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 ????

29 September, 2017

How a Radical Left-Wing Historian Birthed the Anti-Columbus Crusade

Confederate statues aren’t the only ones to come under siege from protesters. Christopher Columbus, the Spanish-backed Italian explorer who discovered the Americas, is also being attacked on a wide scale.

Activists and cities around the country are now working to change the holiday made in his name and are working to remove monuments in his likeness.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has even called for a commission that will review potentially removing the over 70-foot-tall column dedicated to Columbus that currently stands in Columbus Circle.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

And Portland, Maine’s City Council recently designated the second Monday of October "Indigenous People’s Day" and has elected to stop celebrating Columbus Day.

This is quite a turnaround from when Columbus was almost universally admired.

Ronald Reagan once said of the famed explorer:

    He 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.

So, why is this once uniting figure who stood for the New World and immigrants suddenly under attack?

Sadly, much of the modern hostility to Columbus can be traced to the work of a far-left historian, Howard Zinn, whose book, "A People’s History of the United States," has left an oversized mark on American K-12 and college students.

However, Zinn claimed to turn the pro-Columbus narrative on its head, writing that Columbus was essentially a genocidal monster who paved the way for greedy, profit-seeking capitalists from the Old World to destroy and pillage the peaceful indigenous people of the New World.

"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."

One doesn’t have to embrace all of the Italian explorer’s actions to appreciate what he accomplished and how it transformed the world for good.

Historians have certainly pushed back on Zinn’s caricature.

Professor Carol Delaney of Stanford University has criticized Zinn’s history and defended Columbus as devoutly religious, and not simply a man committed to pillaging and plunder.

She said:

    His relations with the natives tended to be benign. He liked the natives and found them to be very intelligent … Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect. 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.  

But Zinn goes even further.

His narrative is based on the idea that not only was Columbus a villain, but the product of his discovery was also an evil. His book follows this in maligning the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and America’s role in World War II, among numerous other individuals and events in our history.

Of the Founding Fathers, Zinn wrote:

    They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.

Notions of liberty and timeless principles were dismissed by Zinn as simply the tools of tyrants, which is, of course, the point of his book.

It is a tale of oppressors and oppressed, wrapped in Marxist historical theories.

"A People’s History" is filled with half-truths, ideological distortions, and outright fabrications, yet it is still widely used in American schools.

This is a shame, as he is misleading future generations through his deceiving, but influential work.

Even the far-left magazine, New Republic, conceded that Zinn was a poor historian who did a disservice to his readers, saying:

    In writing as or about radicals, historians owe it to their readers to include the bad with the good, the ignoble with the noble—not in the service of ‘balance’ but in the pursuit of intellectual honesty. The most regrettable aspect of Howard Zinn’s full and lusty life is not that he chose to ignore this responsibility. It is that he never seemed aware of it in the first place.

"A People’s History" is terrible history, but it is effective ideological propaganda. And when it’s the only thing students are reading, there’s no wonder that activists are taking to the streets to attack American figures of the past.


The weed who threw a flare into cop car during protests gets 5 years

A 23-year-old man who threw burning flares into a Portland police cruiser and the downtown Target store during May 1 protests that overran downtown Portland admitted guilt Monday and will be sentenced to five years in prison.

A local TV station aired live footage of Damion Zachary Feller hurling a flare through a shattered picture window at Target, prompting employees to run with fire extinguishers to put out a burning section of carpet. TV and cellphone cameras also caught Feller throwing a flare through the shattered window of a battered police SUV parked across the street from Target, at Southwest 10th Avenue and Morrison.

Other people clad all in black or wearing masks can be seen on the videos kicking or whacking windows of the police car seconds before Feller swoops in with the flares.

Police identified Feller as among a group of about 20 anarchists who descended on downtown as peaceful May Day protesters spoke about a variety of social issues. Officers arrested 25 people that day for vandalizing property, setting fires, throwing rocks and other violence.

Feller wasn’t arrested until two days later after officers who recognized his image from the videos spotted him on the streets of downtown.

Detectives showed him a photograph of the person who threw one of the flares and he replied: "I saw that online, and I knew I was (expletive)," according to a probable cause affidavit.

Feller admitted he was guilty and told detectives that he became part of the "mob mentality," according to the affidavit.

On Monday, Feller offered no statements in Multnomah County Circuit Court. He wore a blue jail uniform as he stood beside his public defender, DeAnna Horne.

Feller pleaded guilty to first-degree arson, second-degree arson, riot and first-degree criminal mischief. He is scheduled to be sentenced to five years in prison during an October hearing.

He also was charged in federal court for his crimes. But as part of his plea deal, he won't be sentenced to any additional prison time.

Feller will be eligible for release from prison after four years, if he gets time off for good behavior.

Shortly after his arrest, Feller told authorities that he doesn’t talk to his family, which includes his grandmother in Longview and his parents in Colorado. He said he’d been homeless for the past year, been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and smoked marijuana daily.

He said he’s unemployed, although he occasionally picks up odd jobs through the temporary job service Labor Ready.

Feller had no history of criminal convictions, although court records show he previously had been arrested five times in Oregon, Colorado and Texas on allegations of committing nonviolent crimes or failing to appear in court. He still faces pending charges of theft and criminal trespass in Umatilla County.


'In other faiths we call it paedophilia': Peta Credlin slams 'feminist warriors' for failing to stand up for Muslim girls forced into arranged marriages

[Australian] Media commentator Peta Credlin has slammed feminists for failing to speak up about a Muslim man in his mid-thirties marrying a 14-year-old girl.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott's chief-of-staff is outraged at the political left's silence on child brides, less than a week after a refugee was sentenced to one year in jail for taking part in the Melbourne mosque wedding last year.

'In other faiths we call it paedophilia but not when it comes to Islam,'  she told Sky News on Tuesday night.

'Their failure to speak up for these girls is because the left's silence on the crimes of Islam trumps any voice for the victim.'

Ms Credlin's impassioned critique of left-wing feminists comes six days after Rohingya refugee Mohammad Shakir, 35, was formally jailed for one year for marrying the 14-year-old girl at the Noble Park mosque, in south-east Melbourne, on September 29, 2016.

'We shouldn't even call it child brides. These young girls are being raped by much older men under the cover of a religious ceremony against Australian law and against Australian values,' she said.

Shakir had pleaded guilty to going through with the ceremony and tearfully told the County Court of Victoria he thought he was 'rescuing' the child bride.

The criminal, who will be returned to immigration detention after his sentence, was the first man to appear before an Australian court prosecuted with marrying a child, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years.

Ms Credlin said it appeared the feminists, the political left and Muslim groups were more obsessed with 'so-called Islamophobia' than speaking up for child brides.

'They don't like it and they won't admit it,' she said.

'Quiet too are the many Islamic organisations that are quick to attack so-called Islamophobia but are silent non the rights of young, Muslim girls.'

Former Muslim imam Ibrahim Omerdic was spared jail last month after being found guilty of unlawfully solemnising the marriage.  He was sentenced to two months' prison, but immediately placed on a two-year recognisance release order, meaning he won't serve time in jail.

Omerdic was an imam of the Bosnian Islamic Society and Noble Park Mosque but was later sacked and had his celebrant licence revoked after his arrest last year.


On Political Correctness

By William Deresiewicz

I recently spent a semester at Scripps, a selective women’s college in Southern California. I had one student, from a Chinese-American family, who informed me that the first thing she learned when she got to college was to keep quiet about her Christian faith and her non-feminist views about marriage. I had another student, a self-described "strong feminist," who told me that she tends to keep quiet about everything, because she never knows when she might say something that you’re not supposed to. I had a third student, a junior, who wrote about a friend whom she had known since the beginning of college and who, she’d just discovered, went to church every Sunday. My student hadn’t even been aware that her friend was religious. When she asked her why she had concealed this essential fact about herself, her friend replied, "Because I don’t feel comfortable being out as a religious person here."

I also heard that the director of the writing center, a specialist in disability studies, was informing people that they couldn’t use expressions like "that’s a crazy idea" because they stigmatize the mentally ill. I heard a young woman tell me that she had been criticized by a fellow student for wearing moccasins—an act, she was informed, of cultural appropriation. I heard an adjunct instructor describe how a routine pedagogical conflict over something he had said in class had turned, when the student in question claimed to have felt "triggered," into, in his words, a bureaucratic "dumpster fire." He was careful now, he added, to avoid saying anything, or teaching anything, that might conceivably lead to trouble.

I listened to students—young women, again, who considered themselves strong feminists—talk about how they were afraid to speak freely among their peers, and how despite its notoriety as a platform for cyberbullying, they were grateful for YikYak, the social media app, because it allowed them to say anonymously what they couldn’t say in their own name. Above all, I heard my students tell me that while they generally identified with the sentiments and norms that travel under the name of political correctness, they thought that it had simply gone too far—way too far. Everybody felt oppressed, as they put it, by the "PC police"—everybody, that is, except for those whom everybody else regarded as members of the PC police.

I heard all this, and a good bit more, while teaching one class, for 12 students, during one semester, at one college. And I have no reason to believe that circumstances are substantially different at other elite private institutions, and plenty of reasons not to believe it: from conversations with individuals at many schools, from my broader experience in higher education, from what I’ve read not only in the mainstream media but also in the higher education press. The situation is undoubtedly better at some places than others, undoubtedly worse at the liberal arts colleges as a whole than at the universities as a whole, but broadly similar across the board.

So this is how I’ve come to understand the situation. Selective private colleges have become religious schools. The religion in question is not Methodism or Catholicism but an extreme version of the belief system of the liberal elite: the liberal professional, managerial, and creative classes, which provide a large majority of students enrolled at such places and an even larger majority of faculty and administrators who work at them. To attend those institutions is to be socialized, and not infrequently, indoctrinated into that religion.

I should mention that when I was speaking about these issues last fall with a group of students at Whitman College, a selective school in Washington State, that idea, that elite private colleges are religious institutions, is the one that resonated with them most. I should also mention that I received an email recently from a student who had transferred from Oral Roberts, the evangelical Christian university in Tulsa, to Columbia, my alma mater. The latter, he found to his surprise, is also a religious school, only there, he said, the faith is the religion of success. The religion of success is not the same as political correctness, but as I will presently explain, the two go hand in hand.

Elite private colleges are ideologically homogenous because they are socially homogeneous, or close to it. Their student populations largely come from the liberal upper and upper-middle classes, multiracial but predominantly white, with an admixture of students from poor communities of color—two demographics with broadly similar political beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that they together constitute a large proportion of the Democratic Party base. As for faculty and managerial staff, they are even more homogenous than their students, both in their social origins and in their present milieu, which tends to be composed exclusively of other liberal professionals—if not, indeed, of other liberal academics. Unlike the campus protesters of the 1960s, today’s student activists are not expressing countercultural views. They are expressing the exact views of the culture in which they find themselves (a reason that administrators prove so ready to accede to their demands). If you want to find the counterculture on today’s elite college campuses, you need to look for the conservative students.

Which brings us to another thing that comes with dogma: heresy. Heresy means those beliefs that undermine the orthodox consensus, so it must be eradicated: by education, by reeducation—if necessary, by censorship. It makes a perfect, dreary sense that there are speech codes, or the desire for speech codes, at selective private colleges. The irony is that conservatives don’t actually care if progressives disapprove of them, with the result that political correctness generally amounts to internecine warfare on the left: radical feminists excoriating other radical feminists for saying "vagina" instead of "front hole," students denouncing the director of Boys Don’t Cry as a transphobic "cis white bitch" (as recently happened at Reed College), and so forth.

But the most effective form of censorship, of course, is self-censorship—which, in the intimate environment of a residential college, young adults are very quick to learn. One of the students at Whitman mentioned that he’s careful, when questioning consensus beliefs, to phrase his opinion in terms of "Explain to me why I’m wrong." Other students— at Bard College, at the Claremont Colleges—have explained that any challenge to the hegemony of identity politics will get you branded as a racist (as in, "Don’t talk to that guy, he’s a racist"). Campus protesters, their frequent rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, are not the ones being silenced: they are, after all, not being silent. They are in the middle of the quad, speaking their minds. The ones being silenced are the ones like my students at Scripps, like the students at Whitman, like many students, no doubt, at many places, who are keeping their mouths shut. "The religion of humanity," as David Bromwich recently wrote, "may turn out to be as dangerous as all the other religions." .....

