The creeping dictatorship of the Left...

The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia. Email John Ray here. See here or here for the archives of this site.

For a list of blog backups see here or here.

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

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

The picture below is worth more than a 1,000 words ...... Better than long speeches. It shows some Middle-Eastern people walking to reach their final objective,to live in a European country, or migrate to America. In the photo, there are 7 men and 1 woman.up to this point – nothing special. But in observing a bit closer, you will notice that the woman has bare feet,accompanied by 3 children, and of the 3, she is carrying 2.There is the problem,none of the men are helping her,because in their culture the woman represents nothing.She is only good to be a slave to the men. Do you really believe that these particular individuals could integrate into our societies and countries and respect our customs and traditions ????

31 October, 2017

Prominent Conservative Artists Blacklisted Because of Involvement with Alt*Hero Comics Series

Timothy Lim, a talented freelance professional illustrator and cover artist, has been fired from Mount Olympus Comics because he took a job to create the cover for the subversive right-wing comic series Alt?Hero. After Alt?Hero creator Vox Day announced Lim's contribution publicly, Lim received this message from his current employer.

Lim had begun work for Patriotika, Mount Olympus's answer to SJW comics, because he had heard it would be pro-American and the SJWs who have taken over DC Comics and Marvel would hate it. "I found out about Patriotika from friends who had positive things to say about it," Lim said. "I contacted the owner to volunteer my services for his next issue, free of charge, just to support a good cause. He decided to hire me for cover work on another title in the same universe, Valkyrie Saviors."

But the goodwill took a bad turn when it became public that Lim was working with Vox Day. "When he saw the work that I had done for Alt?Hero, he was not enthused. Three days later he messaged me to tell me he would not print the Valkyrie Saviors cover or the Patriotika one which I was going to finalize the following week," said Lim.

Conservatives are mocked in comics circles for claiming there is a blacklist in the industry, but the evidence points to work being withheld from writers and artists deemed too right-wing. Lim feels he is now on that list of unemployable deplorables. "I understand the decision, but it IS a blacklist. And these are things other writers and artists should know before taking on work," he said. Lim feels that an artist's job is to do the work he is hired for. "Recently I did two covers for a Bernie supporter for his book. Considering how political SJW Marvel is, practically every drawing I did for the company merchandise is a depiction of a narrative I disagree with. But I don't live in an echo chamber and I carve out a living by taking on work I am asked to do and I fulfill it to the best of my ability. Some people cannot separate the work from the worker. The artist acts as a de facto 'endorser' of the work," Lim explained.

Asked if Lim had ever been attacked by conservatives for drawing Bernie-themed covers, he laughed. "In seven years, not once has a conservative contacted me to shame me for my work or blacklist me for the clients that I had." Lim's major work includes Star Wars Adventures, Back to the Future, Street Fighter X G.I. Joe, TMNT and much more. He worked for seven years as a merchandising artist with properties that included Marvel, Lucasfilm, Valve, and Nickelodeon.

PJ Media reached out to Vox Day for his opinion of Lim's blacklisting from Mount Olympus. "The fact that a comics publisher, of any political stripe, would refuse to utilize the work of an accomplished illustrator like Timothy Lim simply because he worked with someone else they don't like is absurd, but more importantly, it is proof that they are less interested in producing quality content than they are in pursuing approval from social justice warriors."

Day released Lim's cover work for Alt?Hero to PJ Media saying, "We love Mr. Lim's work. He absolutely nailed the essence of Dynamique's character with the way he shows her sitting there so calmly despite all the devastation behind her."

Lim hasn't let the setback slow him down and has a new book coming out this month called "Thump:The First Bundred Days," a children's book about the election of Donald Trump shown through a tale of a tough-talking bunny. The artwork is fantastic and the book is a funny romp through modern American politics that would appeal to both adults and children. PJ Media was given an exclusive sneak peak and a sample of Lim's Melania and Thump.

The response to his project has been typical leftist screeching and calls for book burning. From an article entitled "Go Away Nazis, No One Wants to Read Your White Supremacist Children's Books," on the blog The Mary Sue:

"Looking through their catalogue, it’s almost tempting to reverse my feelings on book burning. We’ve got  Go the F**k to Jail: An Adult Coloring Book of the Clinton Scandals, The Social Justice Warrior Handbook with a cover pull-quote from Ann Coulter, and my personal favorite from the garbage heap:  Thump: The First Bundred Days, about the “winningest of bunnies” fighting all those “traitors and crooks and old establishment guard / And rabid media watchdogs unchained from their yard!”

The trouble is, Tim Lim is Asian. His response was epic.

Chuck Dixon, the Batman writer most known for co-creating the popular villain Bane and the man Bleeding Cool called "the most prolific comic book writer of all time," has also been attacked for signing on with Alt?Hero. PJ Media spoke to Dixon about it.

"A couple fellow travelers called me out on Facebook when the news came out that I'd be contributing to the Alt?Hero project. They had the echo chamber on their pages with all the usual assumptions and name calling," he said. A quick search on Twitter showed multiple sources calling Dixon a "Nazi."

Dixon's conservative politics have never been a secret. He wrote the graphic novel "Clinton Cash" during the last election, which hammered the Clintons for their dubious money-grabbing schemes. Dixon says the blacklisting began in the early 2000s. "I've experienced a steep drop in assignments since 2000. Primarily from the two largest comics publishers [Marvel and DC Comics]. The reason for this can only be my politics and a change in editorship at those companies," he said.  "Once upon a time, you could have a difference of opinion with an editor-publisher over political matters but still work together," he continued. "I write escapist fiction and never interject any kind of agenda in my work. I kept my politics strictly personal. But the new crop of editors, at both companies, view everything through the lens of politics, and even though I had written thousands of pages and hundreds of comic scripts for both companies I was quickly made persona non-grata and un-hireable."

Dixon has heard disturbing things from his former employers. "The editor-in-chief at one company proudly tells people that I will never work there again as long as he's in charge," he said. "A friend of people high up in both companies suggested that I apologize for my political beliefs in order to get assignments again. That's never going to happen," he promised. "I'm not playing victim here. I've found other outlets for my work and remain prolific, busy and creative."

Dixon has the advantage of having his career take off in the '90s before much of the political correctness took hold. Young artists like Lim are not so fortunate. "If it was like this when I started I would never have gotten started. Comics were all based out of New York then. ALL of my editors were left of center. But as long as I didn't try to put my political beliefs in my work, it was all cordial and cool," he remembered. "I got some of my biggest breaks from editors who despised my conservative views. None of that mattered when it came to making comics [back then]," he said. But it matters now. "Just being good at your job is no longer a guarantee of steady employment. There are lots of extremely talented comics pros who are either unemployed or way underemployed. They're being replaced by minimally talented hacks producing mediocre (to astonishingly amateurish) work loaded with left-wing and gender politics."

Dixon explained why he decided to work with Vox Day. "My decision to join with Vox on this project is because he offered me an interesting opportunity; a return to the kind of escapist superhero fantasy I used to be allowed to create at DC Comics and Marvel Comics. I've long lamented that the major comics publishers have walked away from their core audience over the past two decades," he explained. "They  ran from them by creating ham-handed preach-athons that scold the readers rather than entertain them. And just within the last year, the diversity movement in comics has ratcheted up to chase away even the last of the die-hard fans who were holding on to the hope that one day superhero comics would return to their core appeal as wish-fulfillment fantasies."


Boston: Organizers of free speech rally planned for next month will go ahead despite denial of permit

The organizers of a controversial free speech rally planned for Boston Common next month say they will move forward with the event despite being denied a permit by city officials over concerns it would interfere with a family-friendly 5K road race scheduled for the same day.

“We have a right to peaceably assemble under the 1st amendment of the Constitution and we will exercise that right,” said the group, called Resist Marxism, in a statement sent out Friday about the event planned for Nov. 18.

The group planned the event after an August free speech rally on the Common was overwhelmed by counterprotesters, who accused the organizers of providing a platform for racists. That rally occurred just a week after a deadly rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where white nationalists clashed with counterprotesters, one of whom was killed.

Organizers of the August event in Boston had adamantly denied they were promoting a bigoted message, and Resist Marxism makes the same argument about its planned November gathering. The Resist Marxism website says the organizers of the August rally are a co-sponsor of the November event.

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said Saturday that the only reason the November event was denied a permit was because Camp Harbor View, which serves at-risk youth in Boston every summer, had been issued a permit back in March for the same day, to hold a large fund-raiser with a family walk and run on the Common.

The city offered the Resist Marxism group a permit for Nov. 19, instead.

The Boston Parks and Recreation Department,which is in charge of permitting, sent the group a letter denying the permit on Thursday.

The 5k will involve street closures, large tents, moving vehicles and hundreds of families, officials said, which makes another large event incompatible.

“They claim to have a positive message and not be a hateful group,” said Walsh of Resist Marxism. “Well if they are, let’s see if they can move it one day so Camp Harbor View can have the Common without interference.”

But in their press release, Resist Marxism organizers accused the city of dragging its feet on making a decision regarding the permit, and said that they had been forced to make plans without knowing whether it would be granted. By the time they were told the permit would be issued for the 19th rather than the 18th, the release said, flight and hotel arrangements had already been made and it was too late to cancel.

The group did not respond to a request for additional comment Saturday. The Resist Marxism website says the event, called “Rally for the Republic,” will “defend the republic and reclaim free speech in Boston.”

Speakers listed include Kyle Chapman, who gained notoriety this year after a video went viral of him smashing a wooden post over the head of an antifascist protester at a march for President Trump in Berkeley, Calif. Chapman had been scheduled to speak at the August rally in Boston until he pulled out.

Walsh said the city will not stop the rally from going forward on Nov. 18 despite its lack of permit, but organizers will not be able to bring sound amplification.

The Boston Police Department, which is not involved with permitting, will prepare for the rally as it does for any event, whether permitted or not, officials said.

“Our goal is to maintain safety and security for the public while those who may be in attendance at the rally demonstrate for their cause,” said Commissioner William B. Evans in a statement. “We encourage everyone who is gathering on the Common on that day to behave civilly and respectfully, and we remind the public that acts of vandalism, violence, and other illegal activity will not be tolerated.”


Rash Of ‘Knockout’ Attacks Has Some New Yorkers Worried

CBS below omits the very important fact that all the knock out victims are white and all of the attackers are not!

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — There were warnings Friday about a possible upsurge in knockout attacks in which people are sucker punched for no good reason.

Video of one such incident shows a woman being suddenly kicked and then punched by a man. She was knocked out cold on the ground, but rather than help her several people took out phones to take pictures. Nobody called the police.

It happened in Pittsburgh more than a month ago, and something similar happened in Brooklyn on Thursday night.

“As he went to tie up his dogs to confront these kids, the group distracted him from the front and then one came up behind him and hit him in the head,” a witness said.

The witness who asked not to be identified, said a group of teens leaving a Shake Shack in DUMBO singled out a 43-year-old man walking his dogs. They tossed water and milkshakes at him before delivering a knockout punch to his jaw.

What happened next was even more disturbing. “One boy ran up and crouched down and posed for a photo next to the guy that was passed out and then the rest of the group just kind of ran off and scattered,” the man said.

Witnesses said the victim lay unconscious for some 45 minutes, but in this case bystanders did step in to help.

Another similar incident happened last month in Manhattan.

Police are looking for three men wanted for the knock out style attack that happened on Essex Street on the Lower East Side. It left a 53-year-old woman with a swollen and bleeding face.

With no arrests yet in either case, people are worried.

“The police last night were telling me that this group of kids, it was the second time they had done it last night, and this seems to be this ongoing contest or trend amongst these teens,” one person said.


Why Feminists Must Understand Evolution

A good exposition by Marta Iglesias of evolutionry biology as it applies to male/female differences. If your theories are wrong, you will not get the results you expect. The feminist push to alter male/female behaviour patterns has had very little success so far

I am a feminist but I am not here to offer opinions, nor to enter into an intra-feminist debate. For all their various ideological differences, all feminists basically advocate the same things: for women and men to have the same rights and duties as citizens, and for women and men to enjoy the same freedom to decide what to do or not to do with their lives. I am here to present empirical evidence which ought to interest feminists, and which can help to explain human behaviour.

It is my goal to explain why the causes of male and female difference are not merely cultural or the product of patriarchal indoctrination. Separate athletic competitions and distinct medical disciplines of gynaecology and urology testify to the most obvious biological differences between men and women. But the scientific method ? a co-operative, critical, and self-correcting process which has midwifed huge technological and medical advances ? can also help us to understand more subtle differences between the sexes in interests and aspirations. And it is understanding what we really are that will make us free.

*     *     *

The study of other animals has produced significant advances in our understanding of human biology. We have been able to understand how our neurons function from the study of sea slugs and squid; we know how our embryos develop from the study of sea urchins, toads, and quails; we understand how the circulatory system works, and how to repair it when things go wrong, because we have studied the circulatory systems of pigs and dogs. Human physiology textbooks are full of data obtained by studying other animals, and the application of this knowledge has allowed us all to live longer and better lives. But the study of animal models also indicates that male and female differences are not only physical but also behavioural, and that they are a product of our common evolutionary history.

All human beings have something in common: we are offspring. We are the result of individuals being able to reproduce, who in turn were the progeny of other offspring who have managed to do the same. This chain is theoretically traceable along a lineage of individuals who reproduced successfully, all the way back to our origins. Those who did not reproduce did not leave a copy of themselves, and so no longer exist. (A more meticulous explanation of the functioning of evolution through natural selection and genetic drift, or what is known as synthetic theory, can be found on the UC Berkeley website.1)

Accordingly, each living being is potentially reproductively effective, because it is the offspring of reproductively effective parents. But sexual reproduction depends not only on the capacity to produce viable and fertile offspring, but also on finding a suitable reproductive mate. To qualify, this must be an individual of the opposite sex or, more precisely, someone who can provide gametes of the kind usually produced by the other sex. One of the sexes produces big, static gametes (eggs, which are relatively ‘expensive’ to produce) and the other produces small, rapidly moving gametes (sperm, which are somewhat ‘cheaper’). In many species, the sex with the ‘expensive’ gametes (the female) takes care of many other costly facets related to reproduction. For instance, a female turtle will cross an ocean to lay her eggs on the beach, and a female spider will regurgitate her own innards so that her offspring can feed, literally eating her to death. (Compared to examples like these, waking up at 3am to breastfeed the baby does not sound too exacting.)

Of course, the onus of expenditure does not fall on the female in all species, but whichever sex bears the greater cost of, and makes the greater investment in, child-bearing and -rearing will always be more selective when choosing a mate. After all, it is they who will bear the heavier consequences of a mistake (for example, failing to leave descendants or leaving only a few in return for their investment). So the underlying mechanisms guiding mate selection are subject to great pressures to be effective, and these inevitably bear on behavioural differences between the sexes. These pressures have produced powerful discriminatory abilities which make us selective, even petty, and lead us to subject all possible reproductive partners to constant evaluation. Historically, this arrangement has been an effective and successful reproductive strategy, given that the descendants are alive to make copies of themselves today.

The reproductive cost is undeniably greater for the human female, and the morphological differences between the sexes imply differences in what has been selected for in each sex to make us more effective breeders. But it is also important to understand how the physiological and anatomical differences between male and female reproductive strategies impact our behaviour.

Among feminists, there exists a pervasive tendency to believe that animals and humans play different roles in the world, and are subject to different rules. Some ascribe this difference to ‘culture’ or ‘intelligence,’ while others ascribe it to ‘society.’ However, this alleged distinction between humans and other animals does not stand up well under scrutiny.

Certainly, our cultural dimension affects the way we reproduce, but we cannot modify it much. This is because the mechanisms we have evolved to choose a mate and to reproduce are a product of our biology, passed down a long lineage of successful breeders. It is therefore reasonable to expect humans to be a typical species in this respect, just as we are in the examples offered earlier (neuron and heart function, embryonic development, and so on). Evolutionary biology predicts that each individual will try to pursue the best strategy to contribute genetically to future generations, and to produce offspring who will, in turn, produce offspring of their own.

But this strategy will be different for men and women, due to their distinct reproductive functions. The efficacy of the strategies pursued by our ancestors has determined something as simple and fundamental as the very fact that we exist at all. These strategies, then, are a fundamental part of us, even if social and cultural relations modulate them. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that from the moment we awake until the moment we go to bed, most of our actions have the ultimate purpose of leaving a progeny (or keeping that progeny alive, at least until it is old enough to produce descendants of its own).

This process manifests itself differently in males and females, and produces different behaviours. Women, by virtue of our greater reproductive investment, are generally very selective. Men, then, are only truly selective if they consider they will have to make a strong investment of time and resources in a relationship.2 As a consequence, men and women all over the world, across cultures, tend to look consistently for different things in the opposite sex (though, logically, they have common preferences as well). Furthermore, each sex emphasizes very different aspects of their own personality and physique in the attempt to attract a mate.3 4 5 6 7 This, in turn, makes competition among men very different to competition among women; the former is generally more obvious8 and the latter is more subtle (and more pernicious, in my opinion).9 10 11 12 13 14 15

These differences manifest as the differences we observe in our daily lives: from the toys we prefer when we are small to the products we consume when we are adults; from the tendency to be the object of bullying or its perpetrator to the likelihood of causing a traffic accident; from the posture we adopt when we sit in the underground to the importance we attach to career status.

Intrasexual competition among women can manifest as disapproval of clothing or behaviour that signals sexual availability.
These behaviours occur without us being too conscious of why we do what we do (other than the fact we feel like doing one thing or another). But we do not need to know that we are implementing a reproductive strategy in order to carry it out.16 17 We simply feel like behaving in a certain way, without interrogating the true cause of our predispositions. (For example, when we crave a hamburger, it is seldom with the conscious awareness that the consumption of many fats and carbohydrates in a few grams of food is an efficient strategy for obtaining energy.)

The fact that men and women are different in these respects does not preclude feminists from striving for completely equal rights between the sexes. However, it is important to understand how things really are if we are to try to modify them, and history provides us with examples of the hazards associated with pursuing an insufficiently tested theory. Convinced that the differences between male and female brains were social, a medical researcher and his team persuaded the parents of a baby boy who had lost his penis in a botched circumcision to raise him as a girl. 18 In spite of a course of hormone injections and the parents’ best efforts to deceive their child, in the end they had no choice but to concede defeat (with terrible consequences for all involved).

But some feminists would prefer to doubt the applicability of evolutionary biology to the human species. They believe that equality of behaviour in the sexes would exist in nature, but culture generates our inter-sexual differences (for examples see Chapter 1 in A Mind of Her Own).19 20 Apparently, contradicting this line of thought means that one is adopting a ‘biological determinist’ position, undesirable because it is provides a justification for systemic inequality and gendered violence. However, coming to this conclusion requires a significant degree of scientific and historical blindness.

Resistance to acknowledging biological differences in behaviour arises from a fear of the consequences of tying these differences to three clearly erroneous assumptions: 1), that what is natural is good, 2) that what is natural is correct, and 3), that what is biologically-based is impossible to modify.

If all natural things were good, then companies making orthodontic braces would have gone bankrupt long ago, we might die of an intestinal infection at the age of 19, and we would have as many children (or almost as many) as we have orgasms. The same naturalistic fallacy pertains to the justification of behaviours based on a natural tendency to carry them out. It might be natural to have sex with 13-year-olds who are already sexually mature, or to simply take what we find along our way as we see fit, or to use other species cruelly for our personal benefit. And yet, most of us do not do these things, nor do we excuse those who might. That a form of behaviour has its basis in biology does nothing to recommend it. Cultural norms are agreements about conduct and ethics, and they need not be justified with reference to what is and is not natural. Finally, with regard to whether all phenomena with a basis in biology are immutable, we can refute such a statement with reference to the improper and infrequent behaviours itemised above, or by observing that guide dogs refrain from marking their territory at every corner.

If our common goal is to encourage reciprocal respect for other individuals, in spite of average differences in group proclivities, then that goal cannot be well served by ignoring the basis for such differences. The imposition of respect may work in certain cases, but it does not seem to have made much impact on the number of deaths women face at the hands of men, which has remained remarkably stable year-on-year. We can more productively fight gender problems if we acknowledge naturally occurring differences upon which we can work, instead of imposing rules that only increase misunderstanding, allow fallacies to proliferate, and instrumentalise fear as a motor for change.

Some feminist authors insist that it is injurious to consider sex-based differences in the fight against gender inequality.21 But asking people to ignore the existence of biologically grounded sex-based differences only makes the disparities produced by those differences more difficult to understand and address. Other feminists argue that the very fact of being female authorises them to opine on the motivations of women with absolute certainty. But this is simply to generalise on the basis of one’s own particular example without the benefit of systematic evaluation.

It is better to generate our opinions and judgements based on observations that conform as closely as possible to objective reality, because our goals are political and we want them to affect each and every one of us. It is therefore imperative that we understand the nature of the reality we are trying to change, and the reasons why attempts to encourage complete parity of the sexes in all walks of life through social policy have not yet been successful and have, in some cases, led to the widening of disparities. Political action cannot be founded on opinions about how we would like the world to be (of which there is one for every person). It must instead be built on the foundation of our best understanding of natural reality as it is.

The good news is that information has never been more freely available. If we make the effort to learn a little English and master basic statistics, each one of us can draw her own conclusions based on the work others have already completed. What’s more, those who are not persuaded by this work can try to disprove it using the very same tools of investigation and analysis. Others may simply choose to discard measurement and reason, electing instead to behave much like those who reject the efficacy of vaccines, or insist that humans never went to the moon. But such behaviour does not allow us to build anything; it is only good for yelling into the wind and promoting norms which have nothing to do with reality, and which therefore can contribute nothing to the process of effecting meaningful change.

We may prefer to believe that the differences leading us to behave in sexist ways stem from culture, and not from a lack of it. But, by so doing, we will continue to try to impose norms not commonly shared, which will only aggravate the differences between us, making the society we co-inhabit increasingly hostile and founded upon ever more artificial human relations. Ideological ideas accepted a priori by many feminists, such as “language is sexist and changing it will reduce differences”, have not been properly evaluated as instruments for achieving equality. This matters because, in order to change the world, we must first study what we are, and why we behave as we do.

If the goal is not the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, but the promotion of dogma which insists that only socialisation generates sexism, I am afraid the glass ceiling will remain above women, the number of femicides will remain unchanged, and our efforts to improve society will be a perpetual source of disappointment and frustration. We must strive for a synthesis of the scientific knowledge of human behaviour and the political objectives of feminism. It is up to us to keep an open mind so we can better understand one another, the societies we have built, and the world we share. By these means alone, can we create the conditions necessary for real equality.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


30 October, 2017

White Fragility Is Keeping Racism Alive (?)

Unlike Leftists, I am always interested in hearing points of view different from my own.  So I read Leftist emissions with interest.  One such is below.  They want to inject "brown" authors into "white" literature. Like all Leftist  writing that I know, it leaves out half the story.  In its characteristically Leftist obsession with race, it does not concede that the issue might not be about race at all

Lovers of classical literature (I am one) see large differences between different types of writing.  They find (for instance) the stories of Chaucer to be of much higher quality in various ways than writing on the back of a cereal packet.  And in a world where there is so much to read, it pays to know where to look to find quality writing.  And that is where classical literature comes in.  Classical literature is simply that literature that has stood the test of time -- literature that many people over many years have read with pleasure and recommended to others.  It is literature that comes with some guarantee of quality.

And that is valuable.  It helps to ensure that your reading gives you pleasure.  So any attempt to inject into the canon of classical literature writing that has not stood the test of time is to mislead.  It can lead you into wasting your time on stuff that is not worth reading.

So that is what is at issue: An objection to introducing racism into a selection of literature that is normally concerned only with the quality of the writing.  The authors below seem unwilling to allow that some people might not be concerned with race and therefore object to having it introduced where it is not relevant.  Leftist racial obsessions simply pollute something to which race is irrelevant.  There is more to life than the colour of someone's skin and that needs to be acknowledged by all parties.  So a course of study designed to introduce students to great literature would simply be degraded by basing the selection of literature on race rather than on the quality of the writing.  It would make a useful course less useful.

So it is not "white fragility" that fuels objections to racist proposals.  It is a desire for quality and an objection to its dilution.

Let me however concede that there may be some sense in what is proposed below.  Someone might say:  "But there are good non-white authors and changing the curriculum might introduce you to something you would enjoy reading"

That is surely true but the key word is "might".  One asks for more than a maybe when one sets out to find literature with some guarantee of quality. If one suspected that some racially defined author or group of authors may be worth reading, by all means read them but don't try to mislead others into thinking they are classical literature.

But the fundamental objection below is simply unhappiness that the modern world is largely the creation of Northern European people and their descendants worldwide.  People who are not of that ilk may understandably regret that.  They may wish that their own forebears had been prominent in the creative changes that have given us modern civilization.

But is a lie the solution to that?  Do we change history by insisting on rewriting it?  Many people do just that but I doubt that such actions really console anybody in the long run.  The way Leftists rage against hearing what conservatives have to say surely tells us that they know that their fake history is fragile and easily taken away from them. 

Many people, conservatives particularly, don't judge things by racial criteria and surely that is to be encouraged, not attacked.  Minority people can and should learn to do the same.  Thinking that you can defeat racism by being racist is surely brain dead.  Racism can only be defeated by encouraging  people to judge others on their own individual merits, not on the colour of their skin. 

And that is not blue sky.  The ethnic group in America that has the highest average income is Indians, who are notably brown.  Skin colour does not have to matter.  Do Indians have "brown privilege" or do they just work and study hard?

Recently, a group of Cambridge students petitioned the world-renowned university to "decolonize" the English syllabus by adding black and minority ethnic (BME) writers to the reading list. Once the media caught wind of the letter, written and signed by students, they began a frenzy of outrage at white authors being replaced on the reading list.

The British newspaper, the Telegraph, placed a black student, Lola Olufemi, on the front cover with the headline "Student forces Cambridge to drop white authors." The paper has been criticized by a senior lecturer at Cambridge University for "what looks like incitement to race war," and rightfully so. The placement of one student alongside such a misleading title made it seem like this was the work of a black woman on a crusade to rid the world of white men. The article totally ignored the fact that the majority of students who'd signed the petition were in fact white. The author pandered to a growing sentiment more and more white men are beginning to hold -  that white culture is being erased. As a result, Lola Olufemi was subjected to a tirade of hate from trolls on social media who saw themselves as being under attack by blackness.

In reality, the university had no intentions at all to replace any white authors with BME authors. The letter written by students was merely a suggestion for more diversity in reading and in no way did it advocate for the removal of authors based on the fact that they're white. Cambridge University released a statement addressing the subject in defense of the students.

Whilst it's great to see the university defending a black student against harassment, the harassment itself is very telling of the age we live in today. As we make more progress in the representation of BME people and fight against discrimination there has been a pushback from white people who feel unsettled by the very topic of race or don't want `political correctness' shoved down their throats. In this instance, we saw a group of young people saying they wanted to learn more about the global south through literature, and white people, for some reason, were offended by this. This is the white fragility that prevents people of color from speaking out to protect the feelings of white people.

White people often join discussions about race with no intentions to listen but instead wish to play the victim. They say things like `why does everything have to be about race?' or `if you keep dividing yourselves racism will never go away.' A culture of victim blaming has developed in which people of color are told they are asking for too much by simply asking to be included. White people feel attacked by this because, whether consciously or subconsciously, they see it as a threat to their dominance. They've been able to live so long without having to experience racism that anything which works to dismantle racism and bring equality is seen as anti-white.

The problem with this kind of attitude towards people of color is that it leaves us with two options: to accept our low status in society or to fight it with the consequence of being demonized in the media and brutalized for our efforts. White fragility is another way of upholding racism through self-victimisation. It is a more subtle form of racism that exists today as it can exist among those who see themselves as `not racist.' Not being a racist does nothing, it simply is a way to make yourself feel better about the racism of other white people. It's a way to distance yourself from your kin so you don't have to feel bad whilst still leaving room to complain about people talking about race because you're able to say `I'm not racist.'

For racism to be dismantled there must be an acknowledgment of privilege amongst white people. There must be an awareness that being anti-racism or pro-black isn't anti-white. There must be a realization that racism is a bad thing and people of color experience it which, therefore, makes them best qualified to talk about it and well justified in their asking for inclusivity. White people need to stop playing the victim and see that people of color want nothing more but to exist alongside them without fear of exploitation or brutalization, is that too much to ask?


George Washington's own church is removing a plaque in his honor because he owned slaves

It's an Episcopal church so has no respect for the Bible. Expecting respect for other people from them is therefore ambitious
A church once attended by President George Washington will take down a memorial honoring him, its leaders have decided.

The Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, announced this week that it will remove a stone plaque that reads 'In memory of George Washington' currently displayed on the left side of the altar in memory of the first president of the United States.

A plaque on the right side of the altar honoring confederate leader Robert E. Lee will also be removed, according to the Washington Times.

'The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome. Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques,' the church leaders said.

'Many in our congregation feel a strong need for the church to stand clearly on the side of "all are welcome - no exceptions,"' they added.

The first president became a slave owner at the young age of 11, after his father died and left him 10 slaves along with the 280 acre family farm near Fredericksburg, according to the Mount Vernon website.

He went on to purchase more slaves, and at the time of his death, Mount Vernon's slave population consisted of 317 people - although the website claims less than half of them were owned by Washington, with the others having been owned by his wife's first husband, whose possessions went to her after he died without a will.

According to Rev. Noelle York-Simmons, the rector of the church, the decision was made by a unanimous vote of the vestry.

Although the Washingtons were generous with the church, the president's main worshiping place was Pohick Church, south of Mount Vernon

Lee, on his part, attended Christ Church since he was three, and the church was so important to his family that his daughter Mary Custis Lee left it $10,000 in her will, which was used to begin the church's endowment.

The plagues are scheduled to come down next summer, but where they'll go is still unclear. 


Book on the importance of motherhood hated by the Left

Motherhood used to be as American as apple pie. Nowadays it can be as antagonistic as American politics. Ask Erica Komisar.

Ms. Komisar, 53, is a Jewish psychoanalyst who lives and practices on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. If that biographical thumbnail leads you to stereotype her as a political liberal, you’re right. But she tells me she has become “a bit of a pariah” on the left because of the book she published this year, "Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters".

Christian radio stations “interviewed me and loved me,” she says. She went on Fox & Friends, and “the host was like, your book is the best thing since the invention of the refrigerator.” But “I couldn’t get on NPR,” and “I was rejected wholesale — particularly in New York — by the liberal press.” She did appear on ABC’s Good Morning America, but seconds before the camera went live, she says, the interviewer told her: “I don’t believe in the premise of your book at all. I don’t like your book.”

The premise of Ms. Komisar’s book — backed by research in psychology, neuroscience and epigenetics — is that “mothers are biologically necessary for babies,” and not only for the obvious reasons of pregnancy and birth. “Babies are much more neurologically fragile than we’ve ever understood,” Ms. Komisar says. She cites the view of one neuroscientist, Nim Tottenham of Columbia University, “that babies are born without a central nervous system” and “mothers are the central nervous system to babies,” especially for the first nine months after birth.

What does that mean? “Every time a mother comforts a baby in distress, she’s actually regulating that baby’s emotions from the outside in. After three years, the baby internalises that ability to regulate their emotions, but not until then.”

For that reason, mothers “need to be there as much as possible, both physically and emotionally, for children in the first 1,000 days.”

The regulatory mechanism is oxytocin, a neurotransmitter popularly known as the “love hormone.” Oxytocin, Ms. Komisar explains, “is a buffer against stress.” Mothers produce it when they give birth, breastfeed or otherwise nurture their children. “The more oxytocin the mother produces, the more she produces it in the baby” by communicating via eye contact, touch and gentle talk. The baby’s brain in turn develops oxytocin receptors, which allow for self-regulation at a later age.

Women produce more oxytocin than men do, which answers the obvious question of why fathers aren’t as well-suited as mothers for this sort of “sensitive, empathetic nurturing.” People “want to feel that men and women are fungible,” observes Ms. Komisar — but they aren’t, at least not when it comes to parental roles. Fathers produce a “different nurturing hormone” known as vasopressin, “what we call the protective, aggressive hormone.”

Whereas a mother of a crying baby will “lean into the pain and say, ‘Oh, honey!’ ” a father is more apt to tell the child: “C’mon, you’re OK. Brush yourself off; let’s go back to play.” Children, especially boys, need that paternal nurturing to learn to control their aggression and become self-sufficient. But during the first stages of childhood, motherly love is more vital.

Ms. Komisar’s interest in early childhood development grew out of her three decades’ experience treating families, first as a clinical social worker and later as an analyst. “What I was seeing was an increase in children being diagnosed with ADHD and an increase in aggression in children, particularly in little boys, and an increase in depression in little girls.” More youngsters were also being diagnosed with “social disorders” whose symptoms resembled those of autism — “having difficulty relating to other children, having difficulty with empathy.”

As Ms. Komisar “started to put the pieces together,” she found that “the absence of mothers in children’s lives on a daily basis was what I saw to be one of the triggers for these mental disorders.” She began to devour the scientific literature and found that it reinforced her intuition. Her interest became a preoccupation: “My husband would say I was a one-note Charlie,” she recalls. “I would come home and I would rant and I would say, ‘Oh my God, I’m seeing these things. I’ve got to write a book about it.’ ”

That was 12 years ago. She followed her own advice and held off working on the book because her own young children, two sons and a daughter, still needed her to be “emotionally and physically present.”

She uses that experience as a rejoinder to critics who accuse her of trying to limit women’s choices. “You can do everything in life,” she says, “but you can’t do it all at the same time.” Another example is Nita Lowey, a 15-term US representative from New York’s northern suburbs: “She started her career when she was in her 40s, and she said to me she wished she’d waited longer. She said her youngest was 9.”

Ms. Lowey is a liberal Democrat, but she was born in 1937 and thus may have more traditional inclinations than women of the baby boom and later generations. Ms. Komisar tells of hosting a charity gathering for millennials at her apartment. One young woman “asked me what my book was about. I told her, and she got so angry. She almost had fire coming out of her eyes, she was so angry at my message. She said, ‘You are going to set women back 50 years.’ I said, ‘Gosh, I wouldn’t want to do that.’ ”

The needs of children get lost in all this — and Ms. Komisar hears repeatedly that the hostility to her message is born of guilt. When she was shopping for a literary agent, she tells me, “a number of the agents said, ‘No, we couldn’t touch that. That would make women feel guilty.’ ” Another time she was rejected for a speaking gig at a health conference. She quotes the head of the host institution as telling her: “You are going to make women feel badly. How dare you?”


Leftist race obsessions invade Halloween   

The Left has done a fine job of taking the fun out of just about everything by injecting movies, television, sports, holidays and so much more with its politically correct groupthink. Halloween appears to be the latest target of its manufactured rage.

Writing for a blog called “Raising Race Conscious Children (the title alone says it all),” Sachi Feris goes on at length about how she twisted herself in knots over whether her daughter should dress as Disney’s Moana for Halloween. Her issue was that she feared her white daughter would be engaging in “cultural appropriation” by dressing up as the Polynesian character. Then Feris wondered if her daughter should be dressing up as Elsa from “Frozen,” because that would be flaunting white privilege.

As a side note, you may be wondering what the heck “cultural appropriation” even means. Wikipedia defines this leftist concoction as follows: “Cultural appropriation is the adoption of the elements of one culture by members of another culture. … Cultural elements which may have deep meaning to the original culture may be reduced to ‘exotic’ fashion or toys by those from the dominant culture.”

Well then.

Feris’ article sparked both imitation and mockery across the Internet. Redbook wrote a piece later republished by Cosmopolitan that scolds parents about the dangers of racism inherent in letting your kids dress up as characters of another race for Halloween. Redbook’s editors pontificate, “This isn’t about putting a damper on your kid’s creativity; it’s about exercising sensitivity towards anyone who doesn’t get to choose how the world at large sizes them up. Whether or not your kids get that is up to you.”

This seems like a lot of stress over a holiday that is basically about letting kids dress up as comic characters and going door to door in their neighborhood begging for candy. But to the “microaggressed” Left, it’s just one more opportunity to try to exercise control over society.

For years, Disney was the target of race-baiters for not having enough diversity in its character catalogue. Now that the entertainment conglomerate is expanding its range of characters, the race-baiters are saying that white kids should not pretend to be those characters because it’s cultural appropriation. This is typical of leftists, though. They are constantly moving the goalposts because their philosophy feeds on and thus foments discord and hatred.

For any adult who stops and thinks rationally for two seconds, labeling parents as racially insensitive for letting their children dress up as a character from a different race for Halloween goes too far. It doesn’t show respect for different racial groups. In fact, it further segregates them. It doesn’t celebrate different cultures or show respect for them. It just keeps people divided in politically convenient little tribes.

Why shouldn’t a kid be allowed to dress up as Moana if she’s white? Does this also mean that black girls can’t dress up as Elsa? Does a boy have to be of Northern European heritage to be Thor? (Never mind that Thor’s now a woman in Marvel’s comics…) Where does it end?

On the humorous side, blogger Matt Walsh has 9 Tips To Avoid Being A Racist Bigot This Halloween. From avoiding costumes of characters outside your race to avoiding them within your race, from avoiding costumes made in historically oppressed regions to avoiding costumes you buy at the store, Walsh eventually gets to the “logical” conclusion of leftist insanity: “Avoid costumes.” But not only that, you have to “Avoid avoiding costumes.”

Feris, Redbook and their ilk insist that parents have conversations with their children about race. But what they are really asking parents to do is teach their kids that skin color is everything; that you must constantly be thinking about a person’s race. This is not the world we want to raise children to live in. The real lesson here is that the amount of melanin in someone’s skin is not a basis for judging their character or for making decisions about how you treat them. And let kids be kids. If they want to dress up as Moana or Elsa, let them do it. And have a Happy Halloween.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


29 October, 2017

Bake This Particular Cake, Bigot
The American media would have you believe there is a concerted effort among Christians in America to discriminate against gay Americans. “No gays allowed,” they claim small Christian business owners are saying. It is a fiction created to avoid dealing with the facts. The fact is I am unaware of any Christian business that refuses to serve gay customers, but I am aware of many gay activists targeting Christian small businesses for persecution.

The latest issue is also the one where the Left has most dramatically overplayed its hand. Jack Phillips, a baker in Denver, CO, has been compared to a Nazi participating in the holocaust. A member of Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission said that. What crime did Phillips commit? He dared to offer a cake to a gay couple for their same-sex wedding.

You may need to read that last sentence again. Phillips is both a committed Christian and a renown artist. His cakes are elaborate creations. Phillips was willing to provide a cake for the same-sex wedding, but Phillips was not willing to provide his extra artistic talents for the particulars that the couple wanted. They could have the wedding cake, but he was not going to customize it the way they wanted it. For that, Phillips had to be prosecuted.

Before going further, it would be helpful for you to know just how committed a Christian Phillips is. He will gladly bake a cake for a gay person, but he will not bake a cake for a Christian who wants a Halloween-themed cake. Phillips believes Halloween is a pagan holiday that dishonors God, so he will not lend his artistry to its celebration. He will not bake cakes for anyone’s second wedding, even if a church is willing to do the wedding. Divorce is a sin. Phillips will not bake cakes celebrating other religions’ religious holidays.

But Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the gay couple for their wedding. Still, he must be prosecuted because he would not customize it the way they wanted. For that, he must be shamed, boycotted and compared to a Nazi. His case is now before the Supreme Court. He goes in the company of Baronelle Stutzman. She regularly provided flowers to a gay couple in Washington. She had a long list of gay customers that she lovingly served. But Stutzman would not provide flowers for the same-sex wedding of her longtime customers. The couple did not file charges against Stutzman. They were, after all, friends and longtime customers. But the state of Washington pursued her anyway.

Stutzman was found guilty of discrimination by the Washington State Supreme Court and risks losing her home, her business, and even her dog because of the judgment unless His Majesty Anthony Kennedy, the supreme ruler of the United States, deigns to carve out some small exception for Christians in private enterprise.

It really all comes down to Anthony Kennedy, who decided the Supreme Court had the power to change the multi-thousand-year-old definition of marriage, despite the government not having created it. Now Kennedy will tell us whether the First Amendment’s “free exercise of religion” language means we can actually freely exercise our religion or only believe it without living it.

What the Christians before the United States Supreme Court want is not a ruling that says they can discriminate against gays and turn away a gay couple from their business. All they want is a ruling that says their artistic talents are speech and their speech cannot be compelled to endorse a religious ceremony they disagree with.

The compromise here should be obvious. Just as we should abhor the idea of forcing a black printer to print the fliers for a Klan rally or forcing the Muslim butcher to carve a pig for a church barbecue, we should not force the Christian to provide goods and services to a religious ceremony their religion decries as sin. You may disagree, but who are you to tell someone else how to live his faith? Anthony Kennedy, though, is our supreme ruler and he will tell us all.


Black Church Leaders Defend Baker in Wedding Cake Case

A Colorado baker has a right not to make a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage that is against his faith, and the LGBT agenda is not a new civil rights movement, black Christian leaders said Monday outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nine leaders spoke in support of Jack Phillips, whose lawyers will ask the high court Dec. 5 to affirm that his free speech and religious liberty rights under the First Amendment allow him to turn down a request by two male customers to create such a cake.

“The First Amendment gives us the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion,” Garland Hunt, senior pastor at The Father’s House, a nondenominational church in Atlanta, said at the press conference in defense of Phillips, who was not there. “The freedom of religion is an inalienable right that comes from God.”

In 2012, Phillips declined the business of two men who visited his bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked him to create a cake celebrating their wedding in Massachusetts.

His Christian faith, Phillips has said, teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. He also has said he doesn’t design and make cakes that go against his faith in other ways, such as being sexually suggestive or depicting Satan.

Persecution of Christians is real and “coming for America,” Hunt said.

Dean Nelson, co-founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of North Carolina and senior fellow for African-American affairs at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said Phillips is being attacked because he is a Christian.

“Jack is an honorable man who has served his community through his business for all people, regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual identity,” Nelson said. “Jack as a Christian is compelled to love all people, and this is what he has done for decades.”

The Frederick Douglass Foundation, which promotes Christian and conservative values,  sponsored and organized the press conference, according to Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that defends religious liberty and represents Phillips.

The foundation also has launched a website in support of Phillips called We Got Your Back, Jack.

Janet Boynes, author of “Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom,” said the civil rights movement started to help blacks gain their rights and sexual behavior is not the same as skin color. “I resent having my race compared to what other people do in bed,” Boynes said.

LGBT activists want special rights, she said, and she is concerned that people are falling for the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. American culture is in a “downward spiral,” she said. “God only condones and blesses sex between a man and a woman in marriage,” she said.

