could be productive anywhere, and people didn't need to move to cities as long as there was internet access (via The Atlantic/MSN):
During the first three months of 2023, U.S. office vacancy topped 20 percent for the first time in decades. In San Francisco, Dallas, and Houston, vacancy rates are as high as 25 percent. These figures understate the severity of the crisis because they only cover spaces that are no longer leased. Most office leases were signed before the pandemic and have yet to come up for renewal. Actual office use points to a further decrease in demand. Attendance in the 10 largest business districts is still below 50 percent of its pre-COVID level, as white-collar employees spend an estimated 28 percent of their workdays at home.
With a third of all office leases expiring by 2026, we can expect higher vacancies, significantly lower rents, or both. And while we wrestle with the effects of distributed work, artificial intelligence could drive office demand even lower. Some pundits point out that the most expensive offices are still doing okay and that others could be saved by introducing new amenities and services. But landlords can’t very well lease all empty retail stores to Louis Vuitton and Apple. There’s simply not enough demand for such space, and new features make buildings even more expensive to build and operate.
With such grim prospects, some landlords are threatening to “give the keys back to the bank.” Over the past few months, the property giants RXR, Columbia Property Trust, Brookfield Asset Management, and others have collectively defaulted on billions in commercial-property loans. Such defaults are partly an indication of real struggles and partly a game of chicken. Most commercial loans were issued before the pandemic, when offices were full and interest rates were low.
[…]
Banks have many reasons to worry. Rising interest rates have devalued other assets on their balance sheets, especially government bonds, leaving them vulnerable to bank runs. In recent months, Silicon Valley Bank, First Republic, and Signature all collapsed. Regional institutions like these account for nearly 70 percent of all commercial-property bank loans. Pushing down the valuation of office buildings or taking possession of foreclosed properties would further weaken their balance sheets.
Municipal governments have even more to worry about. Property taxes underpin city budgets. In New York City, such taxes generate approximately 40 percent of revenue. Commercial property—mostly offices—contributes about 40 percent of these taxes, or 16 percent of the city’s total tax revenue. In San Francisco, property taxes contribute a lower share, but offices and retail appear to be in an even worse state.
Empty offices also contribute to lower retail sales and public-transport usage. In New York City, weekday subway trips are 65 percent of their 2019 level—though they’re trending up—and public-transport revenue has declined by $2.4 billion. Meanwhile, more than 40,000 retail-sector jobs lost since 2019 have yet to return. A recent study by an NYU professor named Arpit Gupta and others estimate a 6.5 percent “fiscal hole” in the city’s budget due to declining office and retail valuations. Such a hole “would need to be plugged by raising tax rates or cutting government spending.”
Many cities face a difficult choice. If they cut certain services, they could become less attractive and trigger a possible “urban doom loop” that pushes even more people away, hurts revenue, and perpetuates a cycle of decline. If they raise taxes, they could alienate wealthy residents, who are now more mobile than ever. Residents making $200,000 or more contributed 71 percent of New York State’s income taxes in 2019. Losing wealthy residents to low-tax states such as Florida and Texas is already taking a toll on New York and California. The income-tax base of both states has shrunk by tens of billions since the pandemic began.
Finally, turmoil in office markets threatens retirement systems and the portfolios of individual people. Public and private pension funds have traditionally kept their assets in stocks, bonds, and cash. However, in recent decades, they have shifted toward so-called alternative investments, including commercial real estate and private equity. These investments now comprise a third of their portfolios, with real estate comprising more than half of these assets for many pension funds.
[…]
Cities will have to survive and adapt. In a world of consumer choice, locations must think like consumer products. One way to win is to double down on what only the biggest cities can offer—walkable streets, car-free transportation, and cultural and intellectual diversity. But smaller cities can emphasize shorter commutes, ample parking, proximity to nature, better schools, and lower taxes.
[…]
Cities can also lean into public-private partnerships. Such partnerships bring public and private resources together to finance, build, and maintain public facilities and spaces. In the late 20th century, such partnerships in New York City helped rejuvenate Times Square, revive Bryant Park, build the High Line and Brooklyn Bridge Park, and fund the New York Public Library. When executed properly, public-private partnerships can inject billions into urban development without sacrificing the broader public interest.
Realistically, though, whatever resources cities can muster won’t be enough. The federal government will have to provide significant, ongoing assistance.
Poleg adds that not every city can be saved (Pittsburgh has never recovered from the shifts in the economic climate) and warned that while New Yorkers are used to seeing a comeback, that could take decades, given the current economic climate. How revenue is shared among states, cities, and counties is also a subject for revision since his article cites how urban areas often don't receive enough cash from city workers who pay the lion's share of their taxes elsewhere.
On top of this incoming disaster, we have one of the largest labor union strikes on the horizon this summer as the Teamsters quietly prepare for war with UPS as their contract expires. There was hope that a crisis could be averted with concessions like air-conditioned delivery trucks, but things have broken down. If a strike happens, 350,000 Teamster members, who work as drivers for UPS, will walk out on the job.
The economy is hanging on by a thread, but no one will tell you.
*************************************************
How False History Is Used to Justify Discrimination Against Asian Americans
The Leftist lies never stop
On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) in a landmark decision that overturned explicit race-based affirmative action in America. The decision was a major victory for Asian Americans—whom Harvard had routinely and openly discriminated against. To impose quotas on the school’s racial makeup, Harvard had systematically given Asian Americans lower “personality” scores on applications, the suit alleged, drawing from stereotypes of robotic and inscrutable foreigners from the Orient. It was the same tactic Harvard had used a century ago to systematically discriminate against Jews.
In the aftermath of the ruling, rather than celebrating the victory against racial discrimination, a number of prominent media figures advanced a narrative blaming Asian Americans for betraying other racial minorities. The narrative went as follows: Black Americans and their work leading the Civil Rights Movement are the reason you Asians are in America in the first place—how dare you now sell out the very people you should be thanking for bringing you here.
Jemele Hill, a columnist for The Atlantic, tweeted that an Asian American mother celebrating the court’s decision “carried the water for white supremacy and stabbed the folks in the back whose people fought diligently for Asian American rights in America.” Former CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien quoted the same tweet, saying that the mother was “screwing over other people of color … Particularly those whose efforts in civil rights paved the way for your family to come to America.” And activist-attorney and House candidate Qasim Rashid claimed that “Asians were only able to immigrate to the United States b/c Black civil rights leaders passed immigration reform.”
This trope about Asian American debts did not emerge spontaneously in the last few weeks. It was seeded into the public discourse by the most influential project of historical reframing in recent American history: the activist-journalism of The New York Times’ “1619 Project.” In her opening essay for the 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones asserts that “Because of black Americans, black and brown immigrants from across the globe are able to come to the United States and live in a country in which legal discrimination is no longer allowed. It is a truly American irony that some Asian-Americans, among the groups able to immigrate to the United States because of the black civil rights struggle, are now suing universities to end programs designed to help the descendants of the enslaved.”
Now taught across the country in public school curriculums, the claims of the 1619 Project have become official history. The purpose of Hannah-Jones’ narrative was to guilt-trip Asians into supporting affirmative action by drawing a direct line from the Black-led Civil Rights Movement to the sweeping immigration reforms that allowed Asians to emigrate to America.
Except that this narrative is utterly false. On the contrary, many Black Americans were understandably anti-immigration. In the early 20th century, Black workers in the then-nascent labor movement worried that immigrants—Europeans, West Indians, and Asians alike—would take away their jobs. A. Philip Randolph, the leader of the first successful Black labor union in America and a key organizer of the Civil Rights Movement’s 1963 March on Washington, maintained a hardline restrictionist stance on immigration. Randolph declared that “It is time to call a halt on this grand rush for American gold, which over-floods the labor market, resulting in lowering the standard of living, race-riots, and general social degradation. The excessive immigration is against the interests of the masses of all races and nationalities in the country—both foreign and native.”
Randolph had the support of fellow restrictionist W.E.B. Du Bois, whose book The Souls of Black Folk originally made negative remarks about Jews before the 50th-anniversary edition swapped out the word “Jews” for “immigrants.” For example, the original 1903 version claims that “only a Yankee or a Jew could squeeze more blood from debt-cursed tenants,” while versions from 1953 onward state that “only a Yankee or an immigrant could squeeze more blood from debt-cursed tenants.” A reference to “shrewd and unscrupulous Jews” was changed to “shrewd and unscrupulous immigrants.”
And while history textbooks often present Booker T. Washington as a foil to Du Bois, Washington was also a restrictionist. In his famous “Atlanta Compromise” speech, Washington sent a stern message to industrialists that employed immigrants instead of Black workers: “To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted I would repeat what I say to my own race—cast down your bucket where you are. Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.”
Some Black restrictionists indulged in explicit racial stereotyping, claiming that Japanese workers were unfit to work on American railroads because they were “too short to make down the upper birth [sic] without a ladder.” There is indeed a long history of Black nativism in America, from Reconstruction era antipathy toward Chinese railroad workers to the modern-day Twitter activism of the American Descendants of Slavery movement. It is not a uniquely racial story—other native working-class groups in America advocated against immigration for similar reasons—but it gives the lie to the claims now being used to morally blackmail Asian Americans.
A number of prominent media figures advanced a narrative blaming Asian Americans for betraying other racial minorities.
The myth that the Civil Rights Movement led to immigration reform comes from the false conflation of two separate bills signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Because the two bills were signed by the same president a year apart, it is easy to make the assumption that the passage of the first led to the smooth sailing of the second. Yet the two bills ran parallel when it came to their core advocacy groups. The Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, was the culmination of decades of advocacy by pro-immigration groups—mostly made up of Jewish, Irish, and Japanese activists—and most of all by one of its namesakes, Rep. Emanuel Celler.
Emanuel “Mannie” Celler was the Brooklyn-born grandson of German Jewish immigrants, and he took great pride in his family’s immigrant history. He loved telling a story about how his mother’s parents met in New York Harbor when the ship carrying them from Germany began to sink, throwing his grandmother into the water before his grandfather jumped in and rescued her, sparking a new romance in the New World. Mannie graduated from Columbia Law School before going into politics, and immediately made waves in 1922 when he ran for a House seat as a Democrat and managed to win his Republican-majority congressional district by appealing to hard-drinking immigrant voters fed up with Prohibition laws.
In Congress, Mannie quickly developed a reputation for his unapologetic pro-immigration advocacy. Anti-immigrant sentiment had surged in the wake of World War I’s carnage and the nationalist fervor that followed. In addition, the ethnic and religious composition of newer immigrants alarmed the WASP establishment, who decided after decades of heavy immigration to shut American borders. Celler gave his first big speech on the House floor passionately arguing against the passage of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, a law that set severe quotas on Southern and Eastern Europeans and completely banned Asians from immigrating. In the years after the passage of Johnson-Reed, immigration ground to a halt—but Celler refused to accept that Johnson-Reed was the end of the American immigration experiment, and spent the next four decades of his life working toward overturning the act.
One especially urgent issue, for Mannie, was the persecution of German Jews by the Nazi government. While the American public murmured about the rumors coming out of Germany, public sentiment was stubbornly anti-immigration. Another member of a religious minority in America, Catholic priest Charles Coughlin, regularly broadcast fiery polemics against Jews on radios all across America.
In 1938, Celler introduced a bill that would allow the president to lift the quotas for victims of religious and political persecution. The bill was unpopular even among fellow Jewish leaders who already had to contend with antisemitic conspiracy theories, and saw the bad optics of a Jew proposing a bill that everyone knew was designed to let more Jews in. But Mannie didn’t care about optics—he wanted to save lives, and refused to back down.
As the news trickling out of Nazi Germany grew increasingly alarming, Congress refused to budge on the quotas. It took six grueling years of lobbying from Jewish lawmakers for FDR to establish the War Refugee Board (WRB), an agency that saved tens of thousands of Jews—but not before millions perished in the Holocaust. As WRB director John W. Pehle would later lament, the group’s work was “too little, too late.”
If being against affirmative action means carrying water for white people, then being for it just means carrying water for Black people. The Asian coolie forced to carry both buckets becomes strained under the yoke.
None of these setbacks was able to stop Celler’s zeal for immigration reform, for which he developed an incrementalist strategy to slowly chip away at the quotas. In 1946, Mannie managed to get the Luce-Celler Act passed, allowing a small number of Filipinos and Indians to migrate to America per annum and opening up a pathway to citizenship for them for the first time. The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 chipped away even further, allowing 100,000 refugees to settle, although antisemites in Congress only voted for the bill after it was revised to limit Jews.
Celler became the chair of the House Judiciary Committee shortly afterward, and he used his expanded powers to push for the eventual dismantlement of the quota system. In 1950, Mannie managed to get Congress to amend the Displaced Persons Act to allow over 400,000 more refugees in, about a fifth of which were Jews. And over in the Senate, fellow German Jew Herbert Lehman also worked tirelessly to dismantle the quotas, even while the Red Scare propagated nativist sentiment by associating immigrants with communism.
In 1952, historian Oscar Handlin (who was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants) published the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations That Made the American People. Written in a lyrical fashion rather than the standard droll academic cadence, the book almost single-handedly popularized the notion that America is a nation of immigrants. As Handlin wrote in his opening one-two punch of sentences, “Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.”
**************************************************
Transgender Train Derails in Sixth Circuit
Republican legislatures in 20 states have banned the use of irreversible gender-changing procedures on children, overcoming the governor’s veto in five of those states with a sixth override likely. But in six of the 20 states, liberal federal judges blocked these good laws in response to lawsuits by liberal groups including the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center.
Now comes the first appellate decision, and it’s welcome news. On July 8, two of the finest appellate judges in the country, Jeffrey Sutton and the Trump-appointed Amul Thapar, delivered a setback to the transgender agenda by ruling to reinstate Tennessee’s new law against transgender operations on minor children.
The margin was 2-1 on the Sixth Circuit appellate court, with a Democrat-aligned judge dissenting. Appeals are still pending of bad district court decisions in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky, where beneficial state laws were blocked by federal judges.
Other states have refused to protect children from transgender operations, and this cultural battle is far from over. Other states have refused to protect children from transgender operations, and this cultural battle is far from over. In California, a recall campaign rages against a few conservatives who were elected last year to a school board near Los Angeles.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, considered the foremost health authority in our country until it mishandled the Covid pandemic, has come out entirely on the side of the transgender agenda. Recently the CDC’s website endorsed the ludicrous idea of “chestfeeding,” whereby transgender persons without breasts attempt to fake the production of breast milk with the use of dangerous drugs.
Politics is downwind from culture, and this past weekend the Netherlands crowned as the winner of its Miss Universe pageant a man competing as a trans woman. Sporting an elegant hairdo, this winning candidate had previously competed on the television show “Holland’s Next Top Model.”
The University of Cincinnati, ironically located in the same city where the Sixth Circuit presides, rescinded its reprimand of a teacher for flunking a student for using the term “biological woman.” Megan Rapinoe, the outspoken retiring player on the U.S. women’s soccer team, indicated she would welcome male-bodied trans women into that sport, even though her own women’s team was easily defeated by an under-15-years-old boys team.
The media and many judges are firmly on the side of the transgender movement, and they expect to win. A Clinton-appointed judge just ordered a public school to let a boy who identifies as a girl to use the girls’ bathroom, overriding a policy adopted by the elected school board in the town of Mukwonago, Wisconsin.
Law schools have fully embraced transgender follies, and unfortunately many courts will do likewise. The Supreme Court hires all of its law clerks from a handful of elite law schools, and those clerks perform the influential task of screening and describing cases before the Court either agrees to hear them or simply denies “cert” on a lower court decision.
The Supreme Court denied a recent application by West Virginia to reinstate its sensible law keeping boys out of girls sports, ducking this raging controversy just as the Court dodged all appeals about election fraud. For decades the Supreme Court accepted abortion cases only when the appeal was by the Left, and it will be interesting if Leftists appeal Judge Sutton’s decision against them.
Two years ago, Harvard Law School welcomed its “first transgender women of color” as teachers at the school. They joined two transgender men on the faculty, one of whom maintains a personal website that brags about “working with sex worker art collective that protested digital gentrification.”
Judge Sutton’s ruling is persuasive, and carries added weight due to his strong reputation as a “feeder” of clerks to the Supreme Court. Judge Sutton is notorious in some quarters for ruling against legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the case that was later overturned by the now-retired, left-leaning Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Tennessee’s new law, which was scheduled to go into effect on July 1st, prohibits “surgically removing, modifying, altering, or entering into tissues, cavities, or organs” of any person under the age of 18. It also bans “prescribing, administering, or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone” to minor children.
“The State plainly has authority, in truth a responsibility, to look after the health and safety of its children,” Judge Sutton wrote with the concurrence of Judge Thapar. “Tennessee could rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children,” they added.
The court found it unlikely that the Supreme Court would create a new constitutional right to transgender operations, when no such right has existed in the Constitution for 235 years. “Life-tenured federal judges should be wary of removing a vexing and novel topic of medical debate from the ebbs and flows of democracy,” the Sixth Circuit majority concluded as they reinstated the Tennessee law.
****************************************
16 July, 2023
Is the Northern English city of York racist? A "report" says it is
As Paul says in Titus 1:15:
"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."
The condemnation of York is readily understood as the product of defiled minds -- minds that WANT to find racism under every bed
A small historical note: The report says:
"there were high status and wealthy people in York from all over the Roman Empire, including North Africa"
That happens to be true. But note that both in ancient times and to this day, the indigenous North African population is WHITE. The Roman empire did not extend into Sub-Saharan Africa, the home of blacks
Families are spread out on the grass beneath one of our greatest cathedrals. In the meandering lanes and alleyways hereabouts, crowds drift happily past handsome shop fronts selling everything from expensive watches to fudge.
The Sunday market is teeming, the adjacent food market is packed and there is plenty of boat traffic on the grand old River Ouse.
Farther out from the city centre, it's like a Sunday afternoon in suburbs all over the country. Some people are mowing the lawn. Some are in the pub following the fortunes of English cricket up the road at Headingley.
It is hard to acknowledge that behind this veneer of balmy weekend contentment in the capital of 'God's own country', I am looking at a city mired in bigotry and xenophobia.
That, however, is the conclusion of a hefty report by something calling itself Inclusive Equal Rights UK (IERUK), which has just come to a pretty damning conclusion: 'Racism in York is casual, systemic, and structural.'
Citing multiple disparities in everything from education to employment and policing, with anecdotal evidence, this alarming document, funded by the Labour-run city council, paints a picture of a place closer to Alabama circa 1955 than 21st-century Yorkshire.
The council clearly agrees, since it has just given the authors £25,000 to pursue their findings as part of a five-year strategy to make York an 'Anti-Racist City'.
The evidence, we are told, is beyond reproach. 'The five-year anti-racism strategy, actions and recommendations are entirely based on data and research collected, collated and analysed,' says IERUK, which claims to have undertaken a 'deep dive' into all official statistics before drawing its very grave conclusions. 'The evidence clearly shows the imbalances, injustice, and violence towards many minority communities in the city.
'It is now time to acknowledge that systemic racism and prejudice are prevalent in the City of York.'
But before we invite the commissars to erect the 'cancel' signs around this ancient city of Romans, Vikings, medieval architecture, Quakers, chocolate, railways and horse-racing, it seems only proper to take a closer look.
And two things stand out right away. First, this is not a York which chimes with any of the people whom I have been talking to this weekend (including members of these allegedly persecuted minorities).
Second, you need only undertake your own 'deep dive' to see that this data is extremely selective and in, some cases, even flawed.
Nor, despite its grand name, is IERUK any sort of national organisation. It is a York-based grass roots campaign focused exclusively on local minorities and is not comprehensive. Its website acknowledges it has yet to recruit anyone from either the Jewish or Chinese communities.
And there are plenty of people here who think its conclusions, however well-intentioned, are plain wrong.
'People are nice round here. It's a happy place — no racism. I'd say 99 per cent are good people,' says Zahaad Latif, 25, who has been helping out on the family's gift and electricals stall here in the market for the past 15 years.
His family moved to Yorkshire from Pakistan and have had no regrets. 'You sometimes hear bad things about what goes on in London, but that's why people move up here.'
Stallholder Angie Gannon, who sells pretty, handmade cards, has been trading here for more than 30 years. She hadn't heard about the report until I mention it. She looks it up online and is appalled.
'This is all wrong. This is a cosmopolitan city — a vibrant city with lots of foreign students, too, but it's not racist,' she says firmly, pointing up the road in the direction of York Minster.
Was that not the former seat of the Church of England's first black archbishop, John Sentamu? He served as Archbishop of York from 2005 to 2020. 'We all loved him round here,' says Angie.
She would much rather the council spent the £25,000 on more communal seating in the city centre and restoring the fountain which used to stand near her stall.
Yana Gausden, originally from Thailand, has plenty of customers at her NaNa Noodles bar, but pauses to chat. Has she ever been a victim of racism — casual, structural, systemic or otherwise?
'No!' she says firmly. 'People are not racist here.'
Time and again, people tell me that York may not be perfect — because nowhere is — but it is generally a cohesive, happy place, no different from most other places......
Perhaps the most intriguing claim in the report is that this was once a predominantly black city. 'York has had a minority ethnic population since Roman times,' it states. 'For instance, black slaves were buried in the city in around 200 AD, while other remains suggest there were high status and wealthy people in York from all over the Roman Empire, including North Africa.
'It has been suggested by one historian that at around that time, the population of York, largely a military garrison town, was predominantly black.' Sadly, the academic source notes do not offer any further guidance on this.
What is also striking is an apparent official reluctance to question or even discuss any of this.
When contacted yesterday, neither the Labour MP for York Central, the Tory MP for Outer York, nor York City Council were available for comment.
If it is only the ordinary voters of York who are happy to offer a response, so be it. And I fail to find a single one who concurs.
'That's not the city I grew up in,' says Johnny Shaw, 27, who is running a stall selling candles made in York. 'It's always been an inclusive place, like most places — or so I've always thought.'
*********************************************************
A new generation of women is saying no to the stressful career ladder
The Girlboss is dead, and the Lazy Girl has risen from her ashes.
Since the pandemic, an anti-work sentiment has been building among young people: from the mass exodus of workers during the Great Resignation of 2021 to the recent “quiet quitting” movement, which encouraged workers to silently withdraw their time and commitment from their workplace.
#Lazygirljob is the latest incarnation to take root on TikTok. In brief, young people, mostly women, are rejecting the hustle culture of our millennial forebears in favour of undemanding, decently paid middle-management jobs where the breaks are long, and the stakes are non-existent.
The hashtag has more than 14 million views and is littered with videos of proud lazy girls detailing how easy their working lives are. One video is captioned, “All I do is copy and paste the same emails, take 3-4 calls a day, take my extra-long break, take more breaks, AND get a nice salary”. Another video reads: “I love my lazy girl job. I don’t have to talk to people, only come to the office twice a week.”
It’s not a phenomenon that exists solely online. A proudly lazy friend recently extolled the virtues of her “mouse jiggler” – a device she ordered from Amazon that keeps her cursor active while she “works remotely” – ie, re-watches episodes of Nashville.
To borrow a TikTok buzz phrase, Gen Z “don’t dream of labour”, and the stats back it up. A survey from Workspace Technology found that just 49 per cent of Gen Z say work is central to their identity, compared with 62 per cent of millennials.
The same study found that almost half (47 per cent) of Gen Z said that if their employer didn’t provide hybrid or remote options, they would look for jobs elsewhere. Angelica Hunt, senior marketing lead at the diversity, equity, and inclusion firm The Dream Collective, says that the #lazygirljob movement is born out of an ever-growing misalignment between companies and workers.
“Companies simply aren’t walking the walk regarding inclusion. Flexibility and hybrid working options are being reduced by companies mandating returning to the office and, in some cases, reverting to pre-Covid inflexibility,” she says.
Hunt believes that as Gen Z changes jobs at a higher rate than any other generation, they have realised that the issue exists wherever they go and are taking matters into their own hands in designing a working life that works for them.
“They want a work/life blend where they feel their work is in synergy with their lives, not in conflict with it,” she says.
“They’ve learned from their parents’ generation that pouring your whole life into work at the expense of all else may not be paying off as much as they once thought.”
In his widely circulated 2013 essay, On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, anthropologist David Graeber argued that carrying out these so-called bullshit jobs will eventually gnaw away at one’s psyche.
“How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist?” he wrote.