But so much of political correctness is not about justice or creating a safe environment; it is about power. And so much of what is taking place at colleges today reflects the way that relations of power have been reconfigured in contemporary higher education. Campus activists are taking advantage of the fact (and I suspect that a lot of them understand this intuitively, if not explicitly) that students have a lot more power than they used to. The change is the result not only of the rise of the customer-service mentality in academia, but also of the proletarianization of the faculty. Students have risen; instructors have fallen. Where once administrations worked in alliance with the faculty, were indeed largely composed of faculty, now they work against the faculty in alliance with students, a separate managerial stratum more interested in the satisfaction of its customers than the well-being of its employees.

Progressive faculty and students at selective private colleges will often say that they want to dismantle the hierarchies of power that persist in society at large. Their actions often suggest that in fact they would like to invert them. All groups are equal, but some are more equal than others.

There is one category that the religion of the liberal elite does not recognize—that its purpose, one might almost conclude, is to conceal: class. Class at fancy colleges, as throughout American society, has been the unspeakable word, the great forbidden truth. And the exclusion of class on selective college campuses enables the exclusion of a class. It has long struck me in leftist or PC rhetoric how often "white" is conflated with "wealthy," as if all white people were wealthy and all wealthy people were white. In fact, more than 40 percent of poor Americans are white. Roughly 60 percent of working-class Americans are white. Almost two-thirds of white Americans are poor or working-class. Altogether, lower-income whites make up about 40 percent of the country, yet they are almost entirely absent on elite college campuses, where they amount, at most, to a few percent and constitute, by a wide margin, the single most underrepresented group.

We don’t acknowledge class, so there are few affirmative-action programs based on class. Not coincidentally, lower-income whites belong disproportionately to precisely those groups whom it is acceptable and even desirable, in the religion of the colleges, to demonize: conservatives, Christians, people from red states. Selective private colleges are produced by the liberal elite and reproduce it in turn. If it took an electoral catastrophe to remind this elite of the existence (and ultimately, one hopes, the humanity) of the white working class, the fact should come as no surprise. They’ve never met them, so they neither know nor care about them. In the psychic economy of the liberal elite, the white working class plays the role of the repressed. The recent presidential campaign may be understood as the return of that repressed—and the repressed, when it returns, is always monstrous.

The exclusion of class also enables the concealment of the role that elite colleges play in perpetuating class, which they do through a system that pretends to accomplish the opposite, our so-called meritocracy. Students have as much merit, in general, as their parents can purchase (which, for example, is the reason SAT scores correlate closely with family income). The college admissions process is, as Mitchell L. Stevens writes in Creating a Class, a way of "laundering privilege."

And here we come to the connection between the religion of success and the religion of political correctness. Political correctness is a fig leaf for the competitive individualism of meritocratic neoliberalism, with its worship of success above all. It provides a moral cover beneath which undergraduates can prosecute their careerist projects undisturbed. Student existence may be understood as largely separated into two non-communicating realms: campus social life (including the classroom understood as a collective space), where the enforcement of political correctness is designed to create an emotionally unthreatening environment; and the individual pursuit of personal advancement, the real business going forward. The moral commitments of the first (which are often transient in any case) are safely isolated from the second.

Political correctness and rational discourse are incompatible ideals. Forget "civility," the quality that college deans and presidents inevitably put forth as that which needs to "balance" free expression. The call for civility is nothing more than a management tool for nervous bureaucrats, a way of splitting every difference and pur?eing them into a pablum of deanly mush. Free expression is an absolute; to balance it is to destroy it.

True diversity means true disagreement. Political correctness exists at public institutions, but it doesn’t dominate them. A friend of mine who went to Columbia and Yale now teaches at Hunter College, part of the City University of New York. "When you meet someone at Hunter," she told me, "you can’t assume they see the world the same way you do." That’s about as pithy an expression of the problem at selective private colleges as I can imagine. When you meet someone at Columbia or Yale or Scripps or Whitman or any of scores of other institutions, you absolutely can assume they see the world the same way you do. And anyone who threatens to disrupt that cozy situation must be disinvited, reeducated, or silenced. It’s no surprise that the large majority of high-profile PC absurdities take place at elite private schools like Emory or Oberlin or Northwestern.

Selective private colleges need to decide what kind of places they want to be. Do they want to be socialization machines for the upper-middle class, ideological enforcers of progressive dogma? Or do they want to be educational institutions in the only sense that really matters: places of free, frank, and fearless inquiry? When we talk about political correctness and its many florid manifestations, so much in the news of late, we are talking not only about racial injustice and other forms of systemic oppression, or about the coddling of privileged youth, though both are certainly at play. We are also talking, or rather not talking, about the pathologies of the American class system. And those are also what we need to deal with.



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



28 September, 2017

Nashville church shooting: Masked gunman kills woman, injures seven in Antioch, police say

But no nationwide outrage from the racist media?  Unlike the shooting by Dylan Roof.  A coverup of the fact that the shooter is an immigrant from Africa?

One person was killed and eight others wounded Sunday after a masked man opened fire following a church service in Antioch.

The shooter, identified as Emanuel Kidega Samson, a 25-year-old Rutherford County man, accidentally shot himself after he was confronted by an armed member of the congregation. Samson was treated at an area hospital and was released into police custody, according to Metro Nashville Police.

Samson will be charged with one count of murder, additional charges will come later, police said. Police say he previously attended the church.

The woman killed has been identified as Melanie Crow Smith, 38. Smith was a mother who lived in Smyrna.

Police say the gunman wore a neoprene ski mask when he shot and killed Smith in the parking lot of Burnette Chapel Church of Christ, as the service ended shortly after 11 a.m.

With his blue Nissan Xterra still running, the gunman then entered the rear sanctuary doors of the church and began "indiscriminately" shooting, police said.

Among those shot were three men and three women, police spokesman Don Aaron said.

The church's minister Joey Spann, 66, and his wife, Peggy, 65, were both injured in the shooting, said Nashville Christian School in a statement on Facebook. Spann is a Bible teacher and a high school and middle school basketball coach.

Churchgoer Caleb Engle, who was hailed by police as a "hero," confronted the shooter while inside the church and was violently pistol whipped, Aaron said. During the confrontation with Engle, the gunman shot himself in the left side of his chest, Aaron said. Shortly after the shooting, the gunman was transported to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, he said.

About 42 people were inside the church at the time of the shooting, officials say. All victims, including the shooter, were taken to area hospitals.

Although congregants attempted to run away, some were shot from behind, said Rosa, who had blood on her blue dress and cell phone case. "Our church is senior people. They didn't make it out."

A spokesman for Vanderbilt University Medical Center said two of the victims are critically injured, with four others in stable condition.

After identifying the shooter, who had two pistols, police said Samson was a legal U.S. resident but not a U.S. citizen, who came from Sudan in 1996.

Although it's unclear if race or religion played a role in the shooting, authorities, including the federal Justice Department, have opened a civil rights case.

The shooting quickly sent shockwaves throughout the neighborhood. Steven Whidby, who lives about six houses from the church, said he's known the minister his whole life.

"It’s just a lil' country church," he said. "It’s just a sad day when people do something like that at a church."


Multiculturalist accused of raping a German woman in front of her boyfriend in terrifying knife-point attack calls her a 'prostitute' in furious courtroom outburst

A Ghanaian asylum seeker accused of raping a German woman while forcing her boyfriend to watch called his victim 'a prostitute' in court.

The man - only identified as Eric X - is accused of raping a 23-year-old woman after spotting the couple camping in a nature reserve near Bonn, west Germany in April.

Appearing in a Bonn district court today, Eric X, 32, defied his lawyers' advice to stay silent and after insulting his alleged victim, he added that anyone who believed her were 'filthy'.

The attack took place on April 2, shortly after midnight. The couple were already asleep when Eric X allegedly cut through the tarpaulin, threatened them with a tree saw and ordered them to hand over their valuables - six euros (£5.35) and a music box.

After robbing them he is said to have dragged the 23-year-old woman outside, where he raped her and forced her boyfriend, 26, to watch.

German media have reported that the boyfriend's call to police was initially considered a joke.

The suspect was arrested soon after in nearby Siegburg after a man recognised him from a composite picture of the sex attacker.

Today, Eric X.'s lawyers ordered the accused to remain silent, but according to local media his responded by shouting in court: 'Why should I remain silent, about a case where I don't know anything about?'

Eric X. said: 'If the girl claims she has been raped, she must be a prostitute. 'All who help her in the lie are filthy people.'

Lawyer Gudrun Roth, who represents the 23-year-old student, said that it is 'always a slap in the face, if someone who has experienced such a thing is mocked even further.'

Both of the victims, from Stuttgart, south-west Germany are currently undergoing psychological care as according to local media they are still heavily traumatised.

Following his arrest it emerged that the man had been served notice by the German authorities ten days before the attack, informing him he would face deportation to Italy as his asylum application had been rejected.

He arrived in Italy in January and his asylum application was immediately rejected but by then he had made the journey to Kassel in Germany.

The suspect lived for a time in asylum seeker housing accommodation in the town of Sankt Augustin, near Bonn.

But local media have questioned why he was not immediately deported.

Vanessa Nolte, of the Cologne district authorities, said: 'On 23 March he received the order, on 24th March he appealed it.'

Bonn police spokesman Robert Scholten said: 'As well as from the rape, we found a lot of DNA samples at the crime scene, which are clearly from the arrested man.'

The trial is expected to last eight days.


Son of Hamas Founder Shakes Up UN Human Rights Council: "If Israel Did Not Exist, You Would Have No One to Blame"

The U.N. Human Rights Council's perennial debate focusing on condemning Israel witnessed an unusual intervention Monday - a strong-worded statement in Arabic-accented English slamming not Israel but the Palestinian Authority.

Speaking for less than 90 seconds, the speaker questioned the legitimacy of Mahmoud Abbas's P.A., accused it of jailing and torturing its critics, and called it the "greatest enemy of the Palestinian people."

"If Israel did not exist, you would have no one to blame," he declared, concluding by accusing the P.A. of using the HRC platform "to mislead the international community, to mislead the Palestinian society to believe that Israel is responsible for the problem you create."

The speaker was Mosab Hassan Yousef, the disowned son of a founder of the Islamist terror movement Hamas, and a convert to Christianity.

Yousef's statement at the HRC in Geneva was especially striking as it came among dozens of others - by U.N. member-states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) - almost universally condemning Israel.

Permanent item number seven on the HRC's agenda deals with Israel. None of the other 192 member-states of the U.N. are the subject of a country-specific agenda item. Any crisis situation occurring elsewhere in the world is covered under a general agenda item (number four), entitled "Human rights situations that require the council's attention."

This means that Israel alone is condemned every time the HRC holds a regular, three week-long session (three times a year).

In recent times Western democracies have generally boycotted the item seven debate, and the list of speakers on Monday reflected both their absence and the prominent role played at the HRC by some of the world's most autocratic regimes.

The Palestinian representative was first to speak, followed by delegates from Syria, Venezuela, Tunisia, Egypt, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Brazil, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Cuba.

Others to speak later included representatives of Iran, China, Russia, Sudan and North Korea, before more than a dozen NGO representatives made statements, most of them similarly critical of Israel.

Yousef spoke on behalf of the Geneva-based NGO U.N. Watch. His full statement is below.

In it, he challenged the P.A.'s legitimacy. Abbas' four-year mandate expired in January 2009, although his tenure was extended by decree for a year beyond that. Presidential elections scheduled for January 2010 were then postponed indefinitely, also by decree. More than seven years later, Abbas remains - in the West Bank at least - "president of the State of Palestine."

Yousef, the son of West Bank Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, was himself a Hamas member who abandoned Islam and embraced Christianity.

He secretly informed on Hamas' activities to Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency for a decade, helping to thwart a number of planned terrorist attacks. He moved to the U.S. in 2007 and was later granted political asylum. In 2010 he wrote a memoir in 2010 entitled "Son of Hamas."

U.N. Watch executive director Hillel Neuer noted Monday that while the HRC focuses disproportionately on Israel it has no special agenda item relating to the human rights situation in Syria, Sudan, Iran, North Korea or anywhere else.

"For good reason, Western democracies once again boycotted today's debate," Neuer said.

"In the dystopian universe of George Orwell's 1984, everyone was forced to undergo a daily ‘Two Minute of Hate'. In the dystopian universe of the U.N. Human Rights Council - where Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Cuba and Venezuela are members - the built-in schedule of every session includes one day dedicated solely to spewing hate against the Jewish state."

President Trump at the U.N. General Assembly last week called the HRC "a massive source of embarrassment."


Smithsonian finally gives Clarence Thomas a spot in year-old African American history museum

Just in time to celebrate its first anniversary, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture has included a display featuring Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative stalwarts.

Justice Thomas appears in an exhibit that was installed shortly before the one-year anniversary Sunday, a Smithsonian spokeswoman said Monday. The display honors both of the black justices who ascended to the pinnacle of the legal profession. The other is Thurgood Marshall.