William Avon Keen, president of the Virginia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization co-founded by civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., said activists for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans have hijacked civil rights.

Unlike many LGBT activists, Keen said, he dealt with separate and unequal public facilities when he was growing up.

Keen said the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.  “We as Christians, we feel that murder is a sin. … We feel that marriage is ordained by God between a man and a woman,” Keen said. “We don’t believe in the third gender.”

He said the civil rights movement of the 1960s was “anti-sin,” and that today Christians are “too quiet” on societal issues and need to speak up.

“It is an injustice for our nation or anyone to try to force an individual to deny their faith,” Keen said.


Abortion: people are becoming more pro-life – despite the liberal media hegemony

When Jacob Rees-Mogg was interviewed by Piers Morgan and asked for his views on abortion, he was condemned, stigmatised, mocked and reviled for opposing it in all circumstances – even when women have been victims of rape or incest. He was called ‘bigot‘, ‘misogynist‘, ‘backwards‘… “extremely rightwing and reactionary“… “He belongs in the 18th century“…

Except according to an ICM survey for the BBC, he belongs foursquare in the 21st century, because only 46% of people support abortion in cases of rape, and just 41% in cases of incest:

Not that the BBC told you that: they suppressed ‘inconvenient’ statistics from their programme ‘Abortion on Trial‘ because it’s important for them not so much to convey facts impartially, as to inculcate the necessity for liberalising abortion laws further while persuading the public that the BBC are mere facilitators of an impartial debate.

Fatima Salaria is the BBC new head of Religion & Ethics (tweets protected – no response to ‘follow’ request in over six months), and according to the Mail she promised an impartial programme. Yet “No experts were filmed giving alternative viewpoints…”

“It is completely wrong to suggest that the BBC suppressed the results of the poll,” protested a spokesperson. “They were released to the press prior to transmission, were referred to throughout the programme and have been published in full on the ICM website.”

Which may be true, but the medium is the message: in a visual age where films are truth and the telly is a guru, people aren’t much bothered by academic footnotes. The point is that ‘Abortion on Trial’ failed even to mention that less than half of respondents to the ICM poll favour abortion in cases of rape.

So the bigoted, misogynistic, backwards, right-wing, reactionary, 18th-century Jacob Reees-Mogg is actually with the majority on this. But don’t expect the left-liberal media to report that.

Perhaps more significantly, only 13% support abortion for Down’s Syndrome:

And perhaps even more significantly, the proportion of Roman Catholics who advocate abortion in certain circumstances is not significantly different from the proportion of Protestants, which will come as rather a shock to a great many. Is that a result of the lack of episcopal leadership on the issue over generations, or the ubiquity of Professor Tina Beattie?

Either way, the takeaway fact from these stats which needs trumpeting and blogging to the four corners of the United Kingdom is that the ‘pro-choice majority’ which the mainstream media keep banging on about simply doesn’t exist.

But don’t expect the BBC to tell you that.

This Friday (27th October) marks the 50th anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act 1967. Among commemorative events, the Life charity will be holding a minute’s silence at 11.05am – the precise time at which the Act received Assent – to remember the 8.8 million souls lost to abortion since that day. There will be a large Abort67 display in Parliament Square, so those who wish to reflect will be gathering in Old Palace Yard by the statue of King George V at 10:30. Lord Alton will be among speakers. All are welcome.


2 States Ravaged by Opioids Show Difference Faith Makes

There is a strong correlation between lack of religious attendance and illicit drug use, research shows in contrasting two states hit hard by the opioid crisis.

The parallels are demonstrated by two comparative studies of New Hampshire and West Virginia.

West Virginia suffers from an ailing economy, while New Hampshire has a strong economy, noted J. Scott Moody, CEO of the Granite Institute, a conservative think tank. The institute takes its name from the fact that New Hampshire is known as the Granite State.

“It’s not just economics causing the overdose problems. There are other factors,” Moody told The Daily Signal.

Moody and Wendy P. Warcholik, co-directors of the American Conservative Union’s Family Prosperity Index, issued the West Virginia report in September and the 2017 Family Prosperity Index report in February.

The February study reveals a regional problem.

A large and growing body of evidence shows that not only can religion help prevent people from using illicit drugs, but it also plays a strong role in effective treatment programs. … The northeastern states dominate the upper-left quadrant of the chart [see page 123], where low religiosity is correlated with high drug use, while deep southern states and Utah dominate the lower right quadrant, where high religiosity is correlated with low drug use.

Moody noted that New Hampshire has a serious problem, not only with opioid addiction, but also a related problem with a high suicide rate. One in 10 young adults say they have had suicidal thoughts.

“You have to ask, why is that? Our economy is booming. We’re pretty much at full employment. Anybody who wants a job can find a job,” Moody said. “So we looked at more social-type issues. For example, New Hampshire is one of the least religious states in the country. It’s New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. It’s a race to the bottom. … We suggest there is a strong correlation between illicit drug use and religious attendance.”

By contrast, data seems to be showing some improvement in West Virginia, he said.

“Ironically, West Virginia is much more religious than northern New England, and that has actually suppressed their illicit drug use, which was a positive for West Virginia, but they still have a suicide problem along with it,” Moody said.

The Family Prosperity Index found that “[b]etween 2000 and 2015, New Hampshire’s drug overdose rate increased by 724 percent to 0.033 percent (2nd highest) from 0.004 percent. Over the same time period, the national average grew by 148 percent to 0.017 percent from 0.007 percent.”

West Virginia’s illicit drug use rate as a percent of population exceeded the national average in most years; however, the state has seen some reversals.

The study released in September says, “In 2014, West Virginia has the 20th-lowest illicit drug use rate (except marijuana) at 2.5 percent and the second-lowest regionally, just ahead of Virginia (2.3 percent, 14th-lowest).”

The findings show:

While West Virginia’s current low ranking is encouraging, the recent bounce-back between 2013 and 2014 suggests continued vigilance is needed, as it may indicate a return to a higher illicit drug use rate (except marijuana) in the years ahead (perhaps to levels of the near past between 2004 and 2010).

A significant reason for why West Virginia’s illicit drug use rate is relatively low is due to the state’s above-average religious attendance. In 2015, 44 percent of West Virginians attended church at least once per week (tied for the 17th-highest with Missouri and Indiana), which is 16 percent above the national average of 38 percent.

Regionally, West Virginia had the second-highest level of religiosity trailing only Kentucky (47 percent, 10th-highest). All other neighboring states were lower in religiosity: Virginia (42 percent, 22nd-highest), Ohio (40 percent, 23rd-highest), and Pennsylvania (38 percent, 31st-highest).

The research measures religiosity using Gallup data, which has tracked weekly church attendance since 2008.

Other national research backs this up more broadly on drug use.

The reports point to a 2001 study, “So Help Me God: Substance Abuse, Religion and Spirituality,”  from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse that found:

“[A]dults who never attend religious services are almost twice as likely to drink, three time likelier to smoke, more than five times likelier to have used an illicit drug other than marijuana, almost seven times likelier to binge drink and almost eight times likelier to use marijuana than those who attend religious services at least weekly … .

“[T]eens who never attend religious services are twice as likely to drink, more than twice as likely to smoke, more than three times likelier to use marijuana and binge drink, and almost four times likelier to use illicit drugs than teens who attend religious services at least weekly.

A 2005 study, “Faith Matters: Race/Ethnicity, Religion and Substance Use,” from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a research center focused on education and opportunities for young people, found:

Religion is an important protective factor against substance abuse and an important support for persons in recovery. Religious people are less likely than others to use drugs and less likely to experience negative drug-related consequences.

The office of Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is also conducting the Social Capital Project, a multiyear research effort looking at “associational life,” which includes families, communities, workplaces, and religious congregations. The report doesn’t single out religion as a mitigating factor to addiction, but notes that isolation is a major cause.

“Studies show that social networks influence the behavior of their members, affecting whether they are obese or fit, happy or sad,” the Lee project says. “The stark fact is that socially isolated people and others without social support die younger. Even among people with adequate social support, health status is connected to the health of their friends, family, and co-workers.”



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


27 October, 2017

It's not just a joke anymore: They're actually claiming math is racist

Naturally, you've heard the joke about political correctness run amok -- that pretty soon, people are going to start claiming math is racist. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but ...

Math actually is racist, according to Rochelle Gutierrez, an education professor at the University of Illinois. The following excerpt from a Campus Reform write-up is not a joke unless this professor is putting on an admirably epic long-term hoax:

"On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White," Gutierrez argued.
Gutierrez also worries that algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege, fretting that "curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans."

The thing is, a good deal of math was developed, or improved, or at least passed on to us today by Greeks and Europeans. And there's nothing wrong with that. We can acknowledge it, the same way we tip our hats to the Arabs (perhaps unwittingly) each time we say the Arabic word "algebra," even though algebra predated its modern Arab invention by several thousand years.

The word "mathematics" is itself a Greek word for "that which is to be learned." Euclid's geometry book is still in print and useful. Eratosthenes first calculated the circumference of the earth in the third century B.C., with what we now know to be surprising accuracy. And it would be absurd to deny the significance of Pythagoras and his mysterious mathematical cult, even if he was not the first to know of or to prove the theorem we have since named after him.

And that's only scratching the surface, of course. Ancient Greece is remembered for its flourishing of learning, science, literature and philosophy, a surprisingly large amount of which survived the ages. We're all better off for it.

Unfortunately, the Greeks are also credited with inventing the academy. If that means we have them to blame for Professor Gutierrez's scholarship, then perhaps she has a point after all.


Milo Yiannopoulos tells Studio 10's Jessica Rowe she can be 'cured with chemotherapy' after she told him she is 'a proud feminist'

Far-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos has branded Studio 10's Jessica Rowe a 'half-bald feminist' after a heated clash on live TV.

The British-born champion of free speech was outspoken about his dislike of feminists when he appeared on Studio 10 this week to peddle his upcoming tour of Australia.

When co-host Jessica Rowe told Mr Yiannopoulos she was a 'proud feminist', he said 'that's OK, I'm sure they'll cure you soon, there's a chemotherapy for that'.

Mr Yiannopoulos' likening of feminism to cancer drew criticism from Ms Rowe.

'No no no,' she began. 'Everyone's entitled to a view, but you seem to stir up hate for the sake of it, because you want to provoke.'

Mr Yiannopoulos defended his opposition to feminism and said he did not say it to be controversial.

'It's perfectly fine if you're a feminist. My problem is with those feminists who say we all need to be feminists when we might not be, and we might think feminism has run its course,' he said.

'It's very difficult to describe yourself as 'not a feminist' if you're in the public life. That's an enforcement of a particular political orthodoxy that is not shared by the public majority.

'These ideas being enforced in popular culture and on TV are not views reflected in the public. 'The gap between media and the public is growing all the time.'

Mr Yiannopoulos went on to say free speech was a right, even if it was controversial or offensive. 'If I want to say that feminists are fat and ugly, which most of them are, I will,' he said.

The controversial commentator later uploaded the interview to his Youtube channel under the headline 'Milo slays half-bald Australian feminist'.

Mr Yiannopoulos has built a career on divisiveness.

Once a senior editor of far-right site Breitbart News, Mr Yiannopoulos was fired when he was accused of being a paedophile apologist.

The commentator previously said sex between 'younger boys' and older men could serve as a 'coming-of-age relationship in which those older men help those younger boys discover who they are'.

He vehemently denied the accusations saying 'I didn't technically advocate paedophilia'. 'I regret the things that I've said. I don't think I've been as sorry about anything.'  


Restaurant boss advertises for female part-time staff because ‘women are better at cleaning than men'

Ridvan Das, owner and manager of Mediterranean restaurant and takeaway Mazi in Croydon, south London, spoke out after a notice appeared on the recruitment website Indeed.

The advert included a picture of a sign in one of the restaurant's windows which says 'part time staff required (female)'.

The businessman said his rationale behind the controversial advert was simple. Ridvan said: 'The reason was we needed to hire a dishwasher and women are obviously better at cleaning than men - that's what I think anyway.

The 24-year-old denied that the advert was sexist, and stressed that he did hire men and women - but when it comes to roles involving cleaning, he preferred women.

Ridvan said: 'That's just how I feel; I'm messy myself and a lot of the males I know are messy themselves and their wives, girlfriends, mum or auntie will keep them neat.'

Ridvan said the single vacancy - which was posted on Indeed by someone else - had already been filled.

When asked whether he was aware of UK discrimination laws and whether he would have considered a man for the role, Rivdan added: 'We hire as long as they have had this type of job before and as long as they have experience in the trade.

'It's not discrimination; we have 14 people who work here and it's pretty much equal numbers. There's a few more men than women.'

When pressed further on his view that women are better at cleaning, Ridvan pointed to the fact that the restaurant has the highest possible food hygiene rating. After a Food Standards Agency inspection on May 24, the restaurant was given a rating of five out of five.

Ridvan, who lives on London Road, said: 'I'm not taking any chances when it comes to the food and cleanliness of the restaurant.

'I have four people who work only to keep the restaurant clean; three female and one male. The male will help the women pull the fridges around.

'There is a woman at the head of this team and she will come and check everything is spotless and, if not, they start again.'

The law in the United Kingdom is quite clear on discrimination both during recruitment and employment.

The office and kitchen are situated downstairs at Mazi, while the diners eat upstairs. Food is brought upstairs through a food lift.

Men and women wait on tables at the London Road restaurant, with all the men upstairs and all the women downstairs.

Rivdan said: 'We took over the restaurant about six months ago, and it was like that (all men upstairs and all women downstairs) so we kept it like that.'


Racist "whiteness" concept flourishing among elite Australians

The Left are obsessed with race and racial differences

Is there a collective noun for those who make a living out of publicly decrying the evils of whiteness? Consider for example, a cacophony of virtue-signallers, a soliloquy of self-flagellants, a dirge of self-loathers, a nursery of penitents, and a turgidity of neo-Pharisees.

For such zealots the crusade against racism — or more accurately to be seen as crusading against racism — is a secular calling. Its central philosophy is the disparaging and loathing of whiteness. Are you thinking irony or downright hypocrisy? To describe it so would be correct, but those terms do not illustrate the degree of cognitive dissonance in the crusader’s mind. To describe it as Orwellian doublethink, however, does.

What featured in last week’s episode of ABC Radio National’s The Minefield served as a stark example, its subject title “Wrong to be ‘White’: Is Racism a Moral Problem?”. Apparently rejecting the notion that racism is an aberrant element of whiteness, host Scott Stephens mused that it was innate. “A great many more philosophers and a great many political theorists … would see the persistence of racism not as a moral topic but in some ways as foundational, as fundamental as in some ways infecting and rendering us complicit in pretty much everything we do,” he said. “What do you think”, he asked co-host and Deakin University lecturer Dr Joanna Cruikshank.

You might think the correct answer, after suppressing an outburst of derisive laughter, would be to say this secular construct of original sin was both simplistic and sweeping. But Cruikshank did not demur. “As a historian I think I’m constantly struck by the way the structures of many modern nations have been racial right from the start,” she said. “I think I would even say white supremacist from the start.”

It is a term that Cruikshank resorts to frequently, particularly in respect to self-loathing. “I am a white supremacist,” she wrote in June this year. “I sing a national anthem that proclaims Australians to be ‘young and free,’ directly excluding the ancient nations of this land and their people — people who, for most of the century this anthem has been sung, have been anything but free. I work in institutions and walk on streets named after men who authored the White Australia policy.”

The list of self-indictments is a long one. “I watch television and movies where white people portray almost all of the heroes, while people of colour play the feisty friend, the wisecracking sidekick, the super-strong villain or the treacherous terrorist. If I watched sport more often, I would see players of different races, but almost all white managers and coaches.”

The purpose of telling us this, she writes, is not “to indulge in self-flagellation.” Whether she is trying to convince us or herself of that one cannot say. “No doubt people of colour around me could point to many more examples of the way my words and actions reflect and perpetuate white supremacy,” she adds. “I am working to change this.” These changes, however, do not appear to go so far as the reluctant white supremacist giving up her taxpayer-subsidised job to make way for a person of colour, but that’s by the bye.

The two co-hosts could not be more alike in spirit. “Like you, I’ve been rather troubled by the political response as well to the National Constitutional Convention at Uluru,” said Stephens, who then added the indigenous resolutions such as a treaty and a so-called truth and reconciliation commission to be “clear and unequivocal” and “morally rich”.

As with Cruikshank, Stephens appears to regard the ABC studios as the nation’s confessional. He deplored the “grubby public debates about things like the Australia Day date,” describing them as a reaction to “historical truth-telling.” The protests were a “reassertion of a muscular white nationalism,” he went on to say. “This for me is really the symptom of something that remains very deep and very wrong with who we are.”

You could be tempted to argue in response to such strong sentiments that the attempt by socialist and Greens-dominated councils to change the date of Australia Day is an aggressive form of cultural cleansing. Alternatively, you might suggest that this whole notion of whiteness and inherent racism is sanctimonious piffle, as well as an exercise in attention-seeking.

Ah, but Stephens had anticipated this. “It‘s now common for people to come out and to deny that they themselves are racist while engaging in either forms of speech or patterns of behaviour that would be I think rightly morally described as racist.” To assume that a denial of racism from one accused of such behaviour is evidence of guilt is truly a Kafkaesque mindset.

These views are disconcertingly similar to those of the Australian Human Rights Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane. “Not to put too fine a point on it,” he observed only two months ago, “but we must be prepared to say that if people don’t wish to be called racists or bigots, they shouldn’t blame others; they should begin by not doing things that involve racism or bigotry.” But what about the right to a fair hearing? For a cultural Marxist, that is merely a bourgeois anachronism.

Given Stephens and Cruikshank’s controversial and near identical views on whiteness, surely we could expect their only guest would provide a challenging and robust counterargument? After all, ABC editorial policies require The Minefield to “Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.” So how did that work out with this guest?

“I’d like to start off actually by acknowledging that here in Sydney, in the ABC studios, I am actually sitting on lands stolen from the Gadigal people,” began Alana Lentin, associate professor in Cultural & Social Analysis at the University of Western Sydney. Does that give you some indication of how much balance you can expect?

Lentin is also the president of the Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association. Its charter is to “critically investigate and challenge racial privilege and the construction and maintenance of race and whiteness, both past and present.” In respect to the assertion that denial of racism is equivalent to an admission of guilt, Lentin takes an even more extreme view. “The assertion of ‘not racism’ that accompanies many structurally white discussions of and pronouncements on matters of race is itself a key form of racist violence,” she wrote for ABC only last week.

Not surprisingly, it was a very cosy little chat among the three, with acclaims along the lines of “Absolutely” and “Wow”. “We know that white people in this country are not jailed for unpaid fines,” said Lentin, commenting on the death in custody in 2014 of West Australian indigenous woman Miss Dhu. This is a blatantly absurd fiction, yet neither Stephens nor Cruikshank corrected Lentin.

Judging by her Twitter account, one sees that Lentin has a tendency to weaken labels through overuse. According to her Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is a “fascist”.

Fascist Turnbull presides over same racist policies as Trump regime is trying to install https://t.co/2guTeBlIqS

— alana lentin (@alanalentin) January 30, 2017

So too is his cabinet colleague Scott Morrison, but he is a “total fascist”.

How very fascist: Tony says 'families, jobs, economy, secure nation' and 'I love this country' http://t.co/13NRC20lm1

— alana lentin (@alanalentin) February 9, 2015

On what basis? It turns out that Abbott had espoused the importance of “families, jobs, economy, secure nation”, and had said “I love this country.”

Her accusatory outbursts do not end there. Lentin frequently refers to immigration detention centres as “concentration camps”.

Her most revealing tweet was one sent on the eve of Australia Day this year. “Does anyone seriously think that #changethedate will resolve the pesky fact that Australia was stolen? No to nationalist days!” Never kid yourself in thinking that the progressives’ campaign to change the date of Australia Day will end there.

As for episodes like that of The Minefield, what does it say of the ABC’s adherence to its statutory charter? Only this month managing director Michelle Guthrie claimed the government’s legislative proposals to amend the charter — including a requirement that coverage be “fair” and “balanced” — amounted to a “political vendetta”.

Finally, one should reflect on the words of Stephens, who linked the concepts of race and whiteness to “products of capitalism itself”.

Capitalism, he asserted, “produces subjects who are willing to profit off the back of the misery and the immiseration of others,” he said. He’s absolutely right. It is called the Grievance Gravy Train, and it is publicly funded through taxes paid by capitalists. And it is not only its drivelling passengers who enjoy such a lucrative run at the expense of others, but also those who stoke its fires and drive it.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


26 October, 2017

Facebook user hits back at friend who told her she only got into Yale med school because of her 'white privilege'

White privilege is evident in society whether or not people choose to see it but in the case of a student who got into medical school, the accusation was misplaced.

In a Facebook post that has since gone viral a determined student was cruelly shamed after she shared her excitement over getting into Yale medical school, saying, 'Thank you everyone for all your support!! I'm so happy to say after years of hard work I have been accepted into Yale med school!!!'

But instead of a congratulatory post, one friend on the platform commented that she only got into the prestigious university program because of her 'white privilege'.

She said: 'Good job, might I add a shout out to your white privilege for you,' followed by the hand clapping emoji.

But the accomplished graduate wasn't having it and defended herself in a series of posts shedding light on her incredibly troubled upbringing, revealing how she has remained resolute in her studies throughout the years.

In a Facebook thread, she told Melissa, the girl who accused her of getting into med school because she was white, that she had grown up in a foster home after her alcoholic parents gave her up when she was five years old.

'Melissa, I grew up in a foster home. Both my parents were alcoholics and gave me up when I was five,' she wrote.

She continued: 'I had to take care of my brother for two years until we got adopted and even then we were both abused by that family and had to go back into the orphanage for another two years.'

But even through her less than ideal upbringing, the hopeful doctor still managed to get good grades, go to a decent college and get scholarships to help pay for her tuition.

'I spent long nights studying and working part-time in high school just to support myself and my brother,' she said. 'I was lucky enough to have good grades to get into a decent undergrad.'

She spent her high school and college careers staying up late but rather than at parties, she lost sleep during study groups and her job until she 'finally got accepted to her top choice' medical school. 

And instead of taking this as a moment to apologize or simply explain her point of view on a controversial topic she continued to patronize the med student.

She said: 'Umm okay sweetie, you claim to understand privilege but you can't even self critique [sic] buh bye.'

People took to Facebook to share their disdain toward Melissa who felt the need to diminish her friend's accomplishments.

One Facebook user said: 'Oh my gosh this p****d me off so bad. She didn't get into Yale because she is white. She got into Yale because she worked her butt off and earned it.'
You deserve it: And other shared his disgust for those who try to make people feel like they don't deserve their achievements

You deserve it: And other shared his disgust for those who try to make people feel like they don't deserve their achievements

Another said that med school admit should be congratulated for achieving 'all she has' because she worked hard to get where she is. The post continued by advising her to not listen to negative comments.

But all comments weren't negative as another person bothered by the exchange, shared the thread and their frustration over the situation saying, 'Congrats to this girl for getting into Yale Med. Simply disgusted by whoever is trying to make them feel like they don't deserve it.'

In the Facebook thread defending herself, she mentioned that instead of being helpful and explaining her perspective, Melissa was being 'condescending' when she said she understood the concept of white privilege. 


The brutal truth: The demise of the stay-at-home mother IS harming children... and I'm as guilty as any working mum, writes SARAH VINE

Sometimes in life you just have to smash the glass and pull the emergency brake, even if it means incurring the wrath of some of your fellow passengers.

That is precisely what Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, did the other day when she wrote an article outlining in stark terms the psychological repercussions on children of having both parents who work.

‘Time is the greatest gift we can give our own children, yet in Britain today it is the scarcest resource we have, especially for working parents,’ she said.

‘These days most parents work, often long hours,’ she continued. ‘I remember speaking to a teenage boy who was suffering very serious problems. I suggested to him his mother would want to know.

‘He replied: “When she gets home from work she’s so tired she can’t talk to me.” I asked if the weekends might give them the chance to talk. “She works in a shop,” he told me. “She never has a day off.” ’

I don’t imagine Rantzen’s comments will have won her many fans among hardline feminists. But her concerns bear serious consideration. After all, her experience in the field of troubled children is unique.

Childline is 30 years old, the first initiative of its kind — a dedicated service for children where, free from adult influence, they can talk openly and honestly about their problems. It is perfectly placed to have an unbiased view of what troubles them and of the cause of those troubles.

Barely a week seems to go by without another report claiming rising levels of anxiety and depression among young people. And unlike when Childline began, these feelings are not so much triggered by abuse or neglect (although that still happens far too often) but rather a generalised sense of unease and worry.

So what’s causing this?

According to the experts at Childine, there are a number of factors at play, not least the impact of the internet and social media on the developing mind.

But there is something else, too, a far less headline-grabbing but in many ways more complex problem: parental absence and, in particular, the absence of a mother figure.

A loving, nurturing, caring person in their lives, someone to set boundaries, lend structure, provide support and encouragement — and create a calm, safe environment in which they can flourish.

Childline carried out 22,456 counselling sessions in 2016 with children as young as ten who were suffering suicidal thoughts, up 15 per cent from the previous year. This sharp increase points to one thing: children simply don’t know who to turn to any more.

In the past, there was never much confusion about who was in charge of pastoral care in the home. Such a person used to be called a housewife, and many women saw it as a privilege to carry that title.

It meant being a home-maker, a mother, a matriarch, shaping the lives of those around you, passing on your wisdom and knowledge, nurturing — and yes, at times putting others before yourself.

As Rantzen points out: ‘My mother proudly called herself a “housewife”. A clever woman, she never had the chance to test her talent in the workplace and while I have no desire to turn the clock back, as her child I always knew that she was focused on us, her daughters. That we came first.’

Women such as Rantzen’s mother used to be the norm; now they are the exception. Decades of feminism have seen to that, combined with the changing economic landscapes.

And while the stereotype of the emancipated female, forging ahead in the workplace, challenging the men at their own game in many cases still stands, the reality is that many of these mothers work not because they want to but because they have to.

Rising living costs, soaring house prices and a changing employment market in which manufacturing jobs have been replaced by the service sector, mean the old-fashioned model of a father who works and a mother who stays at home is becoming less viable.

Most families need two incomes just to keep a roof over their heads, and even then they find themselves struggling.

Little wonder that more than 70 per cent of mothers have some form of paid employment, and that number is rising.

While concerns about the possible impact on younger generations have been rumbling on for decades — when I was young I remember endless debates about ‘latchkey kids’ — it remains one of those subjects that is very hard to debate objectively.

The reason is simple: working mothers such as myself are quick to defend our choices and highly sensitive about any suggestion that the way we conduct ourselves as parents might in any way prove detrimental to our children.

We are role models aren’t we? We make up for times away from our children in other ways, don’t we?

And at the end of the day, we are intelligent women: work is what keeps us sane.

But while mothers such as myself, who enjoy fulfilling careers and contribute to the income both of our own families and the national exchequer, would die in a ditch to defend the right to work, I would be lying if I didn’t admit there have been times when my family has suffered.

My husband was filling in an online form for a new NHS surgery.

In answer to the ethnicity question he chose ‘white Scottish’ from the drop-down menu.

Whereupon the next question was: ‘Do you require an interpreter?’

How often have I been too tired to help my children with homework? Or too stressed to hear that small voice? Or distracted at the very moment I could have made all the difference?

Now they are 13 and 14, they tell me themselves. It is they who have to snap my laptop shut; they who have to make themselves supper if I’m working late, or run to the shops to get milk.

Only the other night, my son — who had been waiting patiently for help with an English essay while I was working — lost his temper through frustration and exhaustion. By the time I had finished, he was too tired to do any more homework. There was no getting around it: I had prioritised my work over his.

I have no idea if either of my children have ever called Childline — although they have threatened (I think, hope) in jest. But my situation is emblematic of what Esther Rantzen is talking about.

Even though I am lucky enough to have flexible hours and can work from home, there are times when my work is all-consuming.

I tell myself, of course, that by not acting as their slave, I am teaching them self-sufficiency. But I simply don’t know how else my job might be affecting them.

Because while most people assume the early years are the hardest for working mothers, given the unique pressures of 21st-century living that is not longer the case. Admittedly they don’t need so much practical support as they get older; but emotionally they are much more vulnerable.

The life of a modern teenager has never been more fraught in terms of mental health. Last week, a study by the University of Manchester revealed self-harm among teenage girls had increased 68 per cent in the past three years.

Both of my children experience a range of anxieties I would never even have dreamt of when I was their age, and there is no doubt social media and technology play a significant role in this.

The irony is that at a time when more mothers than ever are in work, it is becoming more vital that our children have someone at home who can offer a shoulder to cry on.

There is one simple truth: in the 21st century children need their mothers more than ever; but we are simply not there for them.

The time has come for women like myself to admit what we all secretly already knew. When it comes to the question of how we reconcile our duty as a mum with our intellectual ambitions, we don’t have a satisfactory answer.

Whenever someone raises it, the various factions rush straight to their battle stations — perpetuating the great feminist lie: that women can have it all.

Among young women of my generation at least, this has always been the assumption. It was our job to take up the opportunities gifted to us by the previous generation of feminists. The focus was on pursuing a career first, marriage and motherhood second.

Cooking, cleaning and choosing curtains was beneath us; instead, we studied hard and worked long hours alongside the men.

The upside was that the world finally began to take us seriously.

The downside — which we never saw coming — was that something had to give. That something, it is increasingly becoming apparent, was the mental health and well-being of subsequent generations.
BBC double standards

A Conservative MP cautiously and politely questions university attitudes towards Brexit in a carefully worded letter; BBC reacts with hysteria across all channels.

Labour MP Jared O’Mara viciously insults gay people and calls women ‘fatties’ and ‘ugly bitches’, Spanish, ‘dagos’, Danes, ‘pig shaggers’. Barely registers a blip on the lunchtime news.

For, as the NSPCC and other child-focused organisations are forever reminding us, the past three decades have seen a gradual decline in happiness among children and the quality of childhood. Generation X has given rise to Generation Neglect. One of the most heartbreaking things Rantzen pointed out is that many young people shield their parents from what’s going on in their lives because they either don’t want to add to their burden, or think they will be too busy to help.

‘They protect their parents from knowing they are being badly bullied, or abused,’ she said, adding, ‘perhaps that is why they turn to online friends or strangers, to have someone to talk to. But the online world brings new risks and pressures: cyber-bullying, online groomers, the culture of “sexting” explicit images of themselves, and the easy availability of porn.’

We think of the internet as something that reaches into children’s lives; but the notion of children reaching out online to strangers because the emotional landscape at home is so barren had never occurred to me.

In 2015, a study by Harvard Business School found that in two-parent families with reasonable incomes, children of working mothers were at a distinct disadvantage. It said: ‘Employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class).’

Young children need to play and explore in an environment where they feel safe, special and loved. For infants, this means with care-givers to whom they feel they belong. Quite simply, their mothers.

No one wants to return to the days when married women weren’t allowed to work. But between that and feminism’s utopian dream must lie a place where mothers can be mothers and children can be children without either losing out. Perhaps that starts with recognising the value of working for something more than the money and the glory: a happy, stable home where the next generation can grow and flourish.

A novel concept indeed.


A study reveals overwhelming MSM pro-Clinton bias as they speak about limiting "fake news."

If one blatantly dismisses all accusation of bias as patently false when data would suggest otherwise, one will find little sympathy to accept one’s accusation of another as guilty of the same sin. Or to put it in more common parlance, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, in the run-up to the presidential election, ran an experiment to determine just how biased toward leftist politics were the nation’s leading social media giants. As Frank Foer, a writer for The Atlantic, describes, “The social media companies are the gatekeepers. Whatever choices these companies make to elevate or bury information is very powerful and will have a big impact on what people read.” Epstein found that Google searches returned twice as many pro-Hillary Clinton news articles as did Yahoo. Even more disturbing was Google’s targeting tactic. Men in blue states saw more than double the pro-Clinton articles than did women in red states. Epstein charges that Google’s search algorithm ranked pro-Hillary articles ahead of any positive articles on Donald Trump.

Another study conducted by Nicholas Diakopoulos, a professor at Northwestern University, found that in December 2015 Google search results of presidential candidates showed seven out of every 10 articles were positive toward Democrats, whereas less than six out of 10 were positive for Republican candidates. We’re surprised it was that high. On election night, only 1% of 113 featured Google election-related searches produced articles from conservative news sources.

Meanwhile, in spite of the mainstream media’s overwhelmingly negative coverage of Donald Trump, he won the election, which prompted the MSM to immediately lob charges of a dubious Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy as well as the “major” problem of “fake news.” Facebook later announced that it would be looking to develop programs to limit fake news, especially from the Russians. But conservative media outlets began to see more of their content limited on leading social media sites, such as Prager University witnessing much of its content on Google-owned YouTube being labeled as restricted for no apparent reason other than the fact that it promotes conservative ideology.

So, is it really the Russians that the MSM and the social media giants are seeking to stop? If it is, they don’t seem to be doing a very good job. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Russian state-run news network RT is thriving on YouTube and Facebook. RT’s English language YouTube channel has garnered more than 2.1 billion views and has 2.2 million subscribers, putting it on par with CNN’s YouTube channel. Add another 3.3 billion views from 20 other RT-related YouTube channels and one can clearly see that the Russians are having little trouble getting their message into American media.

The Journal reports, “Unlike other government-funded news outlets, such as the U.K.‘s BBC or the U.S.’s Radio Free Europe, researchers say RT is more overtly political, with a goal of undermining Western institutions and democracies. … Researchers and former RT employees say the outlet highlights conflict in the West, questions prevailing narratives in Western media and promotes conspiracy theories.”

Humorously, CNN has just launched an ad campaign entitled “Facts First” designed to sell its brand as genuinely real news from a trusted source as opposed to fake news. The ad features an apple with a voice over telling viewers not to believe those who would say it is a banana. CNN, dost thou protest too much?


ACLU aims to stop transgender bathroom initiative in Montana

The ACLU of Montana filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of a proposed ballot initiative that would require transgender residents to use public bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their sex at birth.

The lawsuit was filed in District Court in Cascade County on behalf of seven transgender Montanans, the parents of a transgender 9-year-old and the city of Missoula. The Bozeman City Commission voted Monday to join the effort.

"This proposed measure legalizes discrimination," said Alex Rate, legal director for the ACLU of Montana.

The ACLU and the plaintiffs argue the Locker Room Privacy Act would deprive transgender Montanans of equal protection under the law and violate their rights to privacy, dignity and due process.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the initiative unconstitutional and to prevent Secretary of State Corey Stapleton from placing it on the November 2018 ballot.

The Montana Family Foundation is sponsoring the initiative. Foundation president Jeff Lazloffy has argued that predators claim they are transgender to access public bathrooms used by the opposite sex.

"High school girls shouldn't be forced to shower in front of a boy, even if he does think he's a girl," Lazloffy said in a statement Tuesday. "Boys shouldn't have to change clothes in front of a girl, even if she thinks she's a boy. It's just common sense."

Lazloffy said Initiative 183 offers solutions such as single-stall changing facilities.

While his arguments center on locker room use, plaintiffs focused on the initiative as it would apply to public restrooms.

"This morning, I walked down the hall and used the women's restroom," transgender plaintiff Roberta Zenker told those gathered at the Capitol Rotunda. "It was not lost on me that if I-183 passes, I would not be able to use that restroom."

The law would force her to use the men's restroom and face possible harassment, humiliation and embarrassment or risk breaking the law by using the women's restroom, she said.

"What better way to discriminate against a class of people than to effectively exclude them from public places," said Zenker, who transitioned to a woman 11 years ago.

Lazloffy argued the lawsuit is premature because the initiative has not yet qualified for the ballot. Supporters have until June to gather the nearly 26,000 signatures needed.

Rate noted that in an earlier case challenging the constitutionality of a ballot measure, former Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson wrote that placing a facially invalid measure on the ballot would be a waste of time and money for all involved.

The high court ruled last month that the ballot language approved for the initiative needed to be re-written because it did not include the initiative's definition of sex and was otherwise vague.

Rate said he hoped the judge would rule before the November 2018 election.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


25 October, 2017

The war on sugar

By Alex Beam  

On the eve of Halloween, our solemn National Festival of Sugar, I see some startling news in the august British Journal of Sports Medicine. “Sugar produces drug-like effects that may increase the risk for drug addiction,” the article’s authors inform me. “Indeed sugar may have a ‘gateway effect’ as it cross-sensitises with drugs of abuse.”

Sugar “behaves like a chemical or drug,” we are told, “due to its ‘pure’ white crystalline form.” It “produces drug-like psychoactive effects” and “there are substantial parallels and overlap between drugs of abuse and sugar, from the standpoint of brain neurochemistry as well as behaviour.”

Today, Hershey’s Kisses; tomorrow crack cocaine.

The world soured on sugar decades ago. I well remember William Duffy’s 1975 “dietary classic,” “Sugar Blues,” which made the same odd assertion that because sugar is a white crystal, it is like heroin. What about salt, or quartz, for that matter? Maybe we need to broaden the purview of the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Sugar came in for a mugging in a famous New York Times magazine cover story, “Is Sugar Toxic?” Toxic means poisonous, so: Is sugar a poison? Author Gary Taubes’s article became a book, “The Case Against Sugar,” which itself got a going-over in The New Yorker earlier this year. “Taubes’s indictment of sugar as the leading culprit in virtually all modern Western maladies doesn’t provide enough evidence for us to convict,” Harvard Medical School professor Jerome Groopman wrote.

But the indictment has certainly garnered plenty of headlines. Groopman reports that one of his cancer patients feared that ingesting sugar would cause her malignancy to return. Just a few days ago, The Wall Street Journal reported on food companies’ near-desperate search for acceptable sugar substitutes, given the public’s general aversion to artificial sweeteners.

The anti-sugar jihadists aren’t stupid, they are just opportunistic. They know as well anybody that sugars provide the energy that keeps us alive. So in a way it’s like aspirin. It’s perfectly safe in normal doses, and too much can kill you. But that simple assertion doesn’t generate dodgy headlines or Internet page views.

I keep a file on harmless substances that some Americans have come to believe are toxic. “Alcohol is toxic,” a professor at New Zealand’s Massey University told a credulous Wall Street Journal reporter earlier this year. It “is essentially a poison which the body works very hard to eliminate.”

But here is a 2017 study in the Journal of Alzeimer’s Disease, which seems to say quite the opposite: “Relative to nondrinkers, moderate and heavy drinkers . . . had significantly higher adjusted odds of survival to age 85 without cognitive impairment.” So this purported poison fosters longevity and bolsters cognitive health. Make that a double!

Once you start playing the “let’s call it toxic” game, it never stops. Wheat is toxic; but you knew that. Microsoft and the Eat This, Not That! gang produced a click-baity list of “70 Popular Sodas Ranked by How Toxic They Are.” It’s important to remember that soda pop doesn’t meet any reasonable definition of poisonous; if you drink a can of their high-ranked Fanta grape soda, you won’t die.

You could drink 50 cans of Fanta at a sitting and you wouldn’t die. Fifty cans of Fanta every day for a year? Not good. But then it’s your stupidity and penchant for self-abuse that’s toxic, not the sweet, fake-grape liquid you are pouring down your throat.

All this to say: Happy Halloween! And do send me your Reese’s pieces. I must confess, I’m addicted.


Dana Loesch Explains Why She's Being Forced to Move Out of Her House

Radio host and NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch explained on Fox News' The Story with Martha MacCallum Monday why she has been forced to pack up and move her family out of her house.

Following the Las Vegas massacre, Loesch said she and her family -- including her children -- have received credible violent and vile threats from gun-control advocates and other political opponents because of her role with the National Rifle Association.

Loesch on Sunday described what she has been going through on Twitter, following the lead of other women who were using the #MeToo hashtag to share their personal stories about sexual harassment and sexual assault in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.

"It's an awful, unfortunate thing," said Loesch, explaining that while she was taking a break from packing on Sunday, she saw that the #MeToo hashtag was trending.

"And I looked at it and I saw many awful stories of women who have experienced and have endured sexual harassment," she said.

Loesch tweeted on Sunday that one guy threatened to shoot her in her front yard.  Another guy posted photos of her house on social media and threatened to "rape her to death," she said.  Another gun-control advocate threatened to hunt her down and assault her, and then dragged her kids into it.

She wrote: "The culture is only non-conservative women deserve respect. It’s idiotic, demonstrated daily, and deserving of more than 140 chars."

"These threats are why I'm leaving!" Loesch told MacCallum. "These threats are why I'm moving my family at a horrible time in terms of real estate, before the holidays -- which is never fun."

Loesch said she doesn't hate her political opponents, she just wants people to have a choice to carry a weapon.

She praised the FBI and local law enforcement for their help during her ordeal. "They've all been absolutely amazing to work with," she said.

Loesch also credited Chelsea Clinton for backing her up on Twitter. Clinton tweeted her support on Sunday, saying that the threats are "awful and unacceptable:"

Unfortunately, many of Clinton's followers didn't agree.

"I think for so long there have been many who have tolerated a little bit of sexism to achieve their political objective. I think that some people -- some on the left -- have tolerated sexism toward conservative women because it helps them achieve a goal of silencing conservative women and silencing the conservative agenda. And that is never how it should be."

"I feel that all women, all men should have the platform to be able to speak freely and voice their opinions without having to move out of their houses," said Loesch. "I'll never stand down."


IRS Shouldn't Be Allowed to Punish Churches for Content of Sermons, Pastors Say

In 1954, Congress passed the Johnson Amendment forbidding 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from openly endorsing political candidates. Alongside other non-profit organizations, churches that violate the Johnson Amendment risk having their non-profit status revoked by the IRS. Inserted into the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Johnson Amendment has been fairly uncontroversial until recent years.

Starting in the 2000s, a growing number of religious and conservative leaders have called for its repeal. President Donald Trump promised to repeal it earlier this year. And in a new survey sponsored by Alliance Defending Freedom and conducted by LifeWay Research, a majority of Protestant pastors believe that the IRS shouldn't be allowed to punish churches over sermon content.

While the Johnson Amendment is currently a political hot-button issue, LifeWay Research points out that:

Only one congregation has lost its tax-exempt status due to the Johnson Amendment. That happened in 1995, after the Church at Pierce Creek near Binghamton, N.Y., ran newspaper ads opposing Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential bid. Other churches have been investigated for the content of their sermons, including All Saints Episcopal Church in Los Angeles, after a preacher there criticized President George W. Bush days before the 2004 election.

Still, the IRS warns churches to steer clear of direct involvement in campaigns. And since 2008, the ADF has been challenging the restriction on endorsements through a series of annual 'Pulpit Freedom' Sundays.