Dr Anna Denejkina, the research director for YouthInsight, the research arm of Student Edge, argues that it is the perception of one’s work being considered useless that may be the core issue, rather than the work itself.
“We need to consider what can be done to change the social environment that produces these viewpoints and perceptions in the first place,” she says.
She says work that is stress-free or less demanding is not necessarily menial and won’t lead to feelings of the job being useless.
Hustle culture, she adds, “can breed the idea that individual success comes from your success at work, and this can be dangerous as it can conflate work success with life happiness”.
On a macro level, Denejkina says this disillusionment with the grind is a reaction to the decline in “absolute mobility” we’ve seen since the 80s, compounded with economic failings, out-of-reach housing, and the cost-of-living pressure. “With the large number of life stressors already impacting young people today, it’s expected that many are prioritising their wellbeing and looking for work that is stress-free or less demanding.”
If pop culture is a bellwether of the times, consider the media diet of millennial women: Ugly Betty, The Devil Wears Prada, Legally Blonde – all stories about women with capitalist ambition and talent. For Gen Z, that kind of neoliberal, aspirational girlboss figure is cringe; instead, we’ve found messy, barely-employed heroes in Fleabag and Lena Dunham’s Girls.
One need only look to the undisputed “It” girl book of the past five years: Ottessa Moshfeg’s My Year of Rest and Relaxation, in which the unnamed protagonist checks out of the hustling New York art scene to devote an entire year to slumbering in her Upper East Side apartment. While spending months in a drug-induced hibernation sounds divine, for most of us that’s out of reach. We’ll have to make do with the rewarding work involved in firing off a few emails before an extended lunch break.
********************************************************
Cycling Authority Reverses Course: Bars Trans Athletes from Women's Cycling Events
The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the global governing body for sports cycling, announced a significant policy change on Friday, resulting in transgender athletes being banned from participating in all international women’s events.
This development arrives over two months following UCI’s defense of its policy regarding the inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s sports. According to the revised guidelines, trans cyclists who “transitioned after (male) puberty” will henceforth be disqualified from competing in women’s events.
This decision was solidified at a UCI Management Committee meeting, which followed a seminar addressing the conditions for the participation of transgender athletes in women’s cycling events. This seminar, conducted by the UCI on June 21, included “various stakeholders — transgender and cisgender athletes, experts from the scientific, legal and human rights fields, and sporting institutions — were able to present their respective positions,” the statement read.
“From now on, female transgender athletes who have transitioned after (male) puberty will be prohibited from participating in women’s events on the UCI International Calendar — in all categories — in the various disciplines,” the statement read.
The assembly comprised both transgender and cisgender athletes, as well as experts from scientific, legal, and human rights fields, and representatives from sporting institutions.
The committee resolved that given the current “state of scientific knowledge”, it cannot be assured that any physical advantage a trans athlete may have would be negated post hormone therapy treatments.
“In this context, the UCI Management Committee concluded, considering the remaining scientific uncertainties, that it was necessary to take this measure to protect the female class and ensure equal opportunities,” the statement said.
The updated rules, which will be effective from July 17, dictate that individuals who do not fulfill the guidelines for the women’s category will now be classified under the men’s category, henceforth to be renamed “Men/Open.”
********************************************************
Who Are the Real Authoritarians?
If the Trump presidency meant anything, it meant less government. Specifically, lower taxes, less regulation, and fewer (potentially war-causing) foreign entanglements.
True, Trump is no libertarian. He believes in federal funding of infrastructure and industrial policy – but maybe smarter and less intrusively so than Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
Typical Trump supporters are also anti-government – even more than Trump is. They were more suspicious of Anthony Fauci and the CDC, more opposed to lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and mask mandates during the Covid pandemic, more suspicious of the “deep state,” and less trusting of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court have given us rulings that are consistent with an anti-authoritarian approach to public policy. Among recent major decisions, the court has strengthened Second Amendment rights, limited the reach of the regulatory state, and protected the right of shopkeepers and merchants to follow their conscience rather than bow to the dictates of woke regulators.
You might suppose that the Court’s decision rejecting affirmative action at Harvard is an example of too much government intervention in the affairs of a private organization. Yet the federal government has been pressuring the private sector to engage in affirmative action ever since the days when John F. Kennedy was president. The latest Court decision begins to put limits on that intrusion.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade might be seen as a case of the Court’s failure to protect the individual from the state. But half the country doesn’t see the issue that way. Instead of being an arm of the federal government making abortion decisions for the entire country – the Court chose to let the people decide.
It was under the administration of Donald Trump that you gained the right to talk with your doctor by phone, email, Zoom, Facebook, and Skype. Under Obama, all that was illegal. Because of a Trump executive order, employers today can buy individually owned health insurance for their employees – insurance they can take with them from job to job and in and out of the labor market. If employers did that under Obama, they could be fined $100 per employee daily.
Under Biden, we are getting predictable backsliding – a reversion to the regulatory state. Thanks to a Trump executive order, 3 million families have “short-term” health insurance – plans that meet their medical and financial needs for as little as one-half the premiums charged in the Obamacare exchanges. Biden is going to take that freedom away – beginning next January.
But the most unsettling sign of impending authoritarianism is not the expansion of the regulatory state. It’s the willingness of federal law enforcement and our intelligence agencies to toss aside impartiality and directly interfere with democratic government.
As the Durham report makes clear, under the Trump administration, the real threat to democracy came not from the president or from an unruly mob on January 6th. It came from law enforcement and intelligence agencies intervening to change election results and undermine a duly elected presidency – along with help from the mainstream media and Big Tech.
It may surprise some readers to know that the New York Times was our nation’s first real newspaper. Prior to its founding, many newspapers had a political party’s name in their title, such as “Democrat” or “Republican.” Some of these newspaper names have survived even today. Regardless of the name, almost all the newspapers at the time were political party propaganda. The New York Times was the first newspaper that pledged to report impartial news.
All that changed with Donald Trump. When Times writers weren’t calling him “authoritarian,” they called him a “traitor” (270 times). When they weren’t calling him a traitor, they routinely called him other names, including “racist,” “misogynistic,” “xenophobic,” “homophobic,” and occasionally even “anti-Semitic.” These charges were just as baseless as the charge of treason.
At first blush, the Times today looks very much like the newspapers it replaced almost 200 years ago – as an organ of the Democrat Party. But the reality is worse than that. The Times, more often than not, is acting as the government’s newspaper.
The New York Times once printed the Pentagon Papers and fought for its freedom to do so against the U.S. government’s attempt to censor it all the way to the Supreme Court. Today, it rarely publishes anything that would be embarrassing to the FBI, the CIA, the Biden family, or the government in general.
Sadly, it is the Times itself that is proving to be a friend, not an enemy, of authoritarian tendencies in our body politic.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2023/07/14/who-are-the-real-authoritarians-n2625718
****************************************
13 July, 2023
Harvard's Jews
There is a long article by Martin Perez that charts the Jewish presence at Harvard from its beginnings to fairly recent times. Link below:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/christians-and-jews-at-harvard-marty-peretz
And what it vividly catalogues is how influential Jewish thinkers were in the social sciences during that time. Virtually all the big ideas in that field came for a long time from Jewish thinkers. And broadly Leftist ideas became chracteristic of them
During my own academic career I encountered those thinkers obliquely. To do social psyhology or sociology was to engage with Jewish thinkers. Social science was simply Jewish with all the notable writers being Jews. But the writers concerned rarely mentioned their Jewishness. From a casual perpective they were just smart Americans.
I was a long way from Harvard but the Jewishness of the writers was still plain to me and I occasionally made cautious mention of it in my own writings.
Where the Jewishness of the writer was not openly acknowledged, I was usually still aware of it. I knew German, so Ashekenazi surnames stood out. I knew, for instance, what strangely derisive surnames like Goldberg and Finkelstein meant. They were mocking names given by Prussian border guards to refugess from Eastern European pogroms. So if you knew German, most American Jewish surnames shouted of their Jewishness. Some names were a bit of a puzzle. "Kren" for instance did not seem at all Jewish -- until you realized that it was Southern German dialect for horseradish. Yes. Some German Jews walked around being known as "Mr Horseradish".
And in my own research and writing I focused on another Ashkenazi body of thought -- not principally the Harvard authors but rather the group of very Marxist refugees from Germany's prewar Frankfurt school. I took an interest in their "authoritarianism" theory, principally authored by Theodor Wiesengrund, aka Adorno. It was a theory taken with great seriousness by most social psychological thinkers at the time and still has some following to this day.
But it was a total absurdity. It said that authoritarianism was fundamentally derived from conservatism. The huge example of authoritarianism on the world scene at the time was the Soviet union, which was undiputably Leftist. Yet authoritarianism was somehow conservative to most American Jewish scholars.
I spent a a lot of time pointing out the flaws in that theory in my writings but I was largely wasting my time. Leftist theories are reality-blind. If it sounds good to them it is true, pesky evidence regardless.
So my reflection on the history that Martin Perez has put out is great sadness: So many smart people were so foolish. The Jewish influence was great but produced so little of abiding worth. The attractions of Leftism neutered some great brains
I am pleased to note however that time seems to have had a corrective influence. Articles that I wrote as far back as 1970 are now widely read and favorably commented on -- though not usually by Jewish authors. Realism seem to be slowly replacing delusion. My British empiricism may eventually win the day -- JR.
********************************************
The nation’s ostensibly leading agency for medical science says men can safely “chestfeed” babies
Once a credible government health organization, the CDC has come out of the closet to affirm its true identity as a political activist establishment.
The agency was previously known for publishing current and relevant health information regarding vaccines and diseases, as well as public health protocols and guidance on numerous health-related issues that concern the public. However, since its questionable edicts were imposed on society during the COVID pandemic, it has become apparent to most that politics plays a greater role in the decision-making process than actual science.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx, and former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky became the most well-known names associated with dubious standards and protocols set during COVID. Their mask recommendations and policies seemed to be backed by those with the most to gain by tying our freedom to compliance rather than being based on whether masks could protect us from a virus. Mandates for the vaccines were likewise not based on whether they were actually effective.
Not all of that was determined by the CDC, but it was the CDC’s blatant dismissal of reality while promoting senseless public protocols that led to a substantial decline in trust. And it appears as though the CDC believes that the path of decreasing trust is the option that best suits its newfound identity as a political organization.
Walensky began her stint as CDC director in 2021, and her political biases in her medical recommendations for COVID protocols became abundantly clear when the guidance she provided seemed to conveniently align with the demands of another leftist organization, the American Federation of Teachers, and its president, Randi Weingarten.
In a recent hearing with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Walensky was asked about the decisions that were made at the time and what her communication with Weingarten had been regarding school closure policies. It was discovered that the two women had each other’s private contact information, and when pressed, Walensky struggled to answer the question of whether any of their communication had been about determining mandates for schools or if she had deleted any texts from their conversation.
Ironically, Walensky has repeatedly warned against politicizing medicine. Even in an outgoing interview in preparation to leave her role as CDC director, she said in the Wall Street Journal’s paraphrase, “Be on guard against misinformation and the politicization of science.”
If only she had followed that advice.
Recently, the CDC published guidance for transgender individuals, both male and female, on how to breastfeed or “chestfeed” newborn infants. The guidance covers females who have had their breasts completely removed under the idea that they can become male. Bizarrely, it also covers men who are trying to unnaturally force the growth of breast tissue by taking powerful drugs to feminize their bodies in misguided attempts to live as women.
There is no other way to describe this recommendation other than being deeply consumed by political beliefs. There is no scientific data or sane doctor with a valid argument for whatever the substance that is secreting from a male’s synthetic, drug-induced breast tissue being anything close to not only breast milk but any type of nutritional material that could safely be ingested by any living organism — let alone a newborn infant — without severe side effects.
Dr. Miriam Grossman is a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who has been vocal about the immeasurable damage being done to children and teens through the gender ideology movement. She gave an interview in which she excoriated the CDC for making such dangerous, irresponsible, and unfounded health proposals.
“This is just an unbelievably egregious position,” she said, “saying that men living as women can be given these drugs for off-label use — for example, they might treat schizophrenia or other medical illnesses. They have this adverse effect called galactorrhea. … It means that a man’s breast tissue begins to secrete a substance. That substance is not breast milk. Furthermore, that substance that is going to be given to these infants has chemicals in it. Those chemicals are going to be absorbed by the infant. That’s the CDC these days.”
It is common knowledge that a woman who is breastfeeding an infant has to be very careful about the medications — both over-the-counter and prescribed — that she puts into her body. She has to be careful about the foods she eats, as dairy, vegetables, or any number of things can upset her baby’s digestive system. She is advised to avoid alcohol or caffeine. These legitimate, science- and data-based instructions are provided to a nursing woman because everything she eats or ingests will go directly into the baby’s system.
There are also certain foods that mothers are warned not to give their babies before the age of one. The options for pain and cold medicines for babies and toddlers is severely limited because their systems are not developed enough to safely process even child-safe remedies. It’s not until the ages of four to six when the choices in treating a fever or a runny nose expand drastically.
Allowing infants to drink milk — or, rather, nipple discharge — that is highly contaminated with potent chemicals strong enough to induce life-altering, permanent changes in an adult could and likely will lead to harmful effects in their own vulnerable and developing bodies, minds, and systems.
Of course, feelings are now the most important guiding factor in society. So, whether these infants develop severe side effects from the egregious act of being nursed by the secretions of a delusional individual is apparently a risk worth taking and a sacrifice babies need to make to preserve the feelings of the severely mentally ill.
The question is who or what will the activist CDC blame for babies who end up suffering serious side effects?
At this rate, the baby himself will likely be criticized for rejecting trans-milk and not affirming the identity of his “chestfeeder” by accepting feelings as a legitimate source of nutrition.
The best safeguard against those repercussions would actually be to internalize Walensky’s parting warning to be on guard against misinformation and the politicization of science
https://patriotpost.us/articles/98760-cdc-mangles-the-science-2023-07-12
***************************************************
The search for neo-Nazis in Ukraine reflects American progressive hysteria, not Ukrainian reality
It was deeply exasperating and disappointing to read the latest screed published in The Forward [NY Jewish paper] regarding neo-Nazi influence within the now-infamous Ukrainian Azov battalion. The article, from Mr. Lev Golinkin, was necessarily both exasperating and disappointing to anyone who cares about these issues, and about Ukraine. It was, however, especially disappointing to me, a onetime contributor to The Forward, where I published my first reviews as a fledgling literary critic. The unceasing attacks on the heroic defenders of Ukraine in the midst of the Kremlin’s genocidal war are merely the latest indicator of its protracted decline into irrelevancy.
As multiple Ukrainians and Ukraine experts, including me, have tirelessly explained, the independent Azov battalion was indeed founded a decade ago by some very unpleasant men with often-questionable politics, at the moment when the basically defenseless Ukrainian state desperately needed to mobilize volunteers to fight the regular Russian army. The volunteer battalion would be very shortly assimilated into the Ukrainian armed forces. Doubtless, there still exist characters within Azov’s ranks with all sorts of unsavory beliefs, and some of them will be very happy to roll up their sleeves and to flex their pagan rune tattoos if you go drinking with them, as they have for me. But the battalion has long since been domesticated and taken under the firm supervision of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry. Though the name of the fighting force remains, it is now a professional and elite special force that is led into battle by officers selected from the regular army recruitment pool. Those officers rise through the army ranks based not on ideology but rather on strict fidelity to the chain of command, which ends at the desk of Ukraine’s Jewish commander in chief.
The formation still contains a plurality of Russian-speaking fighters among its several thousand men at arms. Among these are Azeris, Chechens, Greeks, Russians, Belarusians, Poles, and Jews who have previously served in the ranks of the Israeli Defense Forces.
The many articles about Azov that have appeared over the years in the Western press have done tremendous damage to the credibility of the Ukrainian armed forces. These interventions in the debate are routinely and cynically exploited by Russian propaganda—both for internal and external consumption. So it needs to be stated outright in an unambiguous and axiomatic fashion: There exists no serious neo-Nazi threat in Ukraine. None at all. This is a phantom fear lurking within the minds of various fantasists and neurotics. Inasmuch as historical parallels can be drawn, the main fascistic threat comes from the occupying Russian army, which commits war crimes and mass rape against the population and furthermore attempts to reprogram them with propaganda accusing pluralist democrats of being Nazis.
The Forward debases its proud historical legacy of anti-authoritarianism by publishing such nonsense. The article in question by Mr. Golinkin represents a rehashing of his numerous previous interventions in the debate. I only wish that he knew what he was talking about. What makes his argument worth engaging with is that similar beliefs remain widespread among a swath of post-Soviet emigres who are older than 50, at the same time as they are becoming commonplace among a segment of the American progressive left.
Mr. Golinkin has written that he immigrated from Soviet Ukraine at the age of 8. He has seemingly never reported from the country. Now he has a bugbear about Nazis in Ukraine of the exact same sort that older Soviet emigres from America have. It is a pathology—a deeply understandable one based on the history—but not one that should be validated or embraced. Golinkin is attempting to make the rest of American Jewry internalize his own immigrant pathologies and fears while playing fast and loose with rhetoric in a way that does not help anyone except the producers of Russian propaganda.
The Ukrainian search for an inspiring and usable past—a search for brave historical warriors whose legacy might be appropriated for the sake of inspiring the heroic warriors of the present—is to be respected, even as some of the figures who have been lionized are not always figures that we would like to be lionized. The mobilization of masculine virtues and intensity are par for the course in the midst of a war of genodical annihilation, and Ukrainian society has certainly militarized to a significant degree over the course of the last 500 days.
Which is not in any way to engage in Holocaust denial or revisionism. My own Jewish great-grandparents were shot in Belarus in November 1941. Dealing honestly with what some Ukrainians chose to do in the 1930s and 1940s is imperative, so that we can fight honestly and without a pause. I am immensely proud that Tablet recently published John-Paul Himka’s essay on the pogroms in Lviv in 1941. However, it is a fact that today’s Ukrainians, in a time of war, have consolidated their society in a manifestly liberal fashion. We should do the same and stop telling fairy tales about Nazis.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/lev-golinkin-azov-ukraine-neo-nazis
*************************************************
Australian Medical insurer drops cover for private doctors who initiate hormone treatments in adolescents with gender dysphoria
They are foreseeing how the winds might change
One of Australia's leading medical insurers has dumped cover for private practising doctors who initiate hormone treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria, a decision that may put even more pressure on public hospital waiting lists.
MDA National said it will also no longer insure private doctors, such as general practitioners, from legal claims arising from the assessment of patients under 18 as suitable for gender transition treatments, such as cross-sex hormones and gender affirmation surgeries.
The Australian Professional Association for Trans Health (AusPATH), representing hundreds of health professionals who provide care to transgender people, is aware of some GPs who have already stopped gender-affirming care — a model that supports the child's choices and can lead to medical interventions such as puberty blockers and hormone treatment.
AusPATH is concerned the MDA National decision will particularly affect trans youth living outside major cities, who struggle to access public gender services.
"It's going to stop a number of children ever being able to access gender affirming care before they turn 18," AusPATH president Professor Ashleigh Lin said.
The MDA National decision, effective from July 1, comes after the insurer reviewed the medico-legal risks amid what it described as "growing criticism globally of the research that underpins medical and surgical transition of children in response to gender dysphoria".
It was made in response to "the risk of potentially high-value claims arising from irreversible treatments" provided to children and adolescents.
Gender-affirming hormonal therapies with testosterone or oestrogen may cause temporary or permanent infertility.
MDA continues to allow doctors to prescribe puberty blockers to treat trans youth.
While there is evidence of long-term side effect for puberty blockers such as reduced bone density, the effects on puberty are reversible.
"Children are not able to transition without relying on the assessments of medical professionals," MDA National said in a statement to the ABC.
"This places doctors in a uniquely vulnerable position with respect to future litigation – particularly so, if courts take the view that the practitioner has influenced a child's decision to medically or surgically transition and that there are limits to a child's understanding and what they effectively consent to.
"This has led to our view that medical practitioners who assess children as being suitable for transition and/or who initially prescribe cross-sex hormones are at a heightened risk of receiving claims, irrespective of the strength of the consent process and the standard of care or the model of healthcare."
****************************************
12 July, 2023
Opera Singer Leaves Career, Finds Her Feminine Power in Being a Classic Wife and Mother
I am delighted to hear the story below. And I practice what I preach. When I met my wife Jenny, mother of my son, I very soon told her she could give up work and stay at home as a full-time wife and mother. And I know how much satisfaction that gave her. A benefit to me is that she still looks after me 40 years later, now that I am old and feeble
An opera singer who realized her conservative values were incompatible with a career in the liberal arts found her true calling as a wife and mother. She explains how taking on a traditional gender role has led to feeling happy, fulfilled, and empowered as a woman.
Currently pregnant with her second child, content creator Abby Roth, 29, grew up Orthodox Jewish in Los Angeles, California, as the youngest of four siblings. As a young adult, she earned three degrees in opera singing over seven years and has performed around the country. However, in 2017, just two weeks after meeting her now-husband Jacob Roth, she realized she was chasing the wrong dream.
Abby told The Epoch Times that “classical music is glorious” and she felt blessed to be able to create music on stage with a full orchestra behind her, but gradually the left-leaning culture prevalent in her workplace began overshadowing her beliefs.
“At its core, the opera world is still very much the arts world,” she said. “[But] the arts at this point in time are overtaken by the leftist ideology. I kept my political views very much under wraps for fear of being blacklisted.
“During my time in the opera world, I found myself being taken in by everything I was surrounded with, mostly due to loneliness and my own lack of vigilance when it came to keeping myself apprised of the issues.”
However, everything refocused in the best way after Abby met Jacob, who is now a practicing lawyer.
Faith, Family, Community
Two weeks after meeting Jacob in 2017, Abby headed to Colorado’s Aspen Music Festival. She didn’t want to indulge in the opera culture of socializing over drinks and “hanging out with singles” and felt isolated and alone.
“It was the pinnacle of my career. I should have been on top of the world; instead, I kept thinking, ‘I’ve just met the man I’m probably going to marry and now I’m alone,'” she said. “I didn’t want to put myself in those situations as a woman in a serious relationship, and I knew that wouldn’t change as my career progressed.
“It became clear over the course of the time we were dating and engaged that what I really wanted out of life—a strong marriage, to be present for my children, to be actively engaged in my faith community—was not compatible with a life onstage.”
When the couple tied the knot at the age of 24, a year after meeting, in May 2018, Jacob was in his last year of law school, and Abby was working remotely as a copy editor.
“In more superficial ways, I cooked dinner for us because I enjoyed it, and I usually kept the house clean because I noticed it more than he did,” she said. “But, in a bigger sense, the role of a traditional wife is the same as the role of a traditional husband; it’s embracing the importance of tradition … recognizing the three fundamental basics every home is built on: faith, family, and community.”
Today, the couple endeavors to treat their marriage with “the utmost respect” and to keep it healthy by “choosing love every single day.”
Different Roles
Today, Abby lives in Florida with Jacob and their 15-month-old son. Abby feels blessed that her husband’s career allows for her to stay home and raise their baby; far from feeling oppressed in her chosen role, she feels empowered as a woman.
She wakes up with her son around 6:45 a.m., gets him changed, and then immediately eats breakfast with him. They take a walk “early enough in the day” so that her toddler son doesn’t fall asleep in the stroller. Then comes cleaning up the house, quality play time, and laundry followed by chores. Abby’s mom often stops by to help for an hour or so, and once the baby’s up, they often go to the library or a local park, then pick up some groceries before Abby heads home to make dinner for the family.
“Once Daddy’s home, we’ll all go swimming or play together, and then we eat dinner. Then it’s the bedtime routine,” she said. “A day in my life is wonderfully simple, and I’m so lucky for that!
“Of course, my husband helps around the house. But there’s often that little bit of resentment in the back of your head, saying, ‘Why does he get to sit down after his work day and I don’t?’ The answer is, simply, our roles are different. … my husband does appreciate me and he shows it all the time. I have to appreciate myself, I have to recognize that what I do has worth and that God wants me to do what’s right by my family.”
After their son goes to bed, Abby and Jacob spend quality time together watching movies or TV, playing board games, or talking. “It’s the best life I could have asked for,” said Abby, who claims there are two major misconceptions about her chosen role as wife and stay-at-home mom.
“The first is, ‘You must have internalized misogyny, and that’s the only way you could believe the things you do,'” she said. “That kind of talk drives me crazy because it assumes two things: one, that I’m too stupid to have my own thoughts, and two, that theoretically I should therefore take no responsibility for my actions, as my beliefs are not really my own.