Justice Thomas’ apparent omission irked conservative observers, who suspected an ideological bias among Smithsonian officials and called for the influential jurist’s inclusion in the museum.
SEE ALSO: Clarence Thomas snubbed by Smithsonian’s new African American history museum

Ronald D. Rotunda, distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University, said Justice Thomas deserves to be recognized for his contributions to constitutional jurisprudence, his record of public service and his inspirational life story.

"Like Thurgood Marshall, he has been a very influential justice, and like Thurgood Marshall, he has risen from humble beginnings," Mr. Rotunda said. "His father left him, his grandparents raised him. The 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. turned him to the law. He left a successful corporate law practice and turned to public service. That path led him to the Supreme Court."

Mr. Rotunda said it’s "surprising that it has taken so long" for the museum to acknowledge such a "seminal figure on the U.S. Supreme Court."

Linda St. Thomas, chief spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution, said the exhibit includes a picture of Justice Thomas, the cover of Jet magazine on which he appeared in 1991 and the inscription, "Clarence Thomas: From Seminary School to Supreme Court."

She said the museum is "evolving and other things will change over time."

The Smithsonian faced an intense backlash last year over Justice Thomas’ absence from the museum. Although the museum failed to make mention of the second black man to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it found considerable space to recognize the Black Panthers, hip-hop and the Black Lives Matter movement. Even a pin reading "I Believe Anita Hill," the woman who accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearing, was included.

Congressional Republicans introduced resolutions in December asking the museum to recognize the "historical importance" of Justice Thomas. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, penned a letter to the Smithsonian saying he was "deeply disturbed" by the snub.

The controversy boiled over again last month, when museum curators said gear worn by Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL quarterback who refused to stand for the national anthem before football games last year, would be put on display.

The exclusion of Justice Thomas was a blemish on an otherwise beloved museum. The Smithsonian’s 19th and most popular institution, the National Museum of African American History and Culture far exceeded attendance expectations, attracting nearly 3 million people in its first year.

"We expected 4,000 people a day," founding director Lonnie Bunch told The Associated Press. "We get 8,000 people a day, so I can’t complain about a thing."



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 September, 2017

We're just too clever to find a boyfriend! It may sound insufferably smug, but these women say their high intellect means they struggle to meet someone

There is some truth and a lot of mistaken assumptions below. Men are less keen on going to university these days because that is no longer where the money is.  Tradesmen such as electricians and plumbers are the high income earners these days. So for a woman to find a man with similar interests and background is difficult. 

But it always was.  Traditionally women were interested in clothes and babies while men were interested in cars and beer. Interests in common have never been a major factor in  male/female pairings and it is foolish to expect it.

And the women described below have, if anything, accentuated that difference.  They all seem to have done do-gooder studies of some sort. That fits a woman's biological role as a carer but it is not a biological role for a male and is more likely to put men off than elicit approval.  And for a women to have done feminist studies is worst of all.  That would send most men running.  Feminism is just too hostile to them.

And the claim below that a brainy background is uniquely handicapping to women is an example of how identity-conscious people routinely assign to their identity something that is not identity related at all. 

Take the example of blacks.  Everyone experiences social exclusion and disapproval of some sort for all sorts of reasons but a black will often attribute all such disapproval to his blackness when it may have many other causes -- such as his excessive self-esteem.

And it is true that a highly educated person will be somewhat isolated by that.  But such isolation happens to MEN TOO.  When I used to go to parties many years ago, I would have two answers ready to the usual "what do you do for a living" question.  At that time I was a university lecturer but also drove taxis part time for a bit of extra money. 

If I replied to the party question "I am a university lecturer", the space around me would clear within minutes.  Nobody wanted to talk to me.  On other occasions I would reply "I am a taxi driver".  That was a great social success.  Everybody would want to talk to me about taxi drivers they had met etc.  So the ladies below should stop being sexist about what is in fact normal social segregation. They are feeling unreasonably aggrieved and grievance has its own problems.

The focus on conversation is one I share but it is not necessarily wise.  In Australia the population is about 5% Han Chinese so there are a lot of short little Asian young ladies about.  And they HATE being shorter than almost anyone else around.  So they are determined to have taller children.  But the only way to do that is to get a tall man.  But the tall men are almost all Caucasians.  So that is what the little ladies go for. So it is common out and about where I live to see little Asian ladies on the arms of tall Caucasian  men.

So how come those Asian ladies can get a man  when the ladies below cannot?  Simple. Asian ladies don't want to know what the men think of Mr Trump or social issues generally.  They just want to know what he wants and do their best to give it to him.  And that suits the men.  Asian ladies tend to come across as very feminine and their obliging nature makes the man think he has hit the jackpot.  So there will be a lot of Eurasian children about in Australia before long.

So are there any lessons from that for the bereft ladies below?  There is a BIG lesson.  It is relationships that matter not your hobbies -- intellectual or otherwise.  Concentrate on people before all else and you will do well.  You might even find that "dumb" electrician to be a nice guy who will keep you in style.  And you can have your specialized conversations with your friends.

That's roughly what I do.  As a much published Ph.D. academic and as someone who ran Sydney Mensa for a number of years, I am betting that I have even greater difficulty than the ladies below in finding similarly qualified women to relate to. I never have.  So I don't try.  I seek and find women with a good heart and have my specialized conversations mostly with my son.

What I have just said runs hard against what women are mostly told these days but it is also traditional wisdom. And what has worked for thousands of years may have something to be said for it.

For Natasha Hooper, the most important part of pre-date preparation isn’t getting her hair done, waxing her legs or buying a new dress.

Instead, she is more preoccupied with composing a list of conversational topics which she hopes will bridge the gap between her highbrow preoccupations, and the more mainstream interests of her dates.

Waiting in a bar for a young man a few weeks ago, she ran through possible options, before settling on the subject of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. A surefire way, the 22-year-old undergraduate reasoned, to guarantee an interesting debate.

Yet while the 30-year-old office worker who sat down in front of her was handsome, polite and smartly-dressed, the minute Natasha brought up the Labour leader’s policies, any spark of attraction was extinguished. ‘When I mentioned Jeremy Corbyn he said: "Who’s that?" I couldn’t believe it,’ says Natasha.

After 90 minutes discussing what she describes as ‘benign’ subjects, such as reality TV and football, Natasha made her excuses and left, no closer to finding Mr Right.

With long dark hair, big brown eyes and a stunning Size 8 figure, Natasha — entering her final year at Goldsmiths, University of London — has no problem attracting male attention.

The issue, she explains, is the calibre of men she attracts. ‘I’m not claiming to be Albert Einstein, but I can’t seem to meet a man I find intellectually stimulating,’ she says. Nor is she the only well-educated young woman who says she is too clever to find love.

Indeed, she is one of a growing breed of women who fear — perhaps with good reason — they will be left on the proverbial shelf because of a shortage of educated men.

Recent figures from the university admissions service UCAS showed that 30,000 more women than men are starting degree courses in the UK. On A-level results day last month, 133,280 British women aged 18 secured a university place compared with 103,800 men of the same age.

The effects of this carry over into the workplace, where women aged from 22 to 29 typically now earn £1,111 more a year than their male peers.

This growing gulf between male and female attainment — the result, many believe, of the feminisation of the education system, with more female teachers, less physical exercise and an emphasis on the arts — is having troubling repercussions when it comes to relationships.

A recent study found more than 90 per cent of predominantly graduate women surveyed were delaying motherhood not to pursue careers, but because they couldn’t find a suitable man.

Some were so despairing they were considering freezing their eggs as an insurance policy.

Put simply, it is an oversupply of educated females. In China, they are called ‘leftover’ women.

‘It sounds cold and callous, but in demographic terms it’s true. There are not enough graduates for them,’ said the study’s author Marcia Inhorn, professor of anthropology at Yale University.

The upshot? Frustrated young women terrified of being left single and childless — and men driven by a sense of inadequacy.

‘Men may claim to want educated women, but don’t know how to deal with those they meet and some say they’re intimidated by me,’ says Natasha, who grew up in Birmingham and is single after breaking up with her boyfriend this year.

‘I feel I’m hitting a brick wall.’

Like many arts degrees, her media and communications course is dominated by female students, and Natasha claims the few male undergraduates ‘lack the intellectual maturity to handle conversations’.

‘One cancelled our date four times because he was too busy getting drunk. In class, their conversations centre around going to gigs and smoking weed at weekends, which is not what I’m looking for in a date.’

She prefers instead to date older men she meets through her part-time job as a nightclub promoter.

Yet even more mature men fail to show the requisite enthusiasm for her university projects — which include a radio documentary she recently produced on ‘the pressure that black women are under to adhere to white beauty stereotypes’.

One can imagine how such a topic could be a little alienating to many men, and Natasha herself admits ‘there’s only so much I can talk about my own interests without sounding patronising.’

She says that men often try to change the subject matter back to lads’ nights outs, holidays and sporting hobbies.

‘I’ll always listen to be polite, but superficial, self-indulgent conversation is an immediate red flag,’ she says.

Since the breakdown of her most recent relationship, with a DJ ten years her senior, Natasha has had a handful of dates, but declined to take things further.

‘Afterwards I’ll text to say our conversations weren’t flowing in the right direction. Most accept it although one, a company director, went on the defensive, saying I thought I was a princess,’ says Natasha.

‘I think he had anger issues.’ British women began to ‘catch up’ with men’s educational attainment levels in the Sixties, when larger numbers entered universities, but only recently have the roles been dramatically reversed, with men falling behind at an alarming rate.

‘In the Sixties there was a gendered way of pushing female graduates into jobs such as teaching and nursing,’ says Nichi Hodgson, author of The Curious History Of Dating: From Jane Austen To Tinder.

‘And only 20 or 30 years ago a man wanted his female partner to be smart because the assumption was that she would be the primary carer, staying at home to raise their children, who would then absorb her intellect.’

But now women are competing with men for the same careers — there are more female junior doctors than male, for example, while nearly two-thirds of practising lawyers in Scotland under 40 are women — their achievements have become more problematic.

‘Smart women raise the issue of who would take time off when they have children,’ says Hodgson. ‘After all, why should a female partner stop working if she’s studied hard for her career?

‘The reality is that with women getting more — and better — degrees, in the next ten to 20 years women will be smarter than men, in terms of how well they’re educated. And I don’t think men are ready for this.’

This is no surprise to Becca Porter, who graduated last year from Manchester University with a joint honours degree in history and sociology, and is now starting a masters in disability studies at Leeds University.

‘The sense of achievement I derive from learning seems alien to most men,’ says Becca, 23. ‘At school I wasn’t bothered about boys, but I’m at the stage where I’d like to share my life with someone.’

With a working-class upbringing — Becca’s mother is an activities co-ordinator and her father an engineer — Becca was not only the first in her family to go to university, but an anomaly among her male peers in Burnley, Lancashire.

Among those from poorer backgrounds, the gender divide is highly pronounced, with young women who were on free school meals 51 per cent more likely to go into higher education than men in similar circumstances.

‘The boys at my school mostly went into manual jobs after we left and seemed to think I had a high opinion of myself for going to university,’ says Becca. ‘They say I’m too bright for them.’

Becca recalls a factory worker she asked out in a bar while home for the holidays turning her down because she was ‘too clever’ for him.

‘We were having a great chat until he found out I was at university,’ says Becca. ‘I insisted I wasn’t too clever for him and he agreed to go on a shopping trip together for our first date.

‘But it was awful. I think he felt I should lead the conversation, so he barely spoke and I felt too awkward to say anything.’

Her longest relationship was with a car mechanic from Burnley last year. It lasted a few weeks.

‘He thought I viewed myself as a big shot,’ says Becca, who admits she found him ‘monosyllabic’.

‘Our conversations were mundane. When I tried to start an informed discussion — about religion or terrorism, for example — he had no idea how to react.

‘He didn’t understand that my degree meant I had a head full of information and when I asked him about his work all he could muster was that it had been "fine".

‘In any case, there’s only so much you can talk about when you do the same job every day.’

Andrea Gould, 41, has two degrees and says her intellect has prevented her from finding love and having the family she longed for

In the event, Becca ended the relationship because, she says, he was always at work — an unfortunate fact of life many of us might sympathise with, but one Becca intends to put off for much of her 20s by doing a PhD in disability research after her masters.

She has dated around eight men in total — all non-graduates.

‘I know deep down they didn’t see me as relatable,’ she says. ‘I get the impression they’d rather date a girl without a degree. They don’t know how to react to my different life experiences and see my education as a barrier.’

So why doesn’t Becca date fellow students? Because, she says, of the class divide.