Many pastors who responded to the survey don't believe that it's appropriate for sermons to include political endorsements. Simply, as ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb explains, "This poll demonstrates that religious leaders don’t want to be burdened by the continual threat of an IRS investigation and potential penalties based simply on what they say from the pulpit."

LifeWay Research found widespread opposition to any government penalties for the content of a preacher’s sermons. Ninety-one percent of pastors agree with the statement, 'Pastors should have the right to speak freely from the pulpit without the fear of being penalized by the government.' That includes 77 percent of pastors who strongly agree. Six percent of pastors disagree. Three percent are not sure.
Among those who agree:

96 percent of pastors at larger churches (those with 250 or more attenders).
88 percent of pastors at small churches (those with fewer than 50 attenders).
86 percent of pastors ages 18 to 44.
93 percent of pastors 45 and older.
96 percent of evangelical pastors.
85 percent of mainline pastors.

The survey of 1,000 protestant pastors did reveal small divides, though. Some of LifeWay's other findings include:

Pastors in the South (77 percent) are more likely to agree than pastors in the Northeast (66 percent).
Evangelical pastors (84 percent) are more likely to agree than mainline pastors (58 percent).
Baptist (86 percent), Pentecostal (93 percent) and Holiness (91 percent) pastors are more likely to agree than Lutheran (61 percent), Methodist (56 percent) and Presbyterian/Reformed (61 percent) pastors.

LifeWay Research points out that the vast majority of churchgoers, as well as pastors, don't want political endorsements included in sermons. Nearly 80 percent believe that pastors shouldn't endorse candidates from the pulpit. In the words of LifeWay Research's Executive Director Scott McConnel: "But when they do address political candidates, they don’t believe it is the government’s business. There’s very strong support for Congress to make sure the IRS isn’t policing sermons."


Hollywood Outraged at the Monster It Created

After 50 years objectifying women, it's no wonder that our nation has a problem with sexual abuse

Since the counterculture of the 1960s, Hollywood movies and television programs promoting promiscuity, pornography, moral relativism and the objectification of women have saturated our minds. And so it’s fittingly ironic that this smut-driven industry is finally preying on itself amid the still-emerging allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein.

Indeed, Hollywood leftists are going after one of their own, but it’s taken a long time for them to muster the courage to speak out — and some are still clinging to a preposterous defense of this depraved mogul. Apparently, Weinstein has a long track record of using his power to harass and abuse women — and of being protected by hypocritical media powerhouses like The New York Times and NBC News.

What they’ve been protecting isn’t hard to figure out: If you’re a male with political power in DC or star power in Hollywood, you can treat women as you please so long as you stand up for the right causes. Think about it: This system has given us the likes of Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner and now Harvey Weinstein. They all walked the walk and talked the talk when it came to supporting a range of progressive causes.

But let’s not put all the blame on the men. There are plenty of women on the Left who were willing to “stand by their man” as long as their man towed the progressive line on women’s issues. We’re looking at you, Hillary Clinton.

The same people who were indignant over the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Donald Trump boasted about groping women knew all along that there were far more dangerous characters on their side. And yet, just like Hillary Clinton, they remained silent for decades while also silencing, demeaning and destroying any and all victims with the courage to speak out.

What is it about Democrats and their sick propensity to protect and defend the monsters within their own ranks?

Weinstein, of course, is presumed innocent, but let’s not mince words: The behavior of which he’s accused is appalling. Still, we should be careful not to let social media serve as both judge and jury. The understandable desire to convict has in the past destroyed innocent lives.

Michelle Malkin suggests that it’s “irresponsible for news outlets to extrapolate how ‘commonplace’ sexual abuse is based on hashtag trends spread by celebrities, anonymous claimants and bots. The role of the press should be verification, not validation. Instead of interviewing activist actresses, reporters should be interviewing bona fide experts.” Malkin adds, “Rape is a devastating crime. So is lying about it. Ignorant advocates and lazy journalists can be as dangerous as derelict detectives and prosecutors driven by political agendas instead of facts. When #MeToo bandwagons form in the midst of a panic, innocent people get run over.”

Unfortunately, the Left isn’t using the Weinstein situation for self-reflection. Instead of looking within and taking a stand against their culture of sexual predation, leftists seem more intent to attack prominent conservatives who embrace traditional values and morals.

Indeed, the real problem with the Left’s indignation is that it’s grossly hypocritical. Apparently, Weinstein’s enablers would often deliberately leave him alone with a target to do whatever he liked. And yet consider all the criticism Vice President Mike Pence received when it was reported that he doesn’t dine with a woman alone if his wife isn’t present. Progressives characterized Pence as a chauvinist, as an oppressor of women — all while Weinstein was “grooming” his next victim.

Clearly, there’s a lesson here, but our decline into moral oblivion goes unchecked. In response to the #MeToo hashtag movement, actress Mayim Bialik wrote this in an op-ed for The New York Times: “I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”


Leftist outrage over Bialik’s common sense statement was immediate and powerful enough to force a complete reversal of her position. And that’s the problem. The “anything goes” mindset is what creates people like Harvey Weinstein. The Left demands accountability on occasion, but not modesty or decency.

This is what the ‘60s counterculture has given us. Traditional marriage is oppressive and discriminatory. Porn is ever present, even among our children. Men are welcomed into women’s bathrooms (and one has been charged with raping a 10-year-old). Gender is subjective. Heather has Two Mommies is actually the title of a children’s book, and a drag queen “demon” reads books to children at school. Even pedophilia is normalized.

In January, a headline in the Los Angeles times read, “Has Hollywood lost touch with American values?” Ya think? It only took decades for someone on the Left to consider the possibility that Hollywood is out of sync with the rest of us.

Remember how many celebrated the life of Hugh Hefner, a man whose Playboy magazine promoted exactly the kind of objectification of women that fed men like Weinstein.

Patrick Trueman considers Hefner’s legacy as “an unlimited supply of pornography on the Internet, a myriad of harms have taken the country by storm: sexual addictions and disorders, damaged and broken relationships, sexting, child-on-child sexual abuse, revenge porn, increased rape on college campuses and the military, rampant sexual objectification of women in popular culture, psychological effects such as anxiety and depression, and the list goes on.”

Going after Harvey Weinstein isn’t going stop sexual abuse in Hollywood, and a Twitter hashtag campaign won’t change decades of cultural rot, just as wearing an AIDS ribbon won’t cure the disease, nor condemning child slavery will end the practice, nor an artful photo spread of an inner-city neighborhood will solve crime, poverty, drug-addiction and fatherlessness.

In the 1980s, none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy viciously attacked Robert Bork’s candidacy for the Supreme Court. Conservatives knew that a Kennedy lashing out at anyone over morals and values was gross hypocrisy. As Bork titled his book, we really are Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

It only took 50 years for Hollywood to figure it out.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


24 October, 2017

Canadian court finds Arab NOT guilty of raping his wife as he genuinely believed he could have sex with her whenever he wanted

What happened to "ignorance is no defence"?

A man has been cleared of raping his wife after a judge ruled that he did not know his behaviour was criminal in Canada.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith said prosecutors had failed to establish that the man knew it was against the law to have sex with his wife without her consent.

Justice Smith explained: 'I find that the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent, as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so.'

The case related to an alleged assault in 2002, when the Palestinian woman - who became the man's wife in an arranged marriage in Gaza - claimed he pulled her pants down and had sex with her despite her asking him three times to stop.

According to the Ottawa Citizen, she testified that she considered it her obligation to have sex with her husband and did not know it was a crime.

She said she did not consent to sex on many occasions but both of them were under the impression that he was within his rights.

But when she heard from a police officer years later about the true nature of the law, she brought forward a case about the 2002 incident.

The ruling, issued earlier this week, came after a five-day trial in June.

Smith explained in his ruling: 'Marriage is not a shield for sexual assault.

'However, the issue in this trial is whether, considering the whole of the evidence, the Crown has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.' 

It has left campaigners furious, with the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women calling the ruling 'disappointing'.

Carrolyn Johnston, the organisation's acting executive director, said: 'Any sexual contact without explicit and ongoing consent is sexual assault — regardless of the relationship.

'He may have believed that he had a right to have sex with her as her husband, but Canadian sexual assault law is clear and was amended to include sexual assault against a spouse in 1983.'

The Sexual Assault Network and rape crisis centres in the city said they are now promoting public education campaigns to ensure the concept of consent is fully understood.

Children in Canada are already taught about consent from Grade 7.

The couple separated in 2013.

The husband denied ever having sex with his wife without consent and also specifically denied the 2002 incident. His defence was that during the period of the alleged incident, he had been told to abstain from sex after having a hair transplant.

But the judge dismissed it, explaining there was no evidence to show it was standard medical practice to abstain from sex in such cases.

The judge also said the husband was argumentative as a witness and said his defence was unbelievable. 


Feminism’s Experiment Against Common Sense

It demands a culture of restraint while tearing down morality and modesty.

In the wake of the Weinstein scandal, the commissars of feminism are policing ideological infractions with increased vigor. Several women in the entertainment industry have had to apologize abjectly to the commissars for daring to suggest that women seek protection from a salacious, pawing Hollywood culture by not participating in it.

“Big Bang Theory’s Mayim Bialik Publishes Irresponsible Essay On Sexism In Hollywood,” ran a headline in Newsweek, capturing this atmosphere. Bialik had merely allowed herself a brief aside in the New York Times reflecting on the prudence of modesty in an industry of creeps:

I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy. I am entirely aware that these type of choices might feel oppressive to many young feminists. Women should be able to wear whatever they want. They should be able to flirt however they want with whomever they want. Why are we the ones who have to police our behavior?

In a perfect world, women should be free to act however they want. But our world isn’t perfect. Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women. But we can’t be naïve about the culture we live in.

The commissars decreed this an impermissible thought (in spite of its dubious caveats deferential to feminism) and demanded that Bialik prostrate herself before them, which she has duly done in a teary confession note: “I am truly sorry for causing so much pain, and I hope you can all forgive me.”

Fashion designer Donna Karan is also promising to re-educate herself after she asked: “How do we display ourselves, how do we present ourselves as women, what are we asking? Are we asking for it, you know, by presenting all the sensuality and all the sexuality?” Karan blamed her remark on a lack of “sleep” and is prepared to submit to whatever abasements the feminists have in mind in order to erase her “horrible mistake.”

In these pitiful purges, one sees the intensity of feminism’s rejection of common sense, all in the service of a fantasy that ends up hurting women and empowering boors. The Harvey Weinstein scandal didn’t happen in spite of feminism in Hollywood but in part because of it, insofar as feminism encouraged women to plunge into a culture of immodesty without warning them of its costs and dangers.

Indeed, according to the logic of feminism, which holds that all female choices are good ones (provided they deviate from traditional paths), the women who submitted to Weinstein are as honorable as the actresses who resisted him. Feminism, if anything, encouraged a culture of mutual exploitation in which men and women proved their equality by making identically immoral choices.

As all of the protections of women — chivalry, modesty, traditional morality, religion, and so on — dissolved over the years, the feminists cheered. They marked progress in society not by the presence of protections but by their absence. For decades, feminists clamored for the exposure of women to the horrors of war. They thought it a great advance that men no longer hesitated on the battlefield before the prospect of women taken captive and that women would one day serve on the front lines. Women don’t need special protections, they insisted.

Yet the rhetoric heard in recent days belies this insistence. Feminists, while still denying biological difference, assert that women face special dangers in Hollywood and deserved closer protection. At the same time, they don’t want the old protections restored. And so they look elsewhere for protection, to “systemic change,” whatever that means. They, of course, exclude themselves from this “industry-wide” failure to protect women and continue to dole out bad advice to them while castigating anyone who offers sensible counsel.

In the end, feminism will always prioritize ideology over the protection of women. Just look at its loud support for “all genders bathrooms,” the kind that now exist in in the tony New York City hotels Weinstein patronizes. Woe to anyone who brings up the risks of that arrangement for women.

And for all of its talk about the “objectification of women,” it refuses to break with women who define themselves according to it. Feminists defend and celebrate women who turn themselves into sexual objects, then forbid men from treating them as ones. Feminism calls for men to “control themselves,” but reserves the right to maintain an outrageously immodest culture — and to send out its commissars to crush anyone who notices the contradiction.


Anti-establishment party led by billionaire wins Czech election

Prague: An anti-establishment party founded by a billionaire oligarch overpowered the Czech Republic's long-standing, mainstream parties Saturday, making the blunt-talking, enigmatic tycoon almost certain to become prime minister in a coalition government.

ANO, the party formed by Andrej Babis, 63, had nearly 30 percent of the vote with 99 percent of ballots counted. The Social Democrats, who have been at the centre of Czech politics for a quarter-century and had finished first in the previous election, came in a distant sixth with just 7 percent. The Communists were fifth. And the Christian Democrats, another party that traces its roots to the country's founding, got less than 6 percent, perilously close to the cutoff to qualify for seats in Parliament.

ANO was not the only anti-establishment party to do well. The extreme right-wing Freedom & Direct Democracy, with 10.7 percent, doubled its proportion from the previous election. That was just a fraction of a percentage point behind the youth-oriented Czech Pirate Party, an anti-establishment movement from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

In the previous parliamentary election in 2013, Mr Babis stunned the political establishment by drawing the second highest number of votes, just one year after founding his party. That was enough to make ANO part of the ruling coalition with the Social Democrats and the smaller Christian Democrats, with Mr Babis its finance minister. He was able to maintain his anti-establishment credentials by focusing on corruption and economic reforms.

In recent months, as polls showed his rise to prime minister becoming likely, Mr Babis became the target of an investigation into possible tax crimes and was fired as finance minister. This month, he was indicted on what he called politically motivated charges of misusing European Union subsidies. Opponents called on him to step down as his party's candidate for prime minister. He refused.

"I am happy that Czech citizens did not believe the disinformation campaign against us and expressed their trust in us," Mr Babis said in his victory speech at ANO headquarters. "We are a democratic movement, we are a pro-European and pro-NATO party, and I do not understand why somebody labels us as threat to democracy."

Often compared to President Donald Trump, Mr Babis has mixed such nationalist themes as opposition to immigration with a promise to use his business skills to streamline government, reduce red tape and fight corruption. With mainstream parties in decline, as they have been in recent elections across Europe, Mr Babis' promise to upend the political establishment found a receptive audience.

"The image of politics is corrupt," said Otto Eibl, a political scientist at Masaryk University in Brno. "It is quite easy to offer an alternative. When you say, 'All those old politicians are bad and I will be good,' most people want to believe you."

Mr Babis drew wide support from older Czech voters, fed up with corruption scandals and unfulfilled promises, who were willing to overlook their candidate's own legal issues.

"His opponents are just trying to tarnish him, and people don't care about these political games," said Petr Sebor, 70, who was escorting his 91-year-old mother, Zdenka, to the polls Friday, the first of two days of voting.

What the ascent of Babis and ANO — which means "yes" in Czech and is also an acronym for Action of Dissatisfied Citizens — will mean for the Czech Republic's relations with Brussels and Moscow remains unclear.

But there is concern he could join a nationalist bloc with Poland and Hungary and deepen the rift between the European Union and many of its eastern members. He has promised to protect Czechs from overreach by Brussels, but also to remain an active partner in the European Union. He has stressed that Prague needs to develop closer ties with all potential trading partners, including Russia.

The first indication of his direction will come when he announces which parties will become partners in the new coalition government.

Among the biggest surprises in the election was the strong showing by Freedom & Direct Democracy, the extreme right-wing party of Tomio Okamura, of mixed Czech and Japanese descent, who has lived in the Czech Republic since he was 6. Such right-wing parties, which have taken root elsewhere in Eastern Europe, had been largely inconsequential in Czech politics. But now, in a tight race for a distant second with the Civic Democrats, Mr Okamura will become a larger force.

Analysts had warned that the most recent polls may have understated Mr Okamura's base as some voters were reluctant to acknowledge support of the controversial party. Okamura attributed the discrepancy to inept polling.

Mr Okamura said he opposed the country's mainstream parties and political establishment because its message is "pro-Brussels, pro-multiculturalism and pro-Islam," while he sees Brussels as an adversary, Islam as an ideology rather than a religion and multiculturalism as a threat to Czech culture.

"We want to keep the Czech Republic we remember from our childhoods," he said in an interview earlier this month. "What is wrong with that?"

Mr Babis had said he would not ask either the Communists or Mr Okamura's party to join his coalition. Karla Slechtova, the minister of regional development and an ANO member, said the party would like to discuss a coalition with the Social Democrats, though they alone would not be sufficient.

"The elections have confirmed the downfall of traditional parties," said Milos Gregor, an analyst at the International Institute for Political Science. "With as many as nine parties in the government, we will most likely face a turbulent four years."


Inglorious Ingrate

What can you call a man who, with some but not a great deal of athletic ability, is able to overcome all the obstacles and failings that mortal men encounter, and become a football star?  A hero?  A man among men? A role model?  Well, if you're talking about Colin Kaepernick, the answer is inglorious ingrate.

Why?  Abandoned - in the strictest sense of the word - by his biological parents when he was an infant, Colin was adopted by an white, middle class family who made it possible for him to participate in the grand American Dream, which he most probably would not have enjoyed otherwise.  As a black man in a white middle class family, Colin went through school, found his athletic ability, and parlayed that into an eventual professional football career.  With that came wealth, fame and prestige.  Wow!  What a life.  What opportunity was afforded him.  What grace of providence was shown upon him.

But that wouldn't do for our budding social justice warrior.  As his hate for white America grew, he converted to Islam over a year ago.  And as his disdain manifested itself more and more, his athletic prowess faded proportionately.  And so did his playing time on the field.  From the bench, Kaepernick vented his displeasure at America, siding with Black Lives Matter, and anti-police sentiment.  He decided to become a free agent.  He played less and less.  Nobody wanted to play with him.  Or hire him.  Angry black men are no fun to be around.  Then he took the infamous knee during the national anthem.  How bold.  How brave.  How insightful to disrespect the country, the fans, the league and the very game that gave him fame, wealth and prestige.

And so the cancer spread.  Other players - mostly black - emulated the "protest."  Then coaches and owners.  The talking heads on ESPN thought it was marvelous. 

But then came the backlash.  Fans booed.  ESPN subscriptions dived.  Fans turned off the set, or changed channels when NFL games came on.  Ratings plunged.  Even the President weighed in.  At this writing sentiment seems to have swung in the opposite direction. The end result is an entire once popular industry is in decline.

The talking heads label him the Man Who Started a Movement.  I doubt that.  This is a parable like some  ancient Greek myth.  The hero rises from obscurity to wealth and power, only to bite the hand that feeds, and is destroyed by his own hubris.  With Kaepernick however - never the sharpest knife in the drawer - the irony is lost on him. 

He's far from a man who started a movement.  He's merely an inglorious ingrate.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


23 October, 2017

The good intentions racket

Politics is increasingly about motives, not results

The curse of modern politics is an epidemic of good intentions and bad outcomes. Policy after policy is chosen and voted on according to whether it means well, not whether it works. And the most frustrated politicians are those who keep trying to sell policies based on their efficacy, rather than their motives. It used to be possible to approach politics as a conversation between adults, and argue for unfashionable but effective medicine. In the 140-character world this is tricky (I speak from experience).

The fact that it was Milton Friedman who said “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results” rather proves the point. He was one of the most successful of all economists in getting results in terms of raising living standards, yet is widely despised today by both the left and centre as evil because he did not bother to do much virtue signalling.

The commentator James Bartholomew popularised the term “virtue signalling” for those who posture empathetically but emptily. “Je suis Charlie” (but I won’t show cartoons of the prophet), “Refugees welcome” (but not in my home) or “Ban fossil fuels” (let’s not talk about my private jet). You see it everywhere. The policies unveiled at the Conservative Party conference show that the party is aware of this and (alas) embracing it. On student fees, housing costs and energy bills, the Tories proposed symbolic changes that would do nothing to solve the underlying problem, indeed might make them worse in some cases, but which at least showed they cared. I doubt it worked. They ended up sounding like pale imitations of Labour, or doing political dad-dancing.

“Our election campaign portrayed us as a party devoid of values,” said Robert Halfon MP in June.

“The Labour Party now has circa 700,000 members that want nothing from the Labour Party but views and values they agree with,” lamented Ben Harris-Quinney of the Bow Group last week. I think that what politicians mean by “values” is “intentions”.

The forgiving of good intentions lies behind the double standard by which we judge totalitarians. Whereas fascists are rightly condemned in schools, newspapers and social media as evil, communists get a much easier ride, despite killing more people. “For all its flaws, the Communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big,” read a New York Times headline last month.

“For all its flaws, Nazi Germany did help bring Volkswagen and BMW to the car-buying public,” replied one wag on Twitter.

Imagine anybody getting away with saying of Mussolini or Franco what John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn said of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez. The reason for this double standard is the apparently good intentions of communist dictators: unlike Nazis, communists were at least trying to make a workers’ paradise; they just got it wrong. Again and again and again.

Though Jeremy Corbyn is a leading exponent, elevating intentions over outcomes is not entirely a monopoly of the left. It is something that the coalition government kept trying, in emulation of Tony Blair. Hugging huskies and gay marriage were pursued mainly for the signal they sent, rather than for the result they achieved. (Student loans, to be fair, were the opposite.) Indeed, George Osborne’s constant talk of austerity, while increasing spending in real terms, was an example of the gap between intention and outcome, albeit less sugar-coated.

I can draw up a list as long as your arm of issues where the road to failure is paved with counterproductive benevolence. Gordon Brown’s 50p top tax rate brought in less tax from the richest. Banning foxhunting has led to the killing of more foxes. Opposition to badger culls made no ecological sense, for cattle, hedgehogs, people — or badger health. Mandating a percentage of GDP for foreign aid was a virtuous gesture that causes real inefficiency and corruption — and (unlike private philanthropy) also tended to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

Or take organic farming, which has been shown repeatedly to produce trivial or zero health benefits, while any environmental benefits are grossly outweighed by the low yields that mean it requires taking more land from nature. Yet the BBC’s output on farming is dominated by coverage of the 2 per cent of farming that is organic, and is remorselessly obsequious. Why? Because organic farmers say they are trying to be nice to the planet.

My objection to wind farms is based on the outcome of the policy, whereas most people’s support is based largely on the intention. There they stand, 300ft tall, visibly advertising their virtue as signals of our commitment to devotion to Gaia. The fact that each one requires 150 tonnes of coal to make, that it needs fossil fuel back-up for when the wind is not blowing, that it is subsidised disproportionately by poor people and the rewards go disproportionately to rich people, and that its impact on emissions is so small as to be unmeasurable — none of these matter. It’s the thought that counts.

The Paris climate accord is one big virtue-signalling prayer, whose promises, if implemented, would make a difference in the temperature of the atmosphere in 2100 so small it is practically within the measuring error. But it’s the thought that counts. Donald Trump just does not care.

One politician who has always refused to play the intention game is Nigel Lawson. Rather than rest on the laurels of his political career, he has devoted his retirement to exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality in two great movements: European integration and climate change mitigation. In his book An Appeal to Reason, he pointed out that on the UN’s official forecasts, climate change, unchecked, would mean the average person will be 8.5 times as rich in 2100 as today, rather than 9.5 times if we stopped the warming. And to achieve this goal we are to punish the poor of today with painful policies? This isn’t “taking tough decisions”; this is prescribing chemotherapy for a cold.

Yet the truth is, Lord Lawson and I and others like us have so far largely lost the argument on climate change entirely on the grounds of intentions. Being against global warming is a way of saying you care about the future. Not being a headless chicken — however well argue your case — leads to accusations you do not care


England ‘must follow Scottish ban on spanking

The children’s commissioner for England has called on Westminster to follow Scotland’s lead on moves to ban the smacking of children.

The Scottish government has said it will ensure that a bill brought forward by John Finnie, a Green MSP, would become law. Yesterday Anne Longfield, the children’s commissioner for England, expressed concern that legal protection from assault could now vary depending on a child’s location.

“The current legislation in England, which grants an exemption from the law on common assault to allow the physical punishment of children, is outdated,” she said. “It should be updated to reflect what the vast majority of parents believe: that hitting children is wrong and there are better and more effective ways of disciplining children and encouraging positive behaviour.”


Air Force Punishes Colonel who Refused to Affirm Gay Marriage

The Air Force has punished a highly-decorated and respected colonel after he refused to publicly affirm the same-sex spouse of a retiring subordinate.

Click here for a free subscription to Todd’s newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!

Col. Leland Bohannon, who was on the verge of being promoted to a one-star general, was suspended from command and orders were handed down recommending he not be promoted.

“His career is likely over and he will likely have to retire as a colonel instead of as a general,” First Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry told the Todd Starnes Show.
Click here for a free subscription to America’s fastest-growing Conservative Podcast!

First Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s most prominent religious liberty law firms, is representing the distinguished military officer.

“This sends a clear message - if you do not have the politically correct viewpoint, you are not welcome in the military,” Berry said. “The military is no longer a place of diversity and inclusion if you are a person who holds to a traditional belief on marriage.”

The Air Force did not respond to interview requests.

Col. Bohannon has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and he is the recipient of the Bronze Star, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and the Air Medal.

Last May the colonel declined to sign a certificate of spouse appreciation for a retiring master sergeant’s same-sex spouse.

He was unable to do so because it would have caused him to affirm a definition of marriage contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs.

First Liberty Institute argues there is no Air Force Instruction requiring a commander to personally sign a spouse certificate.

Col. Bohannon sought the advice of his Command Chaplain as well as the Staff Judge Advocate. He was advised to request a religious accommodation. However, that request was returned six weeks later “without action.”

A two-star general signed the certificate instead.

“(The colonel) went out of his way to make sure his Airman was accommodated,” Berry told the Todd Starnes Show.

But when the master sergeant learned Col. Bohannon did not personally sign the spouse certificate, the Airman filed an Equal Opportunity complaint.

The Airman alleged the devout Christian colonel had “unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation.”

The EO investigator determined the colonel had discriminated against the gay Airman – and went on to say that “even had the accommodation been granted, Col. Bohannon would nonetheless be guilty of unlawful discrimination.”

“You have a case where a decorated officer like Col. Bohannon demonstrates integrity and character to go out of his way to accommodate one of his Airmen and the Air Force will not do the same for him,” Berry told the Todd Starnes Show.

First Liberty Institute is urging the Air Force to reverse its decision – charging the military violated their client’s Constitutional rights.


Inconvenient truths for statue topplers, NFL protesters

As activists stumble over themselves to locate Confederate statues to topple or an American flag and national anthem to disrespect, certain aspects undermining their racial claims, past and present, largely go unaddressed.

One such aspect "topplers" ignore is how they also disrespect those who fought for the North.

Any statue connected to the Confederacy has become fair game for them. It matters not most wearing the gray either owned no slaves or, like Gen. Robert E. Lee, were anti-slavery. Interestingly, the last U.S. president to own slaves fought for the North - Ulysses S. Grant.

Thus, despite issues driving North and South to take up arms against each other, these warriors shared some common beliefs.

Topplers also conveniently choose to ignore that the North did not go to war to end slavery, and, as some historians suggest, had the South won it would have ended it. Americans supporting slavery back then supported a flawed law, in human-rights terms, that, nonetheless, was the law of the land for both sides. Yet today's topplers fail to hold the blue to the same standard as the gray.

Common beliefs tended to create a bond of mutual respect, eloquently described by a veteran of the North who went on to become a famous jurist.

Almost two decades after the war, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes gave a Memorial Day speech. He observed he and his fellow Union soldiers had been driven during the Civil War by a belief their cause was just and noble. "But," he explained, "we equally believed that those who stood against us held, just as sacred, convictions that were the opposite of ours - and we respected them as every man with a heart must respect those who give all for their belief. ... You could not stand up day after day in those indecisive contests where overwhelming victory was impossible ... without getting at last something of the same brotherhood for the enemy that the north pole of a magnet has for the south - each working in an opposite sense to the other, but each unable to get along without the other. As it was then, it is now. The soldiers of the war need no explanations; they can join in commemorating a soldier's death with feelings not different in kind, whether he fell toward them or by his side."

As Holmes made clear, the commitment of those on the other side to die for their beliefs demanded respect. Accordingly, the acts of today's topplers fail to do so.

Another ignored aspect of liberal claims relates to an alleged Donald Trump-Russian conspiracy impacting the presidential election. While evidence is still lacking, and after two key members of former-FBI Director Robert Mueller's investigative team have departed, ignored is the fact Russia fanned the flames of America's racial discord with ads planted on social media. It is now established a Russian initiative known as "Blacktivist" used Facebook and Twitter to do so.

This was not something new for Russia. As a former KGB agent, President Vladimir Putin was well aware that agency played a key role during the 1960s in publishing fake news about Martin Luther King. The KGB planted stories such as King being on the U.S. government's payroll, in hopes of triggering his downfall and replacement by a militant leader.

Russia has a long history of sowing the seeds of racial hatred in the U.S. and, undoubtedly, now takes great joy our professional athletes are disrespecting our flag and anthem.

Yet another aspect ignored by race activists is their hypocrisy concerning appropriation claims of black culture by whites. While copying elements of another's culture should be viewed more as a compliment than a theft, these activists see it differently.

At Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, a white girl who had braided her hair was attacked by an enraged black girl for doing so. The latter felt offended the former appropriated black culture. Another incident occurred at San Francisco State University when a white male student wearing dreadlocks was attacked by a black female student for the same reason.

Additionally, after performer Miley Cyrus came out with a video in which she demonstrated her "twerking" talents - a form of dancing, rooted in African culture, involving gyrations of one's backside - she was criticized by black performers Jay-Z and Aealia Banks - for cultural appropriation.

The list of alleged appropriation incidents goes on and on.

But why, then, is the reverse not true - i.e., that blacks coming to America have, over time, appropriated many aspects of white culture?

This is especially so in the form of two major professional sports - American football and basketball - that were invented by white males. The former was the invention of Walter Camp; the latter of James Naismith. The case can be made Bob Douglas, recognized as the father of black basketball, appropriated it from white culture.

Today, watching any professional football or basketball game, a disproportionately larger representation - based on demographics - of black to white players exists. Clearly, these games have allowed more talented black athletes to thrive, reaping in millions of dollars of income in the process.

Arguably, the "appropriation" of these sports by blacks denies incomes to (less talented) white players. Yet at no time, and appropriately so, has the claim of appropriation of a white man's sport by blacks been raised. The truth of the matter is the combined talents of players - both black and white - have clearly made these sports much more competitive.

The political activists creating the racial turmoil in our country need reflect on whether there are realistic justifications for their actions. In doing so, they should consider whether they are being judgmental in attacking those who simply chose to comply with yesterday's law of the land and those being unfairly treated today by claims whites are appropriating elements of black culture.

But, more importantly, they need consider whether their acts, in dividing America, are exactly what others, long committed to our demise, seek to do by fanning the flames of activist discontentment.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


22 October, 2017

Controlling wives and vengeful divorcees are putting men off marriage for life

What Peter Lloyd says below is similar to what I have often said.  Feminist-inspired divorce laws have made marriage a huge risk for men.  Unlike Peter, however, I have been married four times with minimal financial damage and I am still on good terms with the ladies concerned.  How did I manage that?  A major reason is that I married nice ladies to start with but I also never lie to women.  Simple, really

Making a speech in honour of my parents at their golden wedding anniversary last month, I spoke of my deep pride in their great achievement.

Here are two people, I told family and friends, who epitomise all that is good about marriage: a couple who put their egos to one side to raise their family and nurture a lifelong bond. I meant every word.

But what I left out is that, despite growing up with such a positive example, nothing will ever persuade me to follow the same path.

I will never, ever marry. That’s because the kind of traditional marriage that saw my mum and dad thrive no longer exists. It has been replaced with a modern version so warped that it has ceased to become an institution worth entertaining. Well, not for men anyway.

Indeed, I’ve written a book on the plight of modern man and recently I spoke on national radio imploring every unmarried man to avoid going up the aisle.

It was in response to Iain Duncan Smith’s astonishing claims, made during the Conservative Party conference, that unmarried men are ‘dysfunctional’ human beings and a blight on society.

The former work and pensions secretary said that, out of wedlock, men are ‘released to do all the things they wouldn’t normally do’ — in other words to behave like feckless idiots, committing crime, drinking too much, taking drugs and fathering multiple children.

What nonsense. Marriage doesn’t ‘fix’ or sustain men. I’d argue it does the very opposite, so weighted are our divorce laws towards women.

To illustrate my point, I suggested that a man might as well find a woman who hates him and buy her a house to live in, while he grubs around in a bedsit.

Because, in my view, that’s the brutal reality of what marriage does to men. He’d be better off, financially and emotionally, staying single.

Of course, I appear to be horribly contradicting myself — lauding my parents’ achievement one day and hammering marriage the next. But actually I’m just being realistic. Modern marriages simply aren’t built to last in the way they were when my mum and dad got married.

The year they tied the knot — 1967 — there were just over 43,000 divorces in England and Wales. You can roughly treble that figure today.

This means that as soon as you legally commit to a woman now, no matter how much you love her, you take the most reckless gamble on your future wealth, health and happiness.

The risk being that if it all goes wrong — and around 42 per cent of marriages fail — then matrimonial law, the family courts, indeed society as a whole, will conspire to ensure the biggest loser in the equation ends up being you.

Then there’s the mental impact. According to a 2013 survey, divorce makes men feel devastated, betrayed, confused and even suicidal. Women are more likely to feel relieved, liberated and happy following a split.

Research by Yorkshire Building Society showed that two years after a divorce, 41 per cent of men were still sad; for women the figure was just 33 per cent.

Those figures don’t surprise me. I have a friend who was married for just three years when his wife filed for divorce. She never worked and the house was solely in his name, but — because they had a one-year-old — she gets to live in it until the child turns 18 or finishes full-time education.

He now lives in a studio flat and works constant overtime trying to pay his rent, the mortgage, plus child support. Meanwhile, she still doesn’t have a job.

Another friend, who divorced more than ten years ago, was recently taken back to court because his ex-wife wanted more money after racking up credit card debts. Incredibly, she won, and he had to cough up another £12,000, plus legal fees, despite the fact they haven’t been married for a decade.

I know someone else — a successful lawyer — who’s been paying maintenance to his first wife longer than he’s been married to his second. The thing is, I’m not against relationships — not at all.

I’ve committed to relationships in the past and, as much as I’m currently happily single, hope to do so again in the future. But my friends’ salutary experiences mean I’ll never make it legally binding, no matter how in love I might be.

I feel the same way about becoming a father: it’s just too risky while women wield all the power, not only over when and if children are conceived, but also over whether the man is allowed to continue to play a role in a child’s life.

Think about it. The minute a man ‘puts a ring on it’, as the song goes, he stands to lose his home, access to his children and a huge chunk of his pension, too.

And nobody seems to bat an eyelid. When did you last hear of a man being the one to stay in the marital home, whether or not he pays the mortgage on it? What separated father do you know who gets to tuck his kids into bed every night? Meanwhile, the woman ending the marriage — and with 68 per cent of proceedings instigated by the woman, she’s the one most likely to — gets to walk away with a potential life-long meal ticket.

Mine might sound like a dystopian take on the world, but the depressing truth is that too often men who marry end up being treated as little more than sperm donors and cash machines. And so the best thing we can do to protect ourselves is not to bother in the first place.

The sad reality, as I see it, is that the writing’s on the wall from the moment a man proposes.

That’s when he gets sucked into a cripplingly expensive vortex, where getting married becomes more about the bride and an impending occasion than any emotional commitment.

What starts with an expensive diamond ring — typically costing at least £2,000 — evolves into the all-consuming organisation of an event where the groom plays little more than a walk-on role.

A wedding today typically costs £17,000 — my parents’ Sixties generation paid on average £50. And no matter how much you contribute financially, what you want out of that day is inconsequential, because remember, it’s not about you. At which point, a pattern is set.

Sadly, there’s even more bad news. Your sex life tends to dwindle after marriage.

A recent survey of 3,000 couples found that those who’d had sex four times a week before their wedding did it just once a week afterwards. Of course, you could argue that this has long been the case, and that my father was taking just as big a risk when he proposed to my mum.

But when they embarked on marriage, my parents shared the same expectations of it, while respecting what each was bringing to the table.

They worked as a team, with Dad the breadwinner and Mum happy to stay at home raising my three older sisters and me.

It’s an unfashionable opinion to express, but to me what they had was true equality.

Even if it happens to be the kind that modern feminism baulks at.


After 5 cheerleaders take a knee during national anthem, college takes them off the football field

Following a lead set by former NFL quarterback and radical leftist, Colin Kaepernick, an isolated group of “ill-informed” black cheerleaders at Kennesaw State University are getting plenty of media attention after taking a knee during the national anthem at a recent football game.

And that media attention is sure to grow now that the Georgia school plans to move the protesting cheerleaders off the field for Saturday’s homecoming game, according to The Associated Press.

Dubbed the “Kennesaw Five” — because catchy phrases sell — the cheerleaders will now be kneeling outside the view of fans in the tunnel of the 8,300-seat Fifth Third Bank Stadium — the students say they are protesting police brutality and racism.

Cheerleader Shlondra Young told the news agency they are being “purposely hidden” from public view. “I feel as though it was an attempt to silence us,” she said. “But even though they are moving us, we will not be silenced.”

University spokeswoman Tammy DeMel said in a statement that the school’s athletic department meets “to determine how best to enhance the game day atmosphere,” and while she did not mention the anthem, she noted “other changes,” to include “painting the KS logo at midfield for the first time, processes to help expedite fan entry, and more loud speakers by the student section.”

The story first drew attention when Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren, who regularly attends football games at the school, called Kennesaw State President Sam Olens and complained about the previous protest — Warren said he was assured by Olens “that this will not happen again.”

“Cobb County has lost sons and daughters at home and on foreign lands while protecting America,” the sheriff said.

“And to witness these ill-informed students acting this way clearly tells me KSU needs to get busy educating these students on more than just passing their classes,” Warren continued. “They need to learn all that the flag truly represents.”


Corporate PC vs. Patriotism

The widow of a military veteran was denied the ability to honor a fallen soldier by singing the national anthem.

On a Delta Airlines flight from Philadelphia to Atlanta on Saturday, a U.S. soldier was flying with the body of his fallen comrade. During the flight it was announced that upon landing the passengers were to remain seated as the soldier deplaned and as the honor guard escorted the casket from the plane.

Upon hearing the announcement, Pamela Gaudry, a widow of a career veteran, was inspired to honor the fallen soldier and went around the plane asking people if they would sing the national anthem with her once the plane landed while the honor guard removed the casket. She said that many but not all the passengers agreed to join her.

Later, after she was back in her seat, she said, “The chief flight attendant came back to my seat and she kneeled down and she said, ‘It is against company policy to do what you’re doing.’ And I said, ‘The national anthem? And there’s a soldier onboard?’ And she said, ‘Yes, you cannot sing the national anthem. It is against company policy.’”

After the plane landed, all the passengers including Gaudry remained silent as the casket was removed. Feeling ashamed for remaining silent, however, Gaudry, upon exiting the plane, posted a video detailing her lack of courage and what she had been told about Delta’s policy.

The video has since gone viral, and Delta spokesman Anthony Black responded stating, “There is not a policy about singing the national anthem, period.”

So where did the flight attendant come up with this false Delta policy idea? Part of the answer may be in another statement the flight attendant made. According to Gaudry, the flight attendant said that passengers from other countries might be made “uncomfortable” if the national anthem were to be sung.

Ah, the politically correct sensitivity that says displays of American patriotism may be deemed offensive by some and therefore should be suppressed. There are times when common decency should trump corporate policy. And the desire to express honor and gratitude to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice should be an obvious occasion. Has sensitivity to political correctness so dulled our cultural value for the need to express common decency?


It’s the Culture, Stupid

In Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign he used the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” That economics is important is true, but it is far from the whole picture. In the ideological and political realm, economics is just one part of how social change takes place.

In many ways the real issue is the culture. Simply put, if you can change the culture, you can more easily change politics, laws, and most other things. Thus those who are involved in the culture wars must know that to affect real change, lasting change, you have to do more than just tinker at the edges of legislation or political campaigns.

You have to focus on the culture. Sadly the other side knows this. Thus we speak of cultural Marxism. Even the Marxists realised long ago that trying to change a nation from without with tanks and bullets was not working. So they learned that it was better and easier to destroy a nation by subverting it from within.

Thus the Italian Marxist Gramsci spoke of the “long march through the institutions”. He taught that capturing a culture by taking over key institutions of power and influence was the way to go. So the cultural Marxists deliberately targeted schools, courts, the media, the arts, politics and even churches.

They knew that aiming at changing the culture would be the best way to implement their goals. They chose evolutionary change over revolutionary change. And they have done exceedingly well at all this. All throughout the West the secular left basically owns our institutions.

They are running things and calling the shots: the media, academia, law and politics are all pretty much under their control. They knew the value of targeting the culture and they have therefore been hugely successful in promoting their agenda items.

And the obverse has largely been true from our side. We have not engaged the culture. If anything, most conservatives and Christians have pulled out of the culture. They have abandoned politics and the other institutions of influence. They have adopted a siege mentality, which has basically handed the other side the culture on a silver platter.

By disengaging from all these fronts, the other side has won by default. And now we wonder why we keep losing in so many areas. Be it the culture of death, or the sleaze culture, or the war on marriage and family, the other side keeps winning because they are fully engaged, and we keep losing because we are asleep at the wheel.

Thus we have a very minimalist approach to the culture wars. Many people on our side think that if they sign a petition to protect marriage, or send in a $10 donation to some pro-family group, they have done their bit to save Western civilisation. They think they can go back to sleep for another year or two, and then maybe sign another petition.

Um, that is not how we are going to win. That in fact is exactly how we will lose – and keep on losing. Our commitment to what matters is almost non-existent. We certainly do not think in terms of the long term and the big picture. I have written before about why this is so very important: billmuehlenberg.com/2016/04/18/big-picture-long-term/

So the other side keeps on winning because they do see the bigger picture and they are in it for the long haul. Some on our side have seen the importance of getting fully into the wars, and not just a quick visit to a few of the skirmishes. This can be seen from a spiritual/theological point of view, or a cultural/political point of view.

The former I have discussed elsewhere, as in the above link, and in pieces like this: billmuehlenberg.com/2015/04/16/eschatology-and-fatalism-doing-right-fighting-evil-and-the-end-times/

But let me look a bit more at the latter. As mentioned, some folks know the value of reaching the culture and not just fiddling with the occasional bit of legislation. Back in 1996 Robert Bork wrote a very important volume called Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

It is a first-class analysis of the mess we are in – at least in America – and how things might be turned around. Let me offer just one brief section of the book. In his final chapter, “Can Democratic Government Survive?,” he writes these words:

"Elections are important not only because of the policies adopted and laws enacted but as symbolic victories for one set of values or the other. But it is well to remember the limits of politics. The political nation is not the same as the cultural nation; the two have different leaders and very different views of the world. Even when conservative political leaders have the votes, liberal cultural leaders operate and exercise influence where votes do not count.