“First of all, conservative women are incredible because we actively have to go out of our way to find the answers; we don’t simply trust everything the media throws our way. … Second, at a certain point, we all have to take responsibility for the things we believe and the actions we take.
“The second misconception is, ‘You must hate women,'” Abby said. “There is nothing more ridiculous than this statement. Women are incredible, unique, strong, and the reason that society flourishes. … We are capable of anything, the question is what we choose to use our capability for.”
Abby credits her own mother for nurturing a happy home and providing a strong example of womanhood and motherhood. Ironically, her mother grew up “in the shadow of feminism,” which the pair often discussed as Abby found her own way as a wife, mom, and homemaker.
“My mother and I are extremely close,” she said. “My mother is not afraid to tell me what I need to hear, but she’s also always there to help.”
Abby shared that her mother was “the primary breadwinner” in their family who always prioritized her family life over everything else: She was always there to kiss the kids at night; she made dinner for them “more often than not”; and she waited until all were asleep if she had to finish any of her work at the end of the day.
“We always knew that we came first,” Abby said.
Seeing her mother find her deepest joy in raising children, Abby always knew she wanted to be a mom. Asserting her traditional role in a feminist world is still a battle, said Abby, who started her YouTube channel, Classically Abby, in 2019 with the hope of imparting to women “how to be classic while living in an era that encourages slovenliness, hooking up, and ‘girl-bossing.’
“I wanted to show women why living a classic life would lead to more lasting meaning and happiness than all the advice they were getting from women’s magazines and TV shows,” Abby said. “Over time, it became clear to me that I needed to openly share that I was conservative because all of my advice about being classic stemmed from traditional values. I definitely have haters … But I also have some wonderful women who appreciate a different point of view.”
“As an Orthodox Jew, I feel so blessed to know the importance of a mother’s role,” she said. “I know that my worth as a woman has nothing to do with how wealthy I am, how many people know me on the street, or how high I ascend in my career. What I do for those around me, what I contribute to my community and the world, that’s what matters.
“Without strong families, without belief in God, and without warm and supportive communities, we have a declining society. If you believe in traditional values, you will necessarily be living out a classic life. A woman who knows her mission, a man who knows how to find meaning, purpose, and fulfillment, that’s classic, because what does classic really mean? Something that always fits, no matter the era.”
********************************************
A black Supreme court justice relies on a lie
Not a quality mind
The leftist meltdown over the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling over affirmative action, striking down those protocols in the college admission process as unconstitutional. Unlike the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe, this decision has been chiefly curtailed to the confines of liberal newsrooms and the most left-wing faculty lounges in higher education. To be blunt, no one cared about it because most agreed with the Court’s decision, even Black Americans. While a short emotional outburst, we’ve moved on, though liberals probably have not recognized that the nation, overall, doesn’t feel that race and ethnicity should be considered in these applications. Still, even some on the Court penned nonsense, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent that contained statistical figures that didn’t comport with reality—literally.
Only in Willy Wonka’s laboratory could this piece of data fly in the face of reality. Justice Jackson recused herself from Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College but would hear arguments for a separate related case: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. Of course, Jackson dissented, but one line stood out, and it’s a whopper. Ted Frank, a senior attorney with the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in the Harvard case (via WSJ):
Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible. In a dissent from last week’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enumerated purported benefits of “diversity” in education. “It saves lives,” she asserts. “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”
A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%.
How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake? A footnote cites a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which makes the same claim in almost identical language. It, in turn, refers to a 2020 study whose lead author is Brad Greenwood, a professor at the George Mason University School of Business.
The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians).
The AAMC brief either misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic. (It isn’t saved by the adjective “high-risk,” which doesn’t appear and isn’t measured in Greenwood’s paper.)
Justice Jackson isn’t the only one afflicted with this condition that has impacted most liberal Americans: making stuff up. There is no middle. Even when the Left is ranting about real things, they’re so trivial and niche that it portrays them as suffering from ‘boy, who cried wolf, or, if you will: ‘non-gender specific person crying wolf.’ It’s why most of the time, leftist advocacy doesn’t move beyond their circles. You can’t be credible if you lie, manufacture statistics, or, even worse as a sitting Supreme Court justice, misread a study that forms the core of your dissenting opinion, which may or may not be revisited years from now to revise existing law. The Left conjures up fake studies and figures because many of their priorities, which they’re most passionate about, aren’t popular. You can add affirmative action to that list.
In the meantime, the Left will drool over her dissent even though it's flawed.
*************************************************
Are people with posh accents always a class act? Not so, Keir...
Irreverent Australian author Kathy Lette is being satirical below but, like all good satire, there is much truth in what she says
Keir Starmer waged war this week on the “class ceiling”, promising that Labour will give priority to ensuring pupils of all backgrounds are able to speak English fluently and express themselves clearly.
But in truth, you English don’t really speak English – you speak euphemism. When I first moved to London 30 odd years ago, it took time to realise that a visitor needs those little United Nations headphones to decipher everything you say. For example, when a host would turn to me and purr “Oh, do stay for another drink”, I would plunge head first into the Pimms. I didn’t realise that translates as, “leave immediately and never darken my door again”.
The same goes for, “Oh, you Australians, you’re just so refreshing.” At first I thought this meant that you really, really liked me. It was only years later I realised this decodes as “rack off, you loud-mouthed, colonial nymphomaniac”.
And of course, speaking of euphemisms, we can’t possibly not mention, “there were no lockdown parties in Downing Street” which clearly translates as, “Vote Labour”.
Over the past several decades, various governments have declared that the class system is defunct, and that Britain is now a “levelled up” meritocracy. Despite this, surveys have continued to reveal that people with “received pronunciation” – that posh “is there any loo pepper, abite the hice” accent – are generally perceived to be more punctual, hygienic, intelligent and better in bed.
I’m dubious about the intelligence of the upper classes when they’ve been hitting their heads on the low beams of their priceless Tudor mansions for centuries. And as for sexual prowess? An upper-class Englishman just can’t drive past a perversion without pulling over.
In my erotic experience, the “cream of English society” clearly just means rich, thick and prone to whipping. Being “sent away” to school warps them in the most peculiar ways. It’s very difficult to date a man who can only achieve arousal when touched on the genitals by a rubberised gardening glove.
If you can understand his request that is. The voice of the upper class male is so brittle it qualifies for osteoporosis pills. He’s also bound to be a Conan the Grammarian, meaning he’ll correct your grammar, even when you’re talking dirty in bed.
The expenses scandal proved categorically that the class system is still thriving in all its stereotypical glory. Labour politicians were caught claiming for Hobnobs and nappies, while the Tories were raiding the public purse to pay for their moats and mazes.
Research also reveals that Britain suffers from some of the worst social mobility in Europe. Now, I have a head for heights – I’m the Edmund Hillary of social climbing – but my accent will forever keep me stranded on the lower social slopes. That “Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy,” nursery rhyme is not fiction, but fact; for the most part: Brits are born into a stratum of society, and tend to stay there.
In Australia, which is a true meritocracy, we have inverted snobbery. Those without a convict branch in their family tree quickly graft on a twig or two; while those born into wealth take the opposite of elocution classes, at pains to flatten their vowels so that they can sound like everyone else.
But what this unique social experiment that became Australia proves is that unshackled from the class system and with the oxygen of optimism and opportunity, reinvention can take place. By the time of the 1814 muster, only one of the first fleeters, Enoch Weavers, was still in jail. Modern Australia began as an act of theft – it was stolen from the Aboriginal people. But from our inauspicious colonial beginnings as the world’s largest open prison, we have grown to be a successful, confident, egalitarian democracy.
Starmer has a track record of breaking his promises, so I can’t imagine we’ll all be rounding our vowels any time soon. But he’s right on this; getting rid of your class system really would be classy.
Meanwhile, if any snooty aristo is ever mean to you, simply smile and say “Do stay for another drink… You’re just so refreshing.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/keir-starmer-speech-oracy-education-class-b2371330.html
*****************************************************
Australia: Anti-gay defrocked minister not unfairly dismissed, ‘not employee’
The Uniting Church as gone so far Left that it is now effectively post-Christian
A defrocked church minister has failed in his bid to claim protection for unfair dismissal under employment laws after he was sacked for his anti same-sex marriage views, when members of his congregation dobbed on him to the church hierarchy.
Reverend Hedley Wycliff Atunasia Fihaki applied to the Fair Work Commission for unfair dismissal after he was defrocked by the Uniting Church of Australia, Queensland Synod.
It is the second time he has been sacked by the church then mounted a legal challenge against the Queensland synod’s decision to dismiss him, having taken action 11 years ago when he was sacked from the Emmanuel Church in Cairns.
According to the decision handed down by Commissioner Paula Spencer on July 7, Rev Fihaki is barred from claiming protection from unfair dismissal because he is “not an employee” under the Fair Work Act.
“The Letter of Call cannot be construed as an employment contract,” she said of his agreement to a May 2013 letter of call for congregational placement.
“I find that Reverend Fihaki is not an employee or an independent contractor and is in a separate category of spiritual or covenantal relationship,” Commissioner Spencer ruled.
She also ruled that even if Rev Fihaki was determined to be an employee of the Uniting Church “a valid reason … existed for the dismissal.”
Rev Fihaki was sacked from his role as a Minister at Mooloolaba Christian Church and lost his ministerial credentials after he “publicly departed from and significantly recanted the teachings of the Uniting Church of Australia in his statements to the media”, the FWC heard.
He made a number of statements to and on both mainstream and social media between January 2019 and August 2021, and his views were contrary to the church’s position permitting same-sex marriage under certain circumstances, the FWC heard.
His congregation made “multiple complaints” to the church synod committees about his anti same-sex comments which “significantly recanted the teachings of the UCA in his statements to the media”, and the synod committee “made out” 23 breaches of the church’s code of ethics.
Rev Fihaki “did not refute that he made those statements as part of the disciplinary investigation undertaken by the” church.
One of the complaints was about his conduct at a Sunnybank Uniting Church Council meeting on December 22, 2020, and a formal complaint to the church hierarchy was made on January 11, 2021.
Rev Fihaki has been minister at the Mooloolaba Christian Church since 2013, and this church was dissolved on March 18 this year by a regional committee of the church due to their opposition to same-sex marriage.
A day later, he became pastor of the church congregation rebranded as Faith Church (Sunshine Coast) Limited.
Rev Fihaki holds the position of national chair of a breakaway organisation called the Assembly of Confessing Congregations of the Uniting Church in Australia, which is not a recognised council within the church.
Rev Fihaki unsuccessfully argued he should be regarded as a church employee under the Fair Work Act because he is paid at a rate of $28.32 per hour for work, he gets a monthly pay slip from the church, and receives superannuation and holiday and housing allowances and that the government declared “religious practitioners” as ‘employees’ so they could get JobKeeper payments during the pandemic.
****************************************
11 July, 2023
A Chinese herbal preparation prevents death from Sepsis
Where I grew up in tropical Australia, if you were sick, you went to the doctor but if you were really sick you went to the Chinese herbalist. I have myself benefited from that in my youth. I had persistent test-confirmed glandular fever (mononucleosis) but a Chinese herbal preparation sent it into rapid remission. So I am probably less surprised by the findings below than most. I note that the study was a methodologically strong one, not another useless observational one
Question Is Xuebijing injection (XBJ) effective in reducing mortality in patients with sepsis?
Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 1817 patients with sepsis, the 28-day mortality rate was 18.8% in the XBJ group vs 26.1% in the placebo group, a significant difference.
Meaning Among patients with sepsis, treatment with XBJ, compared with the placebo group, resulted in lower 28-day mortality.
Abstract
Importance Previous research has suggested that Xuebijing injection (XBJ), an herbal-based intravenous preparation, may reduce mortality among patients with sepsis.
Objective To determine the effect of XBJ vs placebo on 28-day mortality among patients with sepsis.
Design, Setting, and Participants The Efficacy of Xuebijing Injection in Patients With Sepsis (EXIT-SEP) trial was a multicenter, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in intensive care units at 45 sites and included 1817 randomized patients with sepsis (sepsis 3.0) present for less than 48 hours. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 to 13 were enrolled. The study was conducted from October 2017 to June 2019. The final date of follow-up was July 26, 2019. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to August 2022.
Interventions The patients were randomized to receive either intravenous infusion of XBJ (100 mL, n = 911) or volume-matched saline placebo (n = 906) every 12 hours for 5 days.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.
Results Among the 1817 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [13.5] years; 1199 [66.0%] men), 1760 (96.9%) completed the trial. In these patients, the 28-day mortality rate was significantly different between the placebo group and the XBJ group (230 of 882 patients [26.1%] vs 165 of 878 patients [18.8%], respectively; P < .001). The absolute risk difference was 7.3 (95% CI, 3.4-11.2) percentage points. The incidence of adverse events was 222 of 878 patients (25.3%) in the placebo group and 200 of 872 patients (22.9%) in the XBJ group.
Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial among patients with sepsis, the administration of XBJ reduced 28-day mortality compared with placebo.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2804120
*******************************************
Bishop says Jesus was wrong
The Church of England should be renamed as the Church of the Devil. Sad when Ebor is an impostor. His religion is Leftism, not devotion to the risen Lord
The Archbishop of York has said some people struggle with the traditional Biblical phrase 'our Father'.
The Most Rev Stephen Cottrell called the term – used for centuries at the start of The Lord's Prayer – 'problematic' for victims of abusive parents.
He also said it was an issue for anyone who suffers in a male-dominated society during a speech to the Church of England's governing body yesterday.
On Friday night, his comments to the General Synod were welcomed by some in the clergy. But they were criticised by traditionalists and risk triggering another row over woke language in the Church.
It emerged earlier this year that the CofE is considering referring to God in 'non-gendered' terms in services for the first time, which could see priests stop using the pronouns He and Him in prayers. The Archbishop, the Church's second most senior cleric, devoted his presidential address in York to the importance of the word 'our'.
He said: 'If this God to whom we pray is 'Father' then all Christians are 'family members, the household of God'.' But he added: 'Yes, I know the word 'Father' is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us who have laboured rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life.'
The Rev Christina Rees, a former Synod member who led the campaign for women bishops, said the Archbishop 'has put his finger on an issue that's a really live issue for Christians and has been for many years'.
She added: 'But I think the issues have come into sharp focus more with clergy abuse issues. Because sometimes the abuse victims have been abused by their birth fathers and gone on to be abused by their fathers in God – the local priest – so there are multiple layers why the term 'Father' is really difficult for people in the church.' She went on: 'It's the way it's been set for so long and so we're stuck. And because Jesus called God 'Daddy', we think we have to call God 'Daddy'.'
But Canon Dr Chris Sugden, chairman of the orthodox Anglican Mainstream group, pointed out that in the Bible, Jesus says: 'When you pray, say 'our Father'.'
Dr Sugden said: 'Is the Archbishop of York saying Jesus was wrong or that Jesus was not pastorally aware? I can't believe he is doing that consciously, but that's the impression it gives.
'It seems to be emblematic of the approach of some church leaders to take their cues from culture rather than scripture.'
He added: 'If people have had a difficult relationship with their human fathers, then the option open to them is to say you can rediscover the true nature of fatherhood through Christ.'
And Synod member Rev Dr Ian Paul said: 'Stephen is right that many people find the language of 'Father' difficult because of their own experience of fathers.
'But this is how Jesus reveals God to us. We are not at liberty to reject this clear and consistent teaching of Scripture.'
*************************************************
The South Rises Again
There’s an old saying left over from the end of the Civil War: The South will rise again. And today, it’s happening in a way no one expected.
The Northeast had long been the locus of American wealth, particularly New York City. But all that’s changing. “For the first time, six fast-growing states in the South — Florida, Texas, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Tennessee — are contributing more to the national GDP than the Northeast, with its Washington-New York-Boston corridor, in government figures going back to the 1990s,” reports Bloomberg. “The switch happened during the pandemic and shows no signs of reverting.”
This is a monumental economic shift. “The statistics are staggering,” writes The Daily Wire. “The Southeast gained roughly $100 billion in new income in 2020 and 2021; the Northeast lost roughly $60 billion, an analysis of recently published Internal Revenue Service data showed. Since the pandemic began in early 2020, two-thirds of all job growth came in the Southeast, where 9 of the 15 fastest-growing American large cities reside.”
The reason for the South’s good fortune isn’t rocket science. Not only is the climate more attractive with mild winters, tourist attractions, cultural centers, and vacation spots, but the political and economic climates are also attractive to many businesses and entrepreneurs.
Take Florida, for example. “The state has an innovative public policy that encourages research and development of new products,” writes business owner Gilda D'Incerti. “It also has low taxes and a pro-business climate, as well as a large workforce that is culturally and linguistically diverse. The rail system, public and commercial airports and deep-water seaports are indicative of a highly developed infrastructure geared to serve many different types of industries.” D'Incerti adds that there’s no income tax in Florida, and corporations there only pay 5.5% on their corporate income taxes.
These factors are not only attracting corporations but ordinary Americans who’ve had enough of being woke and broke in the Northeast.
Indeed, they’re leaving in droves. According to the National Association of Realtors: “Twenty-six states experienced an influx of people, with more people moving in than out, while twenty-five states [and the District of Columbia] lost movers. Florida (318,855), Texas (230,961), and the Carolinas — North Carolina (99,796) and South Carolina (84,030) — were the states with the most net domestic migration gains in 2022.”
Meanwhile, they add, California and New York each lost around 300,000 residents and Illinois lost nearly 150,000. To accommodate the tidal wave of new residents and businesses, the South is rushing to build new homes and office space.
The numbers don’t lie, and the Sunshine State is leading the way. As Investopedia notes: “Florida’s population grew almost 2% in 2022, making it the fastest-growing state in the nation for the first time since 1957, according to U.S. Census data, as families and businesses are drawn by lower taxes and growing numbers of jobs. That’s contributing to an office building boom in a state once better known for retirement communities and hotels.” In addition, “While markets like New York and Chicago grapple with a surplus of older office space deserted by tenants willing to pay high rates in newer, Class A buildings, commercial markets like Miami and Palm Beach are seeing new construction rates soar as demand grows.”
Florida, though, isn’t the only place where business is booming. Business Facilities magazine recently announced that Texas has the best business climate in the nation. Other states on that particular list include North Carolina, Virginia, Utah, Tennessee, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Georgia, and, of course, Florida.
Not a single state in the Northeast made the list.
The Austin Business Journal identifies several reasons why Texas tops the list. One is sheer size: The Texas economy would be the seventh-largest in the world were the Lone Star State a nation unto itself, and it’s becoming a hub for Fortune 500 companies. The Journal also mentions how easy it is for young entrepreneurs to start a business — low taxes and low regulations, top business universities, accessible airports and ports, and infrastructure connecting Texas to the coasts.
Clearly, the South is rising, and it doesn’t look like the boom will slow down anytime soon.
One wonders why political and business leaders in the Northeast aren’t following the South’s lead by creating a business-friendly climate. Could it be that they just don’t get it?
Regardless, many citizens of the northeastern states do get it. Which is why they’re taking their bags and their wallets down South, to the land of political freedom and economic opportunity.
Who can blame them?
https://patriotpost.us/articles/98643s
*************************************************
DoD Gets Clobbered for Praising Mentally ill Army Major Who 'Inspires Us All'
The U.S. Army published a story about Major Rachel Jones who claims to be a transgender woman that has recently come out and is now "living authentically."
Jones is the U.S. Army Sustainment Command Cyber Division chief, G6 (Information Management), who "struggled with depression and suicidal ideation for most of her life. Today, she is living her truth and is no longer battling depression or suicidal thoughts."
The story goes on to say prior to publicly transitioning, Jones was suicidal on a daily basis:
'When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s there was a lot of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. I don’t think many people meant to do that, but it’s something I heard as I was growing up repeatedly. So much so that I was convinced I was inherently evil for being transgender,' said Jones. 'The pressure of hiding all of the time was so bad I grew up depressed and suicidal to the point that I always had a plan to end my life.'
Jones, however, feels lucky to be alive today. 'Even when deployed, the greatest threat to my own safety was myself,' she said....
While on a six-month assignment away from home, Jones finally realized that she needed to make a change. She made an appointment to meet with a therapist to sort through these feelings and learn self-acceptance.
"Although Jones privately came out in 2019, she could not publicly come out due to the military’s ban on transgender service members," the story adds.
The Department of Defense's official Twitter account shared the story about Jones and it was met with heavy criticism from conservatives due to other pressing issues surrounding the military community and threats from abroad.
****************************************
10 July, 2023
Leftist hate knows no bounds
They will tear at the good whenever possible. Contrary to their lies, Churchill was a very active and heroic military man in his youth. He sought out action
A big budget Marvel series currently being screened on Disney+ attacks Winston Churchill, falsely accusing him of just 'posing for pictures' while others fought in World War I and then being 'smug' about it.
The third episode of Secret Invasion features a scene at the National Portrait Gallery where a character named Gavrick - portrayed by British actor Kingsley Ben-Adirs - stands in front of the famous Statesmen of World War I painting where he discusses the battle in which Churchill fought in after he was given command of a battalion of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Speaking in front of the famous Statesmen of World War I painting, Mr Ben Adir's character says: 'Statesmen of world war one, that's what it's called. It sums it up pretty nicely, I think.
'The difference between statesmen and soldiers. Because one lot spends the war posing for pictures while the other lot does all the killing and the dying.'
In a further slur on the late politician, the character then points to Churchill and adds: 'Look at the fat smug smile on his face.' Australian actor Ben Mendelsohn is also in the scene.
Viewers of the five-part blockbuster series which stars British actresses Olivia Colman and Emilia Clarke, as well as Hollywood A-lister Samuel L Jackson, were left confused and furious that Churchill's war hero status was misrepresented.
One said: 'Gravik shows he doesn't know his Earth history, Churchill spent time in the trenches in WW1 and served in India, Sudan in the army at the end of the 19th century and was a war correspondent during the Boer war, where he was captured. He knew about the blood.'
***************************************************
TikTok brainwashed me into being transgender — now I’m detransitioning
At age 13, Ash Eskridge was severely under the influence, but not of drugs or alcohol — of TikTok. The brunette told The Post that trendsetters on the popular app wrongfully convinced her that she was transgender.
“I saw TikTok videos by influencers saying how that transitioning saved their life,” said Eskridge, now 16, from Missoula, Montana.
After becoming depressed at 12, she leaned on the virtual platform as an emotional crutch. “I was struggling and wanted it to save my life, too,” she told South West News Service.
It was just after the pandemic that the Gen Zer joined the crowd: As part of what’s been dubbed “Generation COVID,” Ash spent the majority of her recreational hours scrolling through social media, where viral hashtags such as #transgender and #trans have amassed a staggering 21.5 billion and 59.6 billion views, respectively.
According to 2022 Pew Research Center research, TikTok has a massive impact on up to 67% of teens 13 to 17. A 2021 study on its sway, conducted by the Shanghai United International School in China, found that the digital space contains “over-exaggeration content that shapes teenager’s value in a misleading way.”
In December 2022, the Center for Countering Digital Hate also determined that TikTok’s algorithm funnels mentally and emotionally damaging content — such as suicide and eating disorders — to adolescents within minutes of creating a profile.
Meanwhile, The Post’s March 2023 undercover investigation of the app also found that it directed harmfully persuasive visuals to teens.
In Eskridge’s case, she said the videos on her timeline “brainwashed” her into transitioning. “Being transgender is definitely a TikTok trend that all began around 2020,” she told The Post of the apparent social media wave. “I notice that the demographic it most affects is teen girls around 12 to 14, as they’re the most vulnerable since they aren’t matured yet,” she continued, noting that most trans folks in her age demographic would likely disagree.
“I know that all of the kids who are also being pushed to [take part in the transgender] trend definitely think they’re 100% right and that it wasn’t caused by TikTok, because that’s how I felt, too,” Eskridge acknowledged.
“But I’d say maybe 1% of the trans teens on TikTok are actually trans,” she claimed without evidence. “The rest, influenced.”
Her parents, Sean and Darcy, told SWNS that they were doubtful that Eskridge — a lifelong “girly-girl” — was, in fact, transgender. However, they supported her decision to live as a male.
“She told us she was trans. It was after COVID, and she was at home a lot,” said Darcy, a secretary. “She started spending too much time on TikTok, watching influencers who were saying how they went through the same thing [and] how they had transitioned and it made them happy.