‘The few boys I met at university came from middle-class families in which a degree was expected of them,’ she explains. ‘They weren’t generally interested in their studies, whereas my degree was a big deal — I was there to learn.’

She acknowledges some of her degree subjects were a bit ‘out there’ — they included gender and sexuality in Africa and reproduction in new medical technology — but adds: ‘It was hurtful that men didn’t want to talk about them.

‘One date found the fact I studied from a feminist perspective offputting. Most mistakenly assume I hate men.’

Many believe the growing number of casualties from the intellectual chasm will be educated women in their 30s and 40s, who’ve failed to find men they deem their equal and are running out of time to start a family.

Andrea Gould, 41, from Frinton-on-Sea, Essex, has two degrees and says her intellect has prevented her from finding love and having the family she longed for.

‘Being an A-grade student has been an obstacle as much as a blessing. It has limited my choices in men,’ she says.

During both her degrees — she first studied English and German at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, then social policy at the same university for an extra ‘challenge’ — she claims male students fell into two camps. ‘There were geeky types into computer games, and leery lads who just wanted to drink and were intimidated by my studious nature,’ she recalls. ‘I didn’t want to be around either.’

Throughout her 20s and 30s Andrea — who worked as a foreign languages teacher before setting up an online furniture store — struggled to find anyone suitable.

Her longest relationship, for two years, was in her mid-30s with a musician. It ended because she disapproved of his use of cannabis.

‘Since then I’ve used online dating and tried to date only those who specified a similar level of education on their profile,’ she says.

‘But we had nothing in common. Men think I’m too serious. I want to talk about psychology and literature — they’re obsessed with UFOs and Harry Potter. Perhaps I’m too fussy, but I’m bored within an hour.’

Dr Elle Boag, a social psychologist at Birmingham City University, says: ‘More women graduate with the expectation of being challenged by conversation in a romantic context as well as in their careers. ‘This in turn can be intimidating for men, who often feel belittled by women who’ve outgrown them.’

For her part, Andrea insists that scintillating conversation isn’t too much to ask for. ‘I’m not after a man with money or a high-powered career, just someone to have an intellectual conversation with.

‘But I’m running out of time to start a family and that gives me a sense of emptiness.’

The solution, perhaps, for Andrea and the growing number of women in her situation, could be to master the art of compromise.

After all, as Dr Boag puts it: ‘A degree might make you think differently, but it doesn’t make you a better person. As women continue to excel, many might be better off exercising a bit more humility.’


Research Into ‘Non-PC’ Transgender Surgery Regret Blocked by British University

A British University has blocked an academic studying a reported surge in people regretting transgender surgery, claiming a "social media" backlash to the "politically incorrect" research could harm the institution.

Bath Spa University stopped Psychotherapist James Caspian from examining cases of people who had surgery to reverse a "gender reassignment" after finding they regretted the decision.

Mr. Caspian, 58, a councilor of 16 years who has specialized in and worked with transgender issues for years, slammed the institution for failing to respect "the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of inquiry".

"The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media and criticism of the research would be criticism of the University and they also added it was better not to offend people," he told BBC Radio 4.

Adding: "I was astonished at that decision. I think a University exists to encourage discussion, research, dissent even, challenging ideas that are out of date or not particularly useful."

He pointed out that studies of the percentage of people regretting "transitioning" their gender ranged from a couple of per cent to 20 per cent, and said new research was needed as attitudes changed and practitioners observed a rise in those reversing surgery.

The university initially approved his research, but after he proposed finding more participants online and sent his ideas to the ethics sub-committee for clearance, he was told: "engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research carries a risk to the University".

"Attacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the university," university authorities added, The Times reports. "The posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the university."

Opponents of transgender ideology have claimed the transgender lobby is aggressive and even violent in its attempts to promote transgenderism and silence criticism, and some feminist campaigners have been physically attacked by trans activists.

"It’s ridiculous. I’m in my late fifties, I’m an expert in my field and I’m not even on social media. I’m not frightened at all. Asking questions is not a hate crime," Mr. Caspian complained.

Continuing: "Where would stand the reputation of a university that cannot follow the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of inquiry?"

Bath Spa University said it was unable to comment while Mr. Caspian’s complaint was being investigated.

So-called "gender identity clinics" in the UK have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people claiming to be transgendered in recent years, with referrals shooting up by several hundred per cent at some.

In 2015, the National Health Service increased its budget for "treating" the transgendered to £22.72 million a year, up from £17.13 million.


The NFL's Worst Fumble Yet

President Donald Trump tapped into the sentiment of the vast majority of Americans over the weekend, and the Leftmedia hate him for it. "Trump turns sports into a political battleground," headlined The Washington Post, as if athletes, coaches, owners and commentators hadn't already politicized sports. What Trump did do was give voice from the most powerful bully pulpit in the land to what many Americans already think: Athletes who make millions of dollars each year to entertain us on the field should not spit in the face of our great nation by disrespecting the national anthem before games. Take the activism off the field.

"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a b—h off the field right now. Out! He's fired. He's fired!'?" Trump said Friday. "You know, some owner is going to do that. He's going to say, ‘That guy that disrespects our flag, he's fired.' And that owner, they don't know it [but] they'll be the most popular person in this country." Trump made other similar comments throughout the weekend.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell responded with a complete lack of self-awareness: "Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities." It is the NFL that is allowing divisiveness and "an unfortunate lack of respect" for our country to be showcased every Sunday.

"Roger Goodell of NFL just put out a statement trying to justify the total disrespect certain players show to our country," Trump responded on Twitter. "Tell them to stand!"

The reaction in the NFL was predictable. Many more players joined the anthem protests, taking knees and locking arms. Even a couple of owners joined in. One instance that stood out was the Pittsburgh Steelers, who didn't take the field at all until after the national anthem — except for Steelers offensive tackle and former Army Ranger Alejandro Villanueva. "This We'll Defend" is the U.S. Army motto, and he upheld it with honor. For his part, coach Mike Tomlin was critical ... of Villanueva. "I was looking for 100 percent participation. We were gonna be respectful of our football team," he complained of Villanueva standing alone. Tomlin hoped to avoid controversy by skipping the anthem entirely, he claimed, but we'll bet his Rust Belt fan base sees it differently. The same goes for the Tennessee Titans and Seattle Seahawks, who skipped the "Star-Spangled Banner."

Worse, the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars took their protest to London, where they disrespected our nation and flag on foreign soil. Yet they stood for the UK's anthem, "God Save the Queen." God save the one who can't see why that's outrageous.

Of course, it all started last year when Colin Kaepernick, who was abandoned by his black parents, then adopted and raised by a loving white couple, complained, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color." Leftists made Kaepernick a hero for his, er, stand, and then a martyr when no team would pick up the struggling quarterback and his following media circus.

Two weeks ago, ahead of the 9/11 attack observance, former Cleveland Browns Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown criticized the Browns team and Kaepernick for disrespecting our country: "I'm going to give you the real deal. I'm an American. I don't desecrate my flag and my national anthem. I'm not gonna do anything against the flag and the national anthem. ... This is my country, and I'll work out the problems, but I'll do it in an intelligent manner."

That is the "real deal," and the Browns got off their knees, but apparently there are still a lot of petulant overpaid adolescent athletes who think NFL fans are buying their fake celebrity indignation.

As The Wall Street Journal put it, "Americans don't begrudge athletes their free-speech rights — see the popularity of Charles Barkley — but disrespecting the national anthem puts partisanship above a symbol of nationhood that thousands have died for. Players who chose to kneel shouldn't be surprised that fans around the country booed them on Sunday." Millions more aren't booing — they're just tuning out.

And while the media blame this all on Trump, all he did was represent Americans fed up with the Left's political garbage.


Same-sex marriage supporter's racist rant

A SAME-sex marriage supporter has been captured on video in an expletive-ridden rant against a "Vote No" campaigner in Sydney.

The clip, which has now gone viral on Facebook after it amassed more than 53,000 views, shows a young man pointing his finger yelling, "It’s people like you in the country, are what are bringing this f**king country down."

It comes after a group of "No" campaigners were handing out ‘It’s OK to vote No’ pamphlets at Chatswood on Sydney’s North Shore.

Shocked bystanders watched as the man said, "You’ve come here, we’ve accepted you into this country."

When a woman hit back saying "we’ve accepted you into this country too" the man fired up saying "I’m Australian — my parents are Australian. I’m not being racist! I’ve got Aboriginal family. I’m not being racist at all."

"You’re just being a f**king d***head by voting ‘No’. F*** you. F*** you. Respect people’s rights you gronk," he yelled as he walked off.

A social media user uploaded the footage to the public on Facebook with the caption, "Your weekly dose of tolerance."

"This man approached one of our team members and started yelling," he wrote online.



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 September, 2017

Is multiculturalism destructive?

Bill Berotti

Yes, almost always. I am in favor of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multi-racial society but only as long as that society is not moving towards becoming multicultural.

And I am especially not in favor of the kind of multiculturalism that is nothing but a very transparent mask worn by people who, for one reason or another, feel an inexplicable need to express their hostility towards a dominant Western culture which, for the most part, has gotten things right, as evidenced by how many people are desperate to live here and how few seem desperate to leave.

People should of course feel free to be different, and I think these differences should be respected and even appreciated -- but not necessarily celebrated at a time when the core values and history of Western Civilization are coming under attack.

Unless I hear some good arguments to the contrary, it seems to me that multiculturalism is the very opposite of the kind of assimilation that allowed a country (or entire civilization) to feel as though they were one people, and that the proponents of multiculturalism are not, as they allege, bringing people together in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect but are instead driving us further apart with consequences that, though difficult to accurately predict, may nonetheless prove catastrophic.

If the critics of Western Civilization who claim that the West is intolerant and chauvinistic continue to grow, and if their voices continue to scream above those who disagree with them, these critics will soon get what they claim they fear.


France Apparently Has A Problem With Macho Men

French President Emmanuel Macron is planning to put an end to a big problem in France. No, it’s not terrorism. It’s the French "macho culture."

According to Macron and his Gender Equality cabinet member Marlene Schiappa, French men are too manly. They’ve become so dangerous that women don’t feel safe dressing or walking how they please.

Which is surprising, as most French men and women dress alike. Gender equality at its finest.

Macron says French men can expect to be punished for cat calling women and asking for their numbers if the law goes through.

It’s pretty easy to see why some might think France is overly macho. It’s nearly impossible to carry a gun, lawmakers want to fine professional sports teams and political parties if they don’t meet a certain quota of female members, and the country has virtually open borders.

These poor 120 lb. French guys frolicking around in skinny jeans and blowing kisses to women from across the street are getting a bad rap. They’re not the problem.

The real problem in France is that they serve terrorism on a baguette and call it diversity.

While French men are legislated into helplessness, the country’s growing population of predominately Muslim immigrants have sectioned off areas of "no go zones" in big cities. These pockets aren’t made to assimilate and they surely aren’t told to be less macho. They’re notorious as one of France’s leading exporters of jihadists.

But it’s the French guys asking for a woman’s number that are the real problem.


Antifa -- America's Taliban

As columnist Charles Krauthammer once pointed out, one the first acts of the Taliban in Afghanistan was to blow up centuries-old statues of Buddha carved in a mountain cliff. They did it not because they were built by the United States or Israel or represented Western colonialism. They did it because they represented civilization and culture and ideas that were different than their own.

Today statues of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and other "racist" figures, with the exception of statues of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, a KKK "Grand Kleagle", are the new statues of Buddha and the black masked Antifa thugs that confronted those white nationalists at Charlottesville are the new Taliban. President Trump was right to say "both sides" were at fault at Charlottesville, including the Black Lives Matter and Antifa mobs that showed up in black ninja outfits complete with shields and blunt instruments. Ironically, Trump’s words after Charlottesville, clear enough for those not already hating Trump, were more than enough for Susan Bro, mother of Charlottesville victim Heather Hyer:

The mother of the woman killed at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., thanked President Trump on Monday after he spoke out against hate groups for their role in the weekend’s violence.

"Thank you, President Trump, for those words of comfort and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred," Susan Bro said in a statement, according to NBC News.
Antifa is a domestic terrorist group which, like the Taliban, wants to erase history and any national ideology that challenges their own virulent and violent ideology. They are, like their Taliban and brown shirt brethren, nihilists, bent on destroying anything that does not fit their jaundiced world view.

The violent presence of Antifa at Charlottesville was typified by the assault on a black conservative student at a Charlottesville vigil for Heather Heyer, who was killed during the violence:

A black student says he was assaulted over the weekend at a vigil for the victims of the Charlottesville protests because of his conservative beliefs.