However many political victories conservatives may produce, they cannot attack modern liberalism in its fortresses. If conservatives come to control the White House and both Houses of Congress, there will be very little change in Hollywood, the network evening news, universities, church bureaucracies, the New York Times, or the Washington Post.

Institutions that are overwhelmingly left-liberal (89 percent of journalists voted for Bill Clinton in 1992) will continue to misinform the public and distort public discourse. The obscenities of popular entertainment will often be protected by the courts. The tyrannies of political correctness and multiculturalism will not be ejected from the universities by any number of conservative victories at the polls.

Modern liberals captured the government and its bureaucracies because they captured the culture. Conservative political victories will always be tenuous and fragile unless conservatives recapture the culture…. This is at bottom a moral and spiritual struggle"

Or as Chuck Colson put it in a much more simplified version: “Politics is downstream from culture.” Unless we seek to change the culture, a few changes to laws, or a few Parliamentary victories just will not get us very far. Yes, we must be engaged in the political and legislative battles, but the real battleground is the culture.

Let me look at just one more thinker on all this. David French speaks about the death of our culture, especially in the area of education, and how the only resort for many may be things like home-schooling. He too sees the bigger picture, and realises that one key component of culture is education, and when the educational system is hostile to our very values and beliefs, we will likely get nowhere fast.

He writes:

"The stakes are now clear: We must fix our education system or slowly but surely lose our culture. Indeed, virtually every other conservative endeavor — whether it’s winning elections, transforming media, or infiltrating pop culture — will fail if the entire edifice of public education is arrayed against us.

The system, however, can’t be reformed from within: It’s stacked top-to-bottom with progressive activists even in red states. We must fix our education system or slowly but surely lose our culture. So that means creating a new model. States should consider rejecting federal education funding entirely (Texas is considering doing just that).

At the very least, charter schools should be completely disentangled — and not just from public employees’ unions but also from federal funds (in order to insulate them from federal influence); voucher systems should be dramatically expanded — giving every family the option to spend their share of tax dollars at the school of their choice; and private institutions and philanthropists should step up to provide needed funding.

Indeed, private citizens don’t have to wait for government reform. Scholarship funds can expand the ranks of tuition-paying private-school students immediately, and coalitions of churches can provide substantial support for their communities’ best private schools"

Many more folks have said similar things, and a whole book could be produced along these lines. But the point is, the other side is a lot more cluey than most of us are when it comes to capturing the culture. They have been successful at it while we have for the most part failed.

Of course questions remain. Is education redeemable or is it too far gone? Is home-schooling the only viable option for the near future? What about independent schools and Christian schools. Is culture itself too far gone, or with God’s grace can we win back at least some of it?

There are plenty of such questions that we have to deal with here. There are no easy answers or solutions, and conservatives and Christians will differ on what is the best approach to take in some of these areas. But at the very least we need to be thinking about such matters.

But I think it can be safely said that we keep losing because we have not taken our biblical duties seriously, including the command of Jesus for us to be salt and light. By running away from culture, instead of engaging with it, we have not been true to our calling to extend the Lordship of Christ into all areas of life. Instead, we have just handed it all to our opponents.

No wonder we keep losing.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


20 October, 2017

If Noah had lived in our century...

Babies develop racial bias as young as six months old, study shows

Learning to discriminate is an essential part of human life -- and that includes discriminating between different people

Before they're even old enough to walk, babies have racist tendencies, two studies found.

University of Toronto researchers found that infants as young as 6 to 9 months show racial bias — contradicting the popular view that it first emerges in a child’s preschool years. Still, bias is believed to be learned behavior.

“What this means is that we’re not really born with some kind of racial bias,” said lead researcher Kang Lee.

Lee said he believes the phenomenon is not a result of parents teaching their kids to discriminate. Instead, it’s a function of the homogenous environments in which most children grow up.

S.C. toddler explains decision to buy doll that's different race
“One very likely source of bias is our lack of exposure to other — raced individuals in the first six months of life,” said Lee, a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. “That lack of exposure sets up this bias.”

The first study found infants older than six months associate people of the same race with happy music, and those of other races with sad music. Researchers came to that conclusion after testing 193 Chinese infants, ages 3 to 9 months, who had never had direct contact with people of other races.

The babies were shown videos of six Asian women and six African women, paired with either happy or sad music. Infants less than 6 months old didn’t associate happy or sad music with members of any particular race, the study showed.

But at nine months, the babies gazed at their own-race faces paired with happy music for a longer time. They did the same for other-race faces paired with sad music, researchers found.

“This suggests that when children see an other-raced person, they already have negative associations,” Lee said.

The second study examined whether the race of an adult factors into a child’s learning skills.

Researchers showed babies videos of adults of different races either looking toward or away from photos of animals.

When the adults were looking in the direction of the animals — indicating they were reliable — the infants followed them equally regardless of race, the study found.

The same results held when the adults were looking in the wrong direction — indicating that they were unreliable.

But when the adults were only sometimes accurate, the infants were far more likely to follow the gaze of adults of the same race.

The takeaway, Lee said, is troubling: Babies are less likely to learn from people of a different race than their own.


Håkan Juholt: Sweden “On the way to becoming a dictatorship”

The former Socialist leader Håkan Juholt is now making sharp criticisms of social developments in Sweden, which he believes is heading for a dictatorship. He himself has moved to Iceland and does not intend to set foot in Sweden again for several years.

It is in an interview with Svenska Dagbladet that the Socialist Democrats former party leader Håkan Juholt paints a bleak picture of Sweden.

He believes that in the long run, the country will undoubtedly become a dictatorship.

– How old is your son? Four? When he is old he will not live in a democracy but in a technocracy, or a dictatorship. It’s so bad in the hell. I’m sad to say that, but I’m 100 percent confident. We are in the process of decommissioning democracy, he says to Svenska Dagbladet.

According to Juholt, tanks will not roll on the streets of the country, but the dictatorship will be more sophisticated than that.

He points out that fewer people are elected by the parties while the parties tune down their ideology. Juholt believes that Sweden’s future will be ruled by an “elite” and not by the citizens themselves.

Democracy is slipping out of the hands of Swedes, he says.

Håkan Juholt himself has been working for a while as ambassador in Iceland. He is very serious in his statements and also explains to SvD that he is not going to visit Sweden once in the next few years. He is so worried about the development here.

Håkan Juholt could today have been Sweden’s prime minister but was forced to resign as Socialist leader in January 2012 following a media campaign on parliamentary compensation for his overnight apartment in Stockholm.


Boy Scouts: It's Time to Look Elsewhere

Rebecca Hagelin
One of the finest organizations for boys used to be the Boy Scouts of America, which provided parents with amazing help in raising young men of character and responsibility.

But with the sad announcement last week that the Boy Scouts will no longer be the Boy Scouts, the organization now is going to treat boys just like another girl.

My husband and I will always be grateful for the years our sons spent in scouting and the lessons they learned on their way to achieving the Eagle Scout rank.

In addition to the hard work and community service required in scouting, the camping, camaraderie and sometimes goofiness that occur when a bunch of boys hang out together were a real hoot to observe.

I’ll always cherish the magical years of watching my husband and the other patient Scout leaders corral the often scatterbrained, hormone-driven, hysterically funny boys as they learned to focus and complete manly tasks. Awards ceremonies for individual achievement of various milestones were punctuated by the expressions of pride on the young, freshly scrubbed faces as little men stood at attention and received their patches and pins.

By doing manly things, boys became manly in their own minds, a critical component in actually becoming a man. The Scout program was successful because it helped boys truly believe that manliness was something to be achieved and treasured.

Sorry folks, but you just can’t do that when you throw a bunch of girls into the mix.

The “manly” things they did, like learning to find their way out of a dense forest with only a compass in hand, build a fire from twigs and stones, and dress themselves in a clean uniform subject to inspection, were coming-of-age rituals designed to make boys learn to be independent.

Yes, yes, yes, of course girls can learn to do those things too. But there’s something really special and important about guys roughing it on a camping trip and jumping from rope swings into a swimming hole without having to worry about what the girls might be thinking.

The major focus of Boy Scout instruction has been on the impressionable years of 11 to 16, when minds and hearts immersed in goodness, adventure and the company of men who fully embrace their masculinity can mold a boy into someone he could be proud of becoming. The opposite of today’s politically correct little cabal, a Scout troop was the crucible where a boy became a man.

And not just any ‘ol man, but a man with the character traits that our nation and families need. Consider the Boy Scout Law, enforced in every activity and which boys were required to memorize and live by in order to advance. It is a recipe for creating a chivalrous man if ever there was one: “A Boy Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

Reflect for a moment on the Boy Scout Oath, which I’m willing to bet anyone who spent even a year as a Boy Scout can still recite to this day:

“On my honor, I will do my best
"To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
"To help other people at all times;
"To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.”

Several years ago, however, the Scouts abandoned its time-honored principles of teaching fidelity and helping support boys to be “morally straight” when it decided to open its troops to openly homosexual leaders and students.

When the BSA decided to become “politically correct” by pandering to the homosexual activists and abandoning its principles and the families that believe in them, it was only a matter of time that it would decide to further destroy the mission of the organization by allowing girls in too.

Of course, the next step will be the removal of a pledge to God and country. Believe me, it’s coming.

Those who seek a genderless, homogenous society where everyone and every group is forced to be the same are celebrating the demise of the Boy Scouts.

But for parents who still strive to help their boys grow into men and their girls grow into women, and to celebrate the beautiful differences found in both genders, it’s time to look elsewhere for help.

Check out Trail Life USA (TrailLifeUSA.com) for your sons, and American Heritage Girls (AmericanHeritageGirls.org) for your daughters.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


19 October, 2017

An experiment

Today I placed my Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver on a table next to my front door.
I left 6 cartridges beside it, then left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor's son across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the "stop" sign near my house.

After an hour, I checked on the gun.   It was quietly sitting there, right where I had left it.   It had not moved.   It had not killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do that.   In fact, it had not even loaded itself.

Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the media about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people, either the media is wrong or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world.  But if you take out just 5 'left-wing' cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis and New Orleans -- the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the ENTIRE world, for murders.

These 5 cities are controlled by DEMOCRATS.  They have the toughest gun control laws in the USA.   Do you think maybe the Democrats just might have something to do with all the gun violence or would it be absurd to draw any conclusions from these data?

Now I'm off to check on my spoons.  I hear they're making people fat.

Via email

Baby dies after being adopted by homosexuals

An 18-year-old baby who was allegedly murdered by her gay adoptive father died as a result of bleeding on the brain caused by a blunt head injury, a court heard today.

Elsie Scully-Hicks was allegedly labelled 'Satan in a Babygro' by her adoptive father who denies killing her at their home in in Llandaff, Cardiff, on May 25.

She was  formally adopted by Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, and his husband Craig Scully-Hicks, 36, two weeks before she died.

Matthew Scully-Hicks from Delabole, Cornwall, is accused of inflicting serious injuries on the toddler and denies murder.

On Tuesday, Cardiff Crown Court heard how Elsie was rushed to University Hospital of Wales after Scully-Hicks dialled 999 reporting Elsie was unresponsive at around 6.20pm. She died in the early hours of May 29.

Pathologist Dr Stephen Leadbeatter carried out the post-mortem examination following her death.

He concluded Elsie died from hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, a brain injury caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain following cardiac arrest 'in a child with acute and chronic subdural haemorrhage', or bleeding on the brain.

Dr Leadbeatter said the cardiac arrest was caused by a blunt head injury including a fracture of the right lambdoid suture - a join in the skull bones.

Examination of Elsie's ribs revealed evidence Dr Leadbeatter said was 'suggestive of a healing microfracture'.

He said there were no external injuries apart from a small fading bruise above Elsie's left eye.

Dr Leadbeatter said he had not heard of any explanation given by Scully-Hicks which would explain how Elsie's skull was fractured and why there was bleeding in her eyes.

Consultant paediatric radiologist Dr Sarah Harrison was asked to look at X-Rays of Elsie's chest and abdomen after she was hospitalised on May 25 and examined a full skeletal survey carried out after she died.

She told the jury the survey was X-Rays of all the bones in the body and showed 'no abnormality to support evidence of any underlying bone disease that would make her more likely to suffer a fracture than the next child and there was no evidence of fracture either'.

Dr Harrison said she noticed a 'small line' on an X-Ray of Elsie's skull which she believed was an accessory suture - a normal variation in the pattern of joins between skull bones.

Prosecutor Paul Lewis QC said two pathologists including Dr Leadbeatter had since examined Elsie's skull and they did find a fracture.

Mr Lewis asked if Dr Harrison was surprised she had not seen it on the X-Ray.

Dr Harrison said: 'No I am not surprised. The thing we were looking at was very small and it is difficult to be 100% certain of things when they are quite small.

'It is well recognised that even when there is a larger fracture we can miss them.'

Dr Harrison told jurors she also re-examined an X-Ray taken of Elsie's leg on November 12, 2015 when she was taken to hospital having suffered a leg injury a week earlier.

The court previously heard Elsie was found to have fractured her leg above her right ankle and was placed in a full-leg cast which she wore for three weeks.

Dr Harrison said she found not one fracture but two during her review of the images; the lower leg fracture and a second fracture in Elsie's right femur, just above the knee.

She said they were not 'toddler's fractures', such as might be suffered by a child learning to walk and were more likely to have been caused by a child running and falling with more force.

Mr Lewis said: 'As far as we are aware, the child could not run.'

Dr Harrison said: 'It is very unusual to see two fractures in adjacent bones... without evidence of significant trauma... I have never seen fractures of both bones like that in a child of this age.'

Robert O'Sullivan QC, defending Scully-Hicks, asked if the fractures could have been caused by Elsie falling and twisting her right leg while pushing a walker.

Dr Harrison said she would expect the injuries to have been caused by a 'significant amount of trauma' but said if the foot was held 'perhaps between two objects and then the child twists and falls that fracture could be seen'.

Scully-Hicks is also accused of describing Elsie as 'a psycho' and 'Satan dressed up in a Babygro' in messages to his husband and friends.

Elsie, who was removed from her natural mother within days of her birth in November 2014, went to live with the couple in September 2015.

She fractured her right leg in November that year and suffered bruises to her head in December and January 2016.

On March 10, she was taken to the University Hospital of Wales after falling down the stairs.

Scully-Hicks denies murder and the trial continues.


'Czech Trump' Andrej Babis poised to deliver latest blow to EU order

Europe's year of political upheaval isn't over. In the Czech republic, a charismatic, controversial billionaire dubbed the 'Czech Berlusconi' – and more recently the 'Czech Trump' – is poised to take power.

Hot on the heels of Austria's hard shift to the right, this weekend's legislative election in the Czech Republic could be another shock to the EU which is still digesting the results in France and Germany, not to mention Brexit.

In his 2017 book What I Dream About When I Happen to be Sleeping, Andrej Babis set out an agenda that would transform, and some claim destroy Czech democracy.

He wants to abolish institutional checks and balances such as the Senate and regional government, he wants to ditch proportional representation and have the country vote first-past-the-post.

While he doesn't oppose the European Union, he has denounced EU-imposed migrant quotes and other "EU meddling", and favours an end to sanctions against Russia.

He admires the kind of centralised power enjoyed by Hungary's Orban, and he dislikes journalists (except the ones he employs).

He said he wants to run the country "like a family firm".

And the people love it – or at least some do. According to the polls, Babis' ANO party will get close to 30 per cent of the vote, while none of the seven other parties likely to get into parliament would top 15 per cent.

Those other parties include far-right populist Tomio Okamura's Freedom and Direct Democracy, an increasingly popular group with an anti-Roma, anti-Islamic message.

Andrej Babis is the second richest person in the Czech republic, a local financial paper calculated. His agriculture and media empire is worth 88 billion crowns ($5 billion) – and his worth had doubled in the four years he's been in politics.

"Babis is a populist," Sean Hanley, senior lecturer in East European politics at University College London, wrote this week.

"His folksy self-presentation as the plain-spoken practical businessman finally disgusted by corruption… taking on a decrepit and corrupt party establishment who have failed ordinary people since 1989, is textbook stuff".

Emily Mansfield, analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit says Babis is likely to lead coalition-building talks after the election as head of the biggest party.

But a number of controversies are swirling around him, Mansfield says. Earlier this year he was forced to place his business interests in a blind trust.

Babis was finance minister and deputy prime minister in the coalition government until May, when he was dismissed due to allegations he had avoided paying tax as CEO of Agrofert in 2012.

Since then his legal woes have deepened. Earlier this month he was charged with fraud over the use of €2.3 million in European subsidies in the construction of his Stork Nest Farm ten years ago.

And a court case in Slovakia has reopened over his possible collaboration with the former communist secret police (though a court previously ruled there was no proof of the collaboration, and Babis denies it).

But mud just doesn't seem to stick to him.

"He's very charismatic," Mansfield says. "He's a big character with a very big public profile. The ANO movement doesn't have much ideological basis to it, it's very much based around Babis' personality and his leadership.

"He's been described as the Czech Trump, but he' s not the kind of nationalist ideologue, he's very much a pragmatic businessman, he's not a nationalist or far-right leader.

"He says he wants to clear out corruption… he's much more technocratic and pro-business. You could perhaps compare him to (France's Emmanuel) Macron – a charismatic anti-establishment person coming into the political scene and pretty much exploding it."

It was primed for such an explosion. Though the Czech economy has been ticking along nicely (it has the lowest unemployment in the EU), the Social Democrats, for most of two decades the country's biggest party, have a reputation for low-level rent-seeking.

"People have got worn down by the impression that politicians are always acting in their own interest, with business interests in the background," says Mansfield. "Babis came in and said 'I'm too rich to steal'. That's attractive."

Miroslav Mares, professor of political science at Masaryk University in Brno, says Babis is a symptom of the dissatisfaction with political development in the post-Communist country.

"This is irrational dissatisfaction, the people… have better expectations," he says. "Salaries are not as high as in Germany or Austria, for example. People compare themselves with these countries, they don't compare themselves to the worse situation in other eastern European countries such as Hungary or Slovakia.

"(Babis) promises that he is able to stop the corrupt system, and people believe they will then receive more money from the system."

Professor Mares says Babis has retained support despite his legal problems because he has presented them as a conspiracy against him.

"His supporters feel they should fight for their leader," Professor Mares says. "On the other hand you can see lower support than one or two months ago."

Babis is likely to be in the best position after the weekend to lead a coalition government.

Unfortunately, he doesn't like coalitions. The necessary negotiations and compromises are neither his business nor political style, local financial paper Hospodarske Noviny wrote.

And some potential coalition partners may demand that Babis should not lead a government they join, due to the scandals hanging over him.

But whether Babis ends up prime minister or elsewhere in government, this election is likely to see another big change in Europe's halls of power.


Feminists bash actress for saying she tries to "dress modestly," doesn't "act flirtatiously"

'Big Bang Theory' star Mayim Bialik has opened herself up to some sharp ridicule from fans after give her point of view on the ever-growing Harvey Weinstein sexual assault scandal.
Mayim Bialik targeted for victim blaming
Fox411: 'Big Bang Theory' star Mayim Bialik has opened herself up to some sharp ridicule from fans after give her point of view on the ever-growing Harvey Weinstein sexual assault scandal.

In an effort to give her point of view on the ever-growing scandal surrounding Harvey Weinstein and sexism in Hollywood, “Big Bang Theory” star Mayim Bialik has opened herself up to some sharp ridicule from fans.

The star clarified in a Facebook live video Monday that she regrets how her lengthy op-ed for The New York Times about the Harvey Weinstein scandal has been received. In the piece, the actress condemned a culture that puts women in situations like the ones Weinstein’s accusers found themselves in.

"It has become clear to me that there are people that think I implied, or overtly stated, that you can be protected from assault from the clothing you wear," Bialik said in a Facebook live video with the NY Times. "That is absolutely not what my intention was and I think that it is safe for me to [say]...there's no way to avoid being the victim of assault by what you wear or the way you behave."

She later added, "I really do regret that this became what it became."

Fans took issue with a portion of Bialik's op-ed in which she wrote how she avoided harassment in Hollywood by presenting herself in as a modest person.

While describing how she avoided such things by getting into the business at a young age and not being the typical Hollywood pretty-girl archetype, she mentioned how her choices in the business as an adult have helped her get by.

“I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy,” she wrote.

Bialik immediately qualified the above statement by saying, “Women should be able to wear whatever they want. They should be able to flirt however they want with whomever they want. Why are we the ones who have to police our behavior?”

However, many still took her words as evidence that she was shaming the women who fell victim for the way they dressed or acted.

Bialik clarified on Monday, "How you dress and how you behave has nothing to do with you being assaulted. Assault and rape are acts of power...I really do intend to convey that I understand that."



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


18 October, 2017

Trump Pulls the U.S. Out of UNESCO

This particular UN organization has done little more than stoke the fires of anti-Israel bias   

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert announced that the U.S. will pull out of the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) by the end of this year. The reason for Donald Trump’s decision? The fact that UNESCO has for decades existed as little more than an anti-Israel organization. UNESCO has gone out of its way to “erase” Jewish history in Palestine, often referring to Israel as an “occupying power.” Essentially, UNESCO has promoted a false narrative on the Jewish state that has proven to increase tensions and hostility between Israel and its neighbors in the Middle East.

While this is a good first step, there is a long way to go in weeding out the anti-Israel bias that has corrupted the UN. For example, since its creation in 2006, the UN’s ironically named Human Rights Council has condemned Israel more than 60 times. That’s more than all other nations on the planet combined. Following that logic, both Syria and North Korea are bastions of justice and human flourishing compared to Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the decision as “moral” and “brave” adding, “UNESCO has become a theatre of absurd. Instead of preserving history, it distorts it.”


In defense of the Confederate dead

Alex Beam writes from Massachusetts

Right about now, the state plans to remove from Georges Island the memorial to 13 Confederate prisoners who died there during the Civil War. The offending headstone is going to the state archives, away from public view.

After ordering that the grave marker be boarded up this summer, Governor Charlie Baker justified its removal as a “symbol . . . that [does] not support liberty and equality for the people of Massachusetts.”

I find this decision abhorrent, but I understand why Baker did it. Who needs the headache, and the ferocious headwinds of willful ignorance, naivete and lack of imagination swirling around the debate over Confederate memorials?

It’s now received wisdom that the Civil War was “about” slavery from Day One, and that everyone who fought for the South was either a slaveholder, or a racist, or most likely both. But the Civil War became about slavery only in the fullness of time. Abraham Lincoln’s declaration of war against the refractory states never mentions slavery. He disdained slavery, but had no intention of eradicating it in 1861, when he hoped some southern border states would support the Union cause.

It’s odd that the memorial is said to commemorate rebel soldiers, when you can plainly see one of the deceased described as a “citizen” of Virginia, one is a ship “passenger,” and two are merchant seamen. Do we so hate the mate of the steamer Nita, which was ferrying food and hospital supplies from Havana to Mobile, Alabama, that we have to plow up his gravestone?

To think that every one of those men was a fire-breathing racist is as silly as thinking that every Union soldier was a glorious abolitionist anxious to lay down his life for Americans of African descent. In every war, men enlist for a variety of reasons — patriotic, economic, and social. The guy next door is enlisting; maybe I should, too. Right here in Boston, men enlisted because other men paid them to. These were the famous “substitutes,” mercenaries at the service of well-to-do young men seeking to avoid military service.

There is no reason to assume that the Confederates who died in captivity here were any more eager to serve in the Civil War than the men and women who participated in the notorious Boston Draft Riot of July 1863, when militia commander Stephen Cabot opened fire on a largely Irish crowd of protesters sick of being impressed into Mr. Lincoln’s war.

Cabot’s men, eventually bolstered by two Harvard classes holding reunions in Cambridge — a nice touch — killed several protesters, including a 12-year-old boy. All this to say: It’s hard to know who your dead enemy is. Maybe it’s someone who had no interest in fighting against you at all.

Not far from the Normandy beaches, where 2,500 American soldiers lost their lives on D-Day, there are Canadian, American, and German war cemeteries commemorating the tens of thousands of men who died in the ensuing battle for the liberation of France. A sign at the entrance to the German cemetery reads:

“With its melancholy rigour, it is a graveyard for soldiers not all of whom had chosen either the cause or the fight. They too have found rest in our soil of France.”

Death is inglorious enough already. Finger-in-the-wind politicians exploiting deaths for political gain is simply disgusting.


Dave of Dave’s Soda and Pet City posed with President Trump. Now he’s under fire

Another victim of the vicious Left.  Stalin's heirs are among us

HOLYOKE — Business owners in Western Massachusetts apparently associate themselves with the 45th president at their peril.

Just ask Dave Ratner, owner of Dave’s Soda and Pet City, a small chain of shops selling the unlikely combination of pet supplies, birds, fish, and beverages for humans. Ratner attended President Trump’s signing of an executive order authorizing changes to the Affordable Care Act designed to create cheaper — and less comprehensive — health insurance plans. An Associated Press photograph of the event, with Ratner smiling broadly behind Trump, has come back to haunt him, big time.

“It was 42 years of building a wonderful brand and having it destroyed in one day,” said Ratner, interviewed Sunday morning after what he terms “the worst two days of my life.”

Ratner has been excoriated on social media, and many customers are calling for store boycotts. He was not prepared for the strong reaction.

“I feel like I walked into a room, and somebody shot somebody when I was in the room, and so people are looking at me,” he said.

Ratner, a Springfield native who opened his first store in Hadley in 1975, said he built his brand on the idea that customers want to feel connected to the owners of the shops they patronize.

“My theory on doing business is that all things being equal, people do business with people they like,” he said.

Indeed, Ratner is a big presence in Western Massachusetts. He appears in zany television commercials, prompting strangers to stop him on the street to say hello. He makes robo-calls to a large customer base — it’s not uncommon for his customers to come home from work to a message with Dave’s voice informing them of a sale. His distinctive voice answers the phone at all the stores, from Stafford Springs, Conn., to Agawam, Ware, Northampton, Ludlow, and Hadley.

He tracks what customers purchase in order to provide better service.

So why did he kick this hornet’s nest?

Ratner says he didn’t fully understand what he was going to the White House to witness. He said his wife now tells him that was naive, and he’s deeply regretful of his actions.

He’s tried to explain this to his customers, and he’s pained that many of them won’t even listen.

For those willing to hear it, here’s the back story: Ratner is an active member of the National Retail Federation, a trade association supportive of small, local businesses. For years through this federation, his company and others negotiated for cheaper group insurance rates, giving them some of the advantages large companies have. With the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act, this negotiating power vanished. Since then, he has trekked to Washington, D.C., annually, talking to anyone who will listen about how unfair that is.

Fast-forward to two weeks ago. Ratner received a call from the federation, inviting him to a ceremony in which Trump would sign an order restoring that power to small businesses.

“My first reaction was ‘Holy smokes, he’s doing something good,’ ” Ratner said. He didn’t think long or hard about whether to attend. He said he had no idea the scope of the rollback of the ACA included in the executive order.

Trump’s Thursday order was swiftly followed by a second move, halting a subsidy that makes health coverage affordable for many low-income citizens — an action which drew a lawsuit from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, among others.

“I absolutely abhor what he did, and I would not have been there had I known what was happening,” Ratner said.

For some of Dave’s customers, that explanation is not good enough. Comments on the company website and on social media have been brutal. Some have called him a scumbag or a fool. In an interview with the Globe, Ratner was moved to tears several times.

Ratner’s Northampton store manager, Shannon Durand, said her shop has been swamped with angry phone calls. Most people, she said, “just wanted to yell.”

Durand said her boss acted out of a desire to obtain better insurance coverage for his 150 employees. “I really believe that he was motivated to do a very good thing for all of us.”

On Sunday morning, nearly every dog owner interviewed at an unofficial dog park on the grounds of the former Northampton State Hospital was familiar with the controversy.

Asked if he is a Dave’s customer, Northampton resident Eric Olsson, out walking his 8-month-old puppy, Mochi, said simply, “I was.”

He said the image of Ratner standing behind Trump while he signed the order caused him to reconsider his patronage, even while he acknowledges that Ratner is in a tough position.


Australia: Senate urged to reject mandatory sentences in bills

I don't have much respect for the Law Council but they are right on this -- JR

The Law Council of Australia is urging Senators to reject new mandatory minimum sentences included in bills to be debated this week, due to the very real risk of unintended consequences with potentially life-shattering outcomes.

The bills, targeting sex crimes against children and firearms trafficking, are intended to better protect the Australian community from the dangers of such grievous conduct.

Law Council of Australia President, Fiona McLeod SC, said that while these aims were laudable, mandatory sentencing has been shown to have no effect on crime rates, while undermining the independence of the judiciary and creating unjust and unintended consequences.

“Sex crimes and gun trafficking are all patently serious offences and it is absolutely appropriate that harsh maximum sentences are available to our courts,” Ms McLeod said.

“But mandatory sentencing is always likely to trigger unintended consequences that are at odds with the intention of the laws and fundamental principles of justice.

“The idea of a standardised mandatory sentence may be appealing on a theoretical level, but in practice, mandatory sentences can see people doing life-shattering stints in prison for actions that might have significant mitigating circumstances.

“For example, a 15 and 17-year-old might be sharing sexual images with each other in a consensual relationship, yet the day the older partner turns 18, under this legislation that 18-year-old would be looking at an automatic five-year sentence,” Ms McLeod said.

“Teenage years can often be marked by rash decisions and regrettable mistakes. A blunt instrument like a mandatory minimum sentence will not take this into account.”

In the case of the firearms bill, Ms McLeod pointed to other potential unintended consequences.

“Former Victoria Police Chief Commissioner, Simon Overland, inadvertently carried a magazine containing live rounds of ammunition on a flight from Melbourne to Canberra in 2010. Prior to travelling, Mr Overland had removed a firearm from his bag, but forgot to take out the magazine. Under the proposed laws he could be facing a mandatory five-year jail term,” Ms McLeod said.

“Judicial discretion is a core principle of our justice system for a very good reason.

“When you take away the ability of a judge to take into account the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, their personal circumstances or the explanation for offending, you generate disproportionate and, often, unconscionable outcomes.

“Furthermore, there is no evidence that mandatory sentencing is effective at driving down crime, but ample evidence of its long-term criminogenic effect. The US and other jurisdictions are winding back mandatory sentencing regimes because they don’t work.

“Mandatory sentences actually make it harder to prosecute criminals, by removing the incentive for anyone to plead guilty or to provide information to the police. There is every incentive to fight on and appeal against convictions,” Ms McLeod said.

Media release from the Law Council


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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


17 October, 2017

The reality of women in the Israel Defence Force

A friend of mine in the army serves with women (a unit in the IDF called “Lions of the Valley”) and he says it’s a hell which is being silenced and completely ignored by the media as well as other government organizations.

So during boot camp/basic training, the field and combat units always do journeys for a respectable amount of kilometers. (Infantry typically do 70–80 km and elite units can even reach for 120 km, if I remember correctly, our famous Shayetet 13 do the three 40s which is 40 km long walk, 40 kg of weight on your back, 40 cm deep in the water). These journeys are done with weight on your back. Again, depends on the unit, but the minimal is 10 kg (vest+ mags+ full canteens).

During one of the first journey’s he was shocked to see how many of the girls simply fell behind and needed to get evacuated by a medic because they couldn’t withstand the pain and in the end of the journey, all the guys were there, while only 5 girls (out of 17 girls) have made it.

The doctors afterwards diagnosed most of those girls with stress fractures, womb related damages, other leg injuries, etc.

Afterwards most of those girls cried and begged to be put in a less combat job and were denied, for the sake and glory of our great liberal,feminist,accepting state of course.

Our news channels (the “big” ones) are mainly liberal and leftist and they keep posting articles about how “chauvinist male organizations want to try and stop women from serving in combat units and making their dreams come true” and how females are showing that they are “strong as men” by serving in the mixed infantry units. Well yeah, they really showed us…

They keep romanticizing this b.s while they blatantly hide the statistics of injuries per female during boot camp, and the number of girls who dream of dropping out of combat.

And what most irritates me is that crazy feminists literally ignore scientific facts that men are physically stronger than women, and maybe, just maybe that’s why we would prefer them in the battlefield.

All these injuries only lower the army’s standards which only lowers our combat availability and hurt the girls in the army more. And what people don’t understand is that the army is a serious tool and should not be used to promote any sort of agenda because it may cost us our lives in the long term

But hey! At least we have gender equality! :)


More black racism

Symone Sanders, CNN's resident Berniecrat, says white people aren't allowed to criticize the NFL protests. What does that sound like? Maybe systemic racism??

The tactic isn't a new one for the Left, as they have made that argument about men and abortion for a long time. They've been claiming for decades that, if you don't have a uterus, you shouldn't be able to be pro-life (because, let's face it, if a man is pro-choice, they don't really have a problem with that).

So now Sanders is making it about standing for the National Anthem too. If you're white, you can't have feelings on the matter. And it's even worse if you're Vice President Mike Pence. Maybe her former boss who's white, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D/I-VT), shouldn't be able to have strong feelings on anything either?

And check out this other heated exchange on CNN. A black conservative contributor told them that the only political stunt was the kneeling, not the fact that Pence left the game. All hell broke loose.


A RESTAURANT has been forced to close just 72 hours after praising Trump

Leftist hate asnd aggression again

AN ARIZONA restaurant was forced to close its doors indefinitely this week after a politically charged Facebook post the eatery’s owners wrote prompted mass criticism from social media users.

Christopher Smith and Jay Warren, the owners of Cup it Up American Grill in Tucson, posted a statement on the restaurant’s social media page last week with a list of things the two support and resent, including the president, kneeling for the anthem and late night hosts, Fox News reports.

The post stated: “We believe in and support 100% in the following: OUR President, Always Standing for the National Anthem, repealing Obama Care …”

The post also listed, God, the Bill of Rights, drug screening for welfare recipients and the US Armed Forces among others they praised.

Their list of things they don’t believe in or support included: “Those that DON’T respect our President, Armed Forces and First Responders, kneeling for the national anthem, Antifa, fake news, global warming and late night hosts getting political …”

The post concluded with: “If you like this post, please share it with 5 friends and we look forward to your next visit! If you disagree with this post, please share it with 100 friends and we won’t be expecting you anytime soon!”

The restaurant’s post also mentioned the eatery would not broadcast NFL games until “the organisation got it together.”

The post, which went viral, was met with widespread backlash and criticism, forcing the restaurant to delete it and all its social media accounts.

The restaurant received “so many angry phone calls” that several employees chose to quit, reports say.

“People threatened to burn down the restaurant with the owners in it. It’s a crazy world we’re in,” Ron Sanchez, whose daughter worked at the eatery, told ABC15.

Ericka Ayup, a regular customer of the restaurant, told ABC15the post was not “smart” but respected their opinion.

“I respected their decision to speak up and be patriotic whether people agree or not,” Ayup said. “It wasn’t smart for them to do what they did from a business aspect especially being down here in the University — which is more liberal and young.”

The restaurant apologised for the post but social media users flooded the eatery’s Yelp page with negative reviews.

Last Monday, the restaurant posted a statement on its door, announcing it would be closing indefinitely.

“We have made a decision to close our doors indefinitely as of today, Monday, October 9, 2017. The safety of our employees, and our families is of great concern and is our #1 priority at this time,” the statement said.

“We would also like to extend a special thanks to our Military and First responders. Thank you all and God Bless.”


First, They Came For The Biologists

The postmodernist left on campus is intolerant not only of opposing views, but of science itself.

By Heather Heying

Who would have guessed that when America cleaved, the left would get the National Football League and the right would get uncontested custody of science?

The revolution on college campuses, which seeks to eradicate individuals and ideas that are considered unsavory, constitutes a hostile takeover by fringe elements on the extreme left. Last spring at the Evergreen State College, where I was a professor for 15 years, the revolution was televised—proudly and intentionally—by the radicals. Opinions not fitting with the currently accepted dogma—that all white people are racist, that questioning policy changes aimed at achieving “equity” is itself an act of white supremacy—would not be tolerated, and those who disagreed were shouted down, hunted, assaulted, even battered. Similar eruptions have happened all over the country.

What may not be obvious from outside academia is that this revolution is an attack on Enlightenment values: reason, inquiry and dissent. Extremists on the left are going after science. Why? Because science seeks truth, and truth isn’t always convenient.

The left has long pointed to deniers of climate change and evolution to demonstrate that over here, science is a core value. But increasingly, that’s patently not true.

The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front. True, there are real grievances. Gaps between populations exist, for historical and modern reasons that are neither honorable nor acceptable, and they must be addressed. But what is going on at institutions across the country is—yes—a culture war between science and postmodernism. The extreme left has embraced a facile fiction.

Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge. Little credence is given to the idea of objective reality. Science has long understood that observation can never be perfectly objective, but it also provides the ultimate tool kit with which to distinguish signal from noise—and from bias. Scientists generate complete lists of alternative hypotheses, with testable predictions, and we try to falsify our own cherished ideas.

Science is imperfect: It is slow and methodical, and it makes errors. But it does work. We have microchips, airplanes and streetlights to show for it.

In a meeting with administrators at Evergreen last May, protesters called, on camera, for college president George Bridges to target STEM faculty in particular for “antibias” training, on the theory that scientists are particularly prone to racism. That’s obvious to them because scientists persist in using terms like “genetic” and “phenotype” when discussing humans. Mr. Bridges offers: “[What] we are working towards is, bring ’em in, train ’em, and if they don’t get it, sanction them.”

Despite the benevolent-sounding label, the equity movement is a highly virulent social pathogen, an autoimmune disease of the academy. Diversity offices, the very places that were supposed to address bigotry and harassment, have been weaponized and repurposed to catch and cull all who disagree. And the attack on STEM is no accident. Once scientists are silenced, narratives can be fully unhooked from any expectation that they be put to the test of evidence. Last month, Evergreen made it clear that they wanted two of its scientists gone—my husband, Bret Weinstein, and me, despite our stellar reputations with the students they claimed to be protecting. First, they came for the biologists . . .

Science has sometimes been used to rationalize both atrocity and inaction in its face. But conflating science with its abuse has become a favorite trope of extremists on the left. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, and not, dare I say, very logical.

Science creates space for the free exchange of ideas, for discovery, for progress. What has postmodernism done for you lately?



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


16 October, 2017

More Americans are living alone after recession

The reasons why given below are all fair enough but the elephant in the room is being neglected:  The influence of feminism.  In that connection, I will simply recycle something I have said several times recently:

An obvious culprit would be feminism and the gradual breakdown of traditional sex roles.  We have evolved to be sexual specialists. At it simplest men did the hunting and women looked after the babies.  And evolution is slow to change.  We are still born with those old cavemen specialisms.  That is who we are and how we feel. 

That all that specialization has become of little importance to survival in the last half century will have had no impact on our genetic propensities whatever.  We will still be most comfortable in traditional roles.  But women in particular have had ferociously preached at them that such roles are now WRONG.

And that can only result in discomfort and dissatisfaction for all concerned. Expectations will continuously be at odds with natural inclinations. Human beings are very flexible so some degree of accommodation to modern reality is possible but all flexibility has its limits.  So in many cases relationships will break down, leaving both parties alone

The number of Americans living with a spouse or partner has fallen notably in the last decade, driven in part by decisions to delay marriage in the wake of a recession that hit new entrants into the workforce especially hard.

Forty-two percent of Americans live without a spouse or partner, up from 39 percent in 2007, according to the Pew Research Center’s analysis of U.S. Census Bureau figures. For those under the age of 35 years old, 61 percent live without a spouse or partner, up 5 percentage points from a decade ago.

The higher number of spouseless households comes as the marriage rate declines precipitously. Just half of American adults are married, down from 72 percent in 1960.

The average American woman gets married just after her 27th birthday, while the average man waits until he is 29.5 years old to marry — significantly higher than the median ages half a century ago.

“The median age of first marriage has gone up significantly over the past several decades,” said Kim Parker, who directs research on social trends at the Pew Research Center. “But it’s not all about delayed marriage. The share of Americans who have never married has been rising steadily in recent decades. So, part of it is a move away from marriage.”

Pew researchers said the rise in those households without a partner or spouse is not a sign that more marriages are breaking up; the divorce rate has been stable, or even declining, since the 1980s.

Instead, analysts said, the decline in both marriage and partnerships is likely a result of the declining ability of men to earn a salary large enough to sustain a family.

“All signs point to the growing fragility of the male wage earner,” said Cheryl Russell, a demographer and editorial director at the New Strategist Press. “The demographic segments most likely to be living without a partner are the ones in which men are struggling the most — young adults, the less educated, Hispanics and blacks.”

Russell pointed to data that shows marriage rates increase for younger Americans in connection with salaries. Fewer than half of men between the ages of 30 and 34 who earn less than $40,000 a year are married. More than half of those who make more than $40,000 a year are married, including two-thirds of those who make between $75,000 and $100,000 a year.

“The point at which the average young man becomes ‘marriageable’ appears to be earnings of $40,000 a year or more,” Russell said.

The Pew data underscores the economic marriage gap: Adults who do not live with partners are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than those who have partners.

“Our surveys show us that one of the things that’s holding unmarried adults back from getting married is that they feel they’re not financially stable enough,” Parker said.


Will Co-Ed Boy Scouts Still Have Honor?

The Boy Scouts crossed the Rubicon and announced that girls can begin to become full members in 2019.

After breaking down the “barriers” within the male gender over the last few years by accepting boys who claim to be homosexual or transgender, this week the Boy Scouts crossed the Rubicon and announced that girls can begin to become full members in 2019. What’s in a name, anyway?

Starting that year, girls will be placed in separate-gender individual Cub Scout dens consisting of about a half-dozen members, with the local pack having the option of combining dens of each gender or maintaining separate groups. Once girls cross the bridge to become Boy Scouts, they will have a separate but equal track that could lead them, too, to become Eagle Scouts, the pinnacle of the Scouting experience.

It appears the Boy Scouts are trying to walk a very fine line here by allowing girls to join but without placing them in many situations where they will interact with boys. “This unique approach allows the organization to maintain the integrity of the single gender model while also meeting the needs of today’s families,” said the Scouts in a release. They also claimed a survey showed that 90% of parents whose families were not involved in Scouting would like to get their daughters into a program like the Cub Scouts.

This may have been news to the Girl Scouts, whose Brownie and Junior programs cater to girls who are about the age of Cub Scouts. Understandably, they were less than thrilled. “We’ve had competitors come and go and this is yet another competitor,” said Girl Scouts Chief Customer Officer Lisa Margosian. “This is a direct response to boost their declining membership. At this point we’re just about reminding people that we have an expertise in serving girls that the Boy Scouts just don’t have.” They have cookies, too.