“We questioned Ash and pushed back,” the mother continued. “We told her we would accept her for who she is but how we didn’t feel this was the right path for her.”
And while Eskridge understood her parents’ concerns, she elected to proceed with the gender swap. “My family [was] very confused,” said the youth.
“My life had been really girly and I never showed any dislike of being a girl,” Eskridge admitted. “They were very supportive of me, but they never thought it was right for me, but they stood by me regardless.”
She legally changed her name to “Greysen” and assumed the stereotypical look of a teenage boy — rocking a short haircut and wearing sporty togs.
At 16, she began taking testosterone, which caused her voice to become lower and body hair to sprout. But rather than feeling affirmed, Eskridge says the drastic changes felt “unnatural.”
“My voice dropping didn’t feel correct,” she lamented. “When the voice started dropping, it made me feel uncomfortable, and the body hair felt really gross.”
In fact, while living as “Greysen,” Eskridge said she “missed being a girl.”
“It was exhausting,” revealed the teen, “the people who I knew in real life didn’t know I wasn’t born a man.”
“I had to adjust the way I walked and talked in a way that wasn’t natural to me,” she said. “I didn’t tell anyone that I was born a girl as I supposed I was ashamed and embarrassed of it.”
But a nighttime epiphany prompted a change of heart. “My breaking point was when I had a dream that I was a girl,” she remembered. “I thought, ‘I can’t do this anymore.'”
In April 2023, Eskridge chose to detransition, reverting back to female with the support of her parents.
“She came to us and said how she made a mistake,” said Darcy. “She told us how easily influenced she was by social media. “There was a lot of shock from us but also a sense of relief as we never thought it would be the best path in life for her,” added the mom.
But reversing her gender identity proved to be a “tough road,” which derailed a number of her close relationships. “They thought I was born a man,” Eskridge said of her pals. “After I detransitioned, I lost a lot of friends.”
The number of children who report experiencing “gender dysphoria” in the West has surged. While statistics are difficult to track, between 2009 and 2019, UK children being referred for transitioning treatment increased by 1,000% among those assigned a male gender at birth and 4,400% among those assigned female.
Meanwhile, according to 2022 research from the University of California’s Williams Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of young people identifying as transgender in the US has almost doubled since 2017, to approximately 300,000.
However, detransitioning, in general, is not common, and past research has revealed that up to 86% of trans adults feel that transitioning was the right long-term decision for them.
According to a Fenway Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital study, about 13% of people who underwent “gender-affirming transition” said that they at some point detransitioned. A large number of those — 82.5% — cited external factors such as family pressure or having trouble finding a job as the reasons they detransitioned.
The research also reported that only 2.4% of the 17,151 trans people who were questioned had detransitioned due to “doubt” about their gender identity, and another 2018 survey listed reasons including hormone complications, unresolved psychological issues and discrimination, plus realizing their struggle pertained to sexual orientation as opposed to gender.
Since resuming her life as a woman, Eskridge and Darcy have begun advocating for better mental health care for teens and demanding the law require an age limit of 18 to get gender-affirming care.
“Through her journey, [Ash] has come to realize the dangers of having chemical or surgical intervention as an adolescent,” her parents said in a statement to The Post.
Eskridge has also become a detransitioning crusader on TikTok.
In a confessional with more than 2.2 million views, she said, “After about two years of living as a male, I realized I was wrong.”
The teen explained that after coming out as trans, she only went to one doctor’s appointment — during which she claims her mental health was not properly assessed — before being given instructions on the next steps toward becoming a man.
But the ill-fated journey led her down a dark path of drug use, self-harm and suicidal ideation, according to her post.
“I assumed this was because I wasn’t male enough,” said Eskridge, “but it was really because I wasn’t a male at all.”
She captioned the clip: “I support transgender people, I was simply was wrong about myself.”
On camera, Eskridge said, in closing, “Once I detransitioned, all my mental problems were gone. “I’m happy.”
https://nypost.com/2023/07/07/teens-says-tiktok-influenced-her-to-identify-as-transgender/
***************************************************
Study Clarifies Association Between Autism and the Microbiome
A new study published in Nature Neuroscience clarifies the connection between the gut microbiome and autism. This research, led by the Simons Foundation’s Autism Research Initiative (SFARI), discovered a microbial signature that distinguishes autistic people from neurotypical people and found overlaps between gut microbes and metabolic pathways associated with autism.
Despite a growing body of studies looking at an array of genetic, cellular and microbial data, the biological roots of autism continue to evade researchers. Recent research has focused on the role of the microbiome, a collection of microbes that inhabit the human gut. The microbiome has been shown to play a role in autism, but the mechanics of this link have remained ambiguous.
The current study used a computational approach to re-analyze existing datasets. The global research team consisted of 43 authors across disciplines in computational biology, engineering, medicine, autism and the microbiome. The team developed an algorithm to re-analyze 25 previously published datasets containing microbiome and other "omics" - such as gene expression, immune system response and diet - from both autistic and neurotypical cohorts. Within each dataset, the algorithm found the best matched pairs of autistic and neurotypical individuals in terms of age and sex, two factors that can typically confound autism studies.
"We were able to harmonize seemingly disparate data from different studies and find a common language with which to unite them. With this, we were able to identify a microbial signature that distinguishes autistic from neurotypical individuals across many studies," says Jamie Morton, one of the study's corresponding authors.
"Rather than comparing average cohort results within studies, we treated each pair as a single data point, and thus were able to simultaneously analyze over 600 ASD-control pairs corresponding to a de facto cohort of over 1,200 children," said co-corresponding author Gaspar Taroncher-Oldenburg, director of Therapeutics Alliances at New York University.
The analysis identified autism-specific metabolic pathways associated with particular human gut microbes. Importantly, these pathways were also seen elsewhere in autistic individuals, from their brain-associated gene expression profiles to their diets.
Particularly notable was an overlap between microbes associated with autism, and those identified in a recent long-term fecal microbiota transplant study led by James Adams and Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown at Arizona State University’s Biodesign Center for Health Through Microbiomes. This study demonstrated the long-term safety and efficacy of Microbiota Transfer Therapy as a potential therapy to treat children with autism who have gastrointestinal problems.
The findings highlight the importance of long-term studies and interventions to understand the causal relationship between the microbiome and autism and to explore the potential application of this approach in other complex conditions, said the authors.
***********************************************
“Greedflation” is a nonsense idea
Inflation is high, and the search is on for the culprit. The latest in the frame in Europe is profiteering businesses. The idea that greedy companies were to blame has taken a knock in America, where corporate profits are falling even as consumer prices continue to rise too fast. But that has not stopped the notion taking hold across the Atlantic. The IMF has found that higher profits “account for almost half the increase” in the euro zone’s inflation and Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, has at times seemed sympathetic to the argument. In Britain the government has asked regulators to look for evidence of price gouging; on July 3rd the competition watchdog added fuel to the fire with a finding that supermarkets had increased their margins on petrol between 2019 and 2022.
The “greedflation” thesis is in part a reaction against another common explanation for inflation: that it is driven by fast-growing wages. Central bankers live in fear of wage-price spirals. Last year Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, asked workers to “think and reflect” before asking for pay rises. The remark was incendiary because the inflation that has troubled the rich world since 2021 has largely left workers worse off. Wages have not driven prices up but lagged behind them.
Yet to argue that companies must therefore be to blame is to confuse cause and effect. In America the profit margins of non-financial corporations surged after vast fiscal stimulus during the pandemic, which amounted to more than 25% of GDP and included three rounds of cheques sent directly to most households. The infusion of cash into the economy—which the Federal Reserve chose not to offset with higher interest rates—set off a consumer-spending boom that overwhelmed the world’s covid-strained supply chains, disrupting other economies. With too much cash chasing too few goods, it was inevitable that companies would make more money. Then, after Russia invaded Ukraine, companies producing energy or food also found themselves selling into a shortage. Their prices and profits shot up.
Europe’s economy has not overheated as quickly or to the same extent as America’s. But the euro zone has recently spent 3.3% of GdP subsidising energy bills and its interest rates are still too low given the underlying rate of inflation. Today it is displaying familiar symptoms: high core inflation, high profits and wages that are surging in a tight labour market. It seems likely that profit margins there will also follow America’s downwards; analysts expect the profits of listed companies to decline this year.
Regardless, the fact that companies raise their prices in response to shortages is not only defensible but desirable. The alternative to letting the price mechanism bring supply and demand into line is to rely on something worse, such as rationing or queues. Though there may be examples of opportunistic or anti-competitive behaviour, the effects are unlikely to have been material. British supermarkets increased their profits by 6p ($0.08) on a litre of petrol, which today costs £1.46, but they did so at a time when the peak rate of annual fuel inflation was 129%. Properly measured, economy-wide profit margins have not surged in Britain.
Ms Lagarde has said that it would be desirable for profit margins in the euro zone to fall. She is right; such a decline would be disinflationary and would restore workers’ share of the economic pie. But that does not mean that a crackdown on corporate greed is needed. Instead, monetary and fiscal policymakers need to continue to correct the error of excessive stimulus by raising interest rates and tightening fiscal policy.
The right lesson to draw from the past two years is not that companies have got greedier, but that workers suffer when policymakers let inflation run out of control. All the more reason, in short, to care about price stability in the first place.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/07/06/greedflation-is-a-nonsense-idea
****************************************
9 July, 2023
Far-left Ben & Jerry's is at it again
I suspect that they have lost conservatives as buyers of their product long ago.
America acquired its territory from the American Indians by conquest, not by stealing. The same is true of most countries. To be unable to to distinguish conquest from stealing is just the usual deliberate Leftist stupidity
Unilever stock lost about $2 billion in market capitalization amid calls to boycott Ben & Jerry’s ice cream after the company posted a Fourth of July message saying the United States should hand Mount Rushmore over to Native Americans.
Shares of Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch multinational company, dropped about 0.5 percent on Friday, 0.8 percent on Thursday, and 0.5 the previous day. It’s not clear if the drop was due to the calls to boycott Ben & Jerry’s, which has been owned by Unilever since 2000.
It all started when the Vermont-based ice cream company wrote that “this 4th of July, it’s high time we recognize that the US exists on stolen Indigenous land and commit to returning it,” before it posted a link to a blog post asserting that the United States hand back the famed national monument with four presidents to native tribal assets.
“The faces on Mount Rushmore are the faces of men who actively worked to destroy Indigenous cultures and ways of life, to deny Indigenous people their basic rights,” the post alleged.
A number of people on the platform, including prominent conservatives, called for a boycott.
“Make @benndjerrys Bud Light again,” country singer-songwriter John Rich wrote in response, responding to the several-week-long boycott targeting Bud Light that has seen the beer company’s year-over-year sales plummet. While Bud Light didn’t attack the founding of the United States, the company was panned for producing a can of beer with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney’s face on it.
“Long overdue for the Bud Light treatment. You hate the country, fine. We won’t buy your product. All good,” another wrote in response. “When is Ben & Jerry’s giving up their land?” Jenna Ellis, a former attorney to President Donald Trump, wrote on Twitter.
Several newspapers like the New York Post and Washington Examiner, too, called for a consumer-led boycott after the Twitter post.
“The brand backed bad-joke Occupy Wall Street, for crying out loud; it aligns with the anti-Israel BDS movement. Co-founder Ben Cohen funds groups opposed to US military aid to Ukraine,” the NY Post’s editorial wrote before calling for a boycott of the ice cream company. “Remember, America, you don’t have to accept woke preening from corporate elites. Speak up—with your wallets,” it said.
The Examiner said, “It may be fun to imagine, but, of course, Ben & Jerry’s will never actually give back the land its corporate office sits on. It will simply exert pressure on others to give up their land.”
It’s now Americans’ “job to try and turn the tide” against the company, the paper said.
Vermont Land?
Meanwhile, one Native American tribal chief, Don Stevens, told the New York Post in an interview on Friday that he “looks forward to any kind of correspondence with [Ben & Jerry’s] to see how they can better benefit Indigenous people.” If Ben & Jerry’s is “sincere,” the company should hand over its Vermont properties to the Coosuk Abenaki Nation.
“If you look at the [Abenaki] traditional way of being, we are place-based people. Before recognized tribes in the state, we were the ones who were in this place,” Stevens said, claiming that the Abenaki see themselves as “stewards of the land.”
The company, however, is no stranger to controversy and boycott calls. Over the years, the founders of Ben & Jerry’s have taken left-wing or anti-U.S. stances, and have also often been critical of American foreign policy efforts, including Washington’s decision to provide military aid to Ukraine in the war against Russia.
Years ago, some called for a Ben & Jerry’s boycott after it refused to sell its ice cream in Israel’s West Bank and Gaza Strip, alleging those areas are being occupied by Israel.
In June, Ben & Jerry’s announced it wouldn’t pay to advertise on Twitter and claimed that “hate speech” is on the rise across the platform since Elon Musk purchased the company last year. In a blog post weeks ago, the company wrote that changes at Twitter are causing it “great concern” and that “hate speech is up dramatically while content moderation has become all but non-existent.”
And in March, company co-founder Ben Cohen spoke out about the U.S. government providing military assistance to Ukraine, saying that the United States should instead try to negotiate an end to the war.
“I think the U.S. should use its power to negotiate an end to the war, not prolong the death and destruction by supplying more weapons,” Mr. Cohen told the Daily Beast in March.
Mr. Cohen was arrested Thursday by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) police for blocking an entrance to the Department of Justice (DOJ) building in Washington as he was demonstrating against the detainment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been held in custody for years. A photo showed Cohen holding a sign with the words, “free Assange,” on them before he was arrested.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ben-jerrys-loses-billions-in-stock-value-amid-boycott-calls_5381866.html ?
*************************************************
Charming Afghan refugee says Thank You to Britain for taking him in
This is the moment a young woman screams in terror and runs for her life after being punched repeatedly in the face by a stranger in a horrific unprovoked attack.
Aisha Waris, 23, fled into the home of a neighbour to escape from Gulwali Stanekzay, who had left her face dripping in blood.
She had been walking home by herself at night in February when she was confronted by the crazed 22-year-old, who attacked her three times.
Stanekzay, an Afghan immigrant, was today sentenced to three years in prison after admitting assaulting Ms Waris.
The horrifying attack in Harlesden, north-west London, was caught on a Ring doorbell camera belonging to Richard Jarman, who had come out of his house after hearing screaming in the street.
In footage played to Harrow Crown Court, Ms Waris is seen walking up to Mr Jarman's front door, whimpering in fear, pleading with Stanekzay to stop.
She then screams out 'No' as he pursues her onto the property and begins a flurry of punches to her head and face, forcing her to seek shelter inside the house.
Mr Jarman can be heard shouting at the attacker, 'you're on camera' before shutting the door.
Stanekzay attempted to gain access to the terraced property by taking a series of running kicks to the door before smashing the glass and the Ring camera with a bike lock.
In her victim impact speech read to the court Ms Waris revealed how she is now too scared to leave her home and is afraid to be on her own.
She said: 'This incident has caused me a lot of distress and had an impact on my emotions and my mental health.
'I have also sustained physical injuries included bruising and swelling to my eyes, nose and lip.
'I had many bruises on my head, neck, shoulder and back. I have had to go to hospital to receive treatment for my physical injuries.
Ms Waris had been walking home along Minet Avenue in Harlesden at 7.30pm on February 26 when Stanekzay suddenly and deliberately rode his bike into her and started punching her repeatedly in the head and shoulders for about a minute.
He rode away and shocked and dazed, she continued her short journey back home but noticed seconds later he was again walking towards her menacingly.
Stanekzay punched her repeatedly again forcing Ms Waris to cover her face and run towards Mr Jarman's home.
She approached the house and was begging Stanekzay to leave her alone, but he ignored her pleas and launched a third savage assault.
Once inside the property, she wiped the blood away from her nose and lip.
Enraged, Stanekzay turned his fury on a Toyota Prius parked out in the street and caused £3,445 worth of damage to the car before turning his attention to Mr Jarman's front door.
Footage shows him taking several flying kicks at the door before he starts to smash the camera and a pane of glass with his bike lock causing more than £4000 worth of damage.
Ms Waris had been on the phone when she was attacked initially and the friend on the other end of the line had managed to contact her father, Abdullah Khan, who drove to the scene.
Mr Khan, who was accompanied by his other daughter, confronted Stanekzay outside the house.
Security footage shows the moment he too was attacked by the defendant, who punched him two or three times and dragged him along the road before fleeing.
Ms Waris suffered a bruised lip, a swollen nose and red marks and bruising to her chest, shoulders and face.
Her father suffered a black eye and broken tooth.
Stanekzay, who had come to Britain as an unaccompanied 16-year-old from Afghanistan in 2016, had been in and out of immigration centres and was homeless at the time of the attack.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of assault (ABH) and two counts of criminal damage at a previous hearing in May.
He admitted this afternoon that he was also in breach of a suspended sentence order after being convicted of ABH in December, 2022 and given a 24-week prison sentence suspended for 12-months.
Sentencing him today for the 'wholly unprovoked' attack, judge Maya Sikand said: 'Watching that footage is upsetting and frightening and I'm sorry to say portrays you in a very ugly light.'
Stanekzay, who issued his 'reserved apologies' to the victims through his barrister, was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for the assaults and another 24- weeks for breaching his suspended sentence.
***************************************************
Kamala Harris ‘culture’ word salad stumps Twitter users: ‘Emptiest human being alive’
Vice President Kamala Harris’ wordy description of the meaning of “culture” brought out social media mockery as she delivered what many considered another “nonsense” comment.
Harris appeared at the 2023 Essence Festival of Culture on Friday to discuss various topics including small businesses and abortion. During the event, the vice president described how she would define culture.
“Culture is — it is a reflection of our moment and our time. Right? And present culture is the way we express how we’re feeling about the moment and we should always find times to express how we feel about the moment. That is a reflection of joy. Because, you know…it comes in the morning,” Harris said, breaking into laughter.
She added, “We have to find ways to also express the way we feel about the moment in terms of just having language and a connection to how people are experiencing life. And I think about it in that way, too.”
This statement renewed attacks against Harris’ public appearances as Twitter users exclaimed shock at her “empty” statements.
“Kamala tried to define the word ‘culture’ today… And it went about as well as if a 9 year old had to give a book report on a book they didn’t read… This is cringier than most Biden talks,” comedian Tim Young wrote.
“Good Lord,” Hot Air contributing editor Karen Townsend declared. Radio host Chris Stigall tweeted, “This is the emptiest human being alive. Sincerely. Empty. Vapid. Nonsense.”
“OMG – what is wrong with this babbling brook of a woman?” Fox News contributor Liz Peek tweeted.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/07/kamala-harris-culture-word-salad-stumps-twitter-users/
*******************************************************
New York Times proves ‘disinformation’ is just info Democrats dislike
US District Judge Terry Doughty ruled July 4 that the federal government can’t, in fact, bully social-media platforms like Twitter and Facebook into taking down speech it dislikes.
The Times’ response?
A long “news analysis” framing the decision in purely partisan terms and impugning the judge’s credibility.
The paper’s apparent reasoning: it’s bad for the White House and Democrats, and therefore dangerous and wrongheaded.
Team Biden (and Dems national, state and local) used first Donald Trump and then the pandemic as moral-panic springboards to ramp up government “anti-disinformation” efforts, justifying them on grounds of public health and safety.
And never mind that the First Amendment says the feds can’t restrict speech, nor (by implication) have third parties do that dirty work.
Yet the Times fawningly echoes the “disinfo” rationale, describing the censorship as meant to “prevent the spread of potentially dangerous information, particularly in an election or during emergencies like a pandemic.”
No: As the Twitter Files and other reporting amply show, the hammer came down again and again on true content that the feds (or Democrats) found inconvenient, as well as political opinion.
The Post’s reporting on Hunter’s laptop, for example.
Or our commentary on the likelihood of COVID having originated in a lab.
Both stories have since been utterly vindicated; both were suppressed on the same specious grounds.
It’s clearly censorship by other means.
And it’d be wrong even if we’d been wrong: The First Amendment has no “disinformation” exception, as decades of jurisprudence on speech make clear.
That applies even to RFK Jr.’s bonkers arguments about the dangers of vaccines, which are now getting suppressed by YouTube.
Ah, the disinfo warriors rejoin: It’s private companies doing the suppression of their own free will, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
But they only (or mainly, anyway) did it under government pressure, including threats of federal action if they didn’t obey. Hence the close-and-cuddly relationship between Big Tech and Big Government and frequent meetings, phone chats and email updates to coordinate the censorship efforts.
Free speech has to be free for everyone.
Even the wrong and the morally repulsive.
It’s beyond appalling that the Times can no longer see that.
Or that the Grey Lady simply refuses to, which is even sadder.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/06/new-york-times-shows-democrats-lie-about-federal-censorship/
****************************************
7 July, 2023
Diversity, inclusion & the death of competency
Affirmative action laws have always been bollocks, no matter how well dressed up they are in the language of rectifying injustice and righting past wrongs. Birthright privilege has been rejected in the West for centuries – remember aristocracy and the divine right of kings? The left is now trying to restore it under the guise of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) label, because their preferred groups will benefit, but it remains race determinism, as Justice Clarence Thomas opined. And profoundly unfair. When the US Supreme Court finally overturned the concept of race-based admissions to higher education, it made illegal what has long been unpopular. Even leftist California voted against affirmative action (AA) in 2020. This race-privilege fight is not over, but the pendulum has started to swing away from identity politics.
In part this is because it is glaringly obvious that AA doesn’t work. It has not enabled blacks to scale the ladder of disadvantage, as other groups have. A New York Times analysis found fewer blacks and Hispanics were at college in 2017 than before AA. Commentator Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes that only 43 per cent of blacks who win college entry graduate in six years, well below the 63 per cent national average. And black graduates make up as much as the bottom 20 to 25 per cent of their law classes. Pity the poor underprepared and likely less capable black students outclassed and out-competed in lessons; cue the student derision.
Moreover, many Ivy League black entrants come from the offspring of foreign black elites, not the poor black kid from the Bronx. New and belittling words have entered the language – ‘diversity hire’, ‘token female’ and so on. I remember in 2016 reading the Wikileaks emails of then-Democrat campaign boss John Podesta, and finding a template for a proposed committee; no names were pencilled in, just identities: Black, Disabled, Hispanic, Female, and so on. But identity, like skin colour, is no magic wand for wisdom or efficiency, as Kamala Harris and White House press spokesman Karine Jean-Pierre, both diversity hires, demonstrate daily.
One aspect of AA that has been little discussed, in part because it is litigious ground, is the incompetence it ushers in. Prioritising diversity inevitably downgrades merit. The doomed Titan submersible typified this approach, with the boss Stockton Rush preferring ‘inspiring’ youngsters to competent ex-military white 50-year-olds, and he’s paid the ultimate price. None of us will ever forget the human figures tumbling off the last US flight out of Kabul after the bungled and disastrous American withdrawal. Similar disdain for both merit and reality can be seen in the global renewables debate, where the Chris Bowens of the world pretend ‘green sustainable’ energy can replace baseload power, without ever showing how the two ends meet. The arrogance of this approach, which assumes that the lights will stay on even if engineers and power grid realists say they will not, is a symptom of Western decline. We are no longer doing the hard yards that made the Judeo-Christian West the dominant global civilisation, and we are pretending we don’t have to. Reality is not as important as our pet projects these days. Until, as with the Titan submersible, it is.
US investment analyst Harold Robertson recently wrote an eye-opening expose in Palladium magazine – ‘Complex Systems won’t survive the Competence Crisis’ – on the incompetence and looming failure he sees around him. He referenced the East Palestine train derailment, the deaths of 17 in three US naval collisions in 2017 alone, air traffic control failures such as nine near-misses at US airports in the first three months of 2023, Boeing 737 safety issues and more as evidence that America’s complex systems, absent competence, are slowly collapsing. ‘The core issue is that changing political mores have established the systematic promotion of the unqualified and sidelining of the competent.’
Robertson expertly describes how DEI white-ants organisations, including by demoralising the capable and promoting the incompetent, and argues ‘catastrophic normal accidents will happen with increasing regularity…. While each failure is officially seen as a separate issue to be fixed with small patches, the reality is that the whole system is seeing failures at an accelerating rate, which will lead in turn to the failure of other systems. The more recent coronavirus pandemic was another teachable moment. What started just three years ago with a novel respiratory virus has caused a financial crisis, a bubble, soaring inflation, and now a banking crisis in rapid succession.’