Caleb Slater, the president of the Ithaca College Republicans in New York, was wearing a Young America’s Foundation hat at a Sunday evening vigil for Heather Heyer, the woman who was killed when a suspected white nationalist drove his car into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville on Saturday.

The vigil was organized by the Syracuse, New York, chapter of Black Lives Matter.

When masked members of the militant-left group Antifa saw Mr. Slater, they approached him, asked him about his hat, told him to leave and attacked him.

He said his assailants grabbed him by his clothes, choked him with his camera strap and pushed him into the street.
A new report shows that even the Obama administration was aware of this violent group as it participated in and eve precipitated violence at places lik Berkeley and at Trump for President rallies:

Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as "antifa" had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as "domestic terrorist violence," according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO.

Since well before the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly, DHS has been issuing warnings about the growing likelihood of lethal violence between the left-wing anarchists and right-wing white supremacist and nationalist groups.

Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that "anarchist extremists" were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of "the capitalist system," racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.

After President Donald Trump’s election in November, the antifa activists locked onto another target — his supporters, especially those from white supremacist and nationalist groups suddenly turning out in droves to hail his victory, support crackdowns on immigrants and Muslims and to protest efforts to remove symbols of the Confederacy.
Don’t expect this to be broadcast widely by the likes of CNN and MSNBC as they ignore the spread of Antifa into a national infestation of anarchy and violence. Recently the Daily Caller documented the spread of Antifa’s cancer to Philadelphia, the birthplace of American democracy:

An armed Antifa group is launching a new cell in Philadelphia, with support from the "alt-left" alternative media.

The group currently hosts anti-police workshops called "Our Enemies in Blue." The group draws inspiration from convicted murderers and calls for violence against the police, theft of goods, and armed insurrection.

Antifa websites like It’s Going Down, Sub.Media and Insurrection News have been promoting the group, which calls itself the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, calling on their readers to donate to a Fundrazr account for the creation of the new cell….

Taking pride in the "legacy" of "Philadelphia’s rich revolutionary tradition," RAM cites Mumia Abu Jamal, the Black Panther activist who shot and killed Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.

It also cites Russell Shoats, who shot a police officer in the back five times in 1970. Similar to Antifa, the actions of the Black Panthers have been described as having a "very undefined purpose of assaulting police officers."
Looking for white nationalist under every bed has replaced the fruitless search for colluding Russians under those beds But there is a real and growing threat being ignored, or perhaps being silently encouraged, by the liberal media. It is Antifa, the American Taliban, which reared its ugly and violent head at Charlottesville.


A Nation of Sheep: Understanding England and the English

You see, we are an extraordinarily nationalist people. Our nationalism, however, doesn’t cause us to hate foreigners. Instead – and this applies also, and indeed particularly to Americans – we don’t hate you: we just feel sorry for you.

But I’ll not patronise you this morning. I’ll even avoid telling you the truth – that, in the development of our modern civilisation, two great nations have the greatest honour: England and Germany; and that, of these two, England is by far the greatest. What I will do is confess what you must have noticed for yourself – that something has gone badly wrong in England. Exactly when the rot began is a subject that would require far longer to discuss than the time given to me this morning. But you can see the earliest plain evidence of national derangement when the Princess of Wales died in 1997. I watched in horror as the mountains of flowers piled up, and as the funeral was made into a carnival of insanity.

The examples have multiplied beyond counting. I won’t give examples of the multicultural frenzy. Instead, I’ll talk about the sexual mania.

First, there is the legal privileging of homosexuality. In doing this, I speak with much security. I began denouncing the laws constraining homosexual conduct when I was a schoolboy – at a time when what I was saying might have got me roughed up in the playground, and certainly got me funny looks from other boys and teachers alike. I also wrote one of the earliest and best analyses of the Spanner Case. Since then, though, persecution has given way to privilege.

Take, for example, the case of the Rev. Alan Clifford, Pastor of the Norwich Reformed Church. A few months ago, the Norwich Gay Pride organisation held a rally in the middle of Norwich. Dr Clifford and four members of his congregation attended and handed out leaflets of the usual kind. Afterwards, he sent the leaflets out to everyone on his mailing list. This now included the leaders of Norwich Gay Pride. They complained to the police, and Dr Clifford was visited in his home by the police. They told him that a homophobic hate crime had taken place, and gave him the choice of confessing, in which case he would be given a police caution and made to pay a £90 fine, or of denying guilt, in which case he might be prosecuted.

Not surprisingly, Dr Clifford chose to deny his guilt. If the authorities ever do take him to court, they will probably get a bloody nose. Dr Clifford is a Calvinist. His sort drove Catholicism out of England in the sixteenth century, and pulled down the Stuart state in the seventeenth. He will turn up in court with the Bible in his hand and speak to a public gallery filled with his congregation. But his example is important as illustration. There is a regular persecution of Christian   street preachers in England. There are new cases several times a year.

The next example is of the Late Jimmy Saville. During his lifetime, he was adored by the media for his charity work and his public eccentricity. When he died in 2011, enough hot air about him went up to fill a balloon. Then, in 2012, it came out that his sexual taste had been for pubescent girls. The media went hysterical. His family joined in. Early in 2013, his grave stone was torn up, its inscription ground smooth, and then smashed into small pieces and taken off for landfill.

I suggest this is evidence of great mental derangement. It is certainly unEnglish. The custom so far has for the dead to be left to rest in peace.

These are two examples of the madness that has gripped England. Of course, the madness is not universal. If you look at the continuing popularity of Gary Glitter, it seems that many people – perhaps the majority – do not partake of the madness. But it can be seen in every organised area of our national life.

What is the cause? The answer is complex. There is no single cause. But one cause worth exploring is the unbalancing of our Constitution during the twentieth century.

In 1908, Rudyard Kipling published a short story called The Mother Hive. In this, the bees in a hive decide to drop all outmoded ideas of hierarchy and to make everyone equal. This includes the right of workers to eat royal jelly and to mate with the drones. In the spreading chaos that results, traditionalist dissidents are first shunned and then murdered. Eventually, the bee keeper looks into the hive, and sees the empty honeycombs and the horribly deformed offspring of the workers. His response is to poison all the bees.

Now, something like this has happened in England. In the past few generations, the whole of national life has been taken over by the cultural Marxists. They run government and the administration, and the law, and education and the media, and business too. They have imposed on us a nasty hegemonic discourse. Cultural Marxism is ultimately to be traced to European thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser and the Frankfurt School. But this has come to England in American clothing. It has prestige because it was taken up by the American universities.

In America, however, the progress of cultural Marxism has been resisted, or slowed, by a strong religious right and by a written constitution that it is taking a long time to subvert. Here, we have no religious right, nor an entrenched constitutional law. In the past, freedom and common sense were safeguarded by an hereditary land-owing aristocracy and gentry. These ran the country, and did much to determine its moral tone. During the twentieth century, they were marginalised and then eliminated from government. They remain as a class – still very rich – but the tacit deal since at least the 1940s has been that they will be left alone, so long as they keep out of politics. Government has been left to middle class lefties. The effect followed the cause only after several generations. But here it is.

It may be interesting for you, as foreigners, to learn an answer to the implied question in the title of this speech. But it is essential for the English to think about the question and its answers. You see, like both the Germans and the Russians, we have had a revolution. Unlike them, we have had no obviously revolutionary event. The Russians had the storming of the Winter Palace and the murder of their Royal Family. The Germans were utterly defeated in 1945. Their cities were bombed flat. Their country was occupied and divided. Every German knows either that German history came to an end in 1945, or at least that a new chapter in German history had begun.

We do not have that awareness, and it would be useful for us to understand, even so, that we are living in a state of revolution. England has become the Mother Hive.



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 September, 2017

'Handmaid's Tale' Lunacy
Donald Trump, much to his chagrin, never won an Emmy for "The Apprentice," but he can now take indirect credit for a clutch of the awards.

The Hulu series "The Handmaid’s Tale" won eight Emmys on Sunday night, a sweep fueled, in part, by the widely accepted belief in liberal America that the show tells us something about the Trump era.

Based on the 1985 novel by Margaret Atwood, the series depicts a misogynist dystopia. Christian fundamentalists have established a theocracy that — after an environmental debacle craters the birth rate — forces fertile women, called handmaids, into sexual slavery.

Set in contemporary America, the show combines the atmosphere of "The Scarlet Letter" with "1984." It is bleak, plodding, heavy-handed and occasionally gripping. What has given it extra oomph is the trope that it is relevant to Trump’s America. This is a staple of the commentary, and everyone involved in the show’s production pushes the notion.

According to Atwood, people woke up after Trump’s election "and said we’re no longer in a fantasy fiction." The series is indeed highly relevant — as a statement on the fevered mind of progressives.

The president doesn’t want to impose his traditional sexual morality because, for starters, he doesn’t have any to impose. His critics are mistaking a thrice-married real estate mogul who has done cameos in Playboy videos and extensive interviews on "The Howard Stern Show" with Cotton Mather. He isn’t censorious; he’s boorish.

"I thought this could be a great cautionary tale," director Reed Morano says of the show. "We don’t think about how women are treated in other countries as much as we should, and I guess I thought this would raise awareness." Fair enough. "The Handmaid’s Tale" does have something to tell us about, say, Saudi Arabia. But, in an uncomfortable fact for Christian-fearing feminists, none of the world’s women-hating theocracies are Christian.

Elisabeth Moss, who won an Emmy for her portrayal of handmaid Offred, warns of "things happening with women’s reproductive rights in our own country that make me feel like this book is bleeding over into reality."

What this means is that Republicans want to defund the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and roll back Obamacare’s contraception mandate. If they succeed, this would mean less government intervention in matters of sexual morality, rather than more.

The progressive mind is unable to process that it has won the culture war in a rout (except for abortion, where conservatives are trying to chip away at our extremely liberal laws at the margins). We live in a country where Christian bakers get harried by government for politely declining to bake cakes for gay weddings, yet progressives still believe we are a few steps away from enslaving women.

For sheer obtuseness, it’s hard to beat executive producer Bruce Miller’s comment about a protest scene from the show that has been compared to the anti-Trump Women’s March. "You’re seeing exactly the same signs," he told Vanity Fair, "exactly the same images, and you’re also seeing Capitol police with guns, not firing them, thank God, but it’s the same image."

Actually, it’s the opposite image. There’s a vast difference between the forces of a totalitarian state crushing a protest, as happens in the show, and police maintaining the peace during a demonstration in a robustly free country, as occurred right here in Donald Trump’s USA.

According to Atwood: "If you’re going to get women back into the home, which some people still firmly believe is where they belong, how would you do that? All you have to do is remove the rights and freedoms that [women] have fought for and accumulated over the [past] 200 years."

Yeah, that’s all you have to do. Atwood doesn’t explain who, straw men aside, actually wants to do this, or how they’d go about it. She wrote a book that, despite her intentions, has become a cautionary tale about how sophisticated people lose their minds.


I’m a Descendant of Holocaust Survivors. Why I’m Appalled at the Comparison of Christian Bakers to Nazis

It’s November 1938, and the Nazis have confiscated a silk factory owned by the same Jewish family for over a decade, arresting the owner.

Fast forward to 2014, and a state official has compared a Colorado Christian baker to the same group that took away what belonged to the Jewish silk factory owner—the father of my grandmother’s cousin, Godofredo.

This in a country founded by people who fled religious persecution.

While America, the country that mostly turned away Jews fleeing Adolf Hitler, is thankfully not on a course to repeat the Holocaust’s atrocities, some of its citizens have taken to comparing matters of individual freedom—such as a baker refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake—to the actions that led to the deaths of 11 million people, including 6 million Jews and 1.5 million children.

Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner Diann Rice said, "Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust."

Especially as the grandson of Holocaust survivors, my message for Rice and for those who make religious liberty comparisons to the Shoah is simple: Stop it.

The late Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust, warned against comparisons like this. He said: "Only Auschwitz was Auschwitz. I went to Yugoslavia when reporters said that there was a Holocaust starting there. There was genocide, but not an Auschwitz. When you make a comparison to the Holocaust it works both ways, and soon people will say what happened in Auschwitz was "only what happened in Bosnia."

Apply that logic to the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips: Only Auschwitz was Auschwitz.

I went to Colorado where a baker refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. I personally think it’s a shame, but it’s a private business refusing to bake a cake for a purpose of which the owner doesn’t agree.

It was a denial, not an Auschwitz. To cheapen the Holocaust by making such comparisons is to convolute and deny its atrocities.