Faced with a decline in numbers and under increasing pressure from organizations like NOW to modify their rules, the Boy Scouts caved once again. Perhaps this structure is in answer to worries some Boy Scout parents have and could appeal as a “one-stop shop” of sorts, but this also gives parents of young girls an option to avoid the “all-in for the progressive agenda” Girl Scouts.

Another casualty will be male bonding. Boys behave differently when girls are present, and thus will lose something only found in a single-sex environment.

It’s not an overstatement to call this a radical move, but the vote among their Board of Directors was unanimous and the die is now cast. As BSA’s Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh stated, “The values of Scouting — trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example — are important for both young men and women.”

That much is true, and as membership rolls decline for both Boy and Girl Scouts it was perhaps inevitable the two groups come together somehow — and the Boy Scouts blinked first. The question can and should be asked, though: How much of the decline in membership is from the national organizations succumbing to the leftist cultural agenda? In catering to pressure groups, the Scouts are now losing the parents who would once sought out the unique and wholesome experience of Scouting.

In fact, what’s happening to the Scouts is a microcosm of what’s happening to boys around the country — feminization. Rabid feminism says that in order for girls to be equal, they have to be just like boys. Which is odd given how much feminists hate men.

As Nicole Russell put it, “This decision is not only indicative of the toxic hold third-wave feminism has on large organizations and the people who run them, but demonstrative of a consolidated effort to eradicate the influence of boys and men on society. Simply put, it’s not enough to emasculate men or categorize them as predators or toxic, now we must equate them with girls in order to remove gender differences, and eventually men, altogether.”

With this change by the Boy Scouts, just imagine their Scout camp. If “boys will be boys,” how long do you think it will be before a girl (or, more specifically, the parents of a girl) will be offended? It may have been harmless fun when the parents or grandparents were in the Boy Scouts many ago, but in this era of triggered snowflakes it may not be long before the Boy Scouts are neutered for good.


A Cultural Cold War Gets Warmer
This past week, in an update to its style guide, the Associated Press decided to declare the transgender debate settled, despite a growing body of scientific research showing it really is a mental issue. The AP will now reject such phrases as “gender transitioning” and go with “gender conforming.” So Bruce Jenner was always Caitlyn and he, over time, conformed instead of transitioned.

This sort of Orwellian wordplay is one of many reasons that the American public increasingly rejects the American media. It made it dreadfully easy for Russia to spread fake news because the media is already playing at the game themselves when they do things like embrace “they” as a singular pronoun, which the Associated Press will now do. This may seem like a minor issue, but it is just another data point in the ongoing march toward another civil war.

John Davidson, writing at The Federalist, took note of new Pew Research Center data that shows the nation’s politics are more divided than ever before. And, on the political left, there is a massive intolerance for anyone on the right. In fact, there are more people on the left in America today who would be angry with a conservative neighbor than there are conservatives who would be angry with a liberal neighbor.

Not just that, but the left increasingly believes the entire American experiment is illegitimate. Ta-Nehisi Coates, a writer for The Atlantic, has started openly pondering a French Revolution in the United States. Though he is not yet brave enough to say what he wants, it is clear from his writings that he hopes or is moving toward openly hoping for some level of violence in this country to purge the stain of the American Revolution. Others on the left now demand we upend the first, second, fifth, and other amendments to the constitution. On the right, President Trump too wants to upend the first amendment at a time we need to protect speech as much as possible.

In California, the Governor just signed legislation that decriminalizes the knowing transmission of HIV. So if you happen to go to California and need a blood donation, because the law applies to blood donations as well, you just might go home with HIV. But it is OK because the left has decided HIV and AIDS need to be de-stigmatized.

Then there are the NFL protests, which President Trump has seemingly won. What started with Colin Kaepernick refusing to stand for the national anthem because he does not care for the United States turned into a more expanded social commentary by players intent on politicizing football. When President Trump responded, suddenly to stand for the flag was racist. It has been funny first to see President Trump get so many NFL players on their knees before him only to now have them stand, privately seething in the knowledge President Trump just beat them at this.

Now, the Boy Scouts will admit Girl Scouts. That, to be sure, is just as well. The Girl Scouts have increasingly become just a teen meeting for Planned Parenthood between cookie sales. But in addition to the left forcing men into women’s bathrooms, they want no safe places for boys to learn how to be men of good character. Everyone must conform to androgynous, amoral illiberalism.

On and on it goes in a cultural suicide. If nothing else, this shows that the fight over confederate statutes was really not about the statues at all, but about rewriting history and engaging in Orwellian tactics to move a debate about the future of the country onto turf more friendly to the left. Then Harvey Weinstein happened.

The media and liberal elite who have excoriated President Trump and conservatives for bad behavior turn out to have been knowingly protecting a sexual predator. “But Harvey is not the president,” they say as they post selfies with Bill Clinton. After years of moral preening from Hollywood in the culture war, it turns out they have been preaching one thing and doing another. They are the hypocrites they told us we were and ever closer we creep to heating up this cultural cold war.


Californication Reaches New Lows

California has just made blood transfusions dangerous

Never let it be said that the state of California lets logic get in the way of its decisions. Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed a law last week that reduces from felony to misdemeanor the act of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV. Also, people who donate blood are no longer obligated to let blood banks know that they are HIV positive. The reason for doing this is because … well, let’s face it — there is no logical reason for doing this.

Nevertheless, State Sen. Scott Wiener, one of the bill’s authors, tried: “Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals. HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does.”

Really? Was California treating HIV positive people like criminals before this law was passed? This statement sounds like an example from the Barack Obama Straw Man 101 manual.

There’s no question that carrying HIV is a significant burden. It’s a disease for which there is currently no cure, only treatments for symptoms. Patients must adhere to a lifelong diet of drugs and therapy to keep the virus in check. But thanks to medical advances, the effects of HIV can be reduced, and the virus is no longer automatically assumed to lead directly to AIDS, which just a few years ago was considered a death sentence.

Yet the price of carrying this illness is a responsibility to keep from spreading it to others. Some states carry heavy penalties for people who knowingly spread HIV to unsuspecting sexual partners. California is now saying that committing such a heinously selfish act is no big deal. It’s hard to comprehend a worse signal to be sent by the nation’s most populous state, though that’s not for the state’s lack of effort to send terrible signals.

With this kind of backward thinking among the nation’s leftist elite, it’s no wonder that STDs are on the rise again after years of meaningful declines. Gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia were at historic lows just a few years ago, but the CDC warns that incidences of all three sexually transmitted diseases are rising again nationwide.

Part of the reason is because of a reduced lack of focus in communicating the ravages of these illnesses. But it cannot be denied that dumbing down the moral and medical cost of promiscuous lifestyles is also to blame. It’s often said that as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Let’s hope that’s no longer the case, because that state is going off the rails and the rest of the nation shouldn’t follow.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


15 October, 2017

Men find their 'bromances' are MORE emotionally rewarding than relationships with their wives and girlfriends

The article below is wildly overgeneralized -- based on the responses of 30 students at a prestigious British university! That men of different ages and different social classes might be different seems not to have been contemplated.

Age is particularly important. The teens and early 20s are ages when men tend to be "chased" by women.  And the women are right to do that.  If they don't nab a desirable man in that age bracket, some other woman will grab him -- and the more reserved women will be left with other women's rejects.  So you get single women in their 30s wailing that there are no good men left.  They are right. Other women have got the good men and they have missed the boat. 

So the "sample" -- if you can call it that -- in the study below would have been finding women rather predatory and demanding -- and could easily have been unnerved by that -- or at least made uncertain about the wisest way forward.  So they retreat into social relationships that are less puzzling and challenging.

But that is just a phase.  As they gain more experience and confidence they will find what normal humans have always found -- that the closest relationship they ever have is with a member of the opposite sex

So why was the extraordinary uninsightful article below published?  One would have hoped that academics from the Department of Sport and Exercise at the University of Winchester knew young men rather well.

There is an old warning not to explain as evil what can equally well be attributed to stupidity but I will give the authors the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stupidity.  So I think the article does fit well into the Leftist attack on conventional sex roles.  It tends to show that the differences between men and women are decreasing and that maybe one day they will vanish forever.  Fat chance!

The journal article is "Privileging the Bromance: A Critical Appraisal of Romantic and Bromantic Relationships"

It is something that many long suffering wives and girlfriends have long suspected.

Many men find `bromances' - close friendships with other men - more emotionally rewarding than their romantic relationships with women.

Whether it is the lure of going down the pub, to the football match, fishing or just helping a pal with DIY many women feel they play second fiddle to a best mate.

Examples abound, from celebrity pairs like One Direction's Louis Tomlinson and Harry Styles, to Hollywood royalty George Clooney and Brad Pitt.

Now researchers looking into close male friendship among straight men may have an answer as to why they form such close bonds.

Experts have found that many men find `bromances', like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's, more emotionally rewarding than their romantic relationships. Of 30 men questioned, 28 said they would rather discuss important emotional issues with their 'bromantic' partner

As awareness of homosexuality grew, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s, `straight men began to fear being homosexualised for displaying physical or emotional intimacy.'

This `interfered with the development of close male friendship' and research in the British Social Attitudes Survey found it was a high-water mark for homophobia.

Researchers studying male friendships found men did not like to talk about their feelings, and `instead young men knew they had a friendship with another male when they engaged in activities together, like playing sports, drinking, fixing things or gambling'.

In contrast during the same time, `women have maintained friendships through sharing emotions and disclosing secrets'

Boys during this time could be tormented by peers and teachers for performing feminine behaviours `such as skipping and poetry readings'.

Young men today are much less like Rambo and more similar to One Direction, the authors say, with much more interest in art, music and fashion.

Experts found that men felt `less judged' by their close male friends than their girlfriends.

They also found it easier to solve conflicts and speak openly about their emotions in their bromances.

Male friendships used to be considered lacking in many of the qualities seen in close female friendships, particularly emotional and physical intimacy.

But this has changed in recent years, the study found, with young men `openly pronounce love' to their male friends in a way that would be socially prohibited in previous years, partly out of fear of appearing gay.

The authors of the study say that strong friendships may be a progressive development, as men become less worried about appearing effeminate.

But they warn that strong bromances could challenge traditional domestic living arrangements between men and women.

Speaking to MailOnline the author of the study, Adam White of Winchester University, said: 'The key thing that we found was that bromances were somewhat more flexible and judgement-free relationships comparable to romances.

'The guys that we spoke to were clear that the only differences, other than sex, were that bromances were less judgemental, easier to resolve problems or arguments, and much more emotionally open, than romances. 

'These guys found it easier to talk to their bromances as there was less judgement and regulation in their bromantic relationships.

'They didn't feel like there was a standard to be kept or adhered to. 'Therefore, they could express their feelings, anxieties and worries without being judged by their girlfriends.

'And on the occasions where conflict did occur, it was seen as easier to fix with their bromances rather than their romances.'

Mr White and colleagues interviewed 30 British male undergraduates for the study, published in the journal Men and Masculinities.

Male friendships, like Brad Pitt and George Clooney's, used to be considered lacking in many of the qualities seen in close female friendships but this has changed in recent years, the study found. Young men feel able to `openly pronounce love' to their male friends

Of the men, 28 out of 30 said they would rather discuss important emotional issues with their `bromantic' partner than their girlfriends.

One study participants, `Brad', said: `There are absolutely things I tell my bromances and not the girlfriend.

'She expects so much from the relationship and will have a go if I say something out of line, and with Matt we just tell each other everything.'

Up to the early 20th century, men would often write `endearing letters' to one another, and even sleep in the same beds.

Tripp (2005) highlights that, for four years, President Abraham Lincoln shared a bed with his intimate male partner, Joshua Speed, and that President George Washington wrote endearing letters to other men.

But as awareness of homosexuality grew, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s, `straight men began to fear being homosexualised for displaying physical or emotional intimacy.'

This `interfered with the development of close male friendship' and research in the British Social Attitudes Survey found it was a high-water mark for homophobia.

Researchers studying male friendships found men did not like to talk about their feelings, and `instead young men knew they had a friendship with another male when they engaged in activities together, like playing sports, drinking, fixing things or gambling'.

In contrast during the same time, `women have maintained friendships through sharing emotions and disclosing secrets'

Boys during this time could be tormented by peers and teachers for performing feminine behaviours `such as skipping and poetry readings'.

Young men today are much less like Rambo and more similar to One Direction, the authors say, with much more interest in art, music and fashion.

Another subject `Beck' said: `Guys nowadays, in my generation, there is so much kissing between guys because it's showing affection.


Delaying Sex Makes Better Relationships, Study Finds

Delaying sex makes for a more satisfying and stable relationship later on, new research finds.

Couples who had sex the earliest — such as after the first date or within the first month of dating — had the worst relationship outcomes.

"What seems to happen is that if couples become sexual too early, this very rewarding area of the relationship overwhelms good decision-making and keeps couples in a relationship that might not be the best for them in the long-run," study researcher Dean Busby, of Brigham Young University's School of Family Life, told LiveScience.

Busby and his colleagues published their work Dec. 28 in the Journal of Family Psychology. The study was supported by research grants from the School of Family Life and the Family Studies Center at Brigham Young University, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon Church.

The intricate nature of sex

Past research on sex and its link to relationship quality has revealed two different paradigms. In one, sex is considered essential to a developing relationship since it allows partners to assess their sexual compatibility. Following this line of thinking, couples who marry before testing out their sexual chemistry are at risk of marital distress and failure later on.

The opposing view posits couples who delay or abstain from sexual intimacy during the early part of their relationships allow communication and other social processes to become the foundation of their attraction to each other. Essentially, early sex could be detrimental to a relationship, skewing it away from communication, commitment and the ability to handle adversity, this thinking suggests.

And past studies have shown the sex-relationship link is a complex one. For instance, a 2004 study of nearly 300 college students in dating relationships showed that when couples were highly committed, sex was more likely to be seen as a positive turning point in the relationship, increasing understanding, commitment, trust and a sense of security. However, when commitment and emotional expressions were low, the initiation of sex was significantly more likely seen as a negative event, evoking regret, uncertainty, discomfort, and prompting apologies.

Sex comes early nowadays

In the new study, Busby and his colleagues looked specifically at timing of sexual relations. They recruited 2,035 heterosexual individuals who had an average age of 36 and were in their first marriages. Participants reported when they first had sexual relations with their current spouse; they also answered communication questions, which evaluated how well they could express empathy and understanding toward their partners, how well they could send clear messages to their partners, and other questions. [10 Things Every Woman Should Know About a Man's Brain]

Other items on the questionnaire focused on relationship satisfaction and stability, with the latter gauged by three questions: how often they thought their relationship was in trouble; how often they thought of ending the relationship; and how often they had broken up and gotten back together.

Individuals were categorized as either having:

Early sex (before dating or less than one month after they started dating).

Late sex (between one month and two years of dating).

And those who waited until after they married.

Relationships fared better and better the longer a person waited to have sex, up until marriage, with those hitting the sack before a month showing the worst outcomes.

Compared with those in the early sex group, those who waited until marriage:

Rated relationship stability as 22 percent higher

Rated relationship satisfaction as 20 percent higher

Rated sexual quality as 15 percent better

Rated communication as 12 percent better

"Curiously, almost 40 percent of couples are essentially sexual within the first or second time they go out, but we suspect that if you asked these same couples at this early stage of their relationship – 'Do you trust this person to watch your pet for a weekend many could not answer this in the affirmative' – meaning they are more comfortable letting people into their bodies than they are with them watching their cat," Busby said.

He added that those couples who wait to be sexual have time to figure out how trustworthy their partner is, how well they communicate, and whether they share the same values in life "before the powerful sexual bonding short-circuits their decision-making abilities."

Right now, the team is repeating the study on a larger sample in a longitudinal design – in which participants are followed over time. "We are particularly curious about people who report wanting to wait to be sexual but then they don't follow through on their beliefs, this may be a unique group with unique outcomes," Busby said.


Boy Scouts Are Now Allowing Girls to Join

The Boy Scouts of America will now allow girls to join their well-known Cub Scout program, which will enable them to advance to the highest rank of Eagle Scout, according to a statement released Wednesday.

The organization’s board of directors voted unanimously to make the historic change to the group that has been for boys since its founding over 100 years ago.

“Today, the Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors unanimously approved to welcome girls into its iconic Cub Scout program and to deliver a Scouting program for older girls that will enable them to advance and earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout,” the group said in a statement Wednesday.

“This decision is true to the BSA’s mission and core values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law. The values of Scouting—trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example—are important for both young men and women,” said Michael Surbaugh, the Boy Scouts of America’s chief scout executive.

“We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children. We strive to bring what our organization does best—developing character and leadership for young people—to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders,” he continued.

Starting in 2018, young girls will be able to join Cub Scout units. The historic decision reportedly comes after years of receiving requests from families and girls.


Market trader, 56, is BANNED from town centre after selling Knights Templar coffee mugs that are 'offensive' to Muslims

The Knights Templar are an honourable part of Christian history

A market stall holder has been banned from having a stand in a town centre because she was selling 'offensive' Knights Templar coffee mugs.

Tina Gayle has been prohibited from having a stall in Loughborough Market after someone complained about the mugs.

She said the complainant had told the council the £6 Knights Templar mugs were offensive to Muslims and so she was asked to remove them from her stall.

When she refused to do so she was sent a letter and informed she had been given an outright ban.

The offending mugs feature a drawing of a knight and are branded with the Latin motto which translates to: 'Not to us Lord, not to us, but to Your Name give the glory'

Speaking to MailOnline Miss Gayle, 56, said: 'It's very unfair. The council told me about the complaint about the mugs and them being offensive to Muslims. They asked me to remove them. I said that was ridiculous and told them "no".

'They then printed off a letter on Friday at 4pm and said I'm banned. You're meant to have three written warnings before expulsion and they didn't do that. It was apparently something so bad they were banning me completely.'

She added: 'They have only given me three days to appeal which is nowhere near long enough.'

Miss Gayle, who lives in Didcot, has been travelling to Loughborough and selling rare books there for the last three years.

She started selling the Knights Templar mugs to try and make more money, as she pays the council £22 to rent the stall.

She said: 'I provide a service no one else provides. I find books that people can't find and are out of print...I make a lot of people very happy. People know I am there and that I can find books they can't find anywhere.

'My customers think it's terrible what's going on and that the council are saying what they can and can't buy.'

Referring to the mugs she said: 'The complainant said they were offensive because the Knights Templar killed Muslims in the crusades 710 years ago.

'The Knights Templar were fighting monks, used to protect pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem. They stopped them being robbed...they weren't an army who were killing.

'It's a very important week for the Knights Templar as October 13 is when all the Knights Templar were arrested by the King of France and then slowly slaughtered. 'That's where the saying 'unlucky for some' comes from.

'A lot of my customers are Knights Templar, it's a Christian Masonic Order. It's about swearing a vow to protect the Christian faith.

'Richard the Lionheart killed thousands of Muslims and I've had items relating him, and the Romans, and no one has ever complained.

'No Muslims have ever complained...in fact I don't think I've ever sold a book to a Muslim. 'If I only sell books on people who haven't killed someone, I'd be reduced to Alan Titchmarsh.'

Miss Gayle had previously been warned by the council for selling Nazi memorabilia.

She said many of her customers are actors who take part in WWII re-enactments and explained how items she sells, such as a book that shows detailed descriptions of soldiers' uniforms, can help them accurately portray characters.

Speaking at the time she said: 'It will be such a shame if they take away the chance for an ordinary citizen to research whatever historical information they wish. You're taking away an individual's rights.'

She claimed the complainant was the same person who was angry about the mugs. 

A spokesman for Charnwood Borough Council said: 'We received a complaint in August about the trader selling Nazi memorabilia.

'We want the public to have a safe and enjoyable experience when visiting our markets and we have a duty to ensure that items sold do not cause public offence, a threat to safety or that could bring the market into disrepute.

'We visited the trader at her stall and found that some of the items being sold were modern mugs with Nazi symbols, and not historical or vintage items.

'We spoke to the trader and advised that she would need to remove the mugs from the stall.

'The trader agreed to remove the mugs and stop selling new items or items which could be offensive to customers. 'We sent a letter on August 18 to the trader to confirm this decision.'

She added: 'On Friday, October 6 we received a further complaint that the trader was selling contemporary Knights of the Templar mugs. 'We visited the stall and spoke to the trader again to ask her to remove the mugs.

'It's not for us to comment as to why the mugs were offensive to the complainant, however we had previously asked the trader not to sell contemporary mugs or items which could cause offence so we asked for them to be removed.

'The trader refused to remove the mugs from the stall so we issued a second letter which excludes the trader from all Loughborough markets.

'This decision is in line with our market regulations which state that if a trader has displayed serious misconduct, they can be immediately excluded from trading, with no further warnings required.

'Serious misconduct includes bringing the market into disrepute and selling items which could be offensive.

'The trader can appeal this decision, and we would ask her to write to us to confirm she wishes to do so.'



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


13 October, 2017

Ladies, men like strippers. Why does that scare you so much?

By Samantha X a madam

A FURIOUS wife has taken to a Facebook mums’ group to express her disgust and outrage that her lying husband visited a lap dancing club on a buck’s do — and failed to tell her about it.

“Seedy little man.”

“Bloody disgusting.”

“I’ve lost respect for him.”

And much, much more was spouted from the pursed mouths of angry mothers and wholesome wives at this man’s crime.

Not only did he NOT tell his wife (maybe because he is petrified of her) but he was having too much fun with his mates and didn’t get home until 6.30am, which sent her and her supporters in a spin.

And there was no other way to deal with the situation than to make it public on an online network of mums — sometimes the most judgmental of human beings out there. (God forbid you tell them you ordered your kids’ school lunch from the canteen three times in a row, or that you didn’t stay up all night baking organic bread either).

Oh for God’s sake woman — and all the other fearful women out there. Lighten up.

Let’s get down to the uncomfortable question here for all women who think keeping their men on a leash is a reasonable and realistic way to carry on.

What exactly are you scared of?

Because that’s what it is, isn’t it? It isn’t anger or disgust. It isn’t some kind of misguided moral judgment at him or the woman who works in a strip club.

It’s fear.

Fear that your husband is going to find another woman sexy, fear that another woman’s sexuality is somehow a threat to your sexuality, and in turn, a threat to your marriage.

That him ogling another woman is somehow a reflection of you and your female power, and a stripper is the biggest threat to your relationship, so keeping your man away from the mysterious black doors in the CBD, is the safest thing to do to safeguard your marriage.

If only it were that easy.

Yes he should have been truthful, (and you should always be honest about how much your new shoes were, right?) but really, was such a terrible deed committed?

Here’s something that is pretty obvious but I will just reiterate it: strippers, dancers, lap dancers, escorts, porn stars… women who work in the adult industry have zero interest in stealing your husband.

In fact, make that minus zero.
Strippers, dancers, lap dancers, escorts, porn stars... they have zero interest in stealing your man. (Pic: Supplied)

Most of these women have their own families. Some are lesbians, a lot are single mothers. But they all have rent or a mortgage to pay. They may be studying law or work in HR on their dancing days off. They may be your nanny, or even your friend or sister.

Again — they do not want your husband. (Should we do a survey on how many married men left their wives for someone they work with, compared to how many left them for a stripper?)

The second thing is, men... I’ve said it before in my first book Hooked, but for those who haven’t read it, here it is again: you cannot control a man.

You can’t hate a man for his actions either. It’s like hating a baby crying on a long haul flight or hating a puppy that chews your shoes. They just can’t help themselves. It’s not a cop out, it’s the truth. I’m not talking about Weinstein type sexual assault — that’s a crime — I’m talking about men and their nuances.

They adore their wives, they don’t want to leave you, they love your body and your mind still, but sometimes they need to stare at another female’s body. It de-stresses them, it relaxes them, it bonds them.

“Not my husband.”

Yes, your husband. My (future) husband too. A supermodel’s husband. A stripper’s husband.

All men.

And if they tell you they don’t look at other women, they’re lying. They may not visit strip clubs or seek paid services (not all men cheat), but they all look.

After six years working in the adult industry, let me give you some nuggets of information I’ve learnt from men.

It does not matter how tight you control that leash, they will find a way.

I had a client whose wife traced his phone with the app Find My Phone, so she comfortably knew where her husband was and at what time. She went through his phone bills with a fine-tooth comb. “Not my husband,” she probably thought.

So what did he do? His cousin made all the bookings for him and I had to go to a place where he told his wife he would be and where his phone was.

I don’t have all the answers in how to have a perfect marriage. Humans aren’t perfect people.

But what I do know is that no one, not a wife, nor a husband, can control another human being.

At the end of the day, it comes down to trust. If you trust your partner, there is no fear. And if there is no fear, there is no problem.


Why should men and women have the same goals?

Which appears to be what feminists want.  Is it so heinous if women choose NOT to have a career?

When I was in Amsterdam in 2008 to talk about my recently published book, The Sexual Paradox, I was interviewed by a senior editor of a major daily newspaper. She had reached the age when she was unlikely to have small children at home and as the executive editor of a major daily, she was at the pinnacle of her career. Despite this executive status, she worked part time and had always worked less than a full week. I asked why. "Wednesdays are for my family and friends," she told me, "and Friday is piano day. Practicing the piano is essential to my happiness and I want to make sure I have time for it."

I was stunned. Working full time—if not at least 60 hours a week—is de rigueur for professionals in North America. Not so in the Netherlands, where almost half of the population works fewer than 40 hours a week. This is especially true for Dutch women, over 76% of whom work part time. Legislation enacted in 2000 protects the jobs of anyone who wants to work part time in the Netherlands. If they move from full to part-time for any reason, they can neither be fired, nor refused benefits. Yet even if this arrangement is open to women and men alike, the number of women who take advantage of it eclipses the number of men. While three-quarters of all women in the Netherlands work part time—two-thirds of whom have no children at home—that figure is only one-quarter for men.1

It is one of the most egalitarian societies in Europe, yet most Dutch women want something different of their working schedules than most Dutch men. The assumption that women would always choose what men choose—if it weren't for the social and cultural forces holding them back—is a presumption I question in The Sexual Paradox. Nine years after its publication and 50 years after the sexual revolution of the 1970s, I'm wondering what has changed. Do we still expect the majority of women to adopt male-determined goals as their own? Or do most women in industrialized nations have something else in mind when they make life decisions?

I propose that we look at other measures of success aside from the male-typical indices of sheer earnings and positions of power when we consider what women want. Astronomical salaries and C-suite positions are grand if those are one's life goals. But what if other values are front-and-center for many women? What if we shift our lens from money to measures of personal happiness, feelings of belonging, personal health, and the health and well-being of children?

When we do that it, becomes clear that women in many industrialized nations are still stymied—not necessarily by the patriarchy—but by the expectation that they should "lean in," and always choose what a man would, whether it's a STEM career or the number of hours one wants to consecrate to it. Let's take Silicon Valley as an example. Extreme workaholism characterizes work in the high tech sector. "Working 18 hours a day. Every day. No vacations, no going on dates, no watching TV," is how the Silicon Valley work ethic was described in the New York Times by Dan Lyons, one of its former denizens.2 No matter how much they might earn in IT, the evidence shows that the majority of educated women put a premium on other life priorities.3 But suggesting as much is to be vilified publicly and to commit professional suicide, as former Google software engineer James Damore discovered when his memo was leaked about why uneven sex ratios persist in Silicon Valley. Fifty years after the birth of second-wave feminism, it is still taboo to express the idea that many women find happiness and fulfillment in ways that might diverge from the male norm.


"Money is not the only thing affecting people’s happiness; it's not remotely the whole story," said British economist Baron Richard Layard in 2014. "People must understand that they would do well to preserve their human relationships; they should give them a higher priority than how much they earn.”4 As I point out in The Village Effect, this is more commonly a female perspective than a male-typical one.5 And when we do put our lens on happiness, the countries with the highest average scores include Denmark and the Netherlands.6

So let's return to the Netherlands for a moment. The legal and social thumbs-up given to part-time work may be one reason why Dutch women and children are happier than those in other industrialized countries, where women's levels of happiness have fallen since the 1970s even as their professional opportunities and material lives have improved.7 The expectation that women succeed on all fronts, which often means mimicking if not surpassing many men's extreme work schedules, producing "perfect" children who live in flawless, immaculate homes, not to mention maintaining a youthful figure and dressing elegantly, has created impossible standards that women cannot meet—thus creating levels of satisfaction that can be the inverse of their earnings.8 With no time for their relationships, children, or other interests, their levels of happiness plummet. But as we have seen, Dutch women, the majority of whom work part of the week, have more time for activities and interactions that they find fulfilling.

Dutch children are better adjusted, too. When asked, 95% of Dutch children rate themselves as happy; the Netherlands is among the top-ranked countries on Unicef's 2017 report card on child well-being and health in rich countries. Indeed, when the United Nations assessed the health and welfare of children in industrialized nations in 2013, it found that the Netherlands was one of the best places in the world for children to grow up. This year's 2017 report card showed that of 41 countries, the Netherlands is still among the top 10 for children. Portugal, Iceland, and Spain now take the top three spots.9 Considering that the United States places #36th (Canada is 29th and the UK 15th) when rated on the well-being, health, safety, and education of their children, it is perhaps time to reassess our definitions of success. The idea that the male model—of career and what constitutes a happy and balanced life—should be the default setting for all women and families in all countries is not supported by the evidence about what people want most.

Yet stating that the majority of women might want something different of life from the majority of men seems even more explosive than it was in 2008 when The Sexual Paradox was first published. Indeed, whether any differences between male and female behavior exist at all in nature has become a highly politicized topic, with many arguing for complete gender fluidity across the human species.10 Observable group differences between the sexes are instilled by societal norms, the argument goes, and by stamping out gender norms we will eliminate any differences between male and female. We will become a gender-neutral society—even if, paradoxically, the default is still assumed to be male for both sexes.

Only in a world that values men's choices more than it does women's would working as a physician, behavioral scientist, or judge be considered a less worthwhile endeavor than working in tech.

This is an aspirational view. Though gender discrimination does exist and shouldn't be allowed to persist in a just society, the idea that we are all fungible is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Indeed, the latest scientific data tell us that there are powerful group distinctions between most women and most men, ranging from greater propensities toward overt aggression, zero-sum-game competitiveness, autism, alcoholism and suicide (men), versus covert aggression, wider interests, and a greater propensity to depression and PTSD (women).11 Given the choice, not many people would opt for the other sex's frailties.

And these biologically influenced differences help to form distinct life goals and preferences, among the rank and file, as well as among stratospheric achievers. A 2014 study on the careers of 1,600 intellectually gifted 13-year-olds—identified in the 1970s as being in the top 1% of mathematical ability—found that there were many similarities between the adult men and women when the researchers followed up on them four decades later. But there were also some fascinating and important differences. The gifted men were more likely to have gravitated to IT, STEM, and CEO positions. The gifted women were more likely to have chosen careers in health, education, business, finance, medicine, and law. (Only in a world that values men's choices more than it does women's would working as a physician, behavioral scientist or a judge be considered a less worthwhile endeavor than working in tech).

In addition to the type of career this gifted cohort chose, there were also remarkable sex differences in values that affected not only what type of work people wanted to do and how much time they wanted to devote to it versus other activities. Overall, men as a group valued full-time work, making an impact, and earning a high income, whereas women as a group more often valued part-time work, along with the time for close relationships, family and community involvement. Gifted men devoted 11 more hours to work per week, for the last 15 years than did women, even when both worked full time. If they had their druthers, 30% of the women but just 7% of the men wanted to work less than full time at their ideal job, a finding echoed by other studies of educated women and men working in top drawer careers.12

"Both men and women overwhelmingly considered their families to be more important than their work and careers,” write the authors, Camilla Benbow, David Lubinski, and Harrison Kells, but:

[M]en, on average, were more concerned with being successful in their work and feeling that society should invest in them because their ideas are better than most people’s, whereas women felt more strongly that no one should be without life’s necessities. Collectively, men were more focused on their personal advancement and on the creation of concrete products, whereas women were more interested in keeping society vibrant and healthy.13

Both perspectives have value, that is, unless one reflexively prizes men's preferences over women's. And an increasing number of studies are being published showing subtle but perceptible differences in the ways men's and women's brains are wired.14 These studies are often criticized, not as part of the expected scientific vetting process but because they document the existence of findings that many people cannot tolerate. This may be because such research reminds them of the very real injustices of the past. Still, charges of "neurosexism," leveled at behavioral scientists are a way to denigrate results one does not like. Even if we don't like the existence of global warming, for example, we cannot wish it away or diminish its existence by calling it something else. Similarly, name-calling does not negate empirical findings that make us uncomfortable.

In the face of data emerging from new technologies, genome studies, social neuroscience, animal studies and hormonal influences—which alter our brain architecture as much as they sculpt our bodies—denying the existence of any biological sex differences is tantamount to denying the existence of science. Moving from science to fashion and culture, if there were no differences between male and female, why would insisting that women act like men, indeed why would the fashion of cross-dressing persist and continue to engage us? Why adopt the habits of a different sex if they are no better or no different than another? When it comes to sex, a world without differences is not only a fiction. It is a more intolerant, unhappy—and ultimately a less democratic place.


Black racist Says He Can Fix NFL, Just Get Rid of All the White People

Fans go to watch football, not to have their country insulted.  That is the real issue

Next to the Harvey Weinstein story, the constant anti-American protests mounted during the playing of the national anthem in the National Football League are still the nation’s hottest controversy. And now we can thank recording artist P. Diddy (not his real name) for solving this vexing problem. His solution: get rid of all those danged white people.

Rapper Sean Combs, better known as “P Diddy,” recently took to Twitter to offer his big solution. He wants to eliminate white people from football by starting a blacks-only league.

Remember those hard days back in the 40s and 50s when African American athletes were working so hard to break the color barrier and to be allowed into the big leagues in sports? Baseball players like Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron fought waves of racism to kill the color barrier and to show they were more than worthy players to be in the Big Leagues. Many more black athletes came to football and basketball after that and the pro sports were finally transformed into institutions that welcome all based on their skill, not on their skin.

But now ol’ Puffy wants to go back to the un-American concept of “separate but equal?” [Also known as Apartheid]

If you don’t know that reference, “separate but equal” was the racist idea imposed on America’s educational system where black people were shoved off into separate, black-only schools while white people had their own schools. This was hailed as a ‘solution’ to the race problem… but all that really ended up happening was that black schools were denied the quality schools that white kids had in well-supplied and funded schools.

Eventually the whole idea was taken to the courts and eliminated as unfair and un-American.

But Combs wants to go back to that concept, except this time in pro sports?

Then there is another point. P. Diddy is a multi-millionaire. So are most of the NFL players for whom he claims he is advocating. So we have a multi-millionaire singer claiming that multi-millionaire players are “oppressed?”

How does that even make any sense?

But Diddy has had his problems with racism in the past. Oh, it wasn’t Diddy facing racism directed at him, but Diddy perpetrating racism against others. And against white people at that.

Earlier this year the rapper was accused of reverse racism where he was allegedly making sure white employees never succeeded in his various enterprises. A lawsuit was filed by five white men against his Revolt TV project in March. As Billboard reported in March:

"On Tuesday, Page Six reported that a production team of white men — alums of The Howard Stern Show who are all over the age of 39 — say they were fired in 2014 because they weren’t young and black. One of the plaintiffs claimed that when he confronted a colleague on his tardiness, he was given a response that “clearly” referred “to African-American culture and/or African-American hip-hop culture, which [the producer] assumed he did not understand because he was Caucasian.”

Diddy claimed it was all B.S., naturally. He put out a statement saying:

"These claims are without merit and have previously been dismissed by the EEOC. Revolt Media and TV, LLC has always been committed to diversity in the workplace and is an equal opportunity employer."

The suit is still going through its paces, but it does show an interesting record when coupled with his tweet about getting rid of white people in the NFL, doesn’t it?


We thought we were raising an enlightened child, Tama Ward writes, but have we robbed our daughter of her cultural roots?

I weep for this badly misled child.  The fact that a Canadian mother knew the rules for an English High Tea does however suggest that she is a genuinely sensitive person who was in a good position to compensate when she realized  that she had gone  overboard for multiculturalism -- JR

At breakfast, in the glass-towered city of Vancouver, five-year-old Abigail looks glumly at her half-eaten bowl of cereal.

"What is it, honey?" I brush the bangs back from her face.

She lets out a big sigh. "I wish I wasn't white."

I start. Nothing in the parenting manuals has prepared me for that.

"All we've ever done is hurt people," she continues. "I wish my skin was dark and that I had a culture."

We live in a part of the city where immigrant families abound. Our neighbours are homesick, first-generation Mexicans, which means that salsas and pinatas and Aztec legends feature prominently at shared social gatherings. Our family regularly eats in Little India where we gush over the flavours of curry and dhal, and every February, we attend the Chinese New Year parade in the slanting rain. Plus, my husband and I are children of missionaries and harbour an acute guilt for the cultural imperialism of our forebears. To compensate, we've raised our children with a deep appreciation of non-Western cultures.

So when Abigail laments the colour of her white skin, part of me is programmed to protest. Is it not my moral obligation to tell her that her feelings of poor self-worth are nothing compared with the psychological ruin of real racism? Girl, everything about Canadian culture weighs in your advantage and you have no right to snivel!

Instead, I feel a sadness settle over me. We thought we were raising the enlightened child of the 21st century. We thought we were doing our part in setting the history record straight. Yet, in doing so, it seems we have robbed our oldest child of something primal to psychological health, something elemental to her well-being as a human being: cultural roots.

I don't know what to say.

I consider the you-are-Canadian spiel: "part of a new society made up of the vibrancy of many cultures, etc." Yet, "Canadian" is precisely the problem. What is Canadian? Her best friend is Canadian and Mexican. Her cousin, Canadian and Bengali. Even our Indigenous neighbours have a First Nation before they have Canada. To play the Canadian card will further neuter her culturally when what she's looking for are deep roots that ground her to a people and place.

Seized by maternal panic I go in search of our oversized National Geographic Atlas and hoist it up onto the breakfast table. Abigail sits up and she leans in. "It was almost 200 years ago that your people came to Canada from this island."

Abigail's face brightens at that word: island. I know what she's thinking. Islands are places of primal innocence and cultural distinctiveness, such as Haida Gwaii or Never Never Land.

But then when I speak the name of her island, Abigail's full-body slump returns.

"Great Britain?!" she pouts accusingly. "Aren't they the bad ones?"

Abigail's life to date has been spent absorbing the endless lament of her adults over the injustices of European colonialism. Earlier that summer on a cross-Canada road trip, at what seemed like every historical site, I made a point of highlighting how the colonizing British had brought Indigenous culture to the edge of extinction with their foreign diseases, their land-grabbing policies and their culture-negating residential schools.

The moment Abigail leaves the house for full-day kindergarten, I dig out a box of wedding china. I know this is a stretch. After all, it's been six generations since my ancestors emigrated from somewhere in the Yorkshire region of England to Peterborough County in Southern Ontario. The only thing we know about them with any certainty is that they were poor to the bone and almost certainly didn't drink tea from porcelain cups and saucers.

When the school day ends, everything down to the white-linen tablecloth is set up in the front room. Abigail enters, stares, then slowly lets her Dora backpack slide to the floor. I explain that this is high tea, "one of the grand traditions of your people." She stands in stunned silence.

The plan is working.

I explain that high tea must be served right at 4 o'clock, not a minute sooner, and that sandwiches are to be cut twice on the diagonal with crusts removed in their entirety.

"Why?" she asks to all of the above.

"It's just our culture."

This answer pleases her.

At 4 p.m. sharp, I pour the tea and watch my white-skinned girl sip and nibble as I have instructed.

My husband walks by and rolls his eyes. He is half Ukrainian and half God-knows-what.

Later in the week, Abigail replicates the high-tea ritual for her teddies and dolls, and then in a crowning act of glory for her Mexican playmate next door. "It's from my culture," I overhear her explaining to Sofia. Sofia seems enchanted.

Ten years have passed since I introduced Abigail to high tea and all my fears have been put to rest. Now a teenage tour de force, she has not over-identified with British culture. She has become neither snobbish, nor repressive. She has her eye on a boy from Peru with brown skin. Knowing her tribe has given her traction to move into the fusion of Vancouver high-school life with a sense of being one among equals, someone who has something unique to contribute to the whole.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


12 October, 2017

FDA rebukes bakery for claiming 'love' as an ingredient in granola

No sense of humor

The ingredient list for Massachusetts-based Nashoba Brook Bakery's granola was normal enough, save for one ingredient. Amid the oats and sweetener was "love."

The subject of nearly every rock-and-roll song, the thing Romeo and Juliet died for, was supposedly in the granola, which was sold at around 120 stores around New England.

The "ingredient" was a nod to the passion bakers put into their product and wink to fans of the snack. As the Concord bakery's Twitter account shows, the business has a sense of humor.

"I really like that we list 'love' in the granola," Nashoba Chief Executive Officer John Gates told Bloomberg News. "People ask us what makes it so good. It's kind of nice that this artisan bakery can say there's love in it and it puts a smile on people's face."

But the Food and Drug Administration didn't see it that way. A human emotion, it said, cannot be an ingredient in baked goods.

The FDA sent a warning letter to the bakery, which told the bakery to stop claiming that its granola contains love:

Gates said the letter "just felt so George Orwell."

"Situations like that where the government is telling you you can't list 'love' as an ingredient, because it might be deceptive, just feels so silly," he told Bloomberg.


John Oliver’s Terrible Analogy For Confederate Monuments

John Oliver thinks Confederate generals are similar to child-raping British entertainers.

That was one of the arguments underlying his Sunday night rant about America continuing to honor figures associated with the Lost Cause.

Oliver began his 20-minute segment by introducing the case of Jimmy Savile, a  previously beloved television and radio entertainer in the UK. Savile is no longer much liked anymore after it became public that he abused dozens of children. Statues and plaques honoring him have come down due to the revelations that he was a sexual predator.

Oliver finds this a fitting analogy to Confederate monuments, saying, “Once we found out that he was a monster, we accepted that it was no longer appropriate to publicly glorify him.”

This is one of the dumbest analogies ever put forward for the Confederate monument debate, and it makes sense that a Brit made it. It’s not like we haven’t known about the bad things the Confederacy was associated with for as long as the South honored the men who fought for it.

Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard weren’t discovered to be slaveholders after their statues went up — that fact has been known since they entered history.

More importantly, the reason for the monuments is completely different from the honors awarded Savile. The handful of plaques and statues for Savile were meant to honor a man who merely entertained people. He was a local hero for his achievements, but he wasn’t some great figure who embodied the heritage of British people.