Equally, as merit has receded, practical skills no longer command the respect they once did. Our schools now spend valuable curriculum time on climate change and feminism, sexual issues and activism, rather than prioritising the three Rs. This is all part of the same contempt for reality and practicality in favour of ideological correctness. Once upon a time, schools taught some life skills, along with the three Rs.
My small country high school taught cooking and sewing in home economics; there was woodwork and metalwork for boys. Now I find that young women of my acquaintance, for example, have only a dinner plate idea of where cuts of meat come from in an animal. By contrast, my high school learning, while better, was no match for that of my paternal grandmother, a bushie, who was locally famed for her ability to turn a pig into brawn, sausages, and all the different cuts. Skills matter, competence matters.
This point was beautifully made in the recent movie Triangle of Sadness, which told of an African luxury cruise for the ridiculously wealthy. When pirates attack, the ship is blown up, and, spoiler alert, the survivors wash up on a nearby island. There, only one person, a cleaner, knows how to fish without tackle or tools. As the sole food provider she becomes the boss, upending the old hierarchy, taking a young male model as a toy boy, and claiming the best sleeping spot. Skills matter, competence matters, and skin colour is neither here nor there.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/diversity-inclusion-the-death-of-competency/
*************************************************
Supermarket employee fired for recording 3 men stealing $500 in laundry detergent
A Colorado supermarket employee was fired after he recorded three men stealing approximately $500 worth of laundry detergent from the store on Father’s Day.
Santino Burrola, the King Soopers employee, was alerted to a theft in progress at the store and the first thing he thought to do was pull out his phone and record it.
“When I looked there was already a guy halfway headed out with a food cart full of laundry detergents and scent boosters and what have you,” Burrola told CBS Colorado. “My first instinct, record.”
As Burrola, a former military police officer, walked out of the store, the three thieves hurry to load up a black Chevy Trax, one opening the doors, another throwing a basket full of items into the back seat, and another struggling to unload the full shopping cart.
“Really bro you got to resort to this? The economy isn’t that bad,” Burrola could be heard in the now-viral video shared by the Arapahoe Sheriff’s Office.
“Better gettin while the gettin’s good,” Burrola jokes at the men.
As the three stooges attempted to flee from the parking lot, the getaway driver was a little faster than the two still outside the car, who had trouble getting into the vehicle.
That allowed Burrola to yank a sheet of foil covering the license plate.
After the men got into the car and left the area Burrola called the police, later sharing the video to social media which helped out the investigators.
“So I posted it on TikTok hoping that somebody would recognize them,” said Burrola about the video that was seen 1.5 million times, including by rapper Snoop Dogg.
When Burrola returned to the store for his next shift he learned he had been suspended and a week later was fired.
“Me and the union rep sat down with them and they recommended termination,” Burrola said. “I would never let any criminal conduct slide especially when it’s happening right in front of me.”
Burrola says he didn’t break any rules nor touch the thieves, all he was doing was trying to help the community.
“Did I feel that I overstepped boundaries? Not really because I didn’t physically touch them or alter their shoplifting in any way, I just revealed the license plate to help the community to be aware, the police be aware and to help better catch them,” Burrola told 9News.
“Investigators have already identified and arrested the driver, Jorge Pantoja, 32, the man in the green shirt,” the Arapahoe Sherriff’s Office said in a statement. “Pantoja is currently in custody at the Adams County Detention Facility on unrelated felony charges. He has also been charged with Theft/Shoplifting, a Class 2 Misdemeanor.”
Police are still searching for the two passengers after the driver was arrested on an unrelated felony and also was charged with a misdemeanor in the theft.
During their investigation, police contacted the registered owner of the vehicle who loaned the car to a friend, and the driver was later found.
“The driver was then contacted, arrested, and stated he picked up two other males at the Light Rail station at I-25 and Belleview and offered them an opportunity to make some money. The men told the driver their names were Robert and Bugsy,”
The other two thieves are still on the loose, but investigators are aware of their first names as Robert and Bugsy.
The supermarket chain found around the Rocky Mountains is a subsidy of The Kroger Company, which Burrola says has a policy against employees chasing or intervening in a theft.
“We are disappointed by the increased level of crime across retail establishments and the impact these incidents have on our associates and customers. We remain committed to working in partnership with local law enforcement to address this issue, as safety remains a top priority,” King Soopers said in a statement to CBS Colorado.
“We have security measures in place to help prevent crime and de-escalate such confrontations to minimize the risk to our associates. While we are unable to comment on personnel matters, we value our hardworking associates and their safe return home,” the statement concluded.
Following his termination from the store, Burrola posted a follow-up video to TikTok where he held an impromptu press conference to ask and answer his own questions.
“I was limited to my abilities due to the fact that I was employed there,” Burrola answered on why he didn’t “deck” the thieves.
Burrola said he received “racists comments” on the video but said, “I didn’t see color when I confronted them, I’ve seen criminals, white, black, brown, purple it didn’t matter a crime was being committed and wrong is wrong and a crime is a crime.”
“Let me tell you something if something is happening right in front of me, I’m gonna make it my business,” Burrola concluded.
Burrola’s family created a GoFundMe for the fired worker to recover lost wages
“He was not given severance pay and was planning to move to Florida to be closer to family. This loss of position has put a hold on plans and has made him fall behind in a couple of bills,” the GoFundMe states.
King Soopers’ decision to fire Burrola left many outraged under the GoFundMe page, some even praising Burrola for his quick thinking.
“Sorry to read you were fired recording these losers thinking they could just go in and steal. Good for you though,” one comment read.
“It is completely absurd that this dedicated employee, who was clearly doing his job in trying to protect his stores merchandise and assist the police in arresting these thieves, was fired due to the insane regulations these corporations have created regarding retail theft,” another commenter added.
“I can understand the “do not physically engage” rule in order to prevent employees or innocent bystanders from being hurt, but the action this employee took was assisting the business, the community, and the police. He did not deserve to be fired by any means.”
***************************************************
The Media’s Strange definition of Patriotism
Only Leftists can be patriots, it seems
“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism,” warned George Washington in his 1796 Farewell Address. Washington was a man who dedicated his life to his country and loved it dearly. He knew a thing or two about real patriotism.
“Gentlemen,” he said to an audience 13 years earlier in 1783, “you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.”
Would that we had more leaders today who embodied, as Washington did, the model of presidential character and patriotism.
With that setup, for obvious reasons, your humble Patriot Post team was intrigued by an Associated Press story about how a “polarized” America is having trouble with the word “patriot.” We’ve written a fair bit about the subject of patriotism over our nearly 27 years in operation, so we couldn’t pass up this story.
But the AP article, published on Independence Day, isn’t a deep-diving investigative report. It’s a hit piece by what the late Rush Limbaugh dubbed the “drive-by media.”
For starters, says the AP, the definition of the word “patriot” is in the eye of the beholder:
Today, the word and its variants have morphed beyond the original meaning. It has become infused in political rhetoric and school curriculums, with varying definitions, while being appropriated by white nationalist groups. Trying to define what a patriot is depends on who is being asked.
Naturally, many beholders are people the AP doesn’t like very much. “Far-right and extremist groups have branded themselves with American motifs and the term ‘patriot’ since at least the early 20th century,” the AP notes. After the requisite name-dropping of Timothy McVeigh, the article continues, “Many right-wing groups have called themselves ‘patriots’ as they’ve fought election processes, LGBTQ+ rights, vaccines, immigration, diversity programs in schools and more. Former President Donald Trump frequently refers to his supporters as ‘patriots.’”
Can it get any worse? they must be thinking.
We’re not here to defend the nation’s paltry handful of actual white supremacists but to rebuke the Left’s mischaracterization of virtually all Republicans as such.
In any case, how do the AP’s trio of intrepid journalists know that the “wrong” people are choosing the word? By appealing to the experts at the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as in academia. The writers just don’t bother including a single word identifying or even hinting at the ideological bent of the supposed experts opining on the subject. We’ll dispel the mystery: Those experts are far-left extremists who view anyone to the right of Karl Marx with contempt.
Lest you think we’re totally unfair, we’ll acknowledge that the AP gets a couple of things right. The opening paragraph sets up a widely agreed definition of the word “patriot” by recounting “the courage of the nation’s 18th century patriots who fought for independence from Great Britain.” It also notes festivities honoring “the military and those who sacrificed in other conflicts that helped preserve the nation’s freedom over its 247-year history.”
Later, the article quotes Republicans like “former Reagan-era education secretary Bill Bennett” who want to instill patriotic curriculum in schools.
But the AP scribes conclude with a rebuttal by a Democrat “who previously served in the U.S. Coast Guard,” a fact included so as to thwart any challenge to his view. Moreover, on the subject of curriculum, it is leftists in public K-12 schools and colleges and universities who are teaching kids to hate America because of its supposedly systemically racist and oppressively capitalist past.
As the AP paraphrases the favored Democrat, “Saying one curriculum is ‘patriotic’ suggests that others currently in use are not.” Well, if the shoe fits. There’s nothing patriotic about, say, the 1619 Project or critical race theory more generally. Teaching love of America, warts and all, is by definition more patriotic.
The AP and the rest of the Leftmedia are too busy treating “patriot” like the new “Nazi” while running op-eds that someone wrote from the fainting couch after enduring the ghastly sight of … lots of American flags.
It’s not just school and the media. Earlier this year, Joe Biden’s Department of Defense — which oversees the Patriots who voluntarily give their lives to defending the flag and the Liberty it represents — prohibited certain flag displays.
Don’t even get us started on that garish “progressive pride” flag display at Biden’s White House recently, which dishonored the U.S. flag and made a mockery of patriotism.
True patriotism won’t flourish in more people without better instruction on what it is. The Associated Press and the experts cited fall woefully short of anything resembling helpful analysis. For that instruction, we suggest you start here.
And remember these other immortal words from Washington’s Farewell: “The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.”
https://patriotpost.us/articles/98619-the-medias-pretended-patriotism-2023-07-06
********************************************
Australia: Gender-skeptic doctor launches human rights challenge to pronouns policy
A doctor’s right to object on medical grounds to the unquestioning affirmation of children as the opposite gender faces a human rights test in Queensland, with a suspended psychiatrist filing a complaint against the state’s children’s hospital over transgender health policies.
Jillian Spencer alleges she was prevented from adopting a neutral therapeutic approach and instead forced to comply with gender-affirming polices that risked causing substantial harm to young people, during the course of her employment as a senior staff specialist in the consultation liaison psychiatry team at the Queensland Children’s Hospital.
In a complaint lodged with the Queensland Human Rights Commission, Dr Spencer, who is openly critical of gender-affirming policies, reveals that she was subject to lawful employment directions that required her to use gender-affirming pronouns at all times in her practise of medicine and refrain from dissuading any child and their family from seeking a referral to the hospital’s children’s gender clinic, which frequently prescribes puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to young teenagers.
“I was concerned about the increasing number of children and adolescents – especially biological females – presenting with gender dysphoria in the context of comorbid mental health diagnoses and complex psychological issues, including trauma,” Dr Spencer writes in her complaint.
“I became very concerned about the potential harm our hospital was doing in immediately using preferred pronouns, that unquestioningly affirms a child’s perceived identity and sets them on a treatment pathway of medical intervention that purports to transition a young person into an identity that they are likely to outgrow if interventions of this kind are not applied.”
Dr Spencer, who was stood down from clinical duties at QCH three months ago following a patient complaint, is seeking amendments to health policy pursuant to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act that “no health worker may be required to use a patient’s preferred pronouns” and that “affirmation of a child’s gender identity cannot be imposed on health professionals”.
She also requests acknowledgment by the QCH that a rejection of the affirmation model of gender dysphoria treatment is a protected political belief and a reasonable professional judgment that is to be respected.
Dr Spencer said the gender-affirmative pathway adopted by QCH in her professional opinion “seemed inconsistent with best medical practice of taking an evidence-led holistic approach to child and adolescent psychiatry”.
Staff were warned at education sessions there was a “grave risk of patient suicidality” if gender-affirming interventions were not applied.
Tension within the hospital over transgender healthcare policies boiled over when management hung a large trans pride flag in the youth mental health unit waiting room, which Dr Spencer took down on the basis the area needed to be a neutral space.
Dr Spencer says she took the action some time after becoming extremely disturbed at the hospital’s policies when the psychiatry team was given an education session conducted by a nurse from the children’s gender clinic on chest binding for young female patients.
Dr Spencer later began using the pronoun “adult human female” in her email signature in protest at the pronouns and was reprimanded.
A spokesperson for Children’s Health Queensland said the organisation adopted a “universal person-centred care approach”.
“We respect the individual needs and preferences of every child and young person and their right to feel safe and supported while receiving clinical care through our service,” the CHQ statement said.
“This aligns with our responsibility as a Queensland government agency – where everyone employed is bound by public sector workplace policies and a code of conduct.
“Similarly, CHQ is committed to upholding the human rights of all people who connect with, or work within, our services.
“This reflects our obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019 to act and make decisions in a manner which supports and does not limit the human rights of patients, families and staff, unless such limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.”
Dr Spencer’s complaint was lodged with the QHRC late last month but CHQ said it hadn’t yet been notified.
****************************************
6 July, 2023
An introspection
I am not much prone to introspection. I sail through life in near-total self-confidence. But sometimes I do reflect.
Recently on this blog I wrote something about the Reichstag zu Worms, an event that took place in 1521. Even as I wrote it, I wondered what the heck I was doing in referring to the Reichstag zu Worms. How many people would be interested in ANYTHING that happened in 1521? The Reichstag zu Worms happens to be a major inflection point in the development of Western civilization but something like 99.999% of the WORLD'S population would be more interested in what they had for breakfast.
So am I being autistic in mentioning the Reichstag zu Worms? I suspect that I am. I think that I would use my energies to more effect by alluding to my personal life in what I write, I already do that to some extent but I think I should do more of it
In aid of that I have just put up a small story on my personal blog -- but I suspect that my autistic tendencies appear there too -- JR
*********************************************
Netherlands euthanizing autistic and intellectually handicapped people, researcher finds
Being myself autistic to a degree this grates on me but if no help is available for an afflicted person, continuing a life of pain is cruel
Netherlands programs have euthanized otherwise healthy individuals with autism and intellectual handicaps in recent years, researchers have found.
Five individuals under the age of 30, who cited autism as a factor in their decision to seek legal euthanasia, are among the cases reviewed by specialists at the U.K.'s Kingston University.
"Factors directly associated with intellectual disability and/or ASD were the sole cause of suffering described in 21% of cases and a major contributing factor in a further 42% of cases," Kingston University's report on the issue found.
The study noted that in many cases, doctors determined there was "no prospect of improvement" for intellectually challenged individuals because there is no treatment for their handicap.
"Reasons for the EAS [euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide] request included social isolation and loneliness (77%), lack of resilience or coping strategies (56%), lack of flexibility (rigid thinking or difficulty adapting to change) (44%) and oversensitivity to stimuli (26%). In one-third of cases, physicians noted there was ‘no prospect of improvement’ as ASD and intellectual disability are not treatable," the study reads.
Palliative care specialist Irene Tuffrey-Wijne — one of the lead authors of the Kingston University report — found Dutch doctors were legally killing patients who sought their own euthanasia because their intellectual disability or mental condition prevented them from leading a normal life, according to The Associated Press.
One record includes the case of a Dutch woman in her 30s with autism and borderline personality disorder. Doctors determined her afflictions prevented her from maintaining relationships and made forming connections with others "too difficult."
"There’s no doubt in my mind these people were suffering," Tuffrey-Wijne said. "But is society really OK with sending this message, that there’s no other way to help them, and it’s just better to be dead?"
Dutch psychologist Dr. Bram Sizoo expressed horror at the trend of autistic youths seeking assisted suicide and euthanasia's expanding acceptance.
"Some of them are almost excited at the prospect of death," Sizoo said. "They think this will be the end of their problems and the end of their family’s problems."
The Royal Dutch Medical Association has left the decision of who qualifies for assisted suicide up to medical professionals with few hard guidelines or rules.
**************************************************
American Medical Association Compromised by Radical Ideology
The American Medical Association recently passed a series of resolutions in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion that highlight how elite, professional organizations have been deeply compromised by ideology.
A report by National Review on Monday noted that the AMA, which accredits medical schools and has enormous power over the medical profession, passed a series of resolutions in mid-June denouncing legislation that would prevent “gender-affirming care” for minors and in support of racial preferences in higher education.
From National Review:
One resolution that passed amended a preexisting policy to oppose mandatory reporting of information related to sexual orientation and any information related to gender transition, including for patients who are minors, according to the organization’s press release. …
During the annual meeting, the AMA also adopted a policy urging colleges and medical schools to implement race-conscious admissions procedures in advance of the looming Supreme Court decision on affirmative action.
Supporting “gender-affirming care” for minors is bad enough, but affirmative action? That issue would seemingly be out of the purview of medicine, but not according to the AMA, which joined an amicus brief with Ivy League schools in the affirmative action Supreme Court cases decided Thursday. Thankfully, they lost.
The AMA explained in its amicus brief that “diversity in the education of the nation’s physicians and other health care professionals is a medical imperative.” The best argument that the association could come up with for why enforced racial preferences are a “medical imperative” is that, according to some research, having diverse doctors improves outcomes for patients.
That’s a dubious premise, but given the power of the DEI ideology, would they ever acknowledge studies that demonstrated the opposite?
Large corporations and professional organizations are afraid to touch any study, book, or film that in any way calls into question the gender-transition ideology, for instance. It seems unlikely they will ever, in any way, question the racial diversity narratives that dominate the world of our cultural elite.
The DEI cult never seems to need actual positive results to conclude that all diversity efforts are beneficial. It doesn’t matter how shallow, silly, expensive, or directly harmful the initiatives are, they are always promoted as good and necessary.
The more plans fail, the more planners plan, as a great man once said.
And those diversity efforts, according to the AMA, require racial preferences and discrimination.
The AMA said in a press release that it maintains “unequivocal opposition to legislation that would dissolve affirmative action or punish institutions for employing race-conscious admissions.”
As I wrote previously, our nation’s elite institutions just won’t quit the racial preferences game, no matter what the Supreme Court rules or what the average American thinks.
Of course, the AMA is highly selective in deciding what health policies must be added or abandoned to rectify historical oppression. It recently threw out body mass index as a measure of patient health because, it says, BMI is racist and has roots in eugenics.
If that’s so, as Tristan Justice pointed out at the Federalist, then why does the AMA cling so tightly to abortion, which most certainly has racist roots in the eugenics movement? They seem rather selective in what historic injustices qualify for rectification.
The AMA has veered leftward for some time, but it has slipped into full cultural revolution mode in the past few years.
Institutional science and medicine are going woke, abandoning professional standards and even common sense, it seems. Their gatekeeping power remains immense, though. This is, in effect, how the ruling elites rule. They use generations of institutional trust and their overwhelming power over who may or may not enter the ranks of the managerial elite to browbeat society into accepting the most extreme elements of the cultural revolution.
Perhaps they think their lock on Western societies is absolute. The problem they are running into is that once the credibility of their expertise collapses, and people get fed up with the extremism, do the institutions any longer have the power to force the public en masse to accept their claims and agenda?
Sure, Democratic politicians will continue to cite the AMA, or the American Psychiatric Association, or the College Board, or any number of other such organizations to justify their aims. But at some point, people just stop believing in them entirely. Confidence in institutions has cratered in this country. It’s not hard to guess why.
That’s why there needs to be increased emphasis from Americans, through their elected representatives, to sidestep the power of these institutions.
Woke ideology spreads like a cancer from higher education into corporate America and the professional organizations. It’s now baked into the ethos of the legal profession and especially government bureaucracies.
Some states, such as Texas and especially Florida, are catching on to the problem and are using political power to ensure that institutions reflect the beliefs of the people and not the other way around. They are ensuring that compromised institutions don’t have the power to dictate how you run your life or how you raise your children.
That’s what principled populism is all about. We, the people, still have the power to change the course we are on if we choose to do so.
***************************************************
Canadian Province Bars Planned Parenthood From Schools Over Graphic ‘Sex: From A-Z’ Cards?
Planned Parenthood of Regina, Saskatchewan, in Canada brought “SEX: From A-Z” sexual topics cards to ninth graders there last week as part of a presentation about sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and more.
The sexually graphic cards had not been approved and got the organization banned from the province’s schools.
Each of the 26 cards in the pack, one for each letter of the alphabet, details an explicit sexual term. Some of the terms defined included bodily-excrement fetishes, various sex acts and positions, and even sexual attraction to one’s television (“cathodillia”). The cards have cartoonlike illustrations on the front and definitions on the back.
The original PDF of the sex cards has since been deleted, but you can access an archived copy here.
Some definitions go so far as to encourage partaking in the explained act. “There’s plenty of porn out there, all you have to do is find it,” reads the card explaining X-rated pornography.
According to an informational page attached to the front of the cards, they are meant to be played as a game, with one player trying to guess the sex term based on the cartoon, and the other seeing whether they get it right.
“‘SEX: From A-Z’ is a set of cards intended for gay, [bisexual] and queer young people. This is a fun and accessible resource that facilitates humorous and frank discussion among young people about sexuality and HIV and [sexually transmitted infection] prevention. It can also be used by service providers as a discussion tool in workshops and training sessions,” according to the AIDS Committee of Toronto.
While Planned Parenthood Regina’s presenters did not directly hand out the cards to the students of Lumsden High School, they brought them to the presentation, and one student obtained a set of the cards.
Saskatchewan’s education minister, Dustin Duncan, subsequently suspended the abortion giant from presenting in the province’s schools. He also ordered his department to review documents pertaining to the curriculum, making sure it is age-appropriate.
Planned Parenthood Regina issued a statement on its social media accounts, stating that the cards were a resource not approved by the school and somehow ended up in the hands of the student.
In its statement, Planned Parenthood Regina implies that providing LGBTQ youth with access to the cards, including ones that explain auto-fellatio and urophilia, is something that could “prevent serious mental health crisis, including suicide … .”
The Daily Signal reached out to Planned Parenthood Regina to ask why it brought the cards if they were not approved and how the student got a hold of the cards. It didn’t respond by the time of publication.
The Daily Signal also reached out to the office of Lumsden High School to ask about the nature of the event for which it invited Planned Parenthood to the school. School officials likewise didn’t respond.
****************************************
5 July, 2023
I discovered I had autism in my forties and it changed my life. Here are the unlikely signs women need to look out for
I am putting this article up because I heartily endorse its message. I too discovered that I had characteristics of autism late in life and that realization was very helpful to me.
Fortunately I am a high-functioning autistic so have still had a pretty good life but I am aware of many occasins when I could have done better in my social life. I greatly enjoyed my four marriages and other close relationships but I now understand why the ladies all left me in the end. I caused them unhappiness which in retrospect I could mostly have avoided if I had been more aware of their needs.
The article below is unusual in that it covers autism in females. That is rarely done and autism in females does apear to manifest somewhat differently. That is particularly relevant to me because I am these days partnered with another self-diagnosed autistic.
Some of her autistic behaviours are quite florid and have clearly been a significant handicap to her. Despite being smart and good-looking she has a long history of unsatisfactory personal relationships. Being aware of what the problem is, however, I have been able to make allowances for it and we have formed a strong bond. It's an odd thought but perhaps it takes one autistic to understand another
On a Saturday morning two years ago, Jane McNeice was lying in bed, scrolling through Facebook, when a colourful chart describing traits of 'girls with autism' caught her eye. The list included 'practises conversations in mind', 'may feel out of place in the world', 'anxiety', 'perfectionist', 'trusting' and 'adapts behaviour to fit in'.
'I went, tick, tick, tick — and cried my eyes out,' says the 47-year-old author and founder of mental health training company Mind Matters.
'I knew immediately. It was like a light bulb going on over my entire life,' says Jane, who lives in Doncaster with her husband Steven, 33, who runs his own IT company, and their children, Oliver, ten, and Benjamin, seven.
For more than four decades, Jane had experienced a range of problems, including discomfort interacting with others, low self-esteem, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts. She has always been, she says, a square peg in a round hole.
At that time, in 2021, she'd been seeking help for Oliver, who since lockdown had been increasingly having meltdowns where he'd lash out, cry and scream.
Jane also has a daughter, Laura, 27, from a previous relationship. From a young age, she had also experienced emotional problems, as well as being verbally abusive and damaging things at home.