The Holocaust, which only started with the discriminatory Nuremberg Laws only to end up in genocide, didn’t happen so much because of a hatred of a religion, but rather an explicit hatred for a people. This hatred extended to people who helped those the Nazis targeted, like the family who hid my only living grandmother when she was a child in France.

In fact, once Hitler took power, he sought to reduce Christianity’s influence on German society.

Rice’s comment was nothing but perverted and bigoted. I dare her to tell my living grandmother that what the Colorado baker did compares to the atrocities at Dachau, of which her late husband survived (his father perished there), and about which Phillips’ father wrote notes regarding the atrocities there and other places like Buchenwald, which he helped liberate.

Hypocritically, those on the left, like Rice, cite the plight of Jewish refugees during World War II as a reason for why the U.S. should take in refugees from war-torn places like Syria. Apparently they failed to learn about the Holocaust, which consisted of Jewish bakeries and other businesses being looted on Kristallnacht, or "Night of the Broken Glass," let alone being sent to concentration camps.

(Important side note: Where is the outrage from the left over the atrocities in Rohingya, Darfur, Tibet, in Iraq against the Yazidis, and other persecuted groups in the Middle East? Those conflicts are severe compared to a bakery refusing to bake a same-sex wedding cake.)

Intolerance was part of the Holocaust. Blatant discrimination was part of the Holocaust. Concentration camps and gas chambers were part of the Holocaust. Death marches were part of the Holocaust. Indifference was part of the Holocaust.

Bakers refusing to bake same-sex wedding cakes were not part of the Holocaust. Rice seems indifferent to the magnitude of the Holocaust’s barbaric and sadistic acts, and instead chose to relate them to a baker who simply followed his conscience in declining to make a same-sex wedding cake.

Would Rice equate Phillips refusing to make a "divorce" cake to the Holocaust? Would Rice compare Phillips refusing to make Halloween-themed cakes to that of the Holocaust?

The famous psychologist Rollo May said, "The opposite of courage in our society isn’t cowardice. It’s conformity."

It’s astonishing that America, which eventually admitted my surviving grandparents, is in 2017 a place where some are trying to coerce others to conform to an ideology, even if it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

In Nazi Germany, if you weren’t an Aryan as Hitler prescribed in "Mein Kampf," you would perish. Is it somehow acceptable to compare this baker or anyone coerced by those with differing ideologies to the Nazis?

If we’re going to say "Never again," let’s also say "No more." No more false equivalences. No more hate. Conversing, not ostracizing, is the solution to bridge divisions between people.

Let’s judge people personally—not by their background, but rather by their character.


Likely Next Solicitor General Fought for Nuns, Against Disputed Obama Appointees

After racking up victories against the Obama administration before the Supreme Court, Noel Francisco is expected to be confirmed by the Senate to manage the Trump administration’s cases there.

President Donald Trump nominated Francisco, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was a lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, to be his solicitor general.

A Senate committee approved the nomination four months ago. Democrats have stalled a final vote, but an end looks in sight.

While working in private practice for the Jones Day law firm, Francisco, 48, successfully argued before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, winning a 9-0 decision.

He also gained a 4-4 tie at the high court after arguing for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns, against Obamacare’s mandate requiring employers to cover contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans.

In another widely publicized case that made its way to the high court, Francisco helped overturn the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, on charges of public corruption.

The Supreme Court is set to begin hearing new cases Oct. 2. Some of the more high-profile cases concern the separation of powers, Trump’s "extreme vetting" order blocking immigration from certain failed states, and religious freedom.

"There are a number of very significant cases before the court and he is equal to the task for any cases before the Supreme Court," John Malcolm, who heads the Institute for Constitutional Government at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. "Noel Francisco is exceptionally bright and has impeccable character, and the nation will be well served to have him as solicitor general."

Francisco, approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line, 11-9 vote in June, is one of many Trump nominees whom Senate Democrats have managed to prevent from coming to a final floor vote.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group, watched Francisco argue the NLRB v. Noel Canning case before the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously ruled the president could not make recess appointments—installing appointees without Senate confirmation—while the Senate was not officially in recess.

Severino said Francisco’s impressive record was on display in his actions as a litigator.

"This has been another shameful holdup by the Senate Democrats who dragged this nomination out much longer than necessary," Severino told The Daily Signal. "Noel Francisco is very well-known attorney and a very skilled litigator."

"I’m glad he’s on board," she added, "but we are still moving at a pace of confirmation that it would take three terms to confirm all of this administration’s nominees."

The U.S. solicitor general works in the Justice Department, charged with managing the defense of the federal government’s cases in front of the Supreme Court. In many cases, the solicitor general argues the case.

Francisco briefly served as acting solicitor general until Trump nominated him for the position in March. Jeffrey Wall, who has served as acting solicitor general, is set to take the office’s No. 2 slot upon Francisco’s confirmation.

Francisco grew up in Oswego, New York. Francisco received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1996. He clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit before clerking for Scalia at the Supreme Court.

"If you asked any conservative attorney in this town, they would put Noel in the top five legal minds," said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice and a legal affairs fellow with FreedomWorks, both conservative organizations.

"Given the resistance to Trump in the federal courts, almost everything could be dealt a blow by a district court somewhere, it’s important to have someone with executive branch experience, and it’s more important than ever for not only the country but for this administration," Levey told The Daily Signal.


Gov. Seeks to Normalize Transgenderism Via Science  

When science and social politics collide, science is often co-opted to promote political ideology rather than genuine science instructing public policy. The former seems to be the case (again) regarding the National Science Foundation’s spending of over $100,000 to create "safe zones" for LGBTQ students. Some $114,116 was given to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for the purpose of studying ways to "increase the inclusion of LGBTQ students and professionals in engineering." According to the grant, the field of engineering can be an "unfriendly or a chilly" climate for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals."

The grant also states that "the research will be the basis of systematic development and formative refinement of an online SafeZone course to provide inclusion training to engineering students and professionals nationwide." Is this science or politically motivated social engineering?

The federal government’s use of "science" to further push the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism onto the American public doesn’t stop there. The National Institutes of Health will be spending $200,000 on "exploratory or developmental research on the health of transgender and gender nonconforming people." The NIH announcement further stated, "Transgender and gender nonconforming people encompass individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex on their original birth certificate, including individuals who are making or who have made a transition from being identified as one gender to the other, as well as individuals who are questioning their gender identity, who identify with more than one gender, or whose gender expression varies significantly from what is traditionally associated with or typical for that sex."

It’s important to note that studying the problems of gender dysphoria and the impact it has on individuals is not unwarranted or unscientific research. But in today’s politically correct environment — where transgenderism is being celebrated as normal, and anyone questioning its normality or morality is labeled a bigot and a hater — it’s pretty clear this is an attempt to use "science" as a tool to further justify forcing the American public to accept transgenderism as normal. Even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is drinking the Rainbow Mafia’s Kool-Aid. He is co-sponsoring a bill that would prevent the military from banning transgenders from serving.



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 September, 2017

More Leftist bigotry and racism

A CANADIAN film director says he has received "racist attacks" and death threats over a plan to charge "white cis-straight able-bodied males" double the price to see his documentary.

Shiraz Higgins, 27, sparked uproar this week with the "justice pricing" policy, which listed tickets to the upcoming screening of his comedy film Building the Room as $20 for "cisgender" males and $10 for everyone else.

Cisgender is a word used to refer to a person "whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex". As of 2016, it was one of 33 possible genders listed on the Australian Sex Survey alongside the likes of "genderfluid", "genderqueer", "non-binary" and "poligender".

Building the Room is a behind-the-scenes documentary about a group of comedians developing a stand-up comedy show. Mr Higgins initially used the false name and email account "Sid Mohammed" when promoting the stunt to Canadian media because he was concerned about his safety.

"I’ve been wanting to have a layer of safety between me and angry citizens in order to keep the tension from being completely locked in on me," he told The Canadian Press. "It’s clearly become very heated."

He said the policy was not about "retribution or putting white men in their place", but confirmed organisers were pushing ahead with a plan to charge white males more than others. "This is not a publicity stunt," he said."[We are] pushing forward because we believe it is an important piece of overall conversation that is happening in society right now."

The Blue Bridge Theatre Society, owners of the Roxy Theatre which the director rented for the screening next week, distanced themselves from the controversy. "Blue Bridge was not at any time consulted regarding these policies and, had it been, would not have agreed, nor will it ever agree, to policies that are discriminatory towards any person," a spokeswoman told The Canadian Press.

"While we deny any responsibility for the polices by the organisers of event, we are deeply regretful for any offence the polices may cause."

Mr Higgins, who received $40,000 in funding for the film from internet TV service Telus Optik, admitted that the stunt to raise awareness of income inequality had gone further than he originally expected.

"It’s gone so far beyond what it was intended to be," he told The Hollywood Reporter. "It was never intended to be a national conversation. It’s a local screening, featuring an unknown cast of comedians, from an unknown director, in an little-known city. For some reason, the national media thought it was a story that needed to be run far and wide."

On his blog, he called for the death threats sent to the "Sid Mohammed" email address to stop. "That kind of behaviour doesn’t solve any problems," he wrote.

Publicity stunts attempting to draw attention to pay inequality are nothing new. Earlier this year, a vegan cafe in Melbourne introduced an 18 per cent "gender gap" surcharge, following a similar move by a travel insurance company. Last year a New York pharmacy introduced its own "man tax" to draw attention to price discrimination.


UK: Father-of-five taxi driver was shunned by local Muslim community after student, 22, falsely accused him of groping her when he refused to accept her kebab-soaked £10 note

The nasty bitch herself.  Good that the Brits do lock these menaces up

A father-of-five taxi driver who refused to accept a student's kebab-soaked £10 note for religious reasons has revealed he was shunned by his local Muslim community after she lied that he sexually assaulted her.

Sophie Pointon, 22, whose dream was to become a police officer, falsely claimed she had been groped in the back of the cab she had been picked up in after a night out in Leeds and has been jailed for 16 months.

She rang 999 in the early hours of April 22 this year and continued the deception by signing a statement, giving an account of the 'attack'.

Leeds Crown Court heard the driver, a father-of-five, was tracked down and kept in custody for six hours.

In a moving impact statement he described how the claims had left his life in tatters but her spurious accusations.  The Asian father-of-five told the court through a personal impact statement that he was a practising Muslim - and the accusations had caused him to be shunned. He was also banned from entering the homes of his colleagues and friends.

He said: 'I am now extremely reluctant to take lone females in case I am accused again. 'The girl who accused me is the same age as my own daughter - I cannot comprehend why she made this allegation. 'I feel religiously tainted from this, and no help from the police or the courts can help that. 'Friends stopped speaking to me and letting me in to their homes. People in my community do not even want to be seen with me.'  

But the case against him never even went to court, as a telephone recording of the incident, with his taxi firm, cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Pointon pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and was handed a prison sentence yesterday.

Kate Bisset, prosecuting, said the driver was interviewed and said he could recall Pointon being 'extremely drunk' when she got into his car holding a kebab.

He said Pointon threw £10 note at him when they reached the Hyde Park area but he refused to accept it as it was covered in oil from the kebab.

The driver said Pointon, who graduated this summer with a BA Honours in criminology from Leeds Beckett University, then became abusive and ran around the car opening doors.

The prosecutor said: 'He did not think much of it at the time because such incident with people who are intoxicated are not unusual.'

A recording of a conversation between the driver and a phone operator at his taxi office supported his account.

The court heard a GPS tracker fitted to the car also revealed Pointon's description of the taxi journey to be untrue.

Pointon broke down in tears and asked if she could drop the charges when her account was challenged by police.

She pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. Denise Breen-Lawton, mitigating, said Pointon, from Manchester, had been studying in Leeds at the time. 

She grew up in a £250,000 semi-detached home, owned by her parents, in a Victorian suburban street.

She said her hopes of becoming a police officer were now ruined. Yesterday, she was jailed for 16 months.

Judge Christopher Batty told her: 'Your malicious complaint has done a huge disservice to those seeking justice through the police and courts.'

The driver was stripped of his taxi licence for four weeks during the investigation into the claims.

He described in a statement how the false allegation had caused him to suffer from stress.


White Supremacists Under The Bed

"White supremicist" is the new all-purpose term for anybody with whom a Leftist disagrees


"That's so bourg," said one of the Saul Alinsky community organizers I was working with forty-five years ago in Massachusetts. Though I didn't know what "bourg" meant, I got that it was a pejorative. "Bourg" meant "bad." Only later did I ask the full meaning. It was short for "bourgeois," she said, as if that explained everything.

I still didn't understand but the word sounded familiar and I knew its spelling so I looked it up. Bourgeois meant "middle class," but I was still perplexed. I saw myself as middle class and still do. What was so bad about middle class?