Confederate generals represent southern heritage and pride. They are cultural icons for a large region of America. Those who honor them know about their role with slavery and rebelling against America. But they led the ancestors of Southerners into battle, and their conduct, especially of Lee, is considered an example to follow.

The concept of honoring your ancestors and your heritage is a concept that is never brought up by Oliver. Maybe ignorant Brits telling Americans what statues we can and can’t put up isn’t such a great idea.

However, there is a good British analogy for Confederate statues that Oliver overlooked in order to help his argument. Throughout the United Kingdom, there are statues and monuments dedicated to figures who were strongly connected with colonialism, a great sin according to the modern-day Left.

One of those figures who strongly supported colonialism is none other than Winston Churchill. For most people, Churchill is the man who saved the U.K. from the clutches of Hitler and helped turn the tide of World War II.

But he was also a figure who believed fervently in preserving the British Empire and saw its non-white subjects as inferior to Anglo-Saxons. Churchill despised Islam and thought “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” besides that religion.

While one could say these were just the views of his time (which they were), the argument could go that they were intrinsically tied with his support for the British empire, as The Washington Post’s Ishaan Tharoor has argued.

That would make him just as repellent as the Confederate generals who fought for slavery, in the eyes of people like John Oliver.

The late night comedian’s argument for taking down Confederate monuments statues rests on the belief that their principal cause was slavery, and that the rebels fought against the United States.

Does Oliver know that America has plenty of monuments dedicated to Amerindians who also fought against the U.S. government and owned slaves? Wonder what he would think of that.

It also would be interesting to know what Oliver thinks of statues to proud British colonialists like Churchill.

History is complicated, and it is wrong to force the past to conform to the standards of today. Confederate monuments serve as memorials to Southern heritage and culture, with all of its virtues and defects.

They are in no way comparable with that of a notorious pederast who’s only remembered for presenting the country’s biggest pop hits.


Researchers Drug Test Subjects to Curb 'Xenophobia'

A recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences details the effects of administering oxytocin, a hormone known to enhance empathy, on subjects believed to hold xenophobic attitudes.

Stop for a minute to consider how many things are disturbing in that sentence.

The study, which was "approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Bonn" and "carried out in compliance with the latest revision of the Declaration of Helsinki," combined social pressures with nasally administered oxytocin in an effort to alter participants' social behavior. In explaining the reason for the study, the researchers note that the United Nations has recently "emphasized the importance of developing neurobiologically informed strategies for reducing xenophobic, hostile, and discriminatory attitudes." They cite the recent electoral success of European populists who are critical of refugee resettlement as a reason to urgently pursue these neurobiological strategies.

The study consisted of three experiments. In the first, participants were surveyed to assess their prejudice. They were then given 50 euros each and presented with 50 stories of people in need, half of whom were portrayed as refugees and half as natives. The participants were instructed to give a maximum of one euro to each deserving case and to keep any money that was left over. The exercise was conducted in a lecture hall so that concern over one's reputation might increase altruism among the participants. The group gave away 30 percent of their endowment. Those who were deemed to be more prejudiced gave less to refugees. Overall, 19 percent more was given to refugees than to natives. None of the results were found to be influenced by the sex of the participants.

In the second experiment, participants self-administered either a dose of oxytocin or a placebo and then completed the first experiment. (The subjects in this group were all male because of the possible sexual-dimorphic effects oxytocin can produce in females.) This time, however, the participants completed the task in private, free from peer pressure. Subjects under the influence of oxytocin gave 68 percent more to refugees and 81 percent more to natives than the group in the first experiment.

But the results in the second experiment varied significantly. Those who were deemed less prejudiced by the researchers and did not take the oxytocin gave 31 percent more to refugees than to natives, mirroring the contributions of the cohorts in the first experiment. But when under the influence of oxytocin, those who were deemed less prejudiced more than doubled their contributions to both groups. Conversely, the oxytocin had little effect on the charity of those who were deemed to be more prejudiced.

A third experiment repeated the second, with the exception of showing the participants the average contributions that were made in the first experiment before they donated. This had little effect on those who were deemed less prejudiced. But it increased the contributions made to refugees by those who were deemed to be more prejudiced and were under the influence of oxytocin by 74 percent. This result led the researchers to conclude that social pressures coupled with increased levels of oxytocin can foster more altruistic behavior "even in the most selfish and xenophobic individuals."

Understand the rationale driving this research: To question the resettlement of refugees is to be chemically imbalanced. Academics are now devising ways to biologically alter the political and social behavior of their fellow citizens by administering drugs on test subjects.

The authors of this particular study recommend that governments and institutions actively facilitate social interactions that are known to naturally stimulate the production of oxytocin. They cite group activities like singing in a choir. They also recommend that the benefits of "ethnic diversity, religious pluralism, and cultural differentiation" be affirmed and emphasized through "balanced and informed media reporting" and "the integration of refugee themes to the curricula of school and universities." While they do not call for the prescribed or coerced injection of oxytocin on their fellow citizens, they appear to leave open that possibility in an ambiguously worded suggestion toward the end of their paper: "considering OXT-enforced normative incentives in developing future interventions and policy programs intended to reduce outgroup rejection may be an important step toward making the principle of social inclusion a daily reality in our societies."

Here at the Center, we have long understood that immigration has become an immutable value for many in the political establishment. They will sacrifice all of their other political goals in order to maintain the unrestrained movement of peoples. They have abandoned the concerns of labor, minorities, feminists, environmentalists, and conservatives in their ideological devotion to open borders. But until recently, their position was a political one that could be argued and refuted using data and reason. Critics of open borders were not labeled racist for simply holding an opposing view. They certainly were not considered biologically deficient. But when academics and politicians begin to see critics of their agendas in this way, there can be no logical debate. Those who disagree must be fixed. And at a time when all problems are seen through the lens of a materialist worldview, those fixes will be addressed through the latest advances in neuroscience, as the United Nations has advocated.

The researchers of this study praise the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) as an ethical maxim that epitomizes the virtue of helping outsiders. Indeed it is. But in praising Jesus's words and acknowledging how influential and beneficial they have been throughout history, they contend that the "social and biological conditions promoting such outgroup-directed altruism have not been determined." In other words, they miss the whole point of the parable, which is its spiritual dimension, to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Furthermore, the parable of the Good Samaritan is not a commandment or exhortation to support open borders. Dealing amicably and charitably with one's neighbor is the Christian way to live, no matter who your neighbor happens to be. But that does not mean one must blindly accept the migration of millions of people, the vast majority of whom could be better helped closer to home. Such migration is a modern and unprecedented phenomenon that threatens the stability of the hosting nations. The United Nations estimates that 65 million people have been displaced from the Middle East and Africa in just the past two years. As the researchers themselves state, "Never before have individuals had to adapt to social environments defined by such magnitudes of ethnic diversity and cultural differentiation." It is a phenomenon that is creating "tensions over ethnicity, religion, and culture."

Their solution to this problem is not to question the unprecedented flow, but to come up with "neurobiologically informed strategies" to change the attitudes and behaviors of natives in the receiving countries. Their research advocates cross-group social interaction to foster feelings of generosity and empathy. The problem is that other research, like that of prominent political scientist Robert Putnam, has found that high levels of diversity discourage social interaction. The most diverse societies tend to be the least cooperative and integrated. Ironically, the researchers note how the African-American civil rights movement used the Good Samaritan parable to effect positive social change. Black Americans have been one of the groups most hurt by mass immigration, a policy the authors of the study do not challenge.

Devising "neurobiologically informed strategies" to change political and social behavior is the work of totalitarian regimes. The citizens of free republics and liberal democracies decide for themselves who will be welcomed as newcomers. And there is nothing un-Christian or xenophobic about setting limits.


Political correctness runs amok in America

Wikipedia defines the term political correctness as the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Well, it's morphed into far more. Hatched in its current form circa 1990 by that ultraliberal beacon called The New York Times, political correctness has transformed into a giant muzzle over the mouths and lives of far too many Americans. Unleashing a virtual Pandora's Box of issues, and abetted at the time by an immoral Bill Clinton presidency, a mentality of "anything goes" regarding the social fabric of the country settled in to the national psyche.

Amplified by a complicit media, the majority risked scorn and ridicule and were extorted into silence as they watched in dismay while the country seemingly went berserk. Laws were enforced on those who would speak out about actions that previously seemed dishonorable, amoral or just plain weird. Words now are taboo. Think about that, in modern America, people have been fined and lost careers over the use of the wrong word at the wrong time. Just the threat of being called the word "racist" has become feared and is used to shut down any further dialogue.

Gone is God and civics from our schools, resulting in a lack of spirituality, empathy for structure and patriotism for our country, as is currently being exhibited across the nation in sporting events. We have become so shallow, we actually are hyperconcerned about what performers, no different than a clown in a circus, say or do. In the name of political correctness, nobody asks why it is believed to be tolerable for a coach to instruct 8-year-old junior football players in southern Illinois to take a "protesting knee" before a game, thus encouraging yet another generation of resentment.

This PC society seems to be devoid of individualism. History is being rewritten as if what was right now is wrong with the founding and expansion of this great country. As one consequence, beautiful 100-year-old statues commemorating antiquity are being destroyed or seized in the middle of the night -- relegated to the back rooms of museums, so as not to offend anyone, irrespective of the fact the very removal offends others.

Lenin's cronies removed and then burnt books when they took over Russia in 1917 — how did that work out for everybody? Our forefathers are being looked down upon by some as murderers and exploiters of what now is considered no more than simple, peace-loving peoples. The word "backward" has been removed from that description though. There is irony that the PC crowd is oblivious to the fact their decedents also rode the current of American supremacy. If you don't believe that, explain the election of Barrack Obama. Yet, somehow, European discoverers ruined this utopia that evidently previously existed in North America. "Hail Atlantis."

The adage that "those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it," has become ... forgotten. Social miscreants, such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, or socialist farces, such as the European Union, now are to be admired and displayed proudly on T-shirts by elitist Hollywood types who are fawned over by our offspring and trumpeted by the media. Cultures that would like nothing more than to wipe us off the Earth are encouraged to join us for that one last big kumbaya moment.

Our universities, once the bastion of free speech and intellectual thought, now are controlled by mostly overpaid tenured Marxist do-nothings. Colleges have become nothing more than expensive nurseries for empty humanoids, frightened by any thoughts or words that might offend their sensitive safe-spaces. Instead of standing out and striving to reach the front of the pack, many children fall into lock-step, staring blankly at cellphones, confused by which bathroom they should be using.

As moral and civic boundaries are stretched, politicians jump shamelessly on the bandwagon with little regard to doing what is right, constantly in chase of the almighty vote in order to preserve their lustful grab of power and cash. They feed the machine-heads daily platitudes, emboldening the lazy, the unscrupulous, the perpetual victims, the fatherless masses, as well as those lost souls no longer interested in attaining the American dream by virtue, preferring to have it handed to them from the labor of others. Lost in the collective national conscience is the fact the government can't give them anything they didn't take from someone else.

Perhaps, this might explain the election of Donald Trump.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


11 October, 2017

Christian activists booted from Seattle coffee shop: ‘I’m gay. You have to leave’

The bullied have become the bullies.  And the foul-mouthed owner reveals what a sewer his mind is

A Christian pro-life group that was recently ejected from a Seattle coffee shop over its local activism is attracting hundreds of thousands of Facebook views after footage of the encounter was posted online.

Members of Abolish Human Abortion recently decided to order drinks in Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop after posting and distributing pro-life pamphlets in the local community.

Activists who joined Caleb Head and Caytie Davis on Oct. 1 were soon berated and told the leave when they were identified.  “I’m gay. You have to leave,” owner Ben Borgman said in the video.

“Are you denying us service?” Mr. Davis asked.

“I am. Yeah,” Mr. Borgman replied.

The confrontation about tolerance then escalated when activist Jonathan Sutherland was asked if he would watch a sex act. “If I go get my boyfriend and f- him in the a— right here you’re going to tolerate that?” Mr. Borgman asked.

“That would be your choice,” Mr. Sutherland said, the conservative website Red State reported Friday.

“Are you going to tolerate it? Answer my f-ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f-ing watch it! […] Well then I don’t have to f-ing tolerate this! Leave! All of you. Tell all your f-ing friends, don’t f-ing come here.”

A request by the activists to turn to Jesus was met with the response, “Yeah, I like a—. I’m not going to be saved by anything. I’d f- Christ in the a—. OK? He’s hot.”

The Bedlam coffee shop issued responses on Oct. 2 and Oct. 4 asking viewers to consider another side of the story. “In the end, it’s all about context,” the owner wrote. “Everything is context. Out of context a comment can serve any argument.

Take for example the phrase ‘I will bring my boyfriend out here and f- him in the a—.’ out of context it could mean a slew of things. It’s delivery in this case was meant to shock and repulse the audience. Out of context it could be labeled a perversion, or a kink depending how you personally couch the subject. In context it was a response, a response to being shocked and repulsed. A revenge you could even call it, a weakness demonstrated in the typical, they hurt me, I will hurt them fashion.”

The 52-year-old owner said that his full exchange with the activists included one of the activists denying that graphic anti-abortion materials were their own.

Mr. Borgman also said that anti-abortion imagery was hidden within his shop.

“They were ready with that camera,” the owner wrote. “I was baptized Catholic, Roman Catholic actually, I’ve been to a few bible studies, read the entire book, more than once. To my understanding, and to speak in the religious vernacular; these people are working for Satan. The great trickster has deluded them into believing that hate is love, that rage is peace, and that lies are truth.

The God I knew, the Jesus I was taught about would absolutely never ever print a poster with a hideous dead baby representation at ‘what was clearly meant to insinuate’ at the hands of gays … suffice to the say the poster was gross, and the text on the back? Holy cow, whoever wrote that is in a lot of pain. I spoke to them in their own language.”


The Truth About Cristoforo Colombo

Is this the last time we can celebrate Columbus Day? A wave of cities have decided to remove the holiday from the calendar and replace it with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

Christopher Columbus, the Italian explorer credited with discovering America, and his legacy are under attack figuratively and, increasingly, literally.

Several Columbus monuments have been attacked and vandalized around the country. The towering Columbus statue at Columbus Circle in New York City now needs 24-hour guards after Mayor Bill de Blasio put it on the list of a commission to review “offensive” memorials.

And according to Far Left Watch, a watchdog organization, Antifa and other left-wing groups plan to deface and attack Columbus statues across the country on Columbus Day.

It is unfortunate to see what was once a uniting figure—who represented American courage, optimism, and even immigrants—is suddenly in the crosshairs for destruction. We owe it to Columbus and ourselves to be more respectful of the man who made the existence of our country possible.

Once Revered, Now Maligned

A few historians and activists began to attack Columbus’ legacy in the late 20th century. They concocted a new narrative of Columbus as a rapacious pillager and a genocidal maniac.

Far-left historian Howard Zinn, in particular, had a huge impact on changing the minds of a generation of Americans about the Columbus legacy. Zinn not only maligned Columbus, but attacked the larger migration from the Old World to the new that he ushered in.

It wasn’t just Columbus who was a monster, according to Zinn, it was the driving ethos of the civilization that ultimately developed in the wake of his discovery: the United States.

“Behind the English invasion of North America,” Zinn wrote, “behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private profit.”

The truth is that Columbus set out for the New World thinking he would spread Christianity to regions where it didn’t exist. While Columbus, and certainly his Spanish benefactors, had an interest in the goods and gold he could return from what they thought would be Asia, the explorer’s primary motivation was religious.

“This conviction that God destined him to be an instrument for spreading the faith was far more potent than the desire to win glory, wealth, and worldly honors,” wrote historian Samuel Eliot Morison over a half-century ago.

In fact, as contemporary historian Carol Delaney noted, even the money Columbus sought was primarily dedicated to religious purposes. Delaney said in an interview with the Catholic fraternal organization the Knights of Columbus:

Everybody knows that Columbus was trying to find gold, but they don’t know what the gold was for: to fund a crusade to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims before the end of the world. A lot of people at the time thought that the apocalypse was coming because of all the signs: the plague, famine, earthquakes, and so forth. And it was believed that before the end, Jerusalem had to be back in Christian hands so that Christ could return in judgment.

Columbus critics don’t just stop at accusing him of greed. One of the biggest allegations against him is that he waged a genocidal war and engaged in acts of cruelty against indigenous people in the Americas.

But historians like Delaney have debunked these claims.

Rather than cruel, Columbus was mostly benign in his interaction with native populations. While deprivations did occur, Columbus was quick to punish those under his command who committed unjust acts against local populations.

“Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect,” Delaney said. “There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there. There were terrible diseases that got communicated to the natives, but he can’t be blamed for that.”

Columbus certainly wasn’t a man without flaws or attitudes that would be unacceptable today.

But even as a man of an earlier age in which violence and cruelty were often the norm between different cultures and people, Columbus did not engage in the savage acts that have been pinned on him.

How Americans Once Viewed Columbus

For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, most Americans were taught about Columbus’ discovery of the New World in school.

“In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue … ” went a popular poem about the Italian explorer who flew under the Spanish flag. At one time, Americans marveled at what seemed like an unbelievably courageous voyage across unknown waters with the limited tools and maps of the 15th century.

It is difficult in the 21st century to imagine what Columbus faced as he crossed the Atlantic in search of what he thought was a route to Asia. The hardship and danger was immense. If things went awry, there would be nothing to save his little flotilla besides hope, prayer, and a little courage.

Most people, even in the 1490s, knew that the Earth was round. However, Columbus made a nevertheless history-altering discovery.

The world was a much bigger place than most had imagined, and though Columbus never personally realized the scope of his discovery, he opened up a new world that would one day become a forefront of human civilization.

This is the man and the history that earlier generations of Americans came to respect and admire.

Unfortunately, Zinn and others’ caricature of Columbus and American civilization has stuck and in an era in which radicals and activists search the country for problematic statues to destroy, Columbus is a prime target.

Ku Klux Klan Pushed Anti-Columbus Rhetoric

Much of the modern rhetoric about Columbus mirrors attacks lobbed at him in the 19th century by anti-Catholic and anti-Italian groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

In fact, Columbus Day became a nationally celebrated holiday following a mass lynching of Italians in New Orleans—the largest incident of lynching in American history.

In 1892—the 400th anniversary of the Columbus voyage—President Benjamin Harrison called for a national celebration of Columbus and his achievements. Americans patriotically celebrated Columbus and erected numerous statues in his honor as the country embraced him.

Though American appreciation of Columbus deepened, some groups weren’t pleased.

As the pro-Columbus website The Truth About Columbus points out, the Ku Klux Klan worked to stop Columbus Day celebrations, smash statues, and reverse his growing influence on American culture.

According to The Truth About Columbus, in the 1920s, the Klan “attempted to remove Columbus Day as a state holiday in Oregon,” burned a cross “to disturb a Columbus Day celebration in Pennsylvania,” and successfully “opposed the erection of a statue of Columbus in Richmond, Virginia, only to see the decision to reject the statue reversed.”

Attempts to quash Columbus failed, but they have re-emerged in our own time through the actions of far-left groups who want to see his legacy buried and diminished forever.

This would be a tragic loss for our generation and those of the future.

The bravery and boldness that Columbus displayed in his trek to America have been inherent in the American cultural DNA from the beginning.

We may never have the class, the taste, the sophistication of the Old World upper crust. But what we do have is a reverence for simple virtues of strength, boldness, and a willingness to push the envelope to secure for ourselves a better future than those who’ve come before.

We are a civilization that admires those who push the limits of the frontier, who don’t merely accept what is and want something more. The spirit that drove us west and in modernity, to the moon, is what we celebrate in men like Columbus.

President Ronald Reagan said it best in a Columbus Day tribute:

Columbus is justly admired as a brilliant navigator, a fearless man of action, a visionary who opened the eyes of an older world to an entirely new one. Above all, he personifies a view of the world that many see as quintessentially American: not merely optimistic, but scornful of the very notion of despair.

When we have lost these things, when we no longer have the capacity to celebrate men like Columbus, as imperfect as they sometimes were, we will have lost what has made us great, and distinct.


Girl Raised Gender Neutral Grows Up To Be A Woman

There is a new trend in social justice parenting (yes some do reproduce), that is to raise their children gender neutral. This is extension of their belief that gender is a social construct or that gender is fluid.

It is a concept that is reflect in Australia with introduction of programs such as Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships. Every year we also experience No Gender December pushed by former Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

But what is the end result of such an approach to parenting? After all the effort to raise a child without having them dress or behave in a gendered way? Even though it is a relatively new phenomena one girl who was raised gender neutral is now 16 and identifies as woman. What a shocking development.

Royce and Jessica James with their daughter Isis reflected on the experience raising her gender neutral in an appearance on the United States’ National Public Radio. Listening to it is painful for those who value freedom and the innocence of children.

Royce and Jessica describe the lengths they went to not have Isis display she was a girl at all. They discuss how they were triggered by midwives dressing her in pink at the hospital “Somebody nearby turned and looked at my baby in my arms, my little pink baby doll and said, ‘Oh, she’s so precious and delicate and dainty,’ and I was enraged”.

But that was nothing compared to how they treated family and friends who want to give girl presents to Isis “We had family who were sending us dresses for Isis [that we weren’t using] and the family members’ feelings were really hurt”.

Then there was the personal impact on poor Isis who had to endure a childhood being a social experiment of her social justice parents “A little boy wanted her to take her clothes off and prove that she’s a girl on the playground because she has short hair and she’s wearing primary colours and doesn’t look like a girl”.

You can also tell that Isis herself does not think she had a great childhood when she confesses “It was sometimes painful to be raised in a gender-neutral way because I had to tell people that I wasn’t a boy” adding “Sometimes people wouldn’t believe me when I said that I wasn’t able, especially children which was ridiculous”,

Despite Royce and Jessica confessing “there are those moments that we think, ‘OK is this something that we created’” they have no regrets and have gone onto have three more children who are also being raised gender neutral.

Of course, the fact that a child born a girl (or as they left say assigned female at birth) grows up to women does not surprise ordinary people. The fact that 99.7% of people grow up to identify as the gender they are biologically shows that assigning gender based on genitalia is a pretty accurate method.

There have also been countless psychological studies of children’s behaviour which show that boys gravitate towards blue and trucks and girls gravitate towards pink and dolls. The reason this occurs is not because it is forced upon them but because it is what they naturally enjoy playing with. Not to mention that men and women’s brains have found to function differently. Royce and Jessica claim they gave their daughter freedom, but it sounds more like she was prevented for engaging in any behaviour that was deemed to be gendered.

They also forget there has never been any written law that says that boys and girls must only do gendered things. Many girls play contact sports and boys dance as an example. The reason why we have boys and girls’ sections at toy stores for example is to reflect thousands of years observing the difference in behaviour of boys and girls and the consumer choices they make.

The bad news is that Isis’ experience is only the beginning, we will sadly see more grown children in the future have the same bad experience at being raised gender neutral and not being allowed by their parents to engage in activities which they would naturally enjoy. Let children be children and if a boy wants to do boy things and a girl wants to do girl things there is no need for anyone to be triggered buy it and to feel the need correct it.


When Hannah Scherlacher found her name on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s LGBTQ hate list, she called to ask why

“I have never said or done anything to indicate hate for the LGBTQ community,” Scherlacher wrote in Fox News. “When I called to inquire, SPLC informed me that I am guilty because I did a radio interview with Family Research Council Radio. … The segment was about socialism, but because FRC holds traditional family values, I was labeled an LGBT-hater just for being a guest on the show. No LGBT topics even came-up.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit that claims to “fight hate” and “teach tolerance.” One of the ways it does this is by creating “hate lists,” such as the one Scherlacher found herself on. But featured on those lists are traditional, pro-family values groups such as the Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom, which are far from hateful.

Scherlacher isn’t standing for this categorization. She’s speaking out, which is why in this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” we crown her “Problematic Woman of the Week.”

Every week, The Daily Signal’s “Problematic Women” shines a spotlight on strong conservative women, current events, and the hypocrisy of the “feminist” left. Co-hosted with Bre Payton of The Federalist, this week’s episode also takes on Hillary Clinton’s reaction to the Las Vegas mass shooting, the 45-foot “Naked Lady” statue feminists want to put up on the National Mall, and more.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


10 October, 2017

Married Americans Are More Unhappy Than Ever

And why would that be?  An obvious culprit would be feminism and the gradual breakdown of traditional sex roles.  We have evolved to be sexual specialists. At it simplest men did the hunting and women looked after the babies.  And evolution is slow to change.  We are still born with those old cavemen specialisms.  That is who we are and how we feel. 

That all that specialization has become of little importance to survival in the last half century will have had no impact on our genetic propensities whatever.  We will still be most comfortable in traditional roles.  But women in particular have had ferociously preached at them that such roles are now WRONG.

And that can only result in discomfort and dissatisfaction for all concerned. Expectations will continuously be at odds with natural inclinations. Human beings are very flexible so some degree of accommodation to modern reality is possible but all flexibility has its limits

It’s logical, isn’t it? People who choose to stay married should be happier in their relationships. After all, it’s easier than ever to exit a miserable union, people tend to wait longer before making the jump and many just don’t get married at all.

Despite that, the number of Americans who say they’re “very happy” in their marriages has fallen from 68 percent in the early 1970s to 60 percent.

There are four types of people who tend to be happiest with the quality of their marriage: those who spend more time at religious centers, people with extreme political views (skewing to either spectrum), those who describe themselves as upper class—and men.


Look at this sexist male jerk!!!

Man Who Covered Woman in Iconic Las Vegas Shooting Image is an Active Duty U.S. Army Soldier

The images from the mass-shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Festival are hard to ignore. While some show the horror of the event, many others captured the heroism. While those images were going viral, the stories behind them have been harder to uncover. This is the story of one of one of those images.

The man seen here has been identified as a young US Army soldier.  The Daily Mail writes “Matthew Cobos was photographed on Sunday night lying on top of a young woman in an attempt to shield her from the barrage of bullets tearing through the air around them.”

Cobos and the woman appear to be in the middle of the concert arena, very much isolated, as those around them are fleeing.

“Cobos, who is a US Army soldier, eventually dragged the young woman to safety before bravely going back into the danger zone to help the injured,” the Mail writes.

The woman has not been identified. Many who have seen the image are struck by Cobos’s hand on the woman’s face. The gesture looks oddly intimate in a moment of terror. Cobos reportedly tried to cover the woman’s eyes to keep her from seeing what was happening around her and to protect her face.

Moments later, the shooting paused, and Cobos led the woman to safety behind a car. He then went back in to help others. Cobos is one of the ones credited with improvising tourniquets and even plugging bullet holes with his fingers.

After the concert, Cobos returned to California. He is reportedly stationed in Hawaii where he is a cavalry scout.

The relationship of Cobos to the woman he was pictured with remains unclear. It is believed that she made it through the shooting.


Passengers Panic, Run onto Tracks after Man Begins Reciting Bible Verses on Train

Borrowing from Charles Dickens, this article could be titled "The Tale of Two Stories." By that, I mean that the story I'm about to relate prompts two contradictory responses in me: embarrassment and embarrassment. I'll explain how those two emotional responses, while appearing to be the same, are contradictory in a moment. But, first, the story:

On Monday of this week, a street preacher boarded a London commuter train and began preaching. Reading passages from the Old Testament, he warned his fellow commuters of God's coming judgment. He also held out the hope of salvation, saying at one point: "Death is not the end."

An eyewitness told The Guardian, "He was quite well spoken and calm. He said: ‘Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to talk to you about something and that something is the word of the Lord, Jesus Christ. He’s here to heal your sins. The Bible tells you that homosexuality is a sin and sex before marriage is a sin. You need to repent.'"

According to reports, "Passengers forced open the doors on a busy rush-hour train and climbed on to tracks after becoming 'panicked' in the carriage."

(One wonders if the people of Nineveh reacted in a similar fashion when Jonah showed up preaching about God's coming wrath. Actually, scratch that, one doesn't wonder because the Bible records that the Ninevites repented of their sins and turned to God when a street preacher showed up in their town. Unlike Londoners, the ancient people of Nineveh were made of sterner and, more importantly, humbler stuff. I must add, however, there is little comparison between this London street/subway preacher and Jonah.)

Jesus told his followers to expect persecution. The Apostle Paul wrote that unbelievers would find the preaching of Christ crucified foolishness. Those truths do not justify Christians purposefully looking for extreme responses from unbelievers.

Best-case scenario, this presumably well-meaning preacher chose a poor time and place to deliver his message. Worst-case scenario, this preacher is a self-promoter simply looking for a reaction. Regardless, his actions are a cause of embarrassment for Christians.

If you've ever traveled via public transportation, you know that the main objective, apart from arriving at your destination quickly, is to avoid the crazies. All public transportation systems have crazies. When someone stands up and begins speaking loudly to everyone, the natural assumption is that the person is crazy; best not to make eye contact.

There is a time and a place to deliver the gospel message of Jesus Christ. A train compartment is probably not that place. No matter how well-meaning, this street preacher brought unnecessary embarrassment to the cause of Christ.

However ...

Come on, Londoners!

From the reports, the street preacher repeated boilerplate sermon points. Any level of Biblical literacy would've caused the commuters to simply ignore the preacher. They would've recognized that he was simply offering the salvation found in faith in Jesus Christ. Becoming "panicked" and climbing out of the train is embarrassing.

The fact that a street preacher snarled an early morning commute speaks to how far England has drifted from its moorings as the nation that produced men like William Wilberforce, David Livingstone, and Charles Spurgeon. The panic on that train reveals that England has become a spiritual wasteland. A little higher level of Biblical literacy on the part of the passengers would've prevented the panic.

Maybe, by God's grace, the inopportune sermon will prompt reflection on the part of the train riders who panicked. Likewise, maybe, by God's grace, the street preacher will find a better outlet than a commuter train for his gospel zeal.

In summation, I'm conflicted. The street preacher's actions are embarrassing. The commuters' reactions to the street preacher's actions are also embarrassing. On the flip side, depending on which perspective I enter, I want to root for both parties. A tale of two stories.


When making a sandwich is a crime against feminism

Miranda Devine reports on some horrible feminists who clearly don't love their husbands and can't imagine doing so.  They must be in some sort of trading relationship only

WHEN young Sydney mother Maddie asked her closed Facebook group of 26,186 mothers for some tasty alternatives to sandwiches for her husband’s lunches, she wasn’t expecting the backlash.

“I would love to hear what other mums make their hubbies for lunch and snacks throughout the work day,” she posted on Tuesday. “We are getting over sandwiches.”

You would think she’d asked for a hemlock recipe, judging by the torrent of scolding which erupted.

She was nothing but a “slave” and a “1950s housewife”.

She was “weird” and no one in their right mind or a “pink fit” would do something so demeaning as make their husband lunch. Let alone snacks.

“Your husband is a grown up and you’re not his mother”, wrote one member of the North Shore Mums Facebook group.

“My husband can make his own damn lunch.”

“I make my husband the same thing he makes me. Nothing!!”

“Stuff that, hubby is a grown man. I already do his laundry and keep his children alive.”

“Our advice is to stop making his lunches.”

“My role is childcare during working hours and that’s it.”

“He’s lucky if I decide to make dinner some nights”.

“I was married for twenty years and my favourite packed lunch for my husband was called a Get it Yourself with a side order of I’m not your mother.”

“Nope, I didn’t sign up for that at the altar. But in the spirit of being helpful… pickled onion stuffed in mandarins.”

Leader of the attack pack was Polly Dunning, daughter of professional feminist Jane Caro, and mother of a toddler about whom she infamously wrote last year, recounting her horror at finding out she was pregnant with a boy: “I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.”
Polly Dunning was not impressed when a woman requested ideas of things to pack her husband for lunch. (Pic: News Corp)

Dunning told Maddie: “You should pack him nothing for lunch. And you didn’t really ask for advice, you asked what other ‘mums’ pack their ‘hubbies’ (which, to me, is slightly weird phrasing, but whatever).”

Game on.

Amid the cute pics of babies and birthday cakes, a toxic wave of man-hating feminism is seeping into the world of mothers online.

Where unhappy wives used to confine their bitching about husbands to a handful of girlfriends at Mosman cafes, a new generation of women is oversharing with vast networks of strangers.

On Wednesday, Maddie, 22, switched off comments, but not before page administrators deleted the nastiest.

“I’m actually so devastated about some of these comments,” wrote Maddie.

She and her husband are saving up to buy their first home and, “he works in an extremely physically demanding job, he does housework, he cooks dinner every second night... He gets up in the middle of the night with our Bub. He is a champion.

“The least I can do is make him a bloody sandwich. I love my man, he deserves to eat lunch and we can’t afford to eat out.”

Dunning responded a few hours later: “We are not, any of us, just mums. Mum is one of the many roles we have as women and a role that certainly does not include doing anything for our partners because we’re not his (or her) mother. Just struck me as weird to put making a husband’s lunch with the role of Mum.”
Why can’t it just be considered nice that a woman wants to make her partner a meal?

How did making a sandwich become a crime against women? Thankfully, for everything bad about social media there is an antidote, and an army of mums sprang to Maddie’s defence.

“Is it really a massive issue if Maddie wants to make her husband lunch?!?”

“Wow, so much hostility here... Surely nice actions like these get reciprocated in happy marriages.”

“Good on you! My husband is a builder, and his job is so physical, and he is so hands on at home! It’s the least I can do.”

“I never know why these posts always turn into a husband bashing.”

“I think it’s pretty crappy to assume someone is a slave or 1950s housewife for making lunch. Feminism is about choice.”

“All I can say is some women really must resent their husbands by their responses. Looking after your partner is the way to a happy marriage.”

“I’m so confused by the negativity on this post. I love making my hubby lunch… He does so much for us as a family and for my girls I see nothing wrong with wanting to look after your husband!!”

“If I can help in some small part to make his day easier, I will. His hours are ridiculous and if me doing this means he gets to hang out with our son more I am all for it!”

“He does so much for me and the kids. Making two sandwiches a day doesn’t put us in the dark ages.”

“Marriage is a partnership. If only more think like that there will be a lot less divorces in this world.”

This is the truth Baby Boomer feminists refuse to admit.

Consideration and give and take is the secret to a happy marriage, not treating the father of your children like an agent of the enemy patriarchy.

It’s time to end the war of the sexes, even if it means making the odd sandwich.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


9 October, 2017

Love and free will

A Christian correspondent sent me the following meditation

Love for others that respects their freewill or autonomy is a giving love. It is true love. But love for others that does not respect or accept their freewill becomes a controlling and oppressive love. It is false love.

For love to be love, it must be for freewill and for freewill’s potential to learn. If you do not love someone's freewill, then you do not love them at all, for freewill is what they are. Without being for freewill, it is not love, it becomes needy, domination, oppression of another. We see this with some parents, often a mother. The parent professes to love their adult offspring and continue to manipulate and control them because they don't love their offspring's freewill.

Also dominant spouses who oppress, control the other, or each other, because they think they love each other but they don't appreciate each other’s freewill.

Also, socialists and their regimes who profess to be caring and to love their own people, but because they don't love people's freewill/freedom/autonomy they oppress them and call it caring.

If you don't love someone's freewill, then you don't love them at all, because freewill is what they are. We are freewill with potential to learn and grow from the use and consequences of our freewill and free intellect, and true love does not oppress another’s freewill but serves freewill and is for freewill. It is the heartfelt wishing well for others in their freedom and their learning and growing. And love includes understanding of freewill making mistakes, therefor it is forgiving (is love regardless).

Leftist caring has no respect for individual freewill/autonomy. Therefore their caring for others is always oppressive and stifling of individual freedom.

Via email

Bill Maher Lashes Out At Democrats For Over-Regulation: "It Makes People Hate Us, It Makes Me Hate Us"

On Friday's broadcast of Real Time on HBO, host Bill Maher began his 'New Rules' rant against over-regulation by denouncing a bill called the 'Hot Cars Act of 2017' proposed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) (and supported by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) in the House) that would make it mandatory for car companies to install an alert system in vehicles that children are in the car.

"Here's where someone says, 'but if it saves one life.' Oh fuck, you can put kids in bubble wrap all day and it would save some. But would it be worth it? We're never going to get this down to zero until we get rid of kids altogether," Maher complained.

"Until then all this will accomplish is to feed into the Republican message that Democrats don't want to help people they just want to micromanage their lives," Maher said. "It makes people hate us. It makes me hate us. And it prompts kickback."

"That's how you get an Environment Protection Agency headed by a man who cares nothing about environmental protection," he added.

"No one is for leaving babies in hot cars," the HBO host said. "Common sense tells most people this is an issue of personal responsibility. Especially when the liberal solution to your human frailty is me paying for more shit that can break in my car. Thanks, government. We'll get to gun control later. And that's the point. We do need regulation."

"For big things, real things like guns, and carbon emissions, and banks. But when Democrats get to regulating everything, regulation itself gets a bad name," he added.

"I don't want to let the right-wing own freedom," Maher said. "People want to drain the swamp, not ban Big Gulps. Yes, I understand, you have a thousand good ideas for how I should live my life, check my privilege and sort my recycling. I will get to that. But first we need to get some Democrats elected and that's hard when the movement to childproof the world has made Republicans the party of freedom and Democrats the party of poopers."


The Greatest Libel Since the Blood Libel

Dennis Prager
The most infamous libel in history is the one known as the Blood Libel. This was the medieval lie leveled at Jews in some European countries that accused the Jews of killing Christian children to use their blood to make Passover matzo.

As the author of a book on the history of anti-Semitism (Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism), having taught Jewish history at the college level, and as a committed Jew who has devoted great efforts to combating anti-Semitism, I do not easily compare anything to the Blood Libel.

But perhaps the second greatest libel — and certainly the most widespread — is that America is a racist country that oppresses its minorities — and women. We can call it the American Libel.

Now, I hasten to add that no one is being tortured to death as a result of this libel, as Jews were because of the Blood Libel, and, of course, no communities are being slaughtered as Jews were.

But the American Libel should be regarded as one of the great libels of history.

That America today oppresses minorities and women is as far from the truth as was Jews using Christian blood for matzo. Indeed, no country in the world is so accepting of minorities as fellow citizens as America. A third-generation German of Turkish descent is still regarded by most Germans as Turkish. But a first-generation Turkish — or Nigerian or Chinese — immigrant to America is regarded simply as one more American.

American Jews should be the first to denounce the American Libel. No country in history has ever been as welcoming, accepting and honoring of Jews as America. American Jews are a living refutation of the American Libel.

Did America oppress minorities? Of course it did. But the people who engage in the American Libel claim that America oppresses minorities, and even women, today.

Take, for example, this morally odious statement issued last week by the San Francisco 49ers NFL team: “For more than a year, members of our team have protested the oppression and social injustices still present in our society.”

Or a column by a Muslim writer in the HuffPost: “The oppression they [blacks] face is much greater than the bigotry I [a Muslim] face. It is a racism and oppression rooted in our culture.”

Last year, ESPN’s Paul Finebaum said on-air, “This country has issues, but this country is not oppressing black people.”

After being widely denounced, two days later Finebaum felt it necessary to issue this abject apology:  “I could spend the rest of my life trying to talk my way out of it, but I can’t. I blew it. I simply did not have a good grasp of the situation. I know better. I’ve lived in this country. I see what is going on all across the country from North to South, East to West and I have no excuse. … All I can say is that I made a terrible mistake. In trying to express a feeling that I probably — not probably — I had no right to express.”

The headline of a column by Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy: “In America, racial oppression is not ancient history.”

A headline of another Washington Post column: “How blacks, oppressed by white supremacy, can find a path to liberation.”

Such examples are endless. America oppresses blacks, Latinos, women, gays and everyone else who is not a white, male, heterosexual Christian.

It is a great lie. But it is the dominant narrative of the society. And, as lies are the root of evil, this lie must lead to something awful. It has already begun to:

First, vast numbers of nonwhites are being raised to believe that America hates them. This should be considered a form of child abuse.

Second, the charge that America is a land of oppression has utterly cheapened the word “oppression.” The truly oppressed of the world will have to find a new word to express their condition. If blacks and women in America are oppressed, what word shall we use to describe the condition of Christians in Iraq or Egypt? Of gays in Iran? Of women in much of the Muslim world? Of the Untouchables in India? Kurds in Turkey?

But worse is yet to come.

The Jews survived the Blood Libel. But America may not survive the American Libel. While the first libel led to the death of many Jews, the present libel may lead to the death of a civilization. Indeed, the least oppressive ever created.


Australia: Victorian Leftists Fund Gay Gaming App

Australia’s most regressive leader Daniel Andrews’ never ceases to amaze with the social engineering programs and projects he funds, meanwhile leaving the actual business of running the state far behind. But this time he may have outdone himself yesterday announcing that his government would be funding an absurd LGBT project.

Andrews eagerly announcing that his government would be commissioning the creation of gaming app which will have the player in the role of an LGBT person facing perceived homophobia. Think of it as a mobile version of his government’s Safe Schools program, it already has young students role playing being in same sex relationships, now Andrews wants young people to role play being gay on their smartphones.

The gaming app will be developed in partnership with Victoria University and the Victorian AIDS Council, which despite its name that gives the impression it is about sexual health is just another LGBT lobby group. Their homepage immediately asks people to support marriage equality and the focus of its activities is clearly geared towards the LGBT agenda.

The way this gaming app is funded is that the Andrews Government has a Combatting Homophobia initiative. It is a joint program through the state governments arts funding program Creative Victoria and the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Equality Branch. This elaborate funding approach gives you an idea of the layers of bureaucracy in place to fund such an obscene project.

This app should be viewed as insult to the intelligence of Victorians that their government views them apparently as so hateful and bigoted to gay people that they need a government funded gaming app to counter their ingrained homophobia. Most ordinary people when learning about the existence of such app will most likely laugh at its absurdity, that is until they find out they paid for it.

This gaming app will apparently be released in late 2018 which interestingly enough is just in time for the Victorian State Election. Hopefully its release will be a reminder to voters that for the past 4 years they have had a Premier who is more interested in virtue signalling on social justice issues, at the taxpayers’ expense of course, rather than delivering infrastructure for Victoria or controlling Melbourne’s crime wave.

Let’s also hope that Victoria soon has a government which will end this gravy train of funding for vanity projects, indulgences in identity politics and social justice madness. This will have the double effect of saving Victorians some money and getting government’s focus back where it should be.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


8 October, 2017

Puerto Rico Enters the 'Great American Victim Derby'

Seems like everyone's a victim in the USA these days, from college "snowflakes" who can't abide someone with views unlike theirs within miles of their campuses to allegedly assaulted women wearing sexually explicit hats to multi-millionaire football players who are sure there's something wrong but can't always remember what it is (other than Donald Trump).  The latest of the many entries in this "Great American Victim Derby" is Puerto Rico -- or at least a significant part of the island's leadership.

Who will win this derby?