What started off as one light bulb turning on became a series of flicked switches for the McNeice family. Over the following seven months, first Jane, then Laura, and finally Oliver, were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
This is a lifelong developmental disorder that affects how people communicate and interact with the world. While the causes are not clear, experts believe that genetic factors may contribute, with studies estimating 40 to 80 per cent have an inherited factor.
Jane and Laura were reluctant to wait for an NHS adult diagnostic service (currently two years or more, depending where you live) so went privately to a psychotherapist who assessed them using tests produced by the American Psychiatric Association.
In Oliver's case, a chat with a GP and his school led to them receiving an NHS letter saying the wrong department had been contacted and suggesting Jane and her husband take a course for parents with children with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and emotional regulation problems.
After paying for a private assessment, which established that the suspected ADHD was 'unlikely' and autism was 'possible', Jane paid £3,750 for an autism assessment by a specialist child psychiatrist, which included Oliver being observed at school.
Jane says each diagnosis has made a significant difference to their lives. 'Understanding who we are has improved our sense of self, our mental health, self-esteem and resilience,' she says.
It's often assumed that autism affects boys more than girls — and, certainly, boys are more likely to be diagnosed, with a 2017 study published in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry showing three males are diagnosed for every one female.
There are around 700,000 UK adults and children diagnosed with autism, according to the National Autistic Society, with around 460,000 of them men and boys.
However, research published in The Lancet in April suggests the numbers affected could be more than double the official figures, with the over-50s and women less likely to be diagnosed.
Did you know?
Liver cells play a key role in our body clock which controls sleep, hormone levels and metabolism.
Previously the brain alone was thought to control the body clock, but a study by the University of Queensland found that when mice — which are naturally nocturnal — were given a transplant of human liver cells, they started to eat and were active in the day instead, reports Science Advances.
Researchers said this suggests the liver affects the master body clock in the brain and could be a target for treating illness linked with the circadian rhythms.
One of the main reasons behind this lack of diagnosis is that females are less likely to 'fit the pattern' of autism, defined by research that's largely based on males, suggests Dr Sarah Lister Brook, a clinical director at the National Autistic Society and diagnostic specialist with the charity's Lorna Wing Centre for Autism.
'Standardised approaches for assessing autism lean towards questioning and expecting a pattern of behaviour and development that is more typical of males, because, historically, common autistic mannerisms came from studying boys,' she explains. 'Those approaches might miss picking up a more typically female profile.'
For instance, a 2013 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry added irritability and lethargy to the problems that typically affect autistic girls more than boys. Girls may also 'mask' their symptoms more, by copying how their peers speak and behave.
'It's not the case for all males, but we know the typical male presentation is more overt symptoms such as repetitive patterns of behaviour, rituals and unusual movements in their bodies [such as hand flapping],' says Dr Lister Brook.
'We've found, over many years of assessing women and girls, that while some experience some of these behaviours, they will often suppress them more effectively and have more of a social filter for repetitive behaviours.
'While boys typically act out how they are feeling and externalise their emotions, girls tend to be more internalising.'
Dr Rachel Hiller, a clinical psychologist and research fellow at Bath University, led two studies, published in 2014 and 2015, on autistic gender differences and found that boys and girls with autism behave differently as early as pre-school years. Young girls were more likely to mimic others to fit in, and obsess over friendships; boys were more likely to withdraw and socially isolate.
'Autistic women and girls are often more socially motivated than autistic boys or men, and may have close friendships,' adds William Mandy, a clinical psychologist and professor of clinical psychology at University College London.
Differences can also occur with interests or obsessions.
'The special interests of autistic girls often look less striking and unusual than autistic boys,' says Professor Mandy. 'For example, a girl might be fascinated with animals, or make-up, whereas a boy might be really interested in the District Line or 50p pieces.
'Though someone without autism might have these same interests, they won't tend to be followed with the same autistic intensity.'
The understanding about women's experience of autism is slowly improving, says Dr Lister Brook, who has noticed a steady rise in referrals for autism assessments for women and girls. 'The figure has definitely increased rapidly — and more so in the last 15 years.'
But a study in 2015 by online research community Interactive Autism Network (IAN) found that girls in its U.S.-based registry of over 30,000 autistic individuals have milder autistic mannerisms than the boys. IAN's director, Paul Lipkin, said: 'We must consider whether the girls are not only being recognised later, but also may be underidentified due to less pronounced symptoms.'
But this does not mean that their symptoms are any less distressing, says Jane. 'The presumption is that girls with autism do not get diagnosed because maybe we are not suffering or we have our problems under control or managed. That is not true. Our suffering is hidden.'
Another crack autistic females can fall into is being diagnosed with anxiety or other mental health disorders. This is less likely for males whose symptoms tend to be more pronounced.
'It is not uncommon for someone with autism to hit a clinical threshold for anxiety and be diagnosed with it,' says Dr Lister Brook. 'But it takes a bit of curiosity to understand that there might be a neurodevelopmental condition — autism — underpinning it.'
Sarah Dickinson, 34, from County Durham, was diagnosed with autism and ADHD 18 months ago — having previously been told she was suffering with anxiety.
'I was called a hypochondriac and highly sensitive, but I just knew there was more to it,' says Sarah, a customer experience manager for a health food company. 'I'd have awful breakdowns and what I thought were panic attacks at school when I felt extreme emotional or sensory overload.
'I'd have a very big cry and then isolate myself and not speak much for a few days to recharge. Every six months or so I'd visit my GP begging them to do every test possible to find out why I struggled so much with daily life.'
Soon after starting secondary school, Sarah was diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder and depression and prescribed sertraline, an antidepressant. But this had no effect on her mood, so after nine months she came off it.
'I struggled a lot with change and going into a new environment,' she says. 'I got bullied for copying others — but, if I was myself, asking too many questions or saying 'weird' things, I got bullied for being different. I was stuck.'
Throughout her adolescence, doctors suggested her weight, hormones or the contraceptive pill might be responsible for how she was feeling. 'You start to question yourself — am I making this up? Am I going crazy? If you have low self-esteem anyway, it can be really difficult.'
Sarah went to college to study animation and illustration but left after less than a year because she struggled with the pressure of deadlines, something she now identifies as pathological demand avoidance — a recognised characteristic of some autistic people — which means avoiding everyday demands and expectations to an extreme extent.
During lockdown, her anxiety hit new levels and she was seen by a different GP who reviewed her medical records. 'She said: 'Has anyone ever talked to you about autism or ADHD?' At the time I laughed. It sounded ridiculous.'
A backlog for specialist assessment meant the diagnosis process took two years, but when a psychiatrist finally confirmed it was autism, she, like Jane, said it made a huge difference. 'I know that my 'character flaws' are not flaws at all. I'm just wired differently.'
She is now less concerned about trying to fit in. Connecting with
other autistic people, like her, through social media @adhd.khaleesi on Instagram and TikTok) makes her feel happier and less isolated.
With more than four decades of practice, Jane had become adept at 'masking': trying to do or say the socially 'right' thing by copying how others speak, gesture, or even the tone of their voice. 'I would mimic their ideals, how they dressed, even their handwriting,' she says.
It was, she says a blessing, in that it helped her fit in, but it was mentally exhausting. It never occurred to Jane that she might be on the spectrum. 'I'm actually really poor at maths, though I've always been good at pattern spotting,' she says.
Jane, who has self-published a book, The Umbrella Picker, about her diagnosis, says knowing she is autistic has helped her become less self-critical.
Her daughter, Laura's, diagnosis at 26 was equally transformative. 'She is now able to manage her emotional impulses more effectively, through awareness and coping mechanisms, and has an explanation for why she experienced the thoughts and feelings she has.
'To find out your child is autistic and that their suffering can be eased is priceless. For me, too, it's been the best psychological intervention I've ever received for my mental health, even though there's no treatment as such,' says Jane.
'It improved my anxiety levels. I just want all the other lost girls out there to be found.'
************************************************
UK: British press regulator betrays its mission and tramples on press freedom
Opinion is not supposed to be regulated
At 10pm last night, the BBC sent out a ‘breaking news’ notification informing millions that a joke made by Jeremy Clarkson about Meghan Markle has been deemed sexist by Ipso, the press regulator. That such attention was given to a few sentences published on p17 in a months-old article is odd, but the BBC had cottoned on to an important point: the battle for press freedom had just suffered a major setback.
Hacked Off, an outfit campaigning for state regulation of the press, reacted with typical illiteracy trumpeting: ‘Ipso finally upholed [sic] sexism complaint’ marking ‘the first time in Ipso’s history that it upheld a complaint about sexism’. It is right to say that a bridge has been crossed, a defence of press freedom trampled upon. The activists have finally found a way through.
By upholding the Clarkson complaint, Ipso has torn up the previous protection expressed in its Editors’ Code: that opinion is not regulated. You’re not supposed to be able to complain on someone else’s behalf unless you have found a factual error and this a clause intended to stop Ipso being manipulated by activist groups. ‘Complaints can only be taken forward from the party directly affected’, ran the old rules. Had Meghan complained? If not, nothing to investigate. Ipso checks accuracy and protects individuals from press misbehaviour – but it was not set up as a thought police. It doesn’t judge taste. It’s not a tool to be manipulated by activists.
The Clarkson ruling changes the rules. As of now, activists can now complain on someone else’s behalf. As of now, Ipso is indeed in the business of deciding if columns are sexist. And who do we find leading the charge in this new regime? Harriet Harman, the incoming chair of the Fawcett Society who is doing a lap of honour. Fawcett made the complaint (or, perhaps, was used by Hacked Off as a vehicle to make the complaint on behalf of women: the two groups issued a joint statement last night). Ipso has, in effect, given Harman an editor’s pen, and one she is unlikely to hold back in using. If the ruling is allowed to stand (a judicial review is perhaps the only tool left to strike it down) then it has chilling new implications for every Ipso-regulated publication. Including The Spectator.
What follows is complex, but it matters. The contours of free speech are decided by such loopholes and technicalities.
Ipso and free speech
Until now, a joke by Jeremy Clarkson would have been a matter between the newspaper and its readers. The digital age has brought informal pressure, where screengrabs allow a publication’s non-readers to vent outrage (the main commodity pushed by Twitter) and demand punishment or censorship. Jokes and satire are targeted the most, often seen as hate crimes. A trivial verbal flourish has been elevated to a heinous assault one to be punished by the firing of the writer. Large publishers panic. From Iain Macwhirter to Kevin Myers, the mob are used to publications giving them the scalps they demand.
Ipso was designed to withstand the pressure of online mobs. It had, until now, made this clear: if a Clarkson joke offends you, or if you don’t like what the Daily Mail said about Angela Rayner or its ‘Legs-it’ cover with Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon, don’t waste your time complaining to Ipso. It only takes complaints from those referred to. It protects individuals, but doesn’t do the bidding of activists. This was an iron rule, repeated time and time again.
Clarkson’s joke about Meghan whipped up a Category-A Twitterstorm and 60 MPs expressed their outrage. Until now, their opinion did not count for anything. In Britain, politicians have no writ over the press. But now, that has changed.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/the-clarkson-ruling-puts-ipso-in-violation-of-its-own-charter
*********************************************
Veteran biology professor who has been teaching that sex is determined by chromosomes X and Y for 20 years is fired after four students walked out of his classroom in Texas
A veteran biology professor in Texas who has been teaching that sex is determined by X and Y chromosomes for over 20 years was allegedly fired after four students walked out of his classroom.
Dr. Johnson Varkey has claimed he was let go from his teaching position at St. Philip’s College in San Antonio after he was accused of 'religious preaching'.
He was discussing the human reproductive system on November 28, 2022, when four students stormed out of the lecture.
Varkey was then accused of 'discriminatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric, and misogynistic banter'.
The professor said he received an email from the Alamo Colleges District Human Resources department in January, which said his credentials would be revoked pending an investigation. He was later fired.
Lawyers from the First Liberty Institute representing Varkey sent a letter to St. Philip’s College last week to demand he be reinstated.
'In January 2023, St. Philip’s College fired Dr. Varkey for teaching human biology just as he did in his previous twenty-year career as a professor,' it read.
'His statements are not only supported by his extensive education and experience, but they also reflect his sincerely held religious beliefs.'
The law firm argued the firing of Varkey, who taught Human Anatomy and Physiology at the college for 22 years, was against federal and state law and it targeted his First Amendment rights.
Varkey is also an associate pastor at a local church and a devout Christian who follows the religion's teachings on sexuality and abortion. But his attorney's added he has not expressed any of those beliefs in the classroom.
'As his stellar performance reviews suggest, Dr. Varkey gladly taught students of all beliefs and backgrounds,' the letter continued. 'Throughout his employment, he never discussed with any student his personal views — religious or otherwise — on human gender or sexuality.'
'On November 28, 2022, four of Dr. Varkey’s students walked out of his class when he stated, consistent with his study of human biology and his religious beliefs, that sex was determined by chromosomes X and Y.'
The lawyers argued Varkey taught from school-approved and science-based curriculum, but the college claimed his teaching was religious.
'While some of the subject matter may be connected to class content, it was very clear, from the complaints, that you pushed beyond the bounds of academic freedom with your personal opinions that were offensive to many individuals in the classroom,' school officials told him in a letter.
Varkey was informed that he was not scheduled to teach in the spring and that he wouldn't have any further teaching opportunities at St. Philip’s College.
St. Philip's has not responded to the letter publicly.
The community college has received complaints from conservative-leaning professors before with political science professor Will Moravits claiming last month that his contract was terminated because of his beliefs due to student complaints.
A lawyer representing Moravits said he tried to get them 'to engage all sides of controversial issues, such as police brutality and gender ideology. Many of his engagements with students in class discussions came in direct response to their questions.'
*****************************************************
White USC professor, 83, refuses to apologize after saying her career would have been better if she was black and lesbian
It seems that you must have "affirmative action" but must not admit to its effects!
A white USC professor is under fire after she said during a recent conference that her career and life would be easier if she were black and a lesbian.
Lois Banner, a professor emerita of women's history at the University of Southern California, spoke during the Berkshire Conference of Women Historians on Friday.
Banner, 83, reportedly said she wished she were a lesbian because they had great communities and that her career would have been better if she were black.
'You won't change my mind, I'm 84 years old,' Banner allegedly said, refusing to apologize.
According to conference guests, Banner's words came just moments after a black professor had spoken on racism and exclusion in the academic space.
The shocking statements were documented by Narrow, a doctoral student who attended the Friday plenary session where Banner spoke.
She wrote that the event 'took a turn' after Banner - who she did not initially name - shared her extremely controversial opinions.
'A white senior scholar at the 50th anniversary plenary VERY publicly, and unapologetically, said that she wished she was Black so her professional life would be easier,' Narrow tweeted out Friday night.
The student said that the professor - who has a Ph.D. from Columbia University - was shunned for the comments which caused an uproar.
'She was immediately called out for her blatantly racist remarks, and refused to apologize, let alone listen, to the reason why her remarks were horrifying wrong.'
Narrow went on to say that the 'room was shaken,' calling the feeling that rippled through the auditorium 'palpable.'
The student did not name Banner as the professor who had made the startling remarks until several hours later, but stated she had confirmed Banner's identity.
The initial tweet received mass amounts of backlash, especially from those who felt as though Banner's words were especially painful after the Supreme Court's overturning of affirmative action.
'For Lois Banner, a very established and senior white woman historian, to say that she wished she was Black so her professional life would be easier, yesterday of all days, when white backlash was so very vicious from the Supreme Court, is obscene,' one person wrote in a quote tweet of the statement made by the Berks.
****************************************
4 July, 2023
Aspartame to be declared 'possible carcinogen' by WHO
This is just the latest in a long line of do-gooder attempts to "get" artificial sweeteners. Sugar is bad for you too, of course, so you can't win. And fruit sugar (fructose) is the worst of all, allegedly
I once took on the Aspartame evangelists at some length, linking to many studies that debunked the scare. You can find my posts here. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Sources told Reuters that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." But historically, the agency's decisions have been controversial and confusing.
Reuters reported that an arm of the World Health Organization will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." (Image credit: Steve Russell / Contributor via Getty Images)
An agency within the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon name the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame a "possible carcinogen," based on a review of 1,300 studies, Reuters reported, citing information from two sources who are knowledgeable about the process.
But don't panic: The arm of the WHO that did the review, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), uses a classification system for possible and known carcinogens that is notoriously confusing and often misleading, Reuters noted. Science writer Ed Yong summed it up well in a 2015 Atlantic article, in which he wrote, "Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are 'confusogenic to humans.'"
Here's what you need to know.
The IARC doesn't analyze how much of a product a person can safely consume before it poses a health risk, according to Reuters. When it comes to aspartame, the answer is a lot: Past assessments suggest that a typical, 150-pound (68 kilograms) person could safely consume the equivalent of the aspartame contained in more than 13 cans of Diet Coke a day.
The arm of the WHO that handles such assessments — the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives, or JECFA — has ruled on aspartame many times before. In its most recent review, the agency again held that the sweetener is safe to consume and set the acceptable daily intake at zero to 40 milligrams per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of body weight. That translates to about 2,730 milligrams per day for a 150-pound person.
Again, this recommendation reflects how much aspartame can be consumed before it poses any health risk — not specifically cancer. Various agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have not found any definitive link between aspartame consumption and an increased risk of cancer, the American Cancer Society states.
Interestingly, JECFA is also reviewing the available data on aspartame and will announce its findings July 14, the same day the IARC is expected to rule on the artificial sweetener.
The IARC ranks substances as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or not classifiable. These classifications serve as a rough way to rank the strength of the evidence linking a substance to cancer in humans; this evidence includes studies of humans, human cells and tissues and lab animals, as well as studies of the substances' similarity to known or probable carcinogens. The rankings aren't related to how much a substance might increase cancer risk, but how conclusively the IARC can say it causes cancer at all.
Tobacco, asbestos and processed meat are all classified as carcinogenic, meaning the IARC determined there's conclusive evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, even though the degree of risk differs among these substances.
The IARC considers glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, a "probable" carcinogen, meaning there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence that it can cause cancer in humans and either sufficient evidence showing it causes cancer in animals or strong evidence that it has similar characteristics to known or probable human carcinogens. (Regulatory agencies have contested the IARC's ruling on glyphosate, Reuters noted.)
For "possible" carcinogens, there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence they can cause cancer in humans but sufficient evidence that they cause cancer in animals or strong evidence that they have carcinogen-like characteristics. In some cases, something can rank as a possible carcinogen if there's "strong" evidence from cell and chemical studies but inadequate evidence in animals and humans.
Sources told Reuters that aspartame will fall into this category, alongside the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellphones. (Note that non-IARC authorities have said there's no or insufficient evidence linking cancer to cellphone use.)
Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, sources close to the IARC told Reuters. Read more about the IARC's upcoming decision in Reuters.
****************************************************
If racial preferences in college admissions violate the 14th Amendment, then so do corporate ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ racial and gender hiring quotas
After the huge Harvard ruling, Robert Romano draws attention to another law that needs reanimation by SCOTUS: the 1964 Civil Rights Act
It’s a simple ruling: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
On June 29, the Supreme Court affirmed Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code § 2000d’s prohibition on racial discrimination in federally funded programs, including higher education, at both public and private universities, in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision.
The law itself is clear: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
And that’s exactly what Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) — and colleges and universities across the country — have been doing for decades by offering racial preferences in school admissions to hit quotas. The formulas used in these cases discriminated on their face against white and Asian students.
Nobody disputed that Harvard and UNC were receiving federal funding. Nobody challenged that Title VI applied to the funding. Nobody contested that it disadvantaged certain students on the basis of race.
And nobody disputed Congress’ authority to enact Title VI under a clear mandate in the 14th Amendment in Section 1 that “No state… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and Section 5 that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” and that Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse to determine the terms and conditions for receipt of federal funds.
With such clear provisions of law, how could the court rule any other way? In Chief Justice John Roberts’ words, it was only through judicial “improvisation” that an altogether different interpretation of the 14th Amendment included precedents that have now been struck down, including 1978’s California v. Bakke, which had held that federally funded institutions could discriminate on the basis of race if the intent was to advantage groups that had been historically discriminated against. No more.
And so, now the court is returning to an original understanding of the provisions of the 14th Amendment as a measure of equal protection — and with equal meaning equal. No discrimination on any side, restoring what was the law of the land all along and in so doing, have provided the means to countering other discriminatory practices that have come out this era of “judicial improvisation.”
Undoubtedly that will come to include radical corporations’ discriminatory and racist hiring practices, which, just like college admissions, seek to redress historical racial injustices.
In short, if racial preferences in college admissions are unconstitutional under 14th Amendment equal protection, then so are those by corporations today via their “diversity, equity and inclusion” racial and gender hiring quotas, one of the cornerstones of the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment model that seeks not profit, per se, but through ownership of companies to impose certain social agendas.
Today, the question of reverse discrimination posed by ESG’s Diversity & Inclusion corporate policies might be decided differently by today’s Supreme Court more than 40 years later. It would be up to those fired or cancelled to make the case they were discriminated against on the basis of race and/or sex.
As it is, corporate America’s racial and gender diversity preferences in favor of women and minorities, including at America’s biggest entertainment companies absolutely “discriminate[s] … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
Just look at media and the entertainment industry.
AT&T first included D&I objectives in Sept. 2018 after its then-merger with Time Warner (it has since divested WarnerMedia to Discovery) was completed. In its 2018 report, AT&T’s then-CEO Randall Stephenson announced the company’s new Diversity & Inclusion Policy, “I am proud of our commitment to a diverse and inclusive workforce. WarnerMedia’s new Diversity & Inclusion Policy, announced in September, is a pioneering media industry commitment to give more opportunities to women, people of color and individuals from other underrepresented groups – both in front of and behind the camera.”
As for the other companies, Disney, which owns Marvel Comics, states in its 2020 report, “Diversity and inclusion (D&I). Our [Diversity & Inclusion] D&I objectives are to build teams that reflect the life experiences of our audiences, while employing and supporting a diverse array of voices in our creative and production content. Established six pillars that serve as the foundation for our D&I commitments – transparency, accountability, representation, content, community, and culture. Created a pipeline of next-generation creative executives from underrepresented backgrounds through programs such as the Executive Incubator, Creative Talent Development and Inclusion (CTDI), and the Disney Launchpad: Shorts Incubator. Championed targeted development programs for underrepresented talent. Hosted a series of culture-changing, innovation and learning opportunities to spark dialogue among employees, leaders, Disney talent and external experts. Sponsored over 70 employee-led Business Employee Resource Groups (BERGs) that represent and support the diverse communities that make up our workforce. The BERGs facilitate networking and connections with peers, outreach and mentoring, leadership and skill development and cross-cultural business.”
Mattel, which owns properties like He-Man, in its 2020 report stated its Diversity & Inclusion commitments: “As a purpose-driven company, we have raised the bar on our commitment to corporate citizenship… Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (“DEI”) is another key priority for Mattel, and we are building on our long heritage in this important area by continuing to advance our DEI efforts across the Company and representing diversity and inclusivity in our products.”
Discovery, which will control WarnerMedia including DC Comics in 2022, in its 2020 report announced its own Diversity & Inclusion objectives: “Our DE&I objective is to foster a culture of equity, inclusion, and mutual respect. In 2020 we emphasized our DE&I focus through Mosaic – our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion activation. Mosaic covers a range of initiatives, including: Unconscious Bias, Respect & Integrity; Allyship; Recruitment and Career Development; Content Diversity; Supplier Diversity; and Social Impact. We sponsor over 30 chapters of Employee Resource Groups (“ERGs”) across the globe with more than 2,500 members. ERGs draw upon their collection of unique experiences to help drive our mission of fostering a diverse and inclusive environment and provide important insights to our diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives… We have a department dedicated to social good that builds and oversees consumer and employee-facing initiatives and campaigns. We leverage our platforms, resources, and employee base to make an impact in our communities and with our key nonprofit partners. We have corporate partnerships aimed at addressing childhood hunger, racial injustice and wildlife preservation.”
And Hasbro in its 2020 report announced explicit racial and gender hiring quotas: “Diversity & Inclusion Goals: Increase the percentage of women in director and above roles globally to 50% by 2025. Expand ethnically and racially diverse employee representation in the U.S. to 25% by 2025. Include a 50% diverse slate of candidates for all open U.S. positions where there is underrepresentation.”
From a personnel point of view, when big mergers happen alongside the institution of Diversity & Inclusion policies, while, male, conservative Republicans are purged if they dare speak up. Or maybe the work just dries up.