 Well, just about everything, I guess. At the ultra-progressive, ivy-league University of Pennsylvania, a law professor named Amy Wax is being vilified as "racist" and "bigoted" by students, faculty, and alumni for daring to write that bourgeois values exemplified in 1950s America are superior to those prized in today's progressive America. She asserted in a Philadelphia Inquirer  op-ed that in the 1950s people believed you should:

"Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime."

The last straw came when Wax dared criticize mores in sacrosanct sub-cultures:

"the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white' rap culture of inner-city blacks; [and] the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants." Wax asserted those were, "destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans."  

UPenn took all that as a declaration of war and several scorching columns appeared in UPenn's daily newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian. One, signed by fifty-four faculty and doctoral students declared that Wax's bourgeois culture:

"stem[s] from the very same malignant logic of hetero-patriarchal, class-based, white supremacy that plagues our country today," and "These cultural values and logics are steeped in anti-blackness and white hetero-patriarchal respectability, i.e. two-hetero-parent homes, divorce is a vice, and the denouncement of all groups perceived as not acting white enough i.e. black Americans, Latino communities, and immigrants in particular."

Forty-five years ago bourgeois culture was still acceptable but today it's anathema to the progressive left which rules media and academia. Above her original op-ed, Wax included a picture of actor John Wayne from Director John Ford's 1956 film: The Searchers, the film was depicted as reinforcing bourgeois culture and further enflaming the UPenn establishment.

Other symbols of the bourgeois 1950s like "Father Knows Best" and "Leave It To Beaver" are often derided by progressives. Must we now regard Jim Anderson and Ward Cleaver as hetero-patriarchal white-supremacists? Were baby boomer minds corrupted by their propaganda? Do we need reeducation and sensitivity training? To remedy this, perhaps there could be another remake of "Leave It To Beaver" in which Lumpy Rutherford marries Eddie Haskell. Maybe Whitey Whitney can renounce his white male privilege and transition into a woman. Maybe June Cleaver can organize a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood.

NBC's Chuck Todd invited Dartmouth's Chris Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook onto the August 20th "Meet The Press." Bray argued for Antifa's use of violence in opposition to fascist white-supremacists. Arguing against was Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Then Dartmouth President Phil Scanlon denounced Bray's remarks, only to be himself condemned by 100 active Dartmouth faculty. Sounds a lot like UPenn's antics.

Thus is political polarization exacerbated. Antifa uses violence not only against real white supremacists, but imagined ones as well. The Marxist left, which seems now to control of the Democrat Party, sees anyone who opposes it as white supremacist.

So when Antifa beats up Trump supporters, capitalists, readers of Ann Coulter's columns, and anyone it considers conservative, leftist Democrats either cheer them or keep silent, recent remarks by Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding.

Perhaps observing how Maine's rural 2nd District where I live went for Trump in 2016, former Trump campaigner staffer Mark Braynard is bringing his "Look Ahead America" organization to New Hampshire. Interviewed on WMUR-TV, Braynard said he identified 15,000 to 100,000 disaffected rural voters he'll try to register. In response, NH Democrat Party Chairman Ray Buckley called these disaffected citizens "white supremacists."

Who knew there were so many white supremacists in NH? Might these disaffected citizens also consider themselves middle class? Bourgeois? Whereas the late Senator Joseph McCarthy saw communists under his bed and everywhere else in the 1950s, it appears today's Democrats are seeing white supremacists everywhere now.   


The Emerging New World


It is clear that the free exchange of opinion that once characterized university life is now being challenged. The avatars of social justice have arrogated to themselves the role of arbiter in the university curriculum. But it hasn't stopped there. Now monuments of the past are being put through the probity of present standards as one statue after another is in jeopardy of tumbling. Here is a foreshadowing of a "new America", one in which the evils of the past are to be redressed by the self-appointed czars of the moment.

Where this ends isn't clear, but I have a strong belief that the revolutionaries in our midst are intent on altering the Constitution converting it into a Red Book of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

After all, for many the First Amendment is in tatters already. Free speech no longer exists for unpopular speech or "hate speech," even though it is precisely unpopular expression that the Constitution protects. Hate speech is loathsome, but it is protected speech precisely because any line drawn against it is arbitrary and subject to the will of the censors. Like many, I was appalled at the anticipated Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois (which never happened), but I defended the right of these barbarians to do so as First Amendment expression. As I see it, the danger of censorship was greater than the psychological damage of ugly expression.

For many Americans, the Second Amendment protecting citizens to bear arms must be modified or erased. In the minds of these revisionists guns are the problem fomenting violence in our cities. Despite the obvious point that a gun isn't a weapon in the hands of St. Francis, but is dangerous if wielded by a felon intent on criminal behavior, gun baners rarely make distinctions.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that due process will accompany legal charges, indictments or the sequestration of property; in other words life, liberty and property cannot be arbitrarily denied without a legal process that assures the rights of the victim. However, at many universities the due process clause is only honored in the breach. It is often sufficient for an allegation of rape or sexual abuse to be made before the accused is found culpable. Reputations are sometimes destroyed on the basis of empty allegations, but kangaroo courts of this kind have proliferated throughout higher education.

The Tenth Amendment gives to the states the powers that remain without enumeration in the other Amendments. Hence education is one such area that accrues to the state governments. Unfortunately, teachers' unions want to consolidate power through national organizations and have been pressing in recent years for authority to be vested in the Department of Education exclusively. It is a clear and undeviating attack on federalism which has central and state governments sharing power. For extremists, the mitigating influence of the states is unnecessary.

In the aggregate these reforms and reformers constitute a revolutionary force. Their goal is to shift the organs of national power. They intend to use the vulnerability of the moment to espouse a newly created nation from the political graveyard of the past. America's Red Guard will determine what one can believe and what is unacceptable. The Color Guard will carry the black flag of revolution and the Founders will be interred for their regressive ideas.

Welcome Comrades to the New World. You have nothing to lose, but your chains. Of course, there are chains you will wear that will be dispensed by the Party. Those who resist will be relieved of all they love. For even love itself is retrograde; either one believes, or one is ostracized. Tolerance is weakness, hate is intensity and good will is cowardice.

The world will be turned upside down with many wishing they were facing downward. For those who have seen signals of the New World, it is a dark place bereft of an enlightened Constitution.



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 September, 2017

France may make wolf-whistling and asking women for their phone number a CRIMINAL offence

This is almost certainly aimed at egregious immigrant behaviour

WOLF-WHISTLING is set to be banned in France as the government declares war on men hassling women in public.

Under new plans bugging women for their telephone numbers and following them could also be prohibited.

The crackdown comes after surveys show virtually all French women have been harassed on public transport, in the street or elsewhere at some time.

France’s new leader, President Emmanuel Macron, has pledged to end this during his election campaign this year.

Only a few countries, including Belgium and Portugal, have banned such behaviour.

The UK and others have broader laws against harassment in general but none so specific.

Some lawyers believe men should only be prosecuted when police officers witness an offence.

Others say women should be able to file criminal lawsuits against offenders at a later date.

But Marl?ne Schiappa, the under-secretary for gender equality, defended the plan and gave an example of behaviour that would be illegal. She said: "You are a woman in an underground train. I am a man. I follow you. "You get off the train. I get off. "You get on another train. I get on too. I ask you for your telephone number. I ask again. I ask a third time.

"You feel oppressed. That is street harassment."

Gilles-William Goldnadel, a lawyer, accused Ms Schiappa of seeking to outlaw "heavy Latin chat-up lines".

He said the only consequences of the law would be to enrich feminist lawyers and to clog up the court system.


Women soldiers are facing an enemy within

Rates of suicide and sexual attacks by male troops are shockingly high in the US military

Last Friday at 5pm the Veterans Affairs Department in Washington released its analysis of suicide statistics for the 55 million people who left the US armed services between 1970 and 2014. It’s a quiet time of the news week, designed to attract little interest. And that’s not surprising because the figures were shocking. They showed that male veterans had a 20 per cent increased risk of suicide over male non-vets. Female veterans, though, were 250 per cent more likely to kill themselves than other women.

Which raises the question: just as women are being encouraged to join in larger numbers, what is happening to them that so markedly increases their suicide risk? Serving in an army at war is stressful but why should women suffer so much more than men?

In the general population women are much less likely to kill themselves than men. Male suicide rates are 3.5 times higher. But the experience of serving pushes their rates up dramatically. When you break the figures down it is clear that it is the youngest veterans of both sexes who are by far the worst affected. Men under 30 who are serving have almost triple the suicide rate of male civilians. For women under 30 the rate is more than six times.

In the past three decades the official view of women in the military has shifted from keeping them at the fringes to declaring that there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be at the centre. Fifteen per cent of America’s 1.34 million active duty troops are female.

In December 2015 the US defence department announced that women would be allowed into frontline combat, driving tanks, firing mortars and leading infantry, as long as they could meet the same physical standards as the men. Last October the first ten female infantry leaders graduated from their course.

The assumption is that women in the forces should be treated equally. Unfortunately, the reality is that women are more likely to be assaulted, harassed and discriminated against within the military, and find it harder to get jobs and homes when they leave. For many, joining the forces is still a good career choice, offering opportunities that they wouldn’t have in their home towns. However, most women are simply not having the same experience that’s on offer to men.

The bleakest difference is in the rates of rape and assault. A 2013 paper on treating US veterans found that 25 per cent of military women have been assaulted and up to 80 per cent harassed. Women report being commonly referred to by male soldiers as either bitch, slut or lesbian. A 2014 survey commissioned by the defence department found that 6.5 per cent of women in the navy, almost 5 per cent in the army and 7.9 per cent in the Marines had been sexually assaulted in the preceding year. The figures for men were between 0.3 per cent and 1.1 per cent.

In 2013 a PBS documentary reported that a woman in a combat zone was more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy. The Pentagon estimates that only one in six assaults is reported. That is probably because women are 12 times more likely to experience retaliation for their reporting than they are to see their attackers convicted. Almost 60 per cent of victims are assaulted by a supervisor or unit leader. Fewer than one in ten cases are tried but more than half of women are professionally or socially victimised for reporting assaults.

Women recount the terrible disorientation they go through when this happens. In a discussion thread online one soldier described how she tried to stick to "the good guys" in her unit for security, only to be raped by one of her best friends after a year. The betrayal is immense, she says, and so is the confusion because everything in your training teaches you to cut ties with outsiders and rely on your small group, and yet they can turn out to be your greatest threat. The camaraderie that men can trust in does not exist for them.

A Marine told Human Rights Watch what happened when her attackers were cleared. She had anonymous text threats, her car was vandalised, her picture was posted to a Marines Facebook page, saying she was a "wildebeest" who must be silenced "before she lied about another rape". Someone posted: "Find her, tag her, haze her, make her life a living hell." She stopped going to the dining hall out of fear.

The differences between men’s and women’s experiences are compounded when they leave the forces. Women find it harder to get jobs, possibly because their skills are likely to be in classically male areas. While 40 per cent have children, they have less support from partners and three times as many women as men are single parents. Those who have been raped or violently attacked are more than six times more likely to be homeless.

Veterans’ mental health support groups are geared to men; a single woman doesn’t want to join a group of nine men to discuss her trauma from military sexual assault.

America is working on all this, collecting evidence, tracking veterans’ health, trying to transform sexist military culture. But what the evidence tells us is that women are being betrayed by optimistic assertions of equality and opportunity. They are dying for it.

Britain is taking the same path but with even less research or follow-up. Last year it too lifted the barriers on frontline troops. This isn’t good enough. Women cannot serve on equal terms unless the military finds effective ways of constraining male aggression. Until then women on the front line risk being sacrifices rather than leading lights.


Atheist Hypocrisy and the Assault on Religious Liberty

Attacks on faith have increased dramatically in recent years, but there's still hope and reason to fight

Knowing the perils of disease, shipwreck and discomfort, the Pilgrims boarded the Mayflower in search of one thing: religious liberty. While many died on the voyage, and half of those who made it here died in the first winter, they knew that their lives were but "stepping stones" for the next generation’s freedom to practice Christianity. Their journey had taken them from an underground church in Scrooby, England, to an escape in Holland. However, as Holland’s secular society began corroding the hearts and minds of their children, they realized that a voyage to the New World was worth the risk. The Plymouth landing in 1620 stands as one of the earliest pieces of our country’s quest for religious liberty.

Today, almost 400 years later, the United States has become an increasingly difficult place for a Christian to work, be educated, and to serve his or her country. This has happened despite the statement found in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In fact, First Liberty Institute’s 2017 report notes that in the past five years, documented attacks on religious freedom have increased 133%. In the past year, attacks have increased 15%. These attacks take place across broad sectors of the public arena — education, religious institutions and the U.S. military.