It's anybody's guess, but the thing about playing the victim game is that even -- perhaps especially -- when you do win, you're even more likely to continue to be a victim and play some more.  Victimhood is self-perpetuating -- a spiritual, emotional, political, and economic rerun out of the movie "Groundhog Day." Every year it's the same thing and nothing changes.  Something bad happens and there you go again, drinking from the trough until you pass out like a fraternity boy being hazed for the thousandth time.

Why not try something different for a change -- like taking responsibility?

Are you listening, Puerto Rico?

It's an old story.  The island has always hovered on the brink of collapse. Self-sufficiency was an illusion.  I remember growing up in New York City in the fifties and the non-stop immigration of Puerto Ricans (I lived on the edge of Spanish Harlem).  No one seemed to be going the other way -- to Puerto Rico -- despite its balmy Caribbean climate and gorgeous beaches. Maybe that was part of the problem.  If you visit a tropical island, the last thing on your mind is work. You want to kick back and enjoy neverneverland as long as you can.   To some extent, it's the same for locals.  Dolce far niente is a great lifestyle, if you can hack it -- seemingly stress free.  I'm envious. But everything has a price. You look around and things are dissolving . No infrastructure.  No nada. Calamity strikes. And there you are asking for a handout again.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help Puerto Rico.  We must and should.  The situation is dreadful.  But this is a learning opportunity for the islanders.  They should take it. Blaming Donald Trump is the most reactionary and self-destructive thing they can do.  It's victimhood redux. Leave that to the rapacious ideologues at CNN, the New York Times, etc. They'd blame the eruption of the Indonesian volcanoes on Trump, if that were possible -- and even it it weren't.

Despite what global warming fanatics might say, hurricanes are nothing new in Puerto Rico.  There were obviously plenty of them from time immemorial, long before the island was even inhabited. If you're living on the island you know that from childhood. Every year brings a hurricane season. For the last decade it was pretty inconsequential, then it went crazy.  It's God's lottery.

So you have choices: you can leave the island, you can stay and do nothing, or you can stay and do something -- that is, build a hurricane-mitigating infrastructure the way California has, at least to some extent, hardened itself against the inevitable earthquakes.

A fourth way exists, and unfortunately it seems prevalent in Puerto Rico if we listen to the self-serving blather of San Juan's mayor or trust the veracity -- on the same subject -- of this recorded phone call from a  female Puerto Rican police officer.  (Sadly, I do.)  That is the way of evil, politically exploitative leadership:

Radio Announcer: What is your name?
Police Caller: I cannot give my name because I work for Puerto Rico’s Police Department. I need to pass this information out because the stuff that is being brought from the U.S. is not being distributed.  They are not allowing the Puerto Rican people to receive the donations.

Radio Announcer: What part of Puerto Rico are you calling us from right now?

Police Caller: I am right now in Guaynabo.

Radio Announcer 2: Wow.

Radio Announcer 3: But what information do you have? What have you seen?

Police Caller: The Mayor, Carmen Yulin, is not allowing anyone to distribute… We need… what Puerto Ricans need is that the U.S. armed forces come in and distribute the aid. And that they stop the governor, Rosello, and the mayor, Yulin, on doing what they are doing… It’s an abuse, it looks like communism, in our own island (sobbing)… (sobbing continues, inaudible translation due to cries)…

Communism.  Interesting she says that because it has been my observation that in places (countries) where people are reluctant to act for themselves, communism, or some form of totalitarianism, moves in.  It's almost biological, or chemical -- the abhorring of a vacuum. It's also yet more proof of Edmund Burke's oft-quoted dictum: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

So this is a teaching moment for Puerto Rico.  Will they take it?


A right to make a fool of himself

The controversy over the NFL’s indulgence of players protesting the national anthem might be treated as a time to learn. One might learn something from Heather Mac Donald about the mythology underlying Colin Kaepernick’s protest "against the incredible number of unarmed black people being killed by the police." In Kaepernick’s honor, I say that one deserved a high Colinic flush. Instead it metastasized with the invaluable assistance of Barack Obama and his acolytes in the administration and in the media.

One might learn something about the NFL’s standard operating procedure for the national anthem. According to the league’s operations manual: "The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking….Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses." While the NFL has enforced rules against other instances of individualized expression by players wearing their team uniforms, it has somehow indulged the Colinic metastasis.

One might learn something about the extent of the First Amendment’s protection of speech. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, of course, the protection generally protects speech against restrictions by governmental entities such as cities, states and public universities. There are wrinkles and exceptions galore, of course, one of which applies to governmental paramilitary organizations such as police and fire departments, where the need for discipline and cohesion is recognized.

In one of the highlights of our work together representing students and teachers with speech claims in the university setting, John and I came up against the citation of this exception by University of Minnesota lawyers defending the suppression of speech. The university police had been called out to censor an exhibit by history professors on the campus of the University of Minnesota at Duluth. The university lawyers "explained" that the exhibit posed a threat to the order of the campus regime. We somehow managed to persuade the court to distinguish the University of Minnesota from a paramilitary organization.

One might learn that the First Amendment generally does not protect speech rights in the setting of private employment. A private employer can generally limit an employee’s right to express oneself at work. The NFL, for example, relies on its authority to regulate player speech in a myriad of ways with which we are all familiar. It has nevertheless recognized the Colinic exception to these regulations.

Writing at the site of Center of the American Experiment, John Hinderaker quotes my friend and former colleague Teresa Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. As is her wont, Professor Collett is trying to do some teaching in a teachable moment. She explains:

I don’t watch football. I don’t care about football. But I do care about constitutional literacy. Please stop saying football players have first amendment rights to disregard the direction of their private employers while engaged in privately sponsored activities — which is what NFL football games are. They have no more constitutional protection for their expressive activities than I do for mine at my private Catholic university. Any "rights" they have are based on their contracts and employment law.

On the one hand, we have Professor Collett teaching something true about the scope of our Fist Amendment speech rights. On the other hand, we have Star Tribune sportswriter Michael Rand triumphantly declaiming:

A gameday manual can say what it wants. So can a president, for that matter. At the end of the day, we’re still back to the First Amendment — the trump card, so to speak — which carries just a little more sway than a logistical document or a tweet.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Free speech leads to uncomfortable conversations — ones that Rodgers, correctly, says we need to be having. Debating whether a league rule means players shouldn’t be able to start that conversation probably means you don’t want to have that conversation.

Enough false flags. The real one is too important.

The First Amendment protects Michael Rand’s right to display his ignorance and make a fool of himself in the pages of the Star Tribune. One might learn that Rand therefore needs someone to protect him from himself. (Editors?) Or one might learn you can’t believe everything you read in the Star Tribune.


Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash

What every liberal who didn't see this coming needs to understand

Many will say Trump won because he successfully capitalized on blue collar workers' anxieties about immigration and globalization. Others will say he won because America rejected a deeply unpopular alternative. Still others will say the country is simply racist to its core.

But there's another major piece of the puzzle, and it would be a profound mistake to overlook it. Overlooking it was largely the problem, in the first place.

Trump won because of a cultural issue that flies under the radar and remains stubbornly difficult to define, but is nevertheless hugely important to a great number of Americans: political correctness.

More specifically, Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would destroy political correctness.

I have tried to call attention to this issue for years. I have warned that political correctness actually is a problem on college campuses, where the far-left has gained institutional power and used it to punish people for saying or thinking the wrong thing. And ever since Donald Trump became a serious threat to win the GOP presidential primaries, I have warned that a lot of people, both on campus and off it, were furious about political-correctness-run-amok—so furious that they would give power to any man who stood in opposition to it.

I have watched this play out on campus after campus. I have watched dissident student groups invite Milo Yiannopoulos to speak—not because they particularly agree with his views, but because he denounces censorship and undermines political correctness. I have watched students cheer his theatrics, his insulting behavior, and his narcissism solely because the enforcers of campus goodthink are outraged by it. It's not about his ideas, or policies. It's not even about him. It's about vengeance for social oppression.

Trump has done to America what Yiannopoulos did to campus. This is a view Yiannopoulos shares. When I spoke with him about Trump's success months ago, he told me, "Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That's a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is."

He described Trump as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness." Correctly, I might add.

What is political correctness? It's notoriously hard to define. I recently appeared on a panel with CNN's Sally Kohn, who described political correctness as being polite and having good manners. That's fine—it can mean different things to different people. I like manners. I like being polite. That's not what I'm talking about.

The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness" think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society.

Example: A lot of people think there are only two genders—boy and girl. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they should change that view. Maybe it's insensitive to the trans community. Maybe it even flies in the face of modern social psychology. But people think it. Political correctness is the social force that holds them in contempt for that, or punishes them outright.

If you're a leftist reading this, you probably think that's stupid. You probably can't understand why someone would get so bent out of shape about being told their words are hurtful. You probably think it's not a big deal and these people need to get over themselves. Who's the delicate snowflake now, huh? you're probably thinking. I'm telling you: your failure to acknowledge this miscalculation and adjust your approach has delivered the country to Trump.

There's a related problem: the boy-who-cried-wolf situation. I was happy to see a few liberals, like Bill Maher, owning up to it. Maher admitted during a recent show that he was wrong to treat George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain like they were apocalyptic threats to the nation: it robbed him of the ability to treat Trump more seriously. The left said McCain was a racist supported by racists, it said Romney was a racist supported by racists, but when an actually racist Republican came along—and racists cheered him—it had lost its ability to credibly make that accusation.

This is akin to the political-correctness-run-amok problem: both are examples of the left's horrible over-reach during the Obama years. The leftist drive to enforce a progressive social vision was relentless, and it happened too fast. I don't say this because I'm opposed to that vision—like most members of the under-30 crowd, I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns—I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump.

My liberal critics rolled their eyes when I complained about political correctness. I hope they see things a little more clearly now. The left sorted everyone into identity groups and then told the people in the poorly-educated-white-male identity group that that's the only bad one. It mocked the members of this group mercilessly. It punished them for not being woke enough. It called them racists. It said their video games were sexist. It deployed Lena Dunham to tell them how horrible they were. Lena Dunham!

I warned that political-correctness-run-amok and liberal overreach would lead to a counter-revolution if unchecked. That counter-revolution just happened.

There is a cost to depriving people of the freedom (in both the legal and social senses) to speak their mind. The presidency just went to the guy whose main qualification, according to his supporters, is that he isn't afraid to speak his.


'Divisive and unrealistic': Anti-racism ad from Australian Human Rights Commission showing white businessman shutting African woman out of elevator sparks outrage online

This is just race hate: Hate of white people by Leftists in the HRC. Much to the frustration of the Left, Australia is a very laid  back place and people are treated by the way they behave themselves without regard to race. Different races go about their lives every day without any racial friction.  In my entire life I have seen nothing like the nonsense described below.  But I do EVERY DAY see large numbers of interactions between people of different races that are perfectly civil

A new anti-racism campaign launched by the Human Rights Commission has sparked outrage online. One of the 30 second videos, titled 'Elevator - Racism. It stops with me', has been heavily criticised, with people calling it 'divisive and unrealistic'.

Conservative radio and television broadcaster Paul Murray posted a link to the video on his Facebook page.

Murray's caption read: 'Not a sketch, not a joke. THIS is what HRC thinks 'White Men' do in lifts. What rubbish!

The video shows a white businessman in a suit politely letting a white woman enter a lift in an office building before him.

Then he spots a woman of African background running for the same lift, but instead of giving her the same treatment he tries to stop her from entering.

The horrified white woman steps out of the lift, and both of them stare at the businessman in disgust as the words 'Racism. It stops with me' appear.

Social media users were scathing in their responses to the video.  'I am angry that tax dollars have been wasted on such puerile, infantile rubbish,' wrote one person.

'In over 25 years in the workforce working with people of many ethnicities I rarely see anything like this. In fact I feel the HRC discriminate against white males.'

'Maybe she works in his office and every day she steals his yoghurt from the fridge that he specifically writes his name on, so he didn't want to hold the lift for her? Now he looks like the bad guy!' wrote another.

Others wrote they have never experienced being in a situation like the one portrayed in the ad.

'I'm dark skinned and this has NEVER EVER happened to me in my 45 years. The divisiveness from this mob is truly breathtaking,' said a female commenter.

'As a brown skinned female who is 52 years old, I have never experienced any form of racism in my life,' said another.

'It's like the progressives need to invent problems because they can't find any real ones.

The Human Rights Commission said the videos 'depict casual racism in the workplace and the provision of goods and services'.

Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane said the videos, called Community Service Announcements, will be broadcast on national TV.

'Racism frequently occurs at work and while people are doing everyday things such as catching a bus, riding a train, or flagging a taxi,' Dr Soutphommasane said.

'This might come as a surprise to Australians who tend to think that racism is a thing of the past. But independent research and the experiences of many people tells us otherwise.

'We'd like to get people thinking about what they can do to help put a stop to racism.

'We hope these CSAs help create a culture where people are able to identify racism and have the confidence to respond appropriately and safely,' he said.

The elevator video, along with a similar one showing a racist taxi driver, will be shown on free-to-air television over the next two months.

The HRC said a woman of African background was chosen because independent research has found 'people with an African background frequently experience racism at work or while using public services such as transport'.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


6 October, 2017

Psychiatrist Warns of ‘Time Bomb’ in Germany: ‘Today’s Migrants Are Not Integrable’

A psychiatrist has warned that Germany faces a “time bomb” as a result of the mass migration of young men who have “crazy potential for aggression”.

“This is a time bomb,” Christian Peter Dogs said of the decision to open Germany’s borders, in an appearance on the Peter Hahne talkshow on ZDF last month, explaining that psychiatry has found people’s temperament and personality are usually fixed by the age of 12.

Stating that migrants “can’t just ‘be taught’ to understand our values”, he said that classes on how to behave in Germany were unlikely to have much effect, adding: “You have to accept that.”

“There are people who have crazy potential for aggression because they have grown up surrounded by war. They have learned to fight and don’t even know the meaning of living harmoniously,” said Dogs.

On the Peter Hahne show episode  — the topic of which was “the power of fear”  — the psychiatrist said the biggest mistake politicians are making now, with regards to the migrant influx, is their response to voters’ concerns on the issue.

People are “neither ‘far right’ nor anything else”, he said, noting how critics of mass migration have been pathologised as “bad” and “far right”, whilst reports of problems with regards to the newcomers’ behaviour have been suppressed.

Dogs, who directs the Max-Grundig psychosomatic clinic in Bühlerhöhe, said people are “genuinely afraid and feeling insecure”, reporting that his clinic treats a large number of people suffering from severe anxiety disorders who feel too afraid to leave their homes since the flood of migrants.

“These people feel completely betrayed by politics,” the psychiatrist said, stressing: “It is vital that politicians take citizens’ fears seriously, because fear is a natural emotion that we are pre-programmed to feel, and politicians are not supposed to lead us into danger.”

Since 2015, when more than a million migrants entered Germany at the invitation of Chancellor Angela Merkel, the government has embarked on a war against online “hate speech”, with police conducting raids on the homes of people suspected of posting comments critical of migrants to social media.

The crackdown on free speech has not been without controversy, however, with the government receiving criticism after its partnership with former Stasi informant Anetta Kahane was revealed.

Dr. Hubertus Knabe, a Stasi expert and academic who specialises in Communist political oppression, was amongst voices who slammed the government for working with Kahane, saying she was unfit to lead any task force charged with censoring speech online.


Black Americans Should Welcome, Not Fear, Trump's America

It is Democrats who have done great harm to their own constituents, while insisting they vote only one way.

The Washington Post recently published yet another propaganda screed masquerading as journalism, this time lamenting the fear supposedly plaguing the black community in the era of Donald Trump. Showing impressive intellectual contortionism, the Post manages to drive this narrative while remaining largely free of fact and substance.

After pointing out that Trump received only 8% of the black vote in the 2016 election, the Post notes that the majority of blacks are worried about losing their civil rights under Trump. They reportedly fear his campaign to “Make America Great Again” will “negatively impact the black community’s access to quality public schools, job opportunities that pay a livable wage and affordable health care, child care and housing,” and will “have a negative impact on the ability to keep black children from mass incarceration and over-policing.”

These are the same asinine claims Democrats have made (unfortunately, successfully) for decades about Republicans, which is both infuriating and baffling. The party most responsible for black suffering — the Democrats — is embraced as savior by their victims. The Democrat Party fought a war in part to protect slavery, opposed civil rights, enacted Jim Crow laws, and oppressed blacks at every turn, then successfully peddled the lie that white racists fled to the Republican Party in the 1960s.

Today, despite claiming to be the protector of blacks, the Democrat Party funds the slaughter of black children, giving more than $500 million in taxpayer funds each year to Planned Parenthood, an organization founded with the goal of exterminating blacks through abortion and sterilization, while trapping those who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods and failing schools — urban poverty plantations, if you will.

It was Barack Obama and the Democrats who repeatedly defunded the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, an incredibly successful school choice program serving almost exclusively poor black and Hispanic children, graduating them and sending them to college at far higher rates than DC’s public schools, and at a fraction of the cost. It was Republicans who successfully fought to restore funding, and it is still Republicans today who fight for school choice so children of single black and Hispanic mothers in DC and Detroit and Baltimore and Atlanta can receive the same high-quality education as Obama’s daughters, who attend highly selective private schools.

Crime is another area where blacks suffer disproportionately, but not for the reasons that Democrats claim.

Following the nationwide riots and protests orchestrated by progressive Democrats and race-baiters after the shooting death of Michael Brown (later ruled justified, even by Obama’s cop-hating Justice Department), many police departments in major cities felt the impact of the “Ferguson Effect.” That is, the effect on law enforcement brought about by the slanderous accusations of racism and police brutality coming from Obama and Democrat mayors — their own war on cops.

Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald explains, “Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened. … Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by.”

As a result, murder and violent crime rates in these cities have skyrocketed, and it is poor, inner city blacks, living among these vicious predators, who suffer most. Yet every attempt to crack down on criminal thugs is met with screams of racism from Democrats. It is not conservative Republicans, statues of General Robert E. Lee or even Confederate flag-waving white supremacists that are robbing, raping and murdering innocent blacks in these neighborhoods. It is, as the FBI data proves, almost exclusively young black men.

For example, Chicago’s murder rate — largely in gang violence — skyrocketed from 411 in 2014 to 765 in 2016. The city’s on pace to surpass that number this year. Six other major U.S. cities saw similar spikes between 2014 and 2016. That would be pre-Trump for those keeping score.

The Obama years were brutal on the black community economically too. Blacks suffered an increase in the poverty rate, a decrease in the workforce participation rate, a decrease in median income, home ownership fall by 9.1%, and the numbers of blacks on food stamps explode by 4.4 million, up 58.2%.

Even Urban League President Marc Morial acknowledged as much in the 2015 “State of Black America” report, lamenting that “Black America remains in a recession and remains in crisis when it comes to jobs and the economy. … Black unemployment is twice that of white unemployment. Wages are stagnant. Many people who are working are simply not earning what they need or should earn to make ends meet.”

President Donald Trump is slashing bureaucratic red tape, cutting regulations and jump-starting the economy. GDP growth numbers for last quarter were recently revised to 3.1%, a rate Democrats told us we’d never see again. The stock market continues to hit record highs, unemployment is near record lows, and Trump has cracked down on illegal immigration and its accompanying crime. He appointed an education secretary who is fighting for school choice, which predominantly helps poor minority children and leads to better jobs.

A growing economy will create more jobs, raise wages and provide greater opportunities for blacks, whites and Hispanics alike. If Republicans can finally pass the repeal of ObamaCare, it will lower costs and provide greater access to health care. And it is conservative governors who are leading the way on criminal justice reform.

These are colorblind policies that benefit all hard-working, law-abiding citizens, of which there are millions in the black community. Which goes to show that, contrary to The Washington Post’s propaganda, in Trump’s America, blacks not only have little reason to fear the president but much cause to celebrate.


Funding the arts - or hurricane recovery?

With only so much taxpayer cash, what should our priorities be in this year of big hurricanes?

Paul Driessen                                                                   

A couple of friends recently said it was terrible that some in Congress and the White House could even consider reducing National Endowment for the Arts funding. It’s a critical program, they feel, essential for the very survival of many community and even big-time theaters, orchestras and other arts programs. The thought of trimming the NEA shows a low regard for this important component of civilized society.

For centuries, Kings and princes funded composers, artists, symphonies, operas and artwork, especially back in the days when royalty controlled the lands and wealth – and paid their peasants a pittance (if at all). Letting them listen to or gaze on some of the artistic creations helped keep them happy in an era when illiterate serfs were happy dreaming of being rewarded in the afterlife.

The National Endowment for the Arts was launched in 1965 and has enjoyed steady funding by taxpayers. Its $150 million 2017 budget covers offices, staff salaries, and numerous grants and contracts.

The Los Angeles Times opined in March of this year that the NEA’s budget is “minuscule compared to other federal expenditures.” $150 billion “won’t even get you a Picasso at auction.” It would only buy a thousand Tesla Model S P90D electric cars. The Defense Department receives 3,600 times more money; maybe the Pentagon should economize on toilet paper, the column suggested.

All of this raises compelling issues that could generate interesting congressional or talk radio discussions.

America is the land of millionaires and billionaires – folks who can and do afford Picassos, (taxpayer-subsidized) Teslas, and box seats at symphonies and operas that average taxpayers rarely attend. If just 300 Hollywood, Silicon Valley, social media and other ultra-rich culture devotees ponied up just $500,000 apiece, they’d fully fund the entire NEA program. So would 1,500 of them giving just $100,000 each, instead of buying yet another mansion, yacht, private jet or vacation island.

While the Defense Department is a favorite target for liberal pundits, defending the homeland is one of the most critical roles of government – and one that citizens, communities and even states cannot do on their own. Like it or not, we remain embroiled in conflicts overseas, and bad actors Iran and North Korea are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Security expert Cliff May reports that Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuelan dictatorship (likely with Cuban help) is providing passports to a host of Jihadi warriors, so that they can utilize the socialist-Islamist-narco-terrorist-gun-running alliance more effectively to ply their lethal trade here in the United States. National Counterterrorism Center director Nicholas Rasmussen warns that these and other terrorists may soon employ drones to drop grenades or spread poison gases on crowds of Americans.

Gunning people down in California, Florida, Tennessee and Texas, bombing the Boston Marathon, slamming jets full of fuel and passengers into NYC and DC buildings, mowing pedestrians down with vehicles, and murdering police officers reflect pure evil. It will be worse when more ISIS butchers arrive on our shores. We should cut DoD waste, but never protections for our families, lives and freedoms.

The LA Times article was written five months before Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria visited death and rampant destruction on Texas, Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico and other communities.

The question now is, how does NEA funding stack up against the urgent need to restore electricity to Puerto Rico and rebuild homes, businesses, infrastructures and lives in hundreds of badly impacted neighborhoods? Indeed, how does funding a vast host of federal programs stack up against that need?

President Obama was lucky. He presided over two-thirds of the longest Category 3-5 hurricane drought in U.S. history: eight years out of a record twelve (even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels kept rising). How he would have handled even one, to say nothing of three back-to-back monster storms, we will never know. Nor will we know how he’d have handled these budget questions, though we can guess.

Just recall how many “shovel-ready jobs” were actually created by $1 trillion in stimulus funding.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time the USA was hammered by several monster hurricanes in a very short span. 1879, 1893, 1909, 1933, 1954 and 2005 come to mind. And those are just the big ones that pounded the U.S. mainland. This year’s hurricane season isn’t over yet, so disaster preparedness remains vital.

Thankfully, this year FEMA was on the job in record time. However, rebuilding Puerto Rico alone will top $30 billion, following the worst storm to hit the island since 1928. Repairing damage from Harvey and Irma will exceed $150 billion, Moody’s Analytics estimates.

Families will have to dip into savings and do a lot of the work themselves. However, the financial burden will also be shouldered by private insurance companies, or by the federal government’s flood insurance program, and by FEMA and other disaster assistance loans and grants. Still more will be covered by hundreds of public and private companies, churches, synagogues and nonprofit charities, and direct citizen donations. JJ Watt raised $30 million via YouCaring.com, and Gleaning for the World has been typically efficient in shipping life-giving supplies to Texas, Florida and the Caribbean. Please give!

Congress has appropriated $15 billion in hurricane disaster relief, with more to come for those areas and the islands. Legislators assume and hope that funds will somehow materialize to cover this – and all the other programs that President Reagan liked to quip were the closest thing on Earth to eternal life.

Complying with myriad federal regulations costs us nearly $2 trillion a year – more than all personal and corporate taxes paid to Uncle Sam. If more of those rules are trimmed, and a long-overdue tax overhaul ultimately brings in many billions in additional tax revenues as the economy is reinvigorated, budgetary needs could be met and the private sector could weigh in with yet more help. Here’s another idea.

Federal and state laws could require that anyone from hurricane-impacted areas who expects another welfare or unemployment check must help clean up, repair and rebuild their communities. Many or most people on these “entitlement” rolls are strong and able-bodied. By serving their communities and country, they would learn new skills, find new friends, mentors and role models, and embark on paths to lifetime achievement. Indeed, the return to “workfare” and responsible citizenship should be nationwide.

As George Mason University professor Walter Williams observes, “The No. 1 problem among blacks is effects stemming from a very weak family structure.” This is “a legacy of the welfare state ushered in by the War on Poverty” and continued by “politicians, civil rights leaders and academics who assert that every problem confronting blacks is a result of a legacy of slavery and discrimination.”

“Children from fatherless homes are likelier to drop out of high school, die by suicide, have behavioral disorders, join gangs, commit crimes and end up in prison,” he states. “They are also likelier to live in poverty-stricken households.” Indeed, that holds true for white, Hispanic and other ethnic groups.

Williams also points out that federal spending in 2017 will top $4 trillion. At $1 trillion, Social Security will take up most of it. Defense ($598 billion), Medicare ($582 billion) and Medicaid ($404 billion) are the next-largest expenditures. Other federal social spending – on food stamps, unemployment compensation, child nutrition, child tax credits, supplemental security income and student loans – total roughly $550 billion. In fact, social spending by Congress consumes about two-thirds of the federal budget, he notes.

Congress doesn’t get this money from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, Williams concludes. It uses “threats, intimidation and coercion to confiscate” money from one American, to give it to another American.

As the nation marshals its resources to rebuild shattered communities in this latest year of big hurricanes – and Congress and the White House begin deliberating major changes in the Tax Code – it’s a perfect time to begin debating all these issues, reexamining our priorities, and putting America back to work: for a regular paycheck … or in return for continued welfare or unemployment checks.

Via email

Gender Identity: Why All the Confusion?

Today we are told that male and female are one and the same. Unfortunately, women will pay an especially high price.

It’s now okay for a man to hit a woman.

That, in effect, is what a mixed martial arts league decided when it allowed Fallon Fox, a biological male, to fight as a woman simply because he identifies as one.

And the consequence of this decision?

Fox sent female fighter Tamikka Brents to the hospital with a broken skull and a concussion. Brents needed seven surgical staples to bind her wounds. The battered woman, a trained fighter herself, said of her match with Fox, “I’ve never felt so overpowered in my life.”

Twenty years ago, if a man hit a woman so hard that he sent her to the hospital, he’d be in prison. Now he can get paid for it.

Today we are told that male and female are one and the same.

This denial of male-female differences has led to the astonishing belief that men and women are not born male or female; they are whatever gender they say they are. Facebook went so far as to offer its users over 50 genders to choose from. Know what a “demi-boy” is? Me, neither.

The idea that gender-identification is now a personal choice might sound enlightened to some, but it’s actually a very anti-scientific view of one of the essential facts of life: men and women are inherently different. Their brains are different, their hormones are different, their chromosomes are different, and, of course, their bodies are different.

No amount of peer-reviewed papers from gender studies departments can change this. But that won’t stop the progressive elites who run our universities, news media, many of our biggest companies, and even our high schools and elementary schools from trying.

For their efforts, women will pay an especially high price.

That’s because the men-and-women-are-the-same argument invariably leads women to be judged against a male standard. Or, to put it another way, to be more of a woman, a woman has to be more like a man.

She has to want to have casual sex like a man; to serve in combat like a man; to pursue a career with single-minded intensity like a man. Of course, there are exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of women aren’t seeking casual sex; don’t have the physical strength of men; and don’t share the same work-life priorities as men.

Ironically, this quest for sameness is occurring at a time when science is telling us, more emphatically than ever, that we are different. So, what your grandmother took for granted – men and women are different – science now confirms.

But there is no room for science in, say, stores like Target or Toys R Us, where toys are no longer divided into the boy section and the girl section. Or in a North Carolina school district, where students can no longer be called “boys and girls” but only “students.” Or in college dorms, where co-ed bathrooms and even co-ed bedrooms are increasingly common.

For the tiny percentage of people who experience gender dysphoria, we should have nothing but compassion. We should do everything we can to help them and protect their dignity, but we don’t need to overturn biologically defined sex differences to do so.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


5 October, 2017

Christian rights?

Polish Deputy Foreign Minister: Poland will not accept refugees from Muslim countries

Poland will not accept refugees from the south, despite the promise made by the previous Polish government to do so, as stated by Deputy Foreign Minister of Poland, Jan Dziedziczak, rp.pl reports.

"The decision is binding, we will not accept refugees from Muslim countries. We, as the government, as politicians, simply implementing what our society wants from us, what we are obliged to do by our citizens," Dziedziczak said.

He recalled that the previous Prime Minister of Poland, Ewa Kopacz, and the PO-PSL coalition (Civic Platform - Polish Peasants’ Party) agreed to accept refugees in September 2015, while the opposition party, Law and Justice (PiS), opposed it.

Dziedziczak noted that a significant number of refugees from the south are men. "These are economic migrants who are looking for a comfortable life here," he stressed.

In the fall of 2015, the Kopacz government pledged to accept 7,000 refugees from the Middle East and North Africa as part of the distribution of 160,000 refugees among EU countries. Subsequently, the new government of Beata Szyd?o refused to do so for security reasons.

The European Commission is currently trying to make Poland, along with the Czech Republic and Hungary, legally responsible for refusing to accept refugees from the south.

One of the arguments Poland makes against accepting refugees is that a significant number of migrants from Eastern Europe, including those from Ukraine, have already been accepted into Poland. According to estimates, there are already between 500,000 and one million Ukrainians in Poland.


Ex-Flight Attendant Accuses Southwest, Union of Religious Discrimination

A veteran flight attendant at Southwest Airlines says she was fired from her job after speaking out about her faith and criticizing her union.

Charlene Carter of Aurora, Colo., filed suit against the company and union in a Texas federal court. She said her employment was terminated after she expressed her religious beliefs regarding abortion in Facebook posts and messages to union president Audrey Stone.

The suit alleges that Stone and the company's actions represented retaliation over her bid to stop paying "compelled fees for its political, ideological, and other nonbargaining spending, and to engage in other speech and activity in opposition to Local 556." Carter criticized the union for using employee dues to fly two dozen officials and flight attendants to attend January's Women's March protest.

She sent messages to Stone objecting to the use of union resources to participate in the march and included a link to a video depicting an abortion, as well as articles about the participation of a convicted terrorist in the March. She repeatedly said "Recall is going to happen," referring to a decertification campaign Carter supported and later sent an email in support of national right-to-work legislation.

"This [an abortion] is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC," she said in a series of Facebook messages. "Wonder how this will be coded in the LM2 Financials … cause I know we paid for this along with your Despicable Party. … Can't wait for you to have to be just a regular flight attendant again."

The company fired her in March, citing her pro-life posts as "highly offensive in nature" and her messages to Stone as "harassing and inappropriate" and warned that her activism was in potential violation of its discrimination policy. Carter's suit says she is the only victim of discrimination in the case, pointing to several union members who were never punished or reinstated following death threats on social media.

"Southwest has subjected approximately thirteen supporters of the recall effort to termination of employment, suspension, repeated fact-findings, and/or other disciplinary measures in the last twelve months, many times at the request of Local 556 members and officials," the suit says.

Neither the union nor the airline returned requests for comment.

The suit says the posts and her criticism of Stone's leadership are protected by the Railway Labor Act because they were directly related to labor activities. She said it would have a chilling effect on workers rights to speak out.

"By firing Carter for her Facebook messages to President Stone and for related posts, Southwest violated Carter's rights under RLA … to vigorously exercise ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' free speech related to flight attendants' efforts to reorganize Local 556, to collectively bargain with Southwest, and to oppose the union's leadership and spending," the suit says. "Defendants had no valid justifications for their actions, and Carter exercised her speech in a manner that would not unduly interfere with any legitimate interest."

The suit seeks to reinstate Carter on the job and win her back pay with interest. Carter also filed a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing the company and Transport Workers Union of America Local 556 of religious discrimination.

"The President of the union never told me that she objected to my Facebook messages … Southwest never warned me that using Facebook to protect life was inconsistent with its work rules," the complaint says. "My sincere religious beliefs require me to share with others that abortion is the taking of human life … my employer discriminated against me on the basis of my sincerely held religious belief and speech."

Carter received support from lawyers at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Foundation president Mark Mix called Stone's action an "abuse of power."

"Instead of respecting the rights of a worker they claimed to represent, union bosses used their monopoly over the workplace to have her fired for speaking out and questioning their forced unionism powers," Mix said.


Faux Feminism

In the last two weeks, a couple of prominent women inadvertently revealed the insufferably presumptive arrogance that forms the heart of progressive ideology.

“Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their [sic] own voice,” declared former First Lady Michelle Obama last Wednesday during a conversation with author Roxane Gay at the Inbound conference in Boston.

Mrs. Obama kept digging, insisting the 41% of women who voted for Donald Trump weren’t aware enough to think for themselves. “It doesn’t say as much about Hillary, and everybody’s trying to worry about what it means for Hillary and no, no, no, what does this mean for us, as women?” she asked. “That we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, ‘He’s better for me. His voice is more true to me.’ To me that just says, you don’t like your voice. You like the thing you’re told to like.”

Got that? If you’re a woman who didn’t vote for Hillary it wasn’t about the possibility that she’s eminently unlikeable, is a congenital liar, possesses a gargantuan sense of self-entitlement, or is an un-convicted felon who likely compromised national security. It’s all about the inability to like oneself enough — or be smart enough — to transcend such “petty” concerns.

Perhaps Michelle was inspired by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who weighed in with an equally “astute” analysis of the 2016 election. On Tuesday, in an interview with Charlie Rose on CBS News, Ginsburg stated that she had “no doubt” sexism played a role in the 2016 election. “There’s so many things that might have been decisive but that was a major, major factor,” she insisted.

Again, some of those other things that “might have been decisive” could include Hillary’s consistent incompetence as secretary of state, her penchant for running the Clinton Foundation as a de facto pay-to-play enterprise, calling half the nation “deplorables,” or even the idea that she abided the Democratic National Committee’s effort, led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders.

Or maybe a lot of “sexists” decided that eight years of sub-par economic growth, worsening race relations, innumerable foreign policy debacles, unfettered illegal immigration, or the ongoing effort to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a nation of tribalist sub-groups competing for most-aggrieved status didn’t merit the “third Obama term” for which the Leftmedia shamelessly shilled during the 2016 election campaign.

One might think Ginsburg would know better than to insert herself into partisan politics — again. During the 2016 campaign, she abandoned any pretense of the impartiality that ostensibly attends her position on the Court. “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she opined to The New York Times last July. “For the country, it could be four years. For the Court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

We wonder what Justice Neil Gorsuch thinks about her comment.

Four days later, Ginsburg dug herself a deeper hole in a CNN interview, calling Trump a “faker.” “He has no consistency about him,” she said. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

After she was hammered, not just by Trump, but by the far-left New York Times and Washington Post newspapers, Ginsburg apologized. “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Apparently circumspection isn’t Ginsburg’s strong suit. Like the former president’s wife, she demonstrates a similar level of prejudice, hypocrisy and political tone-deafness that sweeping generalizations inevitably engender. Moreover, her “apology” rings exceedingly hollow.

Townhall’s Katie Pavlich takes Mrs. Obama to task. “Did women who voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat primary ‘vote against their voice’ because they voted against the female candidate?” she asks. “Did Michelle Obama vote against her voice for voting for a man, her husband, instead of Hillary?” Pavlich reminds us that would be the same Michelle Obama who “argued Clinton was unqualified to sit in the Oval Office” during the 2008 campaign.

Ginsburg was equally hypocritical, never mentioning “sexism” when Barack Obama denied Clinton her chance to become the first female president. Nor did she wear a collar she is known to put on her robe indicating her intention to dissent against certain Supreme Court rulings — the same collar she wore the day after Trump’s election, even though no opinions were scheduled to be given.

Yet perhaps sexism and mindlessness were factors in the 2016 election. “Me, I intend to vote with my vagina,” declared Dame magazine columnist Kate Harding in April 2015. “Unapologetically. Enthusiastically.”

Part of Harding’s “rationale”? “There has never been a president who knows what it’s like to menstruate, be pregnant, or give birth,” she writes. “There has never been a president who knows what it’s like to be the target of subtle and categorically unsubtle sexism.”

Harding milked her blood images. “American women have been bleeding for over 200 years while men tell us it’s no big deal, and a lot of us have arrived at the point where we just want someone with a visceral, not abstract, concept of what that means.”

What about Hillary herself? “Ms. Clinton played down the role of gender the first time she ran for the top job, but this time it’s expected to be a core plank of her campaign,” reported NewsHub in 2015.

Fast forward to earlier this month, when Clinton joined Obama and Ginsburg in their effort to denigrate non-progressive women. In an interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein, Clinton tied former FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that he was re-opening the (non)investigation into her emails to the idea that men could turn to their wives or girlfriends and say, “I told you, she’s going to be in jail,” Clinton asserted. “You don’t wanna waste your vote.” Clinton further asserted that women voters who might have been on the fence ultimately decided not to vote for her. “Instead of saying, ‘I’m taking a chance, I’m going to vote,’ it didn’t work,” Clinton added.

In an interview with NPR she singled out white women she believed were “under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl.’”

For decades, progressives have asserted feminism is all about empowering strong, independent women who are unafraid to think for themselves. Yet as Obama and Clinton make abundantly clear, if a woman’s independent thinking doesn’t align itself with progressive ideology, she is nothing more than a self-hating, go-along-to-get-along lackey subservient to a man. Ginsburg is equally obtuse, but if one assumes her assertion applies to both sexes, then women are lackeys and men are misogynists, much like anyone who failed to vote for Barack Obama — or merely disagreed with him in many cases — was “racist.”

It doesn’t get more arrogant or presumptive than that.


Australian woman farmer bombarded with vile and graphic abuse after posting photo of herself with same-sex marriage ballot

Leftist hate is flowing like a river in Australia

A farmer who opposes gay marriage has been bombarded with abusive Facebook messages and death threats for posting an image of herself with a postal vote ballot.

Kirralie Smith, from northern New South Wales, was advised to stand in front of a train by one abusive man who also wished she would get AIDS, the disease which has killed millions of gay men since the 1980s.

Ms Smith said the abuse made her feel 'violated' and the content - including graphic hardcore pornography - is beyond anything she could have imagined.

'I did expect some haters to respond but I was unprepared for the barrage of hate, vulgar messages and threats I received,' she told Daily Mail Australia.

'I notice that lesbians such as Christine Forster posed for such photos with her partner. Did they cop the same level of vitriol and hatred for doing so?'

The level of vitriol has left Ms Smith questioning why she should be forced to deal with such hateful responses to a simple photograph.

'Do I just have to suck this up? Are people really entitled to behave in such a manner when all I did was post a legal and acceptable option when participating in this postal survey?' she said.

I am not breaking any laws. I am upholding a current law. I am using my democratic right to exercise my choice. Why should I be subject to such horrid remarks and images for doing so?'

In addition to the hateful messages, insults and death threats, some social media users even sent offensive images.

One such image is from a hardcore pornographic film and depicts two men involved in a sex act.

'You're a piece of s***,' 'I really hope you get hit by a bus,' 'You need a bullet,' and 'I wish nothing but bad for you and your family,' are some of the other messages.

Ms Smith was told to 'Eat a d***,' called a 'homophobic b****,' a 'nasty nasty cow,' a 'f***wit,' and told to 'Rot in hell.'

The avalanche of abuse comes after weeks of accusations from the 'no' campaign that a fringe element of the 'yes' side are shutting down debate with abuse and violence.

Last week a priest was spat at while walking down the street in Brisbane and called 'a f***ing no voter'.

After former prime minister Tony Abbott was headbutted by an anarchist DJ wearing a Yes badge, activists started using 'Headbutt homophobes' banners at rallies.

Dr Francisco Perales at the University of Queensland suggested opponents of same-sex marriage are less intelligent.

Lecturers Catherine Greenhill and Diana Combe at the University of New South Wales have told maths students not to use the word marriage.

A 'yes' voter was caught on film in Chatswood in Sydney's north racially abusing 'no' campaigners.

Students at the University of Sydney clashed when a 'no' campaign rally turned violent after 'yes' campaign counter-protesters turned up.

Just days later a gay man was viciously heckled at a similar rally at the University of Queensland and accused of 'internalised homophobia'.

A Coalition for Marriage event was disrupted by protesters who stormed the venue and blocked the stage with a banner saying 'Burn churches not queers'.

Vandals attacked a church in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, spray-painting it with 'Vote Yes' slogans.

Gay anarchists took over the former headquarters of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and scrawled hateful anti-police slurs on the walls.

'Sometimes find myself wondering if I'd hate-f**k all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system,' wrote openly-gay comedian and Safe Schools author Benjamin Law to his 77,000 Twitter followers.

A Canberra woman was fired for saying 'It's okay to vote no' on Facebook, with her boss Madlin Sims calling it 'homophobic hate speech'.

Dr Pansy Lai - who appeared in the first Coalition of Marriage advertisement - was targeted by a petition seeking to have her stripped of her medical licence.

The most recent Sky News ReachTel poll of 5,000 people found 64 per cent have voted 'yes', 15.5 per cent have voted 'no' and 21 per cent are yet to vote.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


4 October, 2017

Not refugees, not children

Truly vulnerable children in the care system are being neglected in favour of asylum seekers who may be over 18

I was interviewing ten foster parents in west London for a report on children in care. Foster parents are in great demand, so I was startled to discover that only one of the sets of parents was looking after the sort of vulnerable children you imagine to be in the care system. The others were looking after unaccompanied asylum-seeker children.

They made an alarming claim: three of these seemed to be adults passing themselves off as boys. ‘The first thing they ask for is a razor,’ said one foster parent, ‘They’ve got these big beards.’ A woman admitted she found it embarrassing having a grown man posing as a 17-year-old. But the authorities appeared uninterested. ‘Our concerns are just fobbed off,’ said another.

A counter-extremism expert told me: ‘There is nothing in the system to stop a 26-year-old Isis fighter coming here, stating he is 17 and claiming asylum.’