And it’s not isolated to just the entertainment industry. It’s across the board. A March 2021 ESG Report by Pfizer set 2025 “opportunity parity goals” including “increasing our minority representation from 19% to 32% and doubling the underrepresented population of African Americans/Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos.” Those are racial hiring quotas.
But Diversity & Inclusion goals go even further than just violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
It impacts social media, too. For example, prior to the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, and flush with billions of dollars of capital from ESG investing, social media platforms like Twitter have pursued aggressive Diversity & Inclusion and other politically charged objectives, including censorship.
Diversity hiring quotas like these appear to squarely run afoul of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on employment discrimination on the basis of race or sex: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or … to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
However, thanks to the 1979 ruling by the Supreme Court ruling Steelworkers v. Weber which ruled that employment policies that include racial preferences on the basis of race and sex in favor of women and minorities, which plaintiffs argued was reverse discrimination, were not a violation of the Civil Rights Act, in effect legalizing employment discrimination against whites and males. This was a sharp departure from more racially neutral interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by federal courts that preceded the decision.
Then Associate Justice William Rehnquist, who would go on to become the Court’s 16th Chief Justice in 1986, in his dissenting opinion, compared the Court’s rewriting of the Civil Rights Act to the totalitarian regime portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984, writing that law was written plainly, “Taken in its normal meaning, and as understood by all Members of Congress who spoke to the issue during the legislative debates, this language prohibits a covered employer from considering race when making an employment decision, whether the race be black or white.”
Rehnquist blasted the majority of the court, adding, “the Court behaves much like the Orwellian speaker earlier described, as if it had been handed a note indicating that Title VII would lead to a result unacceptable to the Court if interpreted here as it was in our prior decisions. … Now we are told that the legislative history of Title VII shows that employers are free to discriminate on the basis of race: an employer may, in the Court’s words, ‘trammel the interests of the white employees’ in favor of black employees in order to eliminate ‘racial imbalance.’… Our earlier interpretations of Title VII, like the banners and posters decorating the square in Oceania, were all wrong.”
Rehnquist in 1979’s Steelworkers v. Weber dissented in a ruling on Title VII that allowed for race-based hiring even though the law explicitly prohibited it, calling it “Orwellian” and quoting 1984. More than 40 years later and now the edifice of the ivory tower is crashing down.
The majority of the current Supreme Court are all considered acolytes of Rehnquist. All were regarded as constitutionalists, originalists and textualists when they were nominated by conservative presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the latter of whom just secured an historic 6 to 3 majority on the nation’s highest court with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who all ruled to restore the 14th Amendment’s equal protection rule.
The June 29 decision was on college admissions. And so any case potentially overturning Steelworkers v. Weber would still need to work its way through the courts, and surely, ESG-owned companies imposing “diversity, equity and inclusion” hiring quotas provide the ripest target. The ruling here on straight 14th Amendment grounds, coupled with Congress’ power of the purse, assuredly will soon spell the end of race and gender discrimination by employers explicitly prohibited by Title VII.
Again, Sec. 5 of 14th Amendment states: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” and Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Which is precisely what it did via Title VII. If there had been a split or adverse ruling on college admissions, I’d be more skeptical the court might go in this direction but this is as clear a signal as any to which way they’re going.
Per the ruling, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” So, let’s end discrimination, not just in college admissions, but also hiring, banking and commerce. What we’re learning with the court’s ruling today is that discriminatory practices can best be ended when there is an incentive that a consenting party will not be discriminated against as well on the same or other bases. The Bakke decision was perpetuating animus, and so surely, the Steelworkers decision is as well.
It’s time for this to end.
Congress can play a role, too, if it chooses. In recent years, particularly following the election of former President Donald Trump, supporters of Trump have found themselves in discriminatory, being denied services such as banking, public accommodations like sitting at restaurants and yes, employment discrimination. Insofar as Title VI addressed racial discrimination, and Title VII address racial, sexual and religious discrimination, it would be up to Congress, not courts, to expand these franchises. Viewpoint discrimination is no less pernicious than other forms of discrimination and, in some ways, are worse because they seek to police wrongthink and issues of conscience.
The 14th Amendment includes a broader grant than simply protection against racial discrimination, and Section 5 gives Congress a powerful tool to address these sorts of injustices if it chooses. Anyone who questions the Supreme Court’s decision need only consult with Title VI to see the clear framework Congress set forth in 1964.
For now, the Supreme Court’s restoration of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection under Title VI may now eventually extend to Title VII, creating massive constitutional and civil liability for publicly traded corporations that have chosen to adopt ESG’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” racial and gender hiring quotas. This is another pillar that can and I foresee will one day be struck down as well.
****************************************************
Arts boss who said people cannot change their sex and was branded a 'cancer that needs to be removed' by colleagues wins employment tribunal case
An Arts quango boss whose view that humans cannot change sex was branded a 'cancer that needs to be removed' by colleagues has won an employment tribunal case.
A panel ruled that Denise Fahmy was subjected to harassment by fellow staff at the Arts Council, who circulated 'extremely offensive comments' about gender-critical opinions that she held.
She was left 'deeply upset' by the remarks that created an 'intimidating hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment' for her at work, a ruling concluded.
Bosses at the organisation were also blasted for failing to take a hostile petition down immediately and for expressing their personal views on a contentious transgender rights issue in a staff meeting.
Ms Fahmy said after the judgment she was 'delighted' to have won her claim at Leeds Employment Tribunal against her former employer.
'It cannot be acceptable that people like me, who believe people can't change their sex, are subjected to harassment at work. And worse still, that employers encourage and collude in this behaviour,' she said.
She went on: 'People in the arts, and especially women, are facing a tide of bullying with spurious accusations of transphobia, and many are frightened to speak out as they risk public cancellation.
'Institutions like the Arts Council need to be held accountable, when they are biased and enable harassment of gender critical people.'
The judgment published yesterday by Employment Judge Jim Shepherd told how Ms Fahmy had been a relationship manager for the Arts Council since 2008 and in recent years had warned bosses about the quango's links to pressure group Stonewall and its belief in gender identity.
In April 2022 she raised concerns about allegations of transphobia being levelled at a charity called the LGB Alliance, which had received a grant from a fund created by the Arts Council but saw it cancelled after a social media backlash.
During an online Teams meeting attended by some 411 staff, deputy chief executive Simon Mellor branded the LGB Alliance a 'divisive organisation that has a history of anti trans-exclusionary activity'.
Ms Fahmy told him the charity is not anti-trans and asked how gender-critical views were protected in the Arts Council.
The following month, another employee sent an email to all staff declaring that the Arts Council's LGBTQIA+ working group was raising a formal grievance about the LGB Alliance awards and also the 'conflict of interest of senior members of staff with clear, homophobic/anti-trans views in positions of decision-making'.
It included a spreadsheet inviting colleagues to sign their support, and judges said the petition 'included some extremely offensive comments referring to anti-trans (gender critical) language from numerous employees'.
One said: 'We shouldn't have to put up with this any more than we would racist or sexist behaviour. It's time to stamp out bigotry in the Arts Council in general.
'This cancer needs to be removed from our organisation. Hatred of others for their differences should not be tolerated.'
Ms Fahmy resigned in September after making a 'dignity at work' complaint which was upheld before she quit, with chairman Sir Nicholas Serota telling her: 'The content and tone [of the] email and accompanying petition were capable of causing offence to persons such as yourself who hold gender critical views.'
The Tribunal insisted it was neutral in the transgender debate but noted that gender-critical views - including that 'sex is biological and immutable' - are a protected belief under the Equality Act.
It said it was 'inappropriate' for Mr Mellor to have provided his personal views and 'express solidarity with one side of the debate' in the meeting about the LGB Alliance, but that although his comments were upsetting they did not constitute harassment.
However the all-staff email and comments 'were unwanted conduct which had the purpose and effect of violating the claimant's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant'.
In addition it was 'unreasonable and inappropriate' for the petition to be left up for 26 hours, while the Arts Council had not updated its policies or provided training on the 'contentious' issue of trans-activist and gender-critical beliefs.
The Tribunal rejected Ms Fahmy's claim of victimisation but concluded: 'The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim of harassment related to the protected characteristic of religion or belief is well-founded and succeeds'.
An Arts Council England spokesman said: ‘We are pleased that the ruling confirmed that two allegations of harassment and two claims of victimisation were not well-founded and were dismissed, and that there was nothing in the judgment to support the accusation of institutional bias.
‘We are reflecting on the judgment which upheld two allegations of harassment in relation to a petition set up by a junior member of staff who no longer works for us, and we note the tribunal’s acknowledgement of steps taken by us to disable the petition and address the incident at the time.’
***********************************************
Colorado bigotry
The feature that arrests us in the Supreme Court’s vindication of the Christian web-site designer is that the case arose from Colorado. That is the state that tried to put a Christian wedding cake maker out of business because he didn’t want to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage. Colorado lost, at that time, on narrow grounds — members of its Civil Rights Commission themselves had exhibited hostility toward religious Christians.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in 20218 wrote the majority opinion, made quite an issue of this. “We can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination,” Justice Kennedy quoted one commissioner as saying. The commissioner had added: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.” That shocked the high court.
At the time, we issued an editorial asking whether Colorado would apologize, and not only to the Christians whom members of its Civil Rights Commission had insulted. It was amazing to us that Colorado went all the way to the Supreme Court only for it to be discovered that the Civil Rights Commission was the bigoted party. If we’d done that with public funds, we’d have handed in our resignation.
We don’t mind saying that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop was disappointing to us. We liked the way Justice Kennedy marked the hostility at the Civil Rights Commission. We, though, were in favor of a full and unambiguous ruling in favor of the rights of the baker, Jack Phillips, who, his website suggests, is now in his third lawsuit attempting to secure his First Amendment Free Exercise rights.
Which brings us back to the case decided today, 303 Creative v. Elenis. The case involves a website designer, Lorie Smith, rather than a baker, but the broad principles are similar. Ms. Smith feared the prospect that the state would use its anti-discrimination law against her because, while she would “gladly create” websites for “clients of any sexual orientation,” she would not produce content that contradicts “biblical truth.”
Given the plain language of the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, we’ve long thought that statute would have to give way. Or, as we’ve put it, the fact that one fears God must never be cause to fear one’s government. The intransigence of Colorado in both cases is remarkable, even tragic. We hope that someday the Centennial State will accept this ruling and wonder, Whatever were we thinking?
https://www.nysun.com/article/colorado-whos-sorry-now
****************************************
3 July, 2023
Another traditional Christian bumps up against Leftist attempts to "modernize" his church's teachings
And gets falsely called a Nazi for his pains. The fact that suppression of dissent really is Nazi is an irony that seems lost on his critics. Their authority is current Leftism, not the Bible. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, they are "whited sepulchres"
Note that when Turnipseed wrote "Here I stand", he was quoting "Hier stehe ich", a famous saying by Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms in 1521
Earlier this year, Ryan Turnipseed, a college student and devout Lutheran in Oklahoma with a modest following on Twitter, found himself on the brink of excommunication by his church.
In response to his stern criticisms of the church, Turnipseed was first denounced as a fascist by an outside party, then lumped in with a call to excommunicate fascists led by his church, and finally summoned for a meeting with church leaders where they informed him and his father that he was associating with evil. The scene was simultaneously old-fashioned, with its back-and-forth accusations of heresy and bitter struggles over the soul, and “very online,” very 2023.
The specter of Christian nationalism and other supposedly extremist right-wing ideologies festering inside middle American churches has become a focal point within the political culture as well as the national security establishment. In February, in the same period when Turnipseed was clashing with his church, a leaked document from the FBI showed that the agency’s Richmond, Virginia, office was using funds earmarked for domestic violent extremism to monitor “radical traditionalist Catholics.” The FBI retracted the memo after it was exposed by a whistleblower, but not before it revealed that the agency’s criteria for designating people as extremists was that they preferred to worship at the traditional Latin Mass. To critics, it seemed to show the federal government taking steps to criminalize religious traditionalism.
Yet rather than simply being an attack by the government on Christians, the case mirrored a conflict that is playing out within churches as well. Last February, in an interview with the progressive Center for American Progress, Amanda Tyler, a lawyer and the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, declared: “the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the United States today is Christian nationalism.”
On Jan. 21, Ryan Turnipseed stepped into this larger debate and made his stand—as one does in the age of online religious wars—by authoring a Twitter thread about the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s (LCMS) new edition of Luther’s Large Catechism.
Luther’s Large Catechism is the Lutheran doctrine outside of the Bible. Originally authored by Martin Luther, each section is broken down into explanations designed to help clergymen teach the Lutheran faith. It is foundational to Lutheranism—as vital to the faith as the catechism of the Catholic Church is to Catholicism. Turnipseed’s thread went softly viral, receiving just under 1,000 likes on a platform where the most viral tweets regularly reach tens or even hundreds of thousands of engagements.
Turnipseed’s central claims were that the LCMS’s new edition had gone so far in accommodating the dogmas of American political progressivism that the book undermined the faith entirely. In his thread, some of his complaints about the updated text were that it equivocated “homosexuality, pornography, sodomy, pedophilia, whorishness, and transgenderism with heterosexual fornication outside of sex”; “affirm[ed] the reality of transgenderism”; and contradicted scripture by “saying that Genesis is entirely separate from any ‘scientific’ theories.”
While there are a few places in Turnipseed’s thread where his judgments seem motivated by his own ideological concerns, his tone remains levelheaded. He’s stern, certainly, but there is no extremist language, no incitement to violence, and no name-calling. One gets the impression that he’s simply a conservative churchgoer who disagrees with changes being made and is deeply concerned. It’s the type of disagreement that is–or should be–par for the course whenever major changes are being made to a foundational religious document.
According to Turnipseed–and to LCMS President Matthew Harrison–he wasn’t the only person who raised objections about these changes. In a short piece published in a small publication called Christianity Today, other critics, like pastor and blogger Larry Beane and pastor David Ramirez, were also concerned that “some of the essays, which are not Lutheran doctrine, mishandled current issues like racial justice, human sexuality, and gun rights.”
On Jan. 23, two weeks after the updated Large Catechism’s release, President Harrison announced on Twitter that the LCMS would pause publication and distribution of the new catechism so he could evaluate the criticism they had received about the changes. Nine days later, the LCMS concluded that the changes would stay, and they would continue to distribute the updated version.
But here’s where the story takes a turn and enters the stage of national political drama. Harrison didn’t frame the controversy as a disagreement within the faith. Instead, Harrison presented it as something far more sinister. In a letter to the LCMS, he singled out the alt-right—an umbrella label used to describe various strands of neofascist and white nationalist ideology—for fomenting criticism against the new catechism and called for their excommunication.
In his letter, he wrote:
These “alt-right” individuals were at the genesis of a recent controversy surrounding essays accompanying a new publication of Luther’s Large Catechism. This group used that opportunity to produce not only scandalous attacks and widespread falsehoods but also to promote their own absolutist ideologies.
He called for a complete rejection of the alt-right, characterizing their views as “white supremacy, Nazism, pro-slavery, anti-interracial marriage, women as property, fascism, death for homosexuals, even genocide.”
Blaming the “alt-right” for the pushback against the church’s new directive didn’t sit well with Turnipseed. “Alt-right” is a very specific label, and a dated one at that. It’s not that no such movement has existed, but it’s often applied in a way that is deliberately vague and overly broad. In reality, “alt-right” describes a particular group of people that rose to national prominence during a particular moment in time that peaked in or around 2017. At worst, the label is a lazy smear against right-wingers. To evoke “alt-right,” in many situations, is to immediately shut down difficult conversations by associating conservatism with racially motivated violence.
Turnipseed discovered a week later that it wasn’t just that Harrison was condemning the “alt-right,” he was also condemning him personally. Shortly after Harrison’s letter was published, Turnipseed’s father received an email from a pastor stating that the church was concerned for his son’s physical and spiritual safety.....
Turnipseed defended his criticisms of the new catechism and summarized his problems with the condemnation of the alt-right in a blog post on the website Gab, a Twitter alternative that spun up during the 2016 elections after a particularly aggressive wave of suspensions that targeted users on the right and far right. In a post titled “Here I Stand,” Turnipseed laid out his views. Much of what Turnipseed describes in “Here I Stand” is unsurprising for a conservative Christian, and much of it would be sympathetic to moderate or progressive Christians as well.
But his coolly logical approach also reveals his commitment to a close reading of the Bible and of Lutheranism that places the historical foundations of the faith above the evolving moral concerns of the present.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-to-get-excommunicated-in-2023
************************************************
The truth about ‘affirmative action’
Lionel Shriver
I’ve never cared for the expression ‘affirmative action’, which puts a positive spin on a negative practice: naked, institutionalised racial discrimination – that is, real ‘systemic racism’, which was initiated in the United States long before the expression came into fashion. After all, following the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution were expressly added to establish equality under to law for Americans of all races, and a raft of Congressional civil rights legislation has since reinforced this colour-blind principle. Perhaps I risk sounding ungrateful. Still, now the Supreme Court has finally ruled that universities in the US are forbidden from admitting students on the basis of race, my knee-jerk response is: what took you so long?
I have a vivid memory of meeting my father at the university in Atlanta where he taught and strolling to our favourite ice cream parlour for a root-beer float. It was 1973, and I was 16. A certain two-wrongs-make-a-right administrative practice would in due course grow deep, tenacious roots in universities across the country, but this was early days for the novel initiative; it wasn’t yet writ in stone that if you were a liberal Democrat you embraced racial preferences in education, no questions asked. Not only was my Virginian father one of those liberal Democrats, but he’d been heavily involved in the civil rights movement, including marching with Martin Luther King, Jr and participating in numerous race-relations forums in North Carolina and Georgia. For a white guy, he’d got the T-shirt. Though our ideological paths would eventually diverge, as a teenager I followed closely in his political footsteps.
Our intellectual elite no longer believes in meritocracy
I remember that afternoon because it was the first time my father and I talked about ‘affirmative action’, a term I had only just learned. I knew that people like us opposed the Vietnam War and recycled our mayonnaise jars. But advocacy for this new notion that universities should lower their admissions standards for minority applicants, while rejecting white applicants with better grades and higher test scores who would otherwise have been admitted, was not yet mandatory for our kind. So my father and I were both still free to consider the policy on its merits, like people with the actual capacity for independent thought. I volunteered that I intuitively disliked the idea. It sounded like more racism to me, and it seemed fundamentally unfair. Himself having been a distinguished student, with a PhD from Harvard, my father concurred. Such a rigged system was clearly unjust, he said. It was unlikely to solve the problem of racial disparities in our country, and might make racial antagonisms even worse.
It won’t surprise you that my father soon changed his tune. One couldn’t be a card-carrying liberal in the US for the last 50 years and oppose affirmative action, especially in academia. Yet I have clung to that precious memory, because it confirms for me that my late father’s moral instincts were sound. As the chief justice put it in Thursday’s majority ruling, ‘Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.’
It won’t surprise you, either, that I have not changed my tune. Affirmative action struck me from the off as bureaucrats doing exactly what they were claiming to abolish. My feelings about this issue have grown as entrenched as the policy itself.
If American universities cared about exposing their charges to genuine diversity, they’d fill strict mathematical quotas for Republicans
No other programme has done more to perpetuate racism in the United States. Racial preferences in education have cast implicit doubt on the qualifications of minority professionals. Even black clients and patients have good reason to worry if a lawyer or doctor is black: does this person know what they’re doing? Did he or she only acquire qualifications through a kind of legalised cheating? Though that uneasiness is often unwarranted, a dubiety plagues even minority professionals who are stars in their fields. Racial preferences have internalised that same misgiving in minority students and graduates: would they have got into Harvard without help?
An institutionalised leg-up is implicitly condescending. By implication, blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans – but interestingly not ‘white adjacent’ Asians – are so educationally hopeless that they can only get into selective schools if we ask them to meet pathetic, bespoke requirements. The difference between the standardised test scores of black and Asian students admitted to Ivy League schools is hundreds of points. Once admitted, too, underqualified students are often not up to speed and can’t do the work, which doesn’t help anyone, least of all the students themselves. Poorly prepared students frequently end up dropping out of demanding programs in STEM subjects, for example, and opting instead for softball majors – or dropping out altogether.
Meanwhile, high-achieving Asian applicants, often from families who prioritise educational attainment and push their kids to sacrifice hanging out with friends for burning the midnight oil over textbooks, have been rewarded for their efforts with a slammed door. Harvard has been using insulting personal ratings on ‘positive personality’, ‘likeability’, and ‘courage’ to knock Asian applicants out of the running.
Previous mealy-mouthed rulings from the Supreme Court have disallowed the use of rigid racial quotas, while allowing universities to employ race as one of several factors in holistic analysis of individual applicants. In practice, however, race has been a clearly determinative factor. Despite varying rates of minority applications, the percentage of each race in a given freshman class in the Ivies has remained suspiciously constant. Selective US schools have been using mathematical racial quotas for decades, but desperation to disguise this fact explains why their admissions offices are notoriously secretive.
These shenanigans all genuflect to the God of ‘diversity’. Earlier SCOTUS rulings have accepted that racially rigged student bodies are a vital component of a rounded education. Supposedly, socialising with students from different backgrounds is edifying. While I don’t have any stats on campus fraternising at my fingertips, it’s unlikely that college students are any different than the rest of the American population, which still self-segregates up a storm. It’s awkward, right? But despite the prettily multicoloured friendship groups we now see on TV, most Americans gravitate socially to their own race. Chances are that college students do the same. Worse, in defiance of the hallowed diversity that justifies rejecting all those Asian applications with perfect SAT scores, some universities are establishing all-black dormitories and clubs, calling them ‘affinity groups’. So much for invigorating interactions with difference. Besides, the preponderance of minority entrants at Harvard are upper-middle-class to wealthy (meaning they conveniently pay full tuition); in a crucial economic sense, the students are largely the same.
With any luck, this is just the beginning of a jurisprudential revolution
If American universities cared about exposing their charges to genuine diversity, they’d fill strict mathematical quotas for Republicans, and applicants would get extra points for admitting on their admissions forms that they don’t believe in the ‘climate emergency’ or that they’re fans of Donald Trump. That would get sparks to fly in the classroom. Instead, administrators encourage a political monoculture, with the overwhelming majority of faculties self-identifying as left-wing.
According to the Pew Research Center, three-quarters of Americans agree with the Supreme Court and do not want race to be considered in university admissions. That includes majorities of all races. Most minority citizens want to be judged on their merits and not by the colours of their skin – hardly a radical preference, and good for them. Yet so imbedded is affirmative action in American higher education that many a cynic is certain that universities such as Harvard will continue to employ de facto racial quotas in admissions, even if the practice is now flagrantly against the law. It’s no little perplexing why the progressive educational complex has become so passionately attached to a mathematically inflexible version of virtue that has so many dreadful unintended consequences.
The direst, most long-term damage these warped, prejudicial practices have wrought is a gradual erosion of competence in the United States. Our intellectual elite no longer believes in meritocracy, and whole books are devoted to demolishing the concept. But what do we put in meritocracy’s place? Promotion through group membership, a racialised version of nepotism. Pursued for long enough, these policies encourage unearned entitlement, dishearten the hard working, and degrade a country’s capacity to do big things well.
I return to that gut impression I had back when I was 16. Affirmative action isn’t fair. It isn’t constitutional, and it isn’t American. I was unhappy about this court’s decision on abortion, so I’m greatly relieved to finally get my money’s worth from a conservative bench. With any luck, this is just the beginning of a jurisprudential revolution. Anti-meritocratic racial preferences are now rife in American corporations and in all levels of government. I want to see all racial preferences go. The better half of my much-missed father’s nature would yearn to see the back of them as well.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/the-truth-about-affirmative-action/?u
***********************************************
Farage: my bank accounts closed with ‘no explanation’
Life appears pretty good for Nigel Farage right now. Winning awards for his TV show, enjoying the adoration of fans and scorning the opprobrium of Remainers everywhere. But it appears the reality isn’t so rosy for the former Ukip leader. Farage has taken to Twitter today to claim that ‘the establishment are trying to force me out of the UK by closing my bank accounts.’ In a lengthy six-minute statement, he says that his current bank account is being closed, despite no reason being given. He has since tried to open a new account at seven rival financial institutions but to no avail:
I have been with the same banking group since 1980. I’ve had my personal accounts with them since that date, and my business accounts right through the 1990s want to work in the City of London. In recent years too I’m with one of the subsidiaries of this big banking group, one with a very prestigious name, but I won’t name them just yet. I got a phone call a couple of months ago, to say ‘we are closing your accounts’, I asked why [but] no reason was given. I was told a letter would come, which would explain everything. The letter came through and simply said, we are closing your accounts, we want to finish it all by a date, which is around about now. I didn’t quite know what to make of it. I complained. I emailed the chairman, a lackey phoned me to say that it was a commercial decision, which I have to say, I don’t believe for a single moment. So I thought, well, there we are, I’ll have to go and find a different bank. I’ve been to six, no seven banks actually. Ask them all, could I have a personal and a business account? And the answer has been no.