Anyone forced to flee his or her country with a well-founded fear of persecution can claim asylum. An orphan under 18 has special rights. They receive the same benefits as a child taken into care. No one would begrudge a genuine child refugee these privileges. The problem is the system is open to abuse, and the latest terrorist attack in Parsons Green raises further questions. Ahmed Hassan is an 18-year-old unaccompanied asylum seeker who is alleged to have built the bomb in his foster parents’ kitchen.

We do not know how he came here or what could have led him to do what he is accused of. But it is time, surely, to question our asylum system for refugee children. Yet raise concerns and you risk Gary Lineker labelling you ‘hideously racist and utterly heartless’.

The problem is sorting myth from fact. The first myth, emphasised over and over again, is that these are vulnerable children. The word conjures up images of small boys and girls. Our hearts break for them. The reality is somewhat different.

Only 8 per cent of unaccompanied minors who arrived in the UK in 2015 were, in fact, under 14. This is according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. Instead, over half were aged 16-17. Nor was there a balance of boys and girls. Some 91 per cent were male. Save the Children admits, ‘Many come across as being self-reliant and not in need of support’, but it urges that they are often ‘extremely vulnerable and in need of reassurance and care’.

Why are the majority of refugee children in fact teenage boys? Here we come up against another myth: that refugees somehow find their own way to the UK. The truth is, nobody arrives in this country without the help of a people trafficker. This means it is the people traffickers who control our immigration system — not the Home Office. It is they who dictate who comes here. Refugees who cannot afford to pay never make it. If we really want to help the vulnerable, we should be taking children directly from refugee camps.

The central role of people traffickers means that every young person arriving here represents a considerable investment by their family or community back home. This explains why they are nearly all young men. They come from cultures in which men have greater earning power.

As one immigration officer at a busy UK airport with 20 years’ experience of dealing with refugee children explained to me: ‘Ninety per cent of them are not orphans. Their coming here is very well worked out. Their families have paid the people traffickers to bring them here. The intention is for the families to follow shortly after. These are cash-rich young people.’ For the most part, in his opinion, ‘They are not fleeing for their lives.’ In other words, they are economic migrants and therefore not entitled to asylum.

His view is backed up by the actions of the traffickers themselves. As Save the Children warns, the agent will instruct the young person to lie about their nationality and age and destroy all identity documents. Some gangs even provide a pack with information on claiming asylum, fake documents, a ready-made asylum story and a pair of scissors. The only reason for doing this is because they know their clients are economic migrants.

The third myth is that every child refugee is speaking the truth. Actually we have no way of knowing. The lack of documentation means that the most basic facts about a young person cannot be checked: their age, for example, their nationality or even their real name. When I sat in on interviews of adult asylum seekers by determining officers, I was amazed at the vagueness. One man could not remember how long he had been in prison: ‘Maybe one month, maybe one year, maybe many more.’ The tactic is a deliberate ploy promoted by the gangs, whom asylum seekers fear more than the Immigration and Naturalisation Service.

The immigration officer explained: ‘For years now we have had adult Pakistani males arriving in this country maintaining they are Afghan teenagers. They tell me they are 13 or 14, but they are clearly over 20, well developed and with good facial hair.’ In 2015 the second largest number of claimants came from Afghanistan.

The co-operation between traffickers and extremists is a new and alarming threat to our national security, points out Rosalind Ereira of Solidarity with Refugees. Some migrants sign up to support Isis in exchange for their travel; the money paid by others to the smugglers ‘helps fund Islamic State activities’. A report from Quilliam, a leading counter-extremism think-tank, warns: ‘There is no question that militant groups target refugee youth for recruitment.’

The immigration officer is frustrated because he knows by sight many of the ‘facilitators’ or people traffickers. These are often young men on benefits who appear mysteriously able to travel ten times a year to Dubai and Africa. They charge a high price for a personalised service in which they accompany the young migrants on the plane before leaving them at the terminal. But the traffickers have British or EU passports. ‘I have no power to stop a British citizen longer than five minutes otherwise my bosses upstairs will kick off. I can do nothing without the traffickers’ permission. Nothing — and they know that.’

Despite the security threat, few in authority appear willing to tackle the problem. When a Conservative MP suggested checking the age of young asylum seekers with dental or X-ray tests of the hand to measure bone density, he was accused of ‘vilifying’ refugees. Ruth Allen, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said medical tests would be ‘very intrusive and could be re-traumatising’.

When Norway insisted on a dental examination of arriving refugee children, they discovered nine out of ten were, in fact, over 18.

As a social worker, Allen must know the dangers of introducing grown men into schools and foster families. Paul Chadwick of Croydon borough council warned a House of Lords Committee last year of sexual exploitation in schools ‘by adults claiming to be children and placed in a school’. A worker in a residential home in Kent for children in care said that half of the children there are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. In her estimation, more than half the migrants are not children at all, but in their twenties.

‘They can be quite frightening at times,’ she said. ‘They are aggressive and have an attitude problem. Many have no respect for women because of their culture. No one is giving consideration to the risks they pose, not just to staff but to the other children in the home. Because they are older, they have a lot of influence on the youngsters, who are very vulnerable. They introduce the children to alcohol and get them into crime like street robberies. It is a serious problem, which those in authority are not tackling.’

There is another issue. Our most vulnerable children are in competition with these asylum-seeking young people for a limited number of foster parents, a limited number of places in care homes and, above all, a limited amount of money.

Explaining who is losing out, a social worker says the system has ‘moved away’ from providing a service to the British kids in its care: ‘Instead we are dealing with problems particular to young asylum seekers — their legal status, visits to the Home Office and so on.’ She went on angrily: ‘This at the expense of our own 16- to 17-year-old care leavers who need a lot of support and are not getting it.’

The investment made by their families means the majority of the young migrants are, as the heads of various social services confirmed, ‘very motivated, see it as an opportunity and do very well. They are largely middle-class, male and expect to go to university,’ said one.

What a contrast to the care leavers I interviewed. At the age of ten, Trevon came home to find his crack-addict mother hanging dead in the kitchen. The lives of these kids are desperate. But Lily Allen does not cry for them on camera and it is almost impossible to get them the help they need.

It is time to overhaul a system that is corrupt, dangerous and fails to help the most deserving. But don’t hold your breath that anything will change, despite a vulnerable child trying to blow us up. The immigration officer summed up the general frustration: ‘You try and apply the rules only to be hauled up from on high and told "to deal with it". I get bitter and twisted about it,’ he said. ‘We are heading into desperate times.’


No ‘Straight Answer’ To Whether Gay Sex Is Sin, Says Archbishop Of Canterbury

The Bible gives a pretty straight answer. (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10)

The Archbishop of Canterbury said Sunday that he could not give a ‘straight answer’ to the question of whether homosexuality is a sin.

Archbishop Justin Welby, leader of the Church of England and symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, tried to dodge the question of homosexuality with general statements about relationships and faithfulness in a Sunday interview with GQ. The interviewer would not relent, however. He claimed he was questioning Welby on the issue because he felt sorry for former Liberal Democrat party leader Tim Farron, who resigned over pressure surrounding his Christian view of homosexuality.

"You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to," Welby told GQ. "Sorry, badly phrased there. I should have thought that one through."

Welby circled around a "straight answer" for the remainder of the interview and said that he didn’t "do blanket condemnation" and that he did not have a good answer. When prodded on the definition of marriage, Welby simply gave an overview of the controversy over the matter.

"Inherently, within myself, the things that seem to me to be absolutely central are around faithfulness, stability of relationships and loving relationships," Welby said.

"I am also aware – a view deeply held by tradition since long before Christianity, within the Jewish tradition – that marriage is understood invariably as being between a man and a woman. Or, in various times, a man and several women, if you go back to the Old Testament. I know that the Church around the world is deeply divided on this in some places, including the Anglicans and other Churches, not just us, and we are – the vast majority of the Church is – deeply against gay sex," Welby added, still refusing to give his view on it.

Welby explained that he struggled to be faithful to tradition and to scripture while also trying to understand how to follow God’s will in this century. Welby did, however, make a careful distinction between disagreement and homophobia, following his admission that the disagreement between African bishops and other Anglican leaders over homosexuality was "irreconcilable."

"I don’t think it is sinful to say that you disagree with gay sex. But to express that by way of hatred for people is absolutely wrong in the same way as misogyny or racism is wrong."

Welby then agreed with the interviewer’s accusation that his answer was "morally a cop-out." "Yes. I am copping out because I am struggling with the issue," the leader of the Church of England said.


Seven in ten people think it's best for children to grow up with both their natural parents

Seven out of 10 people believe it is best for children to grow up with both their natural parents, a report on family breakdown found yesterday.

A similar number count the fragility of millions of families as one of the country's most serious problems, it said.

The scale of public worry about the impact of breakdown on children, and on the wider problems of poverty and crime, was charted by the Centre for Social Justice, the think tank founded by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Mr Duncan Smith and a like-minded group of Tory MPs and peers have been pressing ministers to do more to support marriage, encourage fathers, and remove the rules that penalise couples from the tax and benefit system.

The new report was based on a series of polls designed to test the strength of public feeling on family breakdown and released in advance of the Tory conference.

Only one in six unmarried cohabiting couples will stay together until their children reach the age of 16, and the cost of family breakdown in benefits, education and NHS spending has been calculated at £48 billion a year.

The first CSJ poll, conducted by ComRes, found that 72 per cent of people agree that 'family breakdown is a serious problem in Britain today and more should be done to prevent families from breaking up.'

The survey, carried out among just over 2,000 people, also found that 69 per cent think it 'important' for children to live with both parents.

A second poll, carried out simultaneously by YouGov among 1,665 people, said that 81 per cent think that 'stronger families and improved parenting are important in addressing Britain's social problems.'

It said that nearly nine out of 10, 87 per cent, think it important for children growing up in poverty to have a strong family life.

A third poll, carried out online by Bounty.com with 1,658 replies, said that nearly nine out of 10 say it is important for children to grow up with both parents, and that nearly two thirds of single parents – 62 per cent – agree on the importance of two parents.

Eight out of 10 backed a tax allowance for married couples – including 57 per cent of lone parents – and 91 per cent backed the spending of public money on strengthening families and helping poor parents.

More than seven out of 10 in the ComRes and Bounty polls said the Government should support married couples.

Frank Young of the CSJ said: 'This polling busts the myth that backing families in our fight against poverty has gone out of fashion. There is big public support for any politician willing to be up front about the important role family plays in reducing poverty.

'Lone parents strongly support policies that help families stay together.

'They think it's best for children to grow up with both parents, think governments should give tax breaks to married couples, and they welcome politicians who say stability matters for children.'

Mr Young said: 'In almost every other area of policy, especially health and education, prevention is considered a priority, and we need to take the same approach to family breakdown.'

Theresa May in her election manifesto in the spring departed from David Cameron' s earlier pledges to support the family and the institution of marriage.

Last month Mr Duncan Smith, who was Work and Pensions Secretary until March last year, expressed frustration with apparent lack of interest in family breakdown in Whitehall, when he condemned rumours that state spending on relationship counselling is to be curbed.

Earlier this month 44 Tory MPs, including three former Cabinet ministers, called for bigger tax breaks for married couples and for school pupils to be taught with evidence of the benefits of marriage.


Australia: Some civility in an uncivil society

The CIS’s annual Consilium conference was held late last week and saw the usual gathering of the best and brightest minds from business, government, academia, education and science. A common refrain from those who attend the conference (and CIS events in general) is appreciation for the civil discourse that takes place — no matter the differing views, religious beliefs or political affiliations of those in the debate.

This is something at the heart of CIS mission; a platform to discuss ideas for the freedom and betterment of society in an atmosphere of civility and collegiality.

However, this attitude of respect seems increasingly rare in an age of social media snark, political point-scoring, snappy one-liners preferred over substance, and a capricious US president with a pathological fondness for derision.

Guardian Australia’s political editor and Insiders regular Katharine Murphy spoke at Consilium on the state of Australian politics, and said in her recent (and excellent) Meanjin essay, "…the tone of national affairs is reflexively hostile, trolling and takedowns set the tone of the day, and protagonists are being rewarded for their efficiency at treachery rather than the substance of their contributions."

We see this antagonism playing out all around us; in politics and the mediasphere, certainly, but also —  and increasingly — in daily life. Enmity seems to have become a default setting when reacting to the opinions of those we disagree with.

In Juggernaut: Why the System Crushes the Only People Who Can Save It, a theory of political economy from 2011, polymath Eric Robert Morse writes: "When it becomes more profitable to make fun of someone or berate them for their beliefs than it is to offer a constructive alternative, intellectual discourse is threatened. And, when a people can no longer rely on intellectual discourse, the society is bound to fall."

Civility is part of the bedrock of democracy, without which true freedom of thought and expression and diversity of opinion is impossible. Lack of civility is corrosive in all spheres — to family and community life, organisational and business success, politics — and to democracy itself. We must find a way back towards courtesy — and, by extension, kindness — if civil society is to be civil by all definitions of the word.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


3 October, 2017

Why Sexual Selection Matters and Why Cordelia Fine is Wrong

Last week The Royal Society awarded the polemical writer Cordelia Fine their Science Book of the Year award for Testosterone Rex. The central thesis of the book is that behavioral differences between men and women are better explained by culture than by testosterone and that the theoretical framework that evolutionary scientists regard as the root cause of several of the robust cross-cultural sex differences we see, namely Bateman’s principle and sexual selection, have been largely debunked, at least when it comes to humans. Since this runs contrary to the broadly held consensus in evolutionary biology the choice has naturally elicited criticism from both biologists and evolutionary psychologists.

Ad Hoc Hypotheses and Occam’s Razor

In her quest to deny that biology is responsible for sex differences in behavior, Cordelia Fine has a huge advantage: she benefits from that fact (which the award has made clear) that there are certain areas of research where science doesn’t work as usual. With the academia being overwhelmingly liberal and leftist there is a clear tendency to favor certain hypotheses over others regarding the causes of human behavior. Nowhere is this more clear than when it comes to race or sex differences. That there are genetic differences between different populations or the sexes that could explain the different outcomes that we see on a societal level is simply indigestible to many academics.

To some degree this is understandable. There is no dearth of misogynist and racist Alt-Right trolls who, instead of acknowledging that huge individual variation should mean that nobody deserves to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or race, seek to end women’s suffrage and reinstate Jim Crow. One has to spend 5 minutes reading certain PUA and Alt-Right blogs to understand where reluctance to approach these topics comes from. But it would also be a mistake to give the Alt-Right a monopoly over these questions. It is better to acknowledge them and emphasize that variation within groups means no individual deserves to be discriminated against on the basis of group averages. The shock of Trump winning the presidency appears to have reinforced this already severe taboo even further. Therefore, in large parts of the academia, any biological explanation will be disregarded, at least as long as there is an alternative way to explain the data.

The problem is of course that it is easy for anyone with a little imagination to come up with alternative theories; in fact, no matter what scientific question you look at, be it climate change, evolution contra intelligent design or Einstein’s theory of relativity there is always an alternative theory that purports to explain the data. Occam’s Razor is a good principle to rely on when choosing between them. This is the idea that among competing theories the one with the fewest assumptions and ad hoc hypotheses is likely the correct one. When fossils of archaic humans are discovered creationists can always invent a rationalization (they were simply suffering from some rare deformity, or sinners punished by God or whatever) to circumvent the fact that such findings severely compromise their grand idea of Intelligent Design (which erroneously predicted that no such fossils would be found in the first place). As the wild assumptions and ad hoc hypotheses pile up to fit the incoming data it is usually discarded and the few people who still cling to the theory are ignored.

Gender blank slatism is an exception to this rule. No matter how many wild assumptions, unsupported claims or ad hoc hypotheses are needed to explain away new data and why the annoying sex differences are so stubbornly and universally persistent, the social constructionist theory still reigns supreme in the humanities and most of the social sciences. As Geoffrey Miller has observed, no gender feminist he’s ever met has been able to coherently answer the question "What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?", because no matter the finding there is always a rationalization, however unlikely, that will ensure that gender blank slatism remains unscathed. And there is nobody more prolific than Cordelia Fine when it comes to producing these rationalizations.

Most Fine’s writings are exercises in creating these so called ad hoc hypotheses. Testosterone Rex has already been critically reviewed by Jerry Coyne, Gregory Cochran, Stuart Ritchie  and Robert King, but in light of the recent award by The Royal Society I felt a thorough review of sexual selection and its biological underpinnings might be called for, just to shed light on what kind of book the world’s oldest existing science academy considers worthy of prestige.

The Role of Testosterone

It would be a lie to say the influence of testosterone on humans and other mammals is thoroughly understood. There are several complicating factors. Humans produce several hormones and there seems to be interaction between them. In addition, there are lot of bad studies with small samples and unreliable measures that Cordelia Fine, with some justice, loves to pick apart. Other confounding factors include context, individual genes and androgen sensitivity. Some men become bald because of testosterone while others do not. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any clearly detectable patterns, especially related to the large surges that occur during certain crucial life stages such as in puberty and prenatally. Therefore, it would also be a lie to say nothing about testosterone is known. Nobody except the most deluded gender studies professor would deny, for example, that it develops muscles, deepens the voice and causes facial hair to grow. A shower of testosterone during early gestation is also responsible for shaping the reproductive organ into a penis. There is a broad consensus among biologists and neuroscientists that there are also both organizational and direct effects of testosterone on the brain, which like other human organs has androgen receptors. Since males produce much more testosterone already in utero there is also a general agreement that the hormone is involved in the development of some of the cross-cultural sex differences we see among humans.


The Black Family Is Struggling, and It’s Not Because of Slavery

Walter E. Williams

That the problems of today’s black Americans are a result of a legacy of slavery, racial discrimination, and poverty has achieved an axiomatic status, thought to be self-evident and beyond question.

This is what academics and the civil rights establishment have taught. But as with so much of what’s claimed by leftists, there is little evidence to support it.

The No. 1 problem among blacks is the effects stemming from a very weak family structure.

Children from fatherless homes are likelier to drop out of high school, die by suicide, have behavioral disorders, join gangs, commit crimes, and end up in prison. They are also likelier to live in poverty-stricken households.

But is the weak black family a legacy of slavery?

In 1960, just 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Fifty years later, more than 70 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families.

Here’s my question: Was the increase in single-parent black families after 1960 a legacy of slavery, or might it be a legacy of the welfare state ushered in by the War on Poverty?

According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today about 75 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers.

Is that supposed to be a delayed response to the legacy of slavery?

The bottom line is that the black family was stronger the first 100 years after slavery than during what will be the second 100 years.

At one time, almost all black families were poor, regardless of whether one or both parents were present. Today roughly 30 percent of blacks are poor.

However, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Only 8 percent of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5 percent. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37 percent.

The undeniable truth is that neither slavery nor Jim Crow nor the harshest racism has decimated the black family the way the welfare state has.

The black family structure is not the only retrogression suffered by blacks in the age of racial enlightenment.

In every census from 1890 to 1954, blacks were either just as active or more so than whites in the labor market. During that earlier period, black teen unemployment was roughly equal to or less than white teen unemployment.

As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites. Today it’s about 30 percent longer.

Would anyone suggest that during earlier periods, there was less racial discrimination?

What goes a long way toward an explanation of yesteryear and today are the various labor laws and regulations promoted by liberals and their union allies that cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and encourage racial discrimination.

Labor unions have a long history of discrimination against blacks. Frederick Douglass wrote about this in his 1874 essay titled "The Folly, Tyranny, and Wickedness of Labor Unions," and Booker T. Washington did so in his 1913 essay titled "The Negro and the Labor Unions."

To the detriment of their constituents, most of today’s black politicians give unquestioning support to labor laws pushed by unions and white liberal organizations.

Then there’s education. Many black 12th-graders deal with scientific problems at the level of whites in the sixth grade. They write and do math about as well as white seventh- and eighth-graders.

All of this means that an employer hiring or a college admitting the typical black high school graduate is in effect hiring or admitting an eighth-grader. Thus, one should not be surprised by the outcomes.

The most damage done to black Americans is inflicted by those politicians, civil rights leaders, and academics who assert that every problem confronting blacks is a result of a legacy of slavery and discrimination. That’s a vision that guarantees perpetuity for the problems.


Women-only gym hours are a step backwards

The University of Winnipeg in Canada is rolling out a pilot policy this year to try out women- and non-binary-only gym hours. Officially titled the ‘UWSA Inclusive Gym Initiative’, the project is the creation of the University of Winnipeg Students’ Association (UWSA) board of directors (similar to students’ unions in the UK).

The policy is being introduced on the back of analyses of surveys and gym attendance records which showed women were not using the gym as much as ‘we would expect’. One survey carried out by the UWSA board of directors found that women and non-binary people were more than twice as likely as men to feel ‘unsafe’ or ‘uncomfortable’ in the gym. Yet, strangely, the survey results do not include any explanation as to why certain students might feel ‘unsafe’ or ‘uncomfortable’.

The UWSA’s pilot policy suggests women and non-binary students’ level of comfort with gym use is solely dependent on men’s presence. And yet this sentiment was not expressed by the students themselves.

This policy demonstrates a patronising view towards women and non-binary students, as it is predicated on the idea that men need to be removed from a physical space in order for women or non-binary individuals to be autonomous.

Moreover, UWSA’s solution of segregated gym-hours has distinctly Victorian overtones, the suggestion being that women and non-binary students must be protected from men, and are incapable of participating in public life in the same way as men. This is a form of paternalism that old orders of feminism sought to eliminate.

Women and non-binary individuals are perfectly fine being fully immersed in public life – and that includes using the gym along with men. Yet this policy is an encouragement to retreat from that. And while UWSA’s ‘inclusive’ policy is, no doubt, an attempt at being progressive, ironically, the policy explicitly excludes people.

Opposition to the scheme has already been expressed by some women and non-binary students. In the interest of our autonomy and to show that we don’t need to be governed, we should all kick back against this childish policy and the paternalistic attitude that spawned it.


Australia: 'Just pretend to back Yes': What a Labor senator was told when she told her boss that she didn't believe in same-sex marriage

Leftist trust in lies again

A Labor senator has revealed she was urged to 'pretend to back' the yes campaign so as to align with her party's stance.

Tasmanian MP Helen Polley, who chose to vote no in the $122 million same-sex marriage survey, said senior staff members told her to change her public position, according to The Australian.

While she would not name the people responsible, Senator Polley said she was told her view could cost Labor votes in the next election.

'I’ve been told that I could be responsible for losing the next federal election,' she said.

Senator Polley, who was voting a a 'conscience vote' based on her Christian belief, said she had received pressure from friends, colleagues and Labor MPs. 'I’ve had all sorts of propositions put to me... But I have to be true to the people who elected me,' she said.

The Labor MP also added that she agreed with her party's stance that a postal plebiscite should not have occurred and that it was fraught with problems.

It comes as Opposition Leader Bill Shorten attended a rally in support of the 'yes' vote in Melbourne on Sunday, urging supporters not to be disheartened.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


2 October, 2017

Oklahoma multiculturalist convicted of murder in beheading case

An Oklahoma man who had converted to Islam was convicted of murder on Friday in the case of a female co-worker who was beheaded three years ago, after the jury rejected his plea of insanity, local media reported.

A jury also found Alton Nolen, 33, guilty of assault crimes after less than two hours of deliberation in Cleveland County criminal court, the Oklahoman newspaper reported.

Nolan had been suspended from his job at a food distribution plant in the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, when he carried out the attack on co-workers in September, 2014.

He grabbed Colleen Hufford, 54, from behind and cut her across the throat with a large knife at Vaughan Foods plant in Moore, police said.

He also wounded co-worker Traci Johnson, who survived. The carnage ended when Nolan was shot inside the warehouse by a company executive.

After his arrest, Nolen confessed to investigators, telling them in a recording that he felt oppressed, the Oklahoman newspaper reported.

"You know all I was doing was ... what I was supposed to do as a Muslim," he said in the recording, which was played for jurors, according to the Oklahoman.

His attorneys asked jurors to find their client not guilty by reason of insanity, the Oklahoman reported, as the lawyers said Nolen had constructed his own religion out of conflicting beliefs.

Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty in the penalty phase of the trial, scheduled to begin next week.

"I‘m definitely pleased with the outcome thus far," Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn told reporters after the verdict. "Justice for Colleen is what we’re all wanting."

Nolen has said that he wants to be executed.

In October 2015, a Cleveland County judge dismissed claims that Nolen was mentally impaired and declared him competent to stand trial.


Tim Allen Isn't Welcome in ABC's Sanctuary Network

"There is nothing more dangerous, especially in this climate, than a funny, likable conservative character." 

The last time we heard from ABC, the network was canceling one of its most popular shows — "Last Man Standing" — because the star of the show, Tim Allen, is a little too conservative in the Age of Trump. Allen joked in March, "You’ve got to be real careful around [Hollywood]. You get beat up if [you] don’t believe what everybody believes. This is like ‘30s Germany." That was more than enough for the corporate ax to fall on his hit show. The sitcom, by the way, averaged 8.3 million viewers on Friday night in its last season.

Months later, Allen is still understandably miffed. He said this week, "There is nothing more dangerous, especially in this climate, than a funny, likable conservative character." In fact, "[ABC] couldn’t have handled this worse," he insisted. "Second biggest show. [ABC] hadn’t won a Friday night in 15 years. They put us out to pasture on Friday and we won Friday. Big night for us. Big night for them." Not good enough for a leftist network.

So what will replace "Last Man Standing"? It may not happen in the same time slot, but "Sanctuary Family" has been given the greenlight. You don’t have to wonder what it’s about — the title says it all. A married couple welcomes their illegal alien nanny and her family to live with them. It’s tough on the families, but ABC’s description gushes that "the differences both families have aren’t as significant as their similarities." "Sanctuary Family" will join similar-themed shows on CBS, Fox and CW.

Let’s get two things straight. First, many illegals who come to America do work hard and do what’s best for their families. Our convoluted immigration system doesn’t always help matters. Second, that said, this new wave of shows is little more than leftist propaganda. It’s one thing to discuss the merits of one policy or another and to understand the human angle, but it’s something else to fill television with sympathetic characters so audiences develop emotional connections that then influence policy and voting preferences. That’s Hollywood’s true goal — propaganda for the Democrat Party. It is indoctrination through entertainment. And it’s why Tim Allen no longer has a place in ABC’s lineup.

Meanwhile, many American will just keep tuning out of the garbage coming out of Hollywood.


Beating the Left at Its Own Game

For a variety of reasons, President Donald Trump is a problematic individual. Yet singlehandedly, he has managed to do the one thing that both enrages and terrifies American leftists and their corrupt enablers:

Last Friday during a speech in Alabama, Trump changed The Narrative.

For a year, the NFL took its cues from an addle-brained Pied Piper known as Colin Kaepernick, who initiated taking a knee to protest what he called the "systematic oppression" of minorities. During an Aug. 28, 2016, press conference Kaepernick went even further. "There's a lot of things that need to change," he lectured. "One specifically? Police brutality. There's people being murdered unjustly and [police are] not being held accountable. People are being given paid leave for killing people."

What was the genesis of that assertion? The media-driven Narrative emerging from Ferguson that an innocent Michael Brown, holding his hands in the air, was murdered by police officer Darren Wilson. And despite all evidence to the contrary, "Hands Up Don't Shoot" gave the American Left the slogan it needed to fuel the divide-and-conquer identity politics that forms the heart of progressive ideology.

That Kaepernick showed up at another interview wearing a T-shirt replete with photos from a 1960 meeting between Malcolm X and Fidel Castro, and expressed support for one of the 20th century's foremost oppressors? Or that he showed up for practice wearing socks with pictures of pigs dressed like police officers?

None of it mattered to the social justice warriors any more than the inconvenient reality that police officers were not killing black Americans at a rate any higher than whites. Harvard Professor Roland Fryer, a black American who was sure his 2016 study would reveal otherwise, called it "the most surprising result of my career."

Far less surprising? In 2016, police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority of whom were armed and dangerous. That same year, a staggering 7,881 black Americans were murdered — mostly by their fellow black Americans. Police brutality? In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male killed by a police officer. And in the last 10 years, black males have comprised 42% of all cop-killers, despite representing only 6% of the nation's population.

None of it matters. The Left has its agenda, the centerpiece of which is that America is an inherently racist and oppressive nation in need of "fundamental change." Change that now requires a steady barrage of reminders in every aspect of life, even those that ought to be sanctuaries from politics.

As night follows day, hypocrisy abounds. The same NFL Commissioner Roger Goodall that now champions thoughtful dissent is the one who refused to allow Dallas Cowboy players to wear a decal on their helmets commemorating the murder of five Dallas police officers, killed while working to protect people at an organized protest of police brutality. Thirteen years ago the league forced Denver Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer to remove a "40" decal on the back of his helmet that was a tribute to Pat Tillman, an NFLer who quit in his prime to join the Army Rangers and gave his life defending our country. The league even threatened to fine players who commemorated the victims of 9/11 before backing down. And as Jacobson further reminds us, Tim Tebow "was viciously attacked and mocked by the professional media when he took a knee for prayer, yet NFL players are lionized in that same media for taking a knee while the National Anthem is played."

In other words, some "principled" stands are more equal than others.

That goes double for the media. Outlets comfortable with branding Trump as a racist were equally comfortable colluding to suppress stories about Barack Obama's 20-year relationship with the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The media were also comfortable downplaying or ignoring the reality most Americans believe race relations worsened in the eight years Obama was president.

And in a genuine Ministry of Truth effort, networks that decided to air the anthem protests left out crowd shots of angry fans.

Unlike most Republicans, Trump has the ability to flip the script, much like Ronald Reagan did when he reminded Americans the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" and America was a "shining city on a hill." Reagan eviscerated the American Left's Narrative that communist thugs must be accommodated. In doing so he brought the Soviet empire, well, to its knees.

And just like progressives, Trump understands that repetition is key. Thus he has followed his speech with a series of tweets reminding millions of Americans that the progressive worldview does not have to be considered sacrosanct. In short, if Americans cannot be browbeaten into silent acquiescence, or made to feel guilty — and more important, if Trump cannot be successfully painted as the nation's divider in chief — the Left is staring at the edge of the abyss.

That's the real reason the overwhelming majority of anger has been directed at Trump, not his supporters. The Left is keenly aware he is the most forceful anti-Narrative champion a long-suffering Middle America has seen in decades. And not just with regard to football and other sports. Trump has flipped a plethora of progressive Narratives, including the ideas that Hillary was a shoo-in, half of America are "deplorables" who "cling to guns God and religion," the mainstream media is unbiased, and progressives are the most open-minded and tolerant people in the nation.

And the more celebrity players who make millions for playing a game, and owners who often get taxpayer-subsidized stadiums to play them in, choose to pretend they are victims of an unwarranted assault on their constitutional rights, the more Middle America will begin to realize what this fight is really all about:

"It no longer is about kneeling at the start of football games," explains columnist Dov Fischer. "Rather, it is about the soul of America."

It is a soul long-stained by "the progressive attempt to undermine all shared public institutions by turning them into left-wing megaphones and in the process condoning the use of violence, obscenity, and racialism," as historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes it.

A Remington Research Group survey reveals that 64% of Americans believe NFL players should stand and respect the National Anthem. And ratings are down another 11% compared to 2016. Thus, despite every effort by the media to frame the argument as one of racism and police brutality, Trump has successfully reframed the argument as one of respect and patriotism. In doing so, he has revealed that the decades-long progressive assumption they could always frame The Narrative to their advantage is no longer a given.

Nothing terrifies the American Left more than that.


Australian Federal Police launches a new recruitment drive – but only WOMEN can apply

What a howl there would be if the advertisement were "men only".  Why must people be hired on the basis of what they have between their legs?

Men wishing to join the Australian Federal Police need not apply - for the next few months at least. The AFP's Acting Commissioner Leanne Close is hoping 1,000 women apply to become federal police officers during the next recruitment round.

But she argued the exclusion of men, as part of the force's first-ever women's-only recruitment round, was not sexist with women making up just 22 per cent of sworn AFP officers.

'What we are not doing is recruiting enough women to reach the targets that we want by 2021 … so we are actively marketing out there to really target those women who would be keen for a great, challenging and really diverse career,' she told a graduation ceremony attended by the ABC.

The AFP wants female representation to jump to 35 per cent by 2021 and is working to employ 600 more women during the next four years.

The women's-only recruitment round, from now until Christmas, will relate to entry-level positions.

The AFP told the ABC women made up just one-third of its staff and a quarter of senior leaders. 

The gender-biased recruitment policy was announced on Thursday the AFP's latest graduation round, of which more than half were women.

Australia has only had one female police commissioner, with Christine Nixon leading Victoria's police force from 2001 to 2009. The senior police commander came under fire in 2010 when a royal commission into the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires found out she was having dinner during a disaster that killed 173 people.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 October, 2017

Book Review: The Sovereign Psyche

What I have to say below will be ferociously reviled by Leftists but that will not alter the truth of it.  The book author and the reviewer below are concerned about discrimination against blacks but make no attempt to understand it.  I wish to fill the gap.

For a start, it is true that the outcome of Lincoln's war on the South usually did not leave blacks much better off. As we read below, whites used various methods to keep blacks terrified and submissive.  But why did they do that?  Was it because they were evil men? Hardly. They were ordinary men much like any other population of European Protestant heritage.  So why?

Because they knew blacks well from their long and close association with them as slaves.  They knew that blacks were pretty dumb and had poor impulse control.  And they rightly saw danger to themselves in that.  A large population of blacks among them freed from the restraints of slavery were dangerous.  So they fastened other restraints on blacks.

And it worked for quite a long time.  Right into the middle of the 20th century, black on white crime was rare.  The Civil Rights Act (supported by more Republicans than Democrats) and other measures undid many of the meaures that had kept whites safe and we eventually arrived at where we are now -- where black on white crime is lamentably common.

There is no doubt that blacks are aware of past discrimination against them. The Left never lets them forget it.  But resenting it is like resenting the moon rising.  It had its causes and those causes are still there. 

And lifting past restrictions has been a far from unalloyed blessing to blacks.  Frequent as black on white attacks have become, black on black attacks are astronomically more common -- to the point of the leading cause of death among young black males being attacks by other young black males.

In its perverse way, a modern, Left-led value system countenances discrimination against whites only -- but we all live much less safe lives because of that.

So what should we do now?

I think there is a non-racist policy that would achieve the desired objective of safety for us all.  It stems from the fact that most crime is committed by recidivists -- people who have already been convicted of criminal offences more than once.  I think that all recidivists -- black or white -- should be promptly hanged, maybe from a tree

A friend recommended this book as a reflection on the state of racism in America. My first thoughts this book was going to be just another long list of injustices committed on African Americans by European Americans. The book goes deeper than that, fleshing out a systemic racism that many European and African Americans may not realize.

The author, Ezrah Aharone, brings up interesting points of American and world history to show the imbalance of power. He compared the 1873 Treaty of Paris, the document that formally recognized the 13 colonies as separate from Great Britain to the 1865 13th amendment to the American constitution, the document that ended slavery. The former document was 2000 words long and was negotiated and signed by the leaders of Great Britain, the new United States, and France. The latter document was 50 words long, and no African Americans were significant players in the creation of this document. It was not a negotiation between two sovereign people, but a gift bestowed by Euro-Americans to Africa Americans, almost as if slavery had been a rightful act.

Not only that, a significant part of 13th amendment allowed governments to put people into slavery for criminal offences. The American South took advantage of that clause to round up African Americans on minor criminal charges and put them on the chain gangs, a practice which continued for almost 100 years. The goal of such actions was not, according to the author, punishment for crime, but rather to keep an African American community fearful of white authorities and militia. Thus these communities were both overtly and subtly traumatized. 
When a community is so traumatized, it is not sovereign in its own right. It gains a feeling of worthlessness and powerlessness, and it cannot make effective decisions for itself. In this psyche, it cannot rise to its potential. Without coming to its potential, the cycle repeats itself—and African American communities are still feeling the effects of slavery even though they have nominally been free for five generations.

The author states the end of racism did not stop with African Americans being allowed in the front of the bus or be elected to the president of the United States. Like any traumatized person, most African Americans are not sovereign in their own minds.

This book proffers many more perspectives of American history. The reader will discover historical facts that seldom get much attention in the mass media and education system, which leads to a better understanding of racism today in America. This book is full of contradictions between the stated liberty of historical American documents and the domination/subjugation relationship of the two races.  I, as a white person, now have a better understanding of Black Lives Matter and the silent protest at American national anthems.

While Aharone is critical of institutions that subtly keep a certain degree of white privilege, he calls on African American to take charge of their own affairs. He calls for better understanding their history, then building their own institutions that will truly advance their cause, such as better schools in African American communities.

The true battleground, he says, is not in the streets or in politics, but in the minds of African Americans. There are societal forces to keep African Americans in their current mindset. But it will be up to African Americans to drive these subtle forces out. Then Africans Americans will be truly sovereign in their own country.


Norwegian minister gets it

OSLO - Norway’s minister of immigration drew comparisons Wednesday between the plight of Europeans suffering from increasingly common terror attacks with the experiences endured by Israel for decades.

"We are experiencing now the fear that you have experienced for decades," said Sylvi Listhaug in an exclusive interview with Ynet in Oslo. "Many people now understand the situation you live in. We see what is happening in Sweden, in Britain and in France."

European nations, she added, "and their citizens need to understand the situation in Israel better because of the terror attacks in Israel."

Since taking office, Listhaug has cracked down on illegal immigration into the Scandinavian country by adopting stringent policies that have resulted in just 1,000 illegal migrants entering the country in 2017 from 30,000 in 2015.

According to Listhaug, her Progress Party, which governs in a coalition with the Conservative Party, is a staunch supporter of Israel.

"The Progress Party has always been a supporter of Israel’s need to protect themselves (sic) in a region where you are the only democracy," she claimed.
"That does not mean that we support everything you do but you have a right to defend your people and your borders because you live in a region that has a lot of problems," she acknowledged.

The interview took place a day after Denmark’s Immigration Minister Inger Stojberg posted a screenshot of her iPad showing a drawing of the Prophet Mohammad on Facebook, one of the satirical cartoons that caused outrage among Muslims around the world more than a decade ago.

While saying that she did not necessarily agree with the caricature, Listhaug insisted her Danish counterpart had every right to publish it in the interest of free speech.
"People have been murdered because they have expressed their opinion like (what happened with) Charlie Hebdo," she highlighted in reference to the French satirical magazine that was firebombed in 2011 for publishing a cartoon of Mohammad and was then the target of an brutal attack by two radical Muslim brothers in 2015 in which 12 people were massacred.

"It’s the new norm," Listhaug concluded, "for Europeans to impose limits on freedom of speech in order to avoid offending minorities."


More Muslim supremacism

Another plane booting video is gaining traction online months after the violent United incident. A woman was forcibly removed from a Southwest flight Tuesday, but this time around the passenger is getting very little sympathy online.

The woman, identified as 46-year-old Anila Daulatzai from Baltimore, had complained about two dogs on her flight from Baltimore-Washington International Airport to Los Angeles.

She said she was deathly allergic, but when crew informed her they couldn't remove the dogs, one of which was a service dog, she was told to leave the plane.

That's when things went south. After the woman couldn't show medical papers about her allergies and refused to leave the plane, law enforcement arrived to remove her, Southwest said in a statement.

She's since been charged with disorderly conduct, failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order, disturbing the peace, obstructing and hindering a police officer and resisting arrest, but released by authorities, according to KTLA.

So who is Anila Daulatzai?

Why, she just happens to be a Harvard Professor of Women's Studies and Islamic Studies.

In other words, she's a double winner.

Note that in the video, she's not wearing a Hijab, but in regular life she does.

IMO, this was a setup. This lady is perhaps mildly allergic to dogs. However, she doesn't like dogs because she's a Muslim and Muslims have a problem with dogs.

This is an Islamic incursion ... IMO.

At a certain point in the video, she says, "I need to close my pants."

Let's see if her incursion is trumped up into a kind of sexual abuse of a Muslima. Look at the way they disrespected her culture by manhandling her. Vicious Islamophobic Cops.

Also, at another point in the video she dramatically cantillates, "My Dad has a surgery tomorrow."

So yes, they disrespect her Islamic presence with dogs - which she is also deathly allergic to -, they undo her pants and manhandle her violating her Sanctified presence before her pedophillic god Allah, and they violate her Islamic family, the circle from which all violence emanates.

I wonder what other forms of trouble this woman might have caused in the past.

Or maybe I should have more sympathy.  I'm open.


Australia: Priest SPAT at in the street in the latest violence linked to gay marriage supporters

A priest claims he was spat at and called a ‘f**king no voter’ while walking in the street just because he was wearing his collar. Father Morgan Batt said he was walking along Queen Street Mall in Brisbane on Wednesday when he was stopped.

He took to Facebook to express his disappointment at the treatment he received. ‘I was stopped – spat at – and called a ‘f***king no voter,’ he wrote.

‘Smile and move on was all I could do. Let’s pray for healing. Australia this really not us.’

The priest’s claims come as a mass weekend text telling millions of people to vote ‘yes’ reportedly turned people off, and increasingly confrontational appears to drive some non-aligned voters towards either a no vote or even apathy.

Polls still indicate a majority of Australians will vote 'yes' on the gay marriage postal survey. 

While there have been disappointing incidents on both sides, some have called the behaviour of 'yes' activists violent, elitist, snobbish and off-putting.

'I had always intended to vote yes but the more liberals use these tactics the more inclined I am to vote no,' said one online commenter.

'I am not engaged in this debate, I have had other priorities in my life - we all have something we are fighting for - but after seeing the low tactics of the 'yes' campaigners I'm considering voting, and it will be no,' said another.

Their sentiments were echoed across social media, with people declaring they have had enough of the violence, the threats and the abuse, calling the behaviour 'feral'.

'Yes voters aren’t helping their cause are they? It's really sad that a few disgusting individuals might end up ruining this opportunity for the LGBT community' wrote a Facebook user.

The most recent Newspoll shows 57 per cent of Australians support redefining the Marriage Act, down from 63 per cent in August.

Following the headbutt assault on Mr Abbott by a 'Yes' badge-wearing anarchist DJ in Hobart, activists held up banners saying 'Headbutt homophobes'.



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

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

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here



HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray

(Isaiah 62:1)

A 19th century Democrat political poster below:

Leftist tolerance


JFK knew Leftist dogmatism

-- Geert Wilders

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

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

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

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Children are the best thing in life. See also here.

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

Some advice from Martin Luther: Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in christo qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi: peccandum est quam diu sic sumus. Vita haec non est habitatio justitiae

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans

Index page for this site


"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium.
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues


Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)

Selected reading



Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Van Hiel
Pyszczynski et al.

Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:

OR: (After 2015)