The Brexiteer is yet to name the financial institution which has closed his existing account. However in 2019, the Times reported that Farage banked with Coutts, which has served the Queen and every member of the royal family since George IV. Mr S has asked Coutts – which is part of NatWest Group’s wealth management division – for confirmation as to whether they are the bank in question. The British government currently holds a 39 per cent stake in NatWest.
Mr S wonders if some of the more outlandish claims about Farage’s finances are to blame for his current predicament. One example is offered by Sir Chris Bryant, that purveyor of moral plaudits. He is still to apologise or retract his demonstrably false allegation that Farage received £548,573 from Russian state-funded media in one year. Luckily for Sir Chris, he made that claim on the floor of the House of Commons and therefore is immune from legal action.
Otherwise Nigel’s money claims might already be solved…
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/farage-my-bank-accounts-closed-with-no-explanation/
****************************************************
Google Backs Down from 'Pride' Plans After Christian Employees Fight Back
Well, here’s the perfect end to the corporate “pride” month from hell: Even one of Silicon Valley’s wokest giants is being forced to back down in the face of backlash over an LGBT-centric event.
According to CNBC, Google is attempting to distance itself from a drag show that was supposed to cap off the rainbow-hued month of June after Christian employees claimed it discriminated against them.
The company is known to sponsor “pride” month events in its home base of San Francisco and other locales, both catering to employees and the public.
In this case, however, the final event — an official company event, originally — was a drag show at San Francisco gay bar, Beaux, this past Tuesday featuring “Peaches Christ,” described by CNBC as a “popular performer.”
You used to be able to say “only in San Francisco” to stuff like this, but this is probably Wednesday night in Idaho Falls these days.
However, a drag event at a gay bar — featuring a performer whose name is a pun on the Lord and Savior, if one is a Christian — didn’t go over swimmingly.
The outlet reported that “employees noticed the company removed the show from the internal company events page at around the same time a petition began circulating opposing the event, according to internal discussions viewed by CNBC.”
“A few hundred employees signed the petition opposing the drag performance, claiming it sexualizes and disrespects Christian co-workers and accused Google of religious discrimination, according to the petition viewed by CNBC.”
“Their provocative and inflammatory artistry is considered a direct affront to the religion beliefs and sensitivities of Christians,” the petition read.
“The petition states that organizers complained to People Operations, Google’s human resources department, and claimed the venue violates one of Google’s event guidelines, which bans sexuality explicit activity. The petition also demands an apology from organizers and promoters of the event.”
And suddenly, just like that, the drag show was sidelined in a major way.
Google spokesman Chris Pappas said in a statement to CNBC that the event had been planned by an internal team “without going through our standard events process,” because of course that’s what happened.
“While the event organizers have shifted the official team event onsite, the performance will go on at the planned venue — and it’s open to the public, so employees can still attend.”
However, Google confirmed that it would no longer recognize the event as one of the company’s official diversity, equity and inclusion events. It didn’t comment on whether or not the petition from the employees had anything to do with the action, although put two and two together here.
Naturally, CNBC noted that some of Google’s employees were critical of the company’s leadership for caving to the petitioners.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/google-backs-pride-plans-christian-employees-fight-back
******************************************************
The diversity trap
If anyone reading this ever bought shares in the diversity racket, then I would suggest you start dumping them now. Not that I would blame you for having bought them in the first place. ‘Diversity’ has been the great mantra of our age. Like ‘equality’, it is one of those words set up to be impossible to oppose. What even is the opposite of diversity? Enforced sameness? Monotony? It is hard to say.
Nevertheless, everyone was encouraged to go along with the diversity racket. It didn’t matter who was in charge – Labour or the Conservatives. Diversity was said to be one of the defining virtues of Britain. Almost the aim of the place, in fact.
But as some of us pointed out way back, ‘diversity’ is not an unalloyed good. Not the least problem being the fact that diversity doesn’t even get along with itself. For years it has been the argument of the pro-diversity left that the more diversity you had, the more tolerance you would have – because diversity would somehow by its nature create more tolerance. But in fact not everybody in the diversity tent adores everyone else shoved in with them. The contradictions and tensions thrown up are legion.
Take just one of the tensions thrown up during this ancient and most holy month of ‘Pride’. The mayor of Keighley, Mohammed Nazam, resigned this week after being criticised for attending a Pride event. Photographs show the then mayor grinning with a bunch of other numpties holding the hideous new ‘progress’ Pride flag, with added triangles to encompass trans people.
This year’s flag is said by campaigners to be ‘the most inclusive ever’. Not for Mr Nazam it wasn’t. You might be able to guess why from Mr Nazam’s first name. Wiser readers may also know that the man after whom Mr Nazam is named was not wildly pro-gay.
There are no Hadith (the sayings of Mohammed) explaining what the original Mohammed thought of ‘non-binary’ people, but one can guess. Mohammed was in many ways a fan of binaries. He would likely not have been a fan of the Pride flag in any of its forms. And while there are interesting scholarly arguments about the exact designs of the flags that Mohammed and his armies carried into battle, scholars are in agreement that Mohammed did not smite his enemies while flying a rainbow flag of any kind.
So the mayor of Keighley came under a certain amount of pressure from the Mohammed-fanbase community, and in a Facebook post said that he should not have taken part in the ceremony. In fact he said he should have ‘respectfully declined’ the invitation to the Pride flag-raising because it ‘contradicts my religious beliefs’. He went on to describe his attendance as a ‘lapse in judgment’.
This in turn led to him being suspended by the Conservative group on Bradford Council. For Mr Nazam is in several senses a conservative. He subsequently quit as mayor, but not before issuing a second apology, this time saying that he ‘did not mean any harm to the LGBTQ community’.
Interestingly enough, similar cases on the other side of the Atlantic aren’t all leading to the same outcome. In Alberta, Muslim and Christian parents have come together to oppose the teaching of LGBTQ ideology in Canadian schools. Last week hundreds of parents gathered outside the city hall in Calgary to chant ‘Leave our kids alone’. So-called Liberal counter-protestors also gathered. One wonders if there was any cognitive dissonance as these ‘diversity’ protestors found themselves standing in a Canadian street screaming at a bunch of Muslims? Reportedly there was in fact a split in the local activist ‘queer’ community on this question. Some believed that opposing the protestors would be a defence of ‘queer’ rights, others felt it would be ‘racist’.
In Los Angeles things got a bit more heated, with parents protesting outside the largely Armenian school. Here parents were also saying that they did not want their children ‘groomed’ by the LGBTQ ideology being pushed in their school. And on this occasion some of the pro-diversity counter-protestors ended up getting into fist-fights with the diverse parents. Once again you have to wonder if the LGBTQ activists who were pummelling immigrant parents to the ground are absolutely sure that their ideas have brought them to the optimal place in life.
In one of the most Muslim-populated area of the US, in Michigan, parents are continuing a fight to withdraw their children from lessons on anything to do with sexuality or family life, while in Maryland hundreds of campaigners came out again this week demanding to remove their children from such lessons. As one Muslim commentator put it, supporting these parents: ‘As Muslims, we refuse to be coerced into believing something our faith categorically condemns. This is not a political stance. It is a moral principle.’
All of which adds up to a very fine old mess, about which there are a number of things to say. The first is that it should by now be abundantly clear that every letter after B in the LGBTQIA+ alphabet has made the argument for gay rights infinitely harder. In the hands of a new generation of activists the ‘live and let live’ argument has turned into ‘believe what I believe’ and ‘say what I say’. Meanwhile, the old argument that gays were just like anyone else has been replaced by the suggestion that LGBTQIA+ people are in fact practically a different species – people who must have their own flag and be celebrated or else.
Second, it should now be abundantly clear where part of this began going really wrong – which is the moment that gender-nonsense activists chose to target the children. To tell children that there was no such thing as biological sex. To pretend that we are made of Lego and can take parts off and put them on again at will. To replace biological reality with gender woo-woo.
One poll in the US this week showed that support for gay relationships is declining. I’m not surprised. When the shoe was put on the LGBTQIA+ foot certain people decided to indulge in a bit of good old kicking, in the name of diversity. Well, they should expect to be kicked back.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/the-diversity-trap-2/
****************************************
2 July, 2023
Gay Rights vs. Free Speech: Supreme Court Backs Free speech
Free speech has constitutional protection. Gay rights do not.
I have never understood why homosexuals do not want to use homosexual-friendly businesses for their needs. Why must they harass Christians?
One has to conclude that harassment of Christians is the point, not provision of services to homosexuals. So the SCOTUS ruling is in effect an anti-harassment ruling. And why do some homosexuals target Christians? Leviticus 20:13 provides a graphic answer. Homosexuals should be grateful for Romans 2:1
In a 6-to-3 vote, split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court sided on Friday with a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages despite a state law that forbids discrimination against gay people.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said that “the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.”
He added, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”
The case, though framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians, who celebrated the ruling on Friday as a victory for religious freedom.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling “profoundly wrong,” arguing that the Colorado anti-discrimination law “targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.”
The designer, Lorie Smith, said her Christian faith requires her to turn away customers seeking wedding-related services to celebrate same-sex unions. She added that she intends to post a message saying the company’s policy is a product of her religious convictions.
A Colorado law forbids discrimination against gay people by businesses open to the public as well as statements announcing such discrimination. Ms. Smith, who has not begun the wedding business or posted the proposed statement for fear of running afoul of the law, sued to challenge it, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
But when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis, No. 21-476, it agreed to decide only one question: “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
In a news conference Friday in Washington, Ms. Smith said she was grateful to the court, who “affirmed today that Colorado can’t force me or anyone to say something we don’t believe.”
Here’s what else to know:
Progressive interfaith groups and L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy organizations around the country condemned the ruling. Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the ruling was “a deeply troubling crack in our progress and should be alarming to us all.”
Both sides have said that the consequences of the court’s ruling could be enormous, though for different reasons. Ms. Smith’s supporters said a decision for the state would allow the government to force all sorts of artists to state things at odds with their beliefs. Her opponents said a ruling in her favor would blow a hole through anti-discrimination laws and allow businesses engaged in expression to refuse service to, for example, Black people or Muslims based on odious but sincerely held convictions.
The decision appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people, including to same-sex marriage, are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom. At the same time, the ruling limited the ability of the governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
Lower courts have generally sided with gay and lesbian couples who were refused service by bakeries, florists and others, ruling that potential customers are entitled to equal treatment, at least in parts of the country with laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/30/us/gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court
*****************************************************
The Left’s Trans Suicide Lie
One of the weapons used by transgender activists is their claim that our failure to support a gender-dysphoric person’s desire to “transition” is a form of abuse. Worse yet, they say this lack of support may lead to suicide.
Talk about a guilt trip.
But a revealing and disturbing study from Denmark published by the Journal of the American Medical Association paints a completely different picture, and the results are sure to raise questions about all those warnings of suicide.
The study of seven million people over four decades found that transgenders in Denmark have a much higher rate of suicide than the general population. Keep in mind, these are people who’ve already partially or fully transitioned, and they’re living in a progressive country that’s more accepting of the trans culture than other countries. Try being trans in Saudi Arabia, for example.
“Transgender people in the country,” reports The New York Times, “had 7.7 times the rate of suicide attempts and 3.5 times the rate of suicide deaths compared with the rest of the population, according to the records analyzed in the study, though suicide rates in all groups decreased over time. And transgender people in Denmark died — by suicide or other causes — at younger ages than others.”
This, of course, is in stark contrast to all those media reports about how kids who want to switch their biological sex are at greater risk of suicide if conservatives don’t acquiesce. And all those heartwarming stories we see on the news about trans kids feeling happy and excited about their new life might be called into question now that we know the facts.
But it’s not just Denmark where transgenders are feeling more suicidal. As the Journal of the American Medical Association notes: “An even higher suicide mortality rate (270 per 100 000 person-years) was reported for Swedish transgender individuals undergoing gender identity-affirming surgery during 1973 to 2003. A recent population-based study using data from general practitioners and death statistics in England between 1988 and 2019 reported 3 to 5 times increased mortality from either suicide or homicide among transgender and gender-diverse individuals compared with non-transgender individuals.”
According to U.S. News, the study also found that 43% of transgenders had a psychiatric diagnosis while just 7% of the non-transgender group did.
This might be the most interesting part of the study. After all, it raises critical questions about whether the trans industry might be pushing treatments and surgeries on children whose real problem might be getting swept under the rug.
“The astronomically higher suicide rates among transitioned or transitioning patients certainly indicates widespread malpractice, or at the very least widespread dissatisfaction with the outcomes of sex-change operations and therapies,” writes Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. “The data strongly demonstrates that such ‘therapies’ leave patients much worse off than when they started, and doesn’t touch the actual medical issues in play.”
Morrissey adds, “This data should force the medical establishment — and perhaps more importantly, insurance companies that provide malpractice coverage — to completely rethink their embrace of sex-change treatments, especially in pediatric settings.”
One hopes this study might lead transgender activists and the politicians who support them to reconsider reflexively giving children puberty blockers and setting them up for irreversible surgeries instead of properly diagnosing them. Otherwise, we’ll see an epidemic of post-trans regret experienced by people like Milo, made famous in 2016 on MTV for transitioning from female to male. Back then, Milo was celebrated for daring to undergo testosterone shots, a hysterectomy, and “top removal” after the show aired.
As the Daily Mail reports: “Sitting beside him, Milo’s supportive mom, Kristin, described the ‘horror stories’ she had heard about trans kids committing suicide. In hindsight, those comments from Milo and Kristin were red flags. Today, many parents complain that doctors and therapists bully them into affirming their child’s decision to transition by suggesting that, without support, they would likely take their own lives. Now Milo says she’s ‘ashamed’ of the documentary and ‘can’t bear to watch’ it.”
The battle to protect our children continues, and we have a long way to go. But this Danish study might be a turning point.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/98469-the-lefts-trans-suicide-lie-2023-06-30
***************************************************
Anti-feminist YouTuber Hannah Pearl Davis dubbed the ‘female Andrew Tate’
An “anti-feminist” YouTuber who believes women shouldn’t have the right to vote and divorce should be illegal has been dubbed the “female Andrew Tate”.
Hannah Pearl Davis, 26, who goes by “Pearl”, has amassed more than 1.5 million followers for her conservative views, with clips of her inflammatory remarks often going viral on Twitter and TikTok in recent months.
Her popularity online increased following the arrest of Tate in Romania on sex trafficking charges in December.
Tate, 36, who became one of the world’s most famous influencers for sharing his controversial views online, had been a guest on her channel shortly before he was taken into custody.
Since then her YouTube following has increased from 960,000 subscribers to 1.54 million, according to SocialBlade.
Davis also had 930,000 followers on TikTok prior to being banned in August last year “for telling the truth about feminism”.
“Why do all of these big companies censor one side but they don’t censor the other?” she said in a video at the time.
“Men have issues, I’m not saying they don’t, but it’s not a fair conversation if only one side gets to speak. We’ve heard about men’s issues the last 20 years, but women don’t listen to men. Feminists don’t want to have the conversation because it makes them look bad. Anything that puts women in a bad light, it’s taken down, it’s censored.”
Davis is originally from Chicago, Illinois, where she grew up with nine siblings and her parents, software entrepreneurs Dan and Jennifer Davis, according to Insider.
Ironically, her mother was once on the board of directors for UN Women USA, a charity that supports the gender-equality programs of the United Nations.
She now lives in London where she gained some initial success filming street interviews, and now hosts a YouTube talk show called The Pregame as well as creating viral video content such as tongue-in-cheek “whiteboard” presentations.
She joined YouTube in 2020 but her popularity only took off in May 2022, when her increasingly edgy content saw her subscriber count skyrocket from 25,000 to more than half a million in six months.
In total her YouTube videos have generated more than 781 million views, while on Twitter videos with the hashtag #justpearlythings have been viewed more than 300 million times.
She told Insider earlier this year that she was influenced by watching videos of popular right-wing figures like The Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro and economist Thomas Sowell during college.
Davis has since teamed up with manager Coby DeVito, a former colleague of Shapiro at The Daily Wire.
While she denies exaggerating her opinions for clicks, Davis clearly enjoys generating controversy.
“A lot of people think I’m insane because I don’t think women should vote,” she said in a Twitter video this week which has been viewed 860,000 times. “If anything this is probably my most extreme opinion.”
She went on to explain that she “came to this conclusion” because she wanted to know “why men were so angry about women”.
“When I started researching this stuff it was pretty easy to figure out why — 90 per cent of women have been on birth control, one out of three women has had an abortion, one out of three women has an STD, the average body count is over five, 95 per cent of women are not virgins on their wedding day — so I understand these complaints,” she said.
Davis then claimed that “the courts, the legal system, all of society is basically pandering and simping for women”, citing examples such as payments for single mothers.
“If you pay women to be terrible, then you’re probably going to have more terrible women,” she said.
“The issue is that the politicians, the only way they can get elected, the women vote for them. The reason we can’t see a change in these laws … is because they won’t be re-elected. Does every person deserve the right to vote? Because essentially we have a society where men are just paying for women’s bad decisions.”
In another video this week, viewed 2.6 million times, Davis suggested “outside of reproduction, society would function fine without women”. “If women stopped working tomorrow I think we would have an increase in efficiency, not a decrease,” she said.
“The problem is we have all these women that think they’re doing more than they are because they’re hot and they make money off of being hot, and they’re subsidised by the government.”
In other viral clips on TikTok, Davis argues a woman doesn’t “deserve a guy that makes six figures if you’re obese”, that it’s a woman’s fault if her partner cheats, and that men should be allowed to hit women back.
“A lot of you guys are shitty wives,” she said in one video. “You don’t cook for your man, you belittle him, you nag on him all the time. You don’t treat him like a man.”
Clips of Davis appearing on other podcasts have also circulated widely, including a debate with YouTuber Ethan Klein over slavery and divorce rights. “I think we should ban divorce,” she said.
“I just think that if you want to leave, you just shouldn’t get married. You know, because marriage is supposed to be for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, it’s not supposed to be when I feel like leaving. The majority of divorces now it’s just when the girl feels like leaving.”
Davis, however, insists she is not a misogynist. “Misogyny is the hatred of women,” she told Insider. “I don’t hate women. For some reason acknowledging a basic truth like men and women are different is labelled as misogyny nowadays.”
****************************************************
Rent control sanity from the British Labour party: Most unexpected
Labour has ditched a pledge to control surging rents if it wins the next general election – nine months after endorsing the policy.
Lisa Nandy said last September that that she wanted to give local authorities the power to freeze rents, telling the party conference: “Doing nothing is not an option.”
But speaking on Wednesday, the shadow communities secretary described the approach as a “sticking plaster” and claimed it would increase homelessness.
“When housebuilding is falling off a cliff and buy to let landlords are leaving the market, rent controls that cut rents for some, will almost certainly leave others homeless,” she told the Housing 2023 gathering of industry professionals.
Scrapping the policy represents a major shift in thinking for Labour, which has promised the regulation of rents in all its manifestos since Ed Miliband was leader.
But following Ms Nandy’s speech a Labour spokesperson said it was unfair to characterise her latest announcement as a U-turn, stating: “A rent freeze has never been Labour party policy.”
The change has prompted an outcry from Labour’s left, with campaign group Momentum accusing the party leadership of being “allergic to good, popular policy”.
But Ms Nandy told the conference on Wednesday: “It might be politically easier to put a sticking plaster on our deep-seated problems, but if it is cowardice that got us here, it is never going to get us out.”
Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham are among senior figures in local government to have called for powers to control rents as prices surge in their cities, with Mr Khan urging the government to set up a commission to work out a way forward.
England and Wales are unusual around Europe in having no rules about what a landlord can charge or how sharply they can increase rents over time.
The Scottish government in March voted to cap rent increases on sitting tenants at 3 per cent in most circumstances, and continue a ban on evictions. Local authorities can also apply to control rents more generally in so-called “rent pressure areas”.
************************************************
Fun and games in Ireland
Ireland is a very small country so news from there should not in theory be of great interest. But so many of us in the Anglosphere have some Irish ancestry that Ireland looms large in our consciousness. I remember my grandma Kelly well
It has become Ireland’s top-rated show – a tale of celebrity, secrets and lies that has entranced the public and dominated the airwaves. Some reckon it is the most gripping drama ever produced by RTÉ.
Unfortunately for the national broadcaster, it is an all too real scandal over clandestine payments that has engulfed its star presenter and senior managers and planted a question mark over RTÉ’s future.
The stakes rose on Friday when the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said laws may have been breached. “Some of these payments may have been on the wrong side of the law,” he told reporters, capping a calamitous week for the broadcaster.
The story erupted on 22 June when RTÉ disclosed hidden payments of €345,000 (£295,000) to Ryan Tubridy, who hosted The Late Late Show and a flagship radio programme, in addition to his published salary between 2017 and 2020.
The revelation caused outrage because RTÉ is publicly funded and had given false statements about Tubridy’s salary to staff, viewers and the government while it was seeking pay cuts and extra funding. The broadcaster apologised for a betrayal of public trust.
With RTÉ staff staging protests and calling for changes, other high-profile presenters took to the airwaves to reveal their salaries and to deny having any clandestine top-ups.
The director general, Dee Forbes, was suspended last week and subsequently resigned. The legislature’s public accounts committee grilled her former colleagues in televised sessions this week that exposed a “slush fund” for corporate hospitality and glaring holes in RTÉ’s governance and accountability.
When asked about his salary, Richard Collins, RTÉ’s chief financial officer, replied: “I think that’s a private matter.” Reminded that he was paid with public money, Collins paused, then said: “I don’t know what my exact salary is, off the top of my head.”
James O’Connor, a Fianna Fáil member of the committee, expressed disbelief. “The chief financial officer of RTÉ can’t tell us what he’s paid. Are we supposed to buy that?” When pressed, Collins said he believed his salary was “around €200,000 base salary plus a car allowance of €25,000”.
Collins said taxpayers may have been “defrauded” over undeclared payments to Tubridy and that he believed some entailed “concealment” or “deception” to bump the presenter’s annual salary over €500,000.
Labour’s Alan Kelly said the committee hearings exposed profound dysfunction. “This is an executive that isn’t functioning and can’t continue. Neither can the board after what we saw.”
Executives and board members traded blame, saying they were unaware of the payments. “An act designed to deceive,” said the RTÉ chair, Siún Ní Raghallaigh. She said the term “talent” should no longer be used to distinguish presenters and other performers from colleagues. “It implies some have greater worth than others. The first step in culture change is to consign this term to the dustbin.”
The drip drip of disclosures – forced in part by robust, forensic reporting by RTÉ journalists – has rotted goodwill towards the broadcaster and undercut its campaign to obtain more funding and overhaul its funding model.
Politicians are keen to question Forbes, who declined to appear at the public affairs committee, citing ill health. They also want to question Tubridy and his agent, Noel Kelly, who funnelled the hidden payments through the agent’s British company. The pair denied wrongdoing and have not detailed how any payments were made.
Tubridy’s future is unclear. The scandal has tainted his genial everyman persona, and he has stopped presenting his radio show since the story broke.
On 16 May, a week before RTÉ’s bombshell disclosure, Tubridy announced he would step down from The Late Late Show, which he had hosted since 2009. RTÉ’s interim deputy director general, Adrian Lynch, said it was possible Tubridy knew of the brewing crisis before his announcement to step down.
Tubridy’s successor, the Northern Ireland comedian Patrick Kielty, disclosed he would earn €250,000 for each 30-episode season. Kielty, who lives in London, said that under his contract he could have put travel and accommodation on expenses but had chosen not to. “I genuinely hope this helps clarify things,” he said.
Oliver Callan, the stand-in for Tubridy’s radio show, joked to listeners that he would allude only sporadically to “the unpleasantness in the basement” and invoked the hashtag #DontMentionTheThing.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