A case from the public arena, Barton v. Balch Springs, involved a Texas senior center in which city officials told the senior citizens that they could not pray before meals, listen to messages with religious content, or sing gospel music because public buildings do not allow religion. The senior citizens filed a lawsuit, and the government officials threatened to take away their meals if they won because praying over meals paid for by the government violated the "separation of church and state."

In Pounds v. Katy I.S.D., a school district in the Houston area banned religious Christmas items and religiously themed Valentine’s Day cards. School officials told one student that she could not answer the question "What does Easter mean to you?" with "Jesus." A federal court ultimately ruled against Katy I.S.D. for its hostility to religion and for violating the student’s constitutional rights.

In Sterling v. United States, Montifa Sterling, a Marine Corps lance corporal, placed three notes in her cubicle that referred to the Bible verse: "No weapon formed against you shall prosper" (Isaiah 54:17). While her supervisor allowed the other service members to display personal items, he ordered Sterling to remove the notes. Sterling believed that her First Amendment rights protected her ability to post the notes, so when she found them in the trash the following day, she reposted them. As a result, Lance Corporal Sterling was court-martialed. The highest U.S. military court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, believed the note to be minor and thus unworthy of religious protection. First Liberty Institute is appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

These examples, a small selection of more than 1,400 documented incidents, illustrate the direct assault on the constitutional rights of Americans. A combination of misinformation among the populous and lobbying efforts by atheist groups such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the American Humanist Association and the American Atheists have resulted in prayers being banned, Ten Commandments displays being made illegal and veterans memorials with crosses being torn down or moved.

The American Atheists claim to not be a religion, yet require equal representation of their "non-religion" at interfaith events and councils. Additionally, college campuses routinely list humanists, secularist, free-thinkers and agnostics among other religious groups. They claim to believe in nothing, but in fact believe in a lack of belief and have faith in a lack of faith.

Atheists claim that Christians force their religion on others. Yet atheistic secularism has been forcing students, military personnel, ministers and workers to adhere to their lack of belief standards or suffer the consequences. Far from learning to "coexist," as many bumper stickers advertise, atheist lobby groups seek nothing less than to persecute and destroy all religions except their own lack of one. Their rejection of religion is their religion and their unrelenting desire to "convert" the rest of us is unconstitutional, intolerant and wrong.

In terms of the quest to totally eradicate religion, the Soviet Union at least communicated its objectives honestly: to destroy religion and establish an atheist, secular state. A state church or a state "non-church" both qualify as an establishment of a religious state. Are atheist lobbyists, then, not the greatest offenders of their own unconstitutional demands of others?

The Pilgrims came here for religious freedom, not freedom from religion imposed on them by atheist lobby groups. The right to "not be offended" does not outweigh the right to practice one’s religion. Ironically, people rarely ask Christians if it offends them to have their child told he cannot pray. Christians have a right to believe in God, just as much as atheists have a right to believe in nothing. The assault on religious liberty only gains victory if people of faith choose fear over courage. As Ronald Reagan stated, "Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." While courage may cost social standing, job mobility or favor among others, ultimately standing tall in the face of evil gives others courage and reminds us of our purpose: to do the right thing, despite the consequences.

If you are experiencing religious persecution and need legal representation, contact these non-profit law firms:


Public fury after Australian discount chain removes the word CHRISTMAS from its replica Christmas trees

Discount department store Big W has removed the word 'Christmas' from boxes and signage in the lead-up to the holiday season.

The decision to remove references to the Christmas tradition from product lines in their Australian stores has baffled and infuriated shoppers.

Big W's Facebook page has been inundated with posts accusing the store of bowing to political correctness and 'banning Christmas'.

'You are joking,' wrote one disgruntled consumer. 'Banning the word Christmas. Hang your head in shame.'

Fabian Iuele, owner of Christmas Tree Farm, called the move 'disappointing' and said the store was ignoring both history and tradition, The Herald Sun reported.

'That's really sad. It ignores the religious element and history of the holiday which is still important to people,' he said.

'We get people from other religions purchasing our trees regularly but they always know that they're called Christmas trees like everybody else does.'

Renamed trees include the Black Forest [Christmas] Tree, White [Christmas] Tree, Emerald [Christmas] Tree and Mayfair [Christmas] Tree.

Cameron Harrison, a Big W Highpoint customer, said the store was overreacting and using the word Christmas is not a problem.  'Christmas did have a religious meaning but we are not a religious country. I think it’s more of a tradition these days,' he said.

Facebook has filled up with furious customers claiming they will be shopping elsewhere for Christmas.

'Big mistake Big W, how many people decorate their houses with trees just for the sake of it? It is Christmas CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS stop the ridiculous wording on your CHRISTMAS trees,' wrote one irate shopper.

'I will be shopping elsewhere from now on! One completely offended (former) customer.'

'If you don't want to acknowledge Christmas, don't sell it! Lost this customer. Plenty of other places to spend my money,' wrote another.

The Big W website still has trees listed under their original names, and spokeswoman told The Herald Sun the chain was proud of its line of trees this year.



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


21 September, 2017


Three current articles below.  Australians get to vote on approval for homosexual marriage -- unlike America, where it was imposed by unelected judges

Gay student heckled after declaring his support for ‘No’ campaign.  Skywriters harassed

And they call conservatives haters!

A GAY man campaigning against same-sex marriage has claimed there are thousands of homosexual Australians like him whose views are being "drowned out" by the "yes" campaign.

The Queensland university student is seen proclaiming his views to a heckling crowd in a video shared online by former prime minister Tony Abbott.

"We’re here today because we support marriage as it has always been, between one man and one woman," the man says at the demonstrated at the University of Queensland. "I am here, specifically, because I’m gay and I am standing up against them.

"They want to drown us out. They want to drown me out. They want to speak for me. They want to speak for me because I’m gay and I am standing up against them."

The man goes on to claim there ae "thousands" of gay Australians who are against same-sex marriage, and says they are being vilified for their views.

"There are thousands of gay people in this country who are against same-sex marriage, who see the effects that it will have on the family, on schools, on politics, on churches," he says.

Referring to supporters of changes to Australian marriage laws, he says: "These people hate us. They call us Nazis, bigots, homophobes. Where is the real hatred?"

Sharing the video with his followers, Mr Abbott, who has become a leading voice in the campaign against marriage reform, inferred the clip was a "case in point" that supporters of same-sex marriage were "responsible for bullying and hate speech".

The former Liberal leader shared a second clip from the event in which it could be seen same-sex marriage campaigners had attempted to take over the demonstration, chanting "yes" over the top of the man’s words.

The demonstration, held on Monday, comes as the electoral watchdog has received complaints about the "Vote No" skywriting over Sydney on the weekend not being properly authorised.


The words "vote no" appeared four times over the city on Sunday morning, a day after the Coalition for Marriage launched its campaign against same-sex marriage.

A grassroots campaigner against same-sex marriage crowd-funded more than $2500 on GoFundMe to pay the pilot to write the message in the sky. One woman donated $1000 to the cause.

The anonymous author of the GoFundMe page declared it was "time for traditional Australian’s (sic) to take a stand". "It’s time we all sent a clear message that we will not put up with our way of life been (sic) deconstructed any further," the page said.

The author later announced the money had been frozen by the website "until we give our names and locations".

The page was inundated with messages of condemnation. "I feel sorry for all of you," one woman wrote.

"What an awful way to live your lives. I can’t imagine being so hateful." Organisers said they were "keen to stay fairly anonymous" and defended their actions.

According to the Daily Mail, flight tracking information confirms a Cessna owned by Skywriting Australia left the message in the sky. The company’s charges start from $3990. Social media users began to circulate the company’s contact information and posted the abusive messages they’d sent.

One message called the business owner an "a***hole" while another post said it was "probably the end of your business".

One text message to the business owner read "usually fighting hate with hate isn’t my style, but you really are a sh** human. You’re definitely the biggest piece of sh** in Australia today. Probably tomorrow too. Hope you’re proud of yourself. Don’t be surprised by the hate coming for you. Titt for tatt, it’s only fair, right? You stupid, ignorant, remorseless, pathetic, old, LOSER".

Another read "I hope the weather gets hotter this week. It might help to warm your cold black heart #loveislove".

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is encouraging a "yes" vote, told reporters people were entitled to express their views.

"If you want people to respect your point of view you’ve got to be prepared to respect theirs," Mr Turnbull said.


Leftist hate leads to a firing

A Canberra businesswoman says she 'fired' a contractor who posted to social media that 'it's okay to vote no' to same sex marriage.

Madlin Sims, who runs a party entertainment company, posted a blunt message to Facebook this week announcing she had a staff member go.

'Today I fired a staff member who made it public knowledge that they feel "it's okay to vote no"',' Ms Sims wrote.  'Advertising your desire to vote no for SSM is, in my eyes, hate speech. Voting no is homophobic. Advertising your homophobia is hate speech. 'As a business owner I can't have somebody who represents my business posting hate speech online.'

Speaking to Daily Mail Australia, Ms Sims explained the contractor had been representing her business by often posting photos of parties she worked at. 

The small businesswoman said she didn't want the woman's views associated with her company. 'It's all quite public she worked for the business... That's not something I want to be affiliated with,' she said.

She compared it with employing a staff member who posted racist material online. Ms Sims added she had gay friends, staff members and clients. 'It's just like if I had a racist person working for me especially someone who's so vocal with their beliefs.'

In the post, Ms Sims urged her friends to vote 'yes' in the upcoming same sex marriage survey and listed three justifications for her staffing decision. 

'1. It's bad for business.

2. I don't like s*** morals.

3. I don't want homophobes working for me, especially in an environment with children.'

The 'yes' and 'no' campaigns are currently canvassing the country for votes

The apparent sacking is likely to spark the ire of the No campaign, which has made concerns about freedom of expression a major plank of its argument. 

But Yes campaign representatives have said it's 'misleading' to suggest same sex marriage would affect freedom of speech. 


Same sex marriage supporters hostile towards billboard

Even a church is not allowed to preach Christian teachings, apparently

A BILLBOARD outside a Brisbane church has sparked outrage ahead of the same-sex marriage vote.

The Bellbowrie Community Church posted the sign: "God designed marriage between a man & a woman".
The sign that caused outrage at a Bellbowrie church.

It was condemned on social media, and critics took to the church’s Facebook page to object.

"Hopefully there are churches in the area that cater to ALL Christians and not just the ones who fit in the narrow minded view of this "Church of God". I’m sure Christ would be very disappointed in your view of Christianity," one post said.

Others started taking to the church’s review section and posting one-star reviews.

"A closed-minded group which overtly discriminates against members of our valued community and their (very reasonable) quest for marriage equality," one woman wrote.

Cartoons of same sex couples and sailors waving rainbow flags were posted in the comments under unrelated posts by the church.

All the reviews and comments about the issue later disappeared.

A spokeswoman for the group 4070 Says Yes said the message on the church sign was not representative of the majority of residents.

"Our community has implored the church to remove the offensive sign, making phone calls, writing letters, emails and meeting with officials to point out the damage and distress it is causing," she said.

"The church, self-appointed spokesperson of our community, has instead increasingly closed down avenues for feedback."

But Pastor John Gill said it was not a message of hate, and simply presented God’s view.

"There are two sides to this debate so it was no surprise that some do not agree with the sign. But what did surprise me was the degree of malice expressed by some, which could only be described as hate speech," he said.

Pastor Gill said freedom of speech was important to Australians.

"This means gay people are entitled to speak their minds, and anybody who does not agree with their views should still respect them and not abuse them for expressing their opinions," he said.

"In a free country, Christians also have this right. They do not expect everyone will agree, but should they not expect the same freedom to speak and be given the same respect that they give to others?"

Pastor Gill said the Facebook activity had been "difficult" for many in the church. "And as a result, many now realise that it is no longer easy to hold and express a Christian viewpoint in Australia," he said.

He said he had answered every negative email and extended an invitation to everyone who contacted him to meet in person.

"There have also been a few occasions where a protester with a signboard has protested on the street outside the church," Pastor Gill said.

"The beauty of a free country is that they are welcome to do this and we don’t begrudge it. It can be hot out there, so we have tried to give any protester some bottled water when somebody has been at the church."

"There are however some in the community who are supportive of the sign and have thanked me for our stand, but are afraid to say anything on Facebook for fear of being abused," he said.  "But apart from Facebook, I have had more supportive emails, phone calls and visits than I have had negative ones."

Pastor Gill said his congregation is free to vote in the plebiscite however they choose.  "As a pastor, it is not my place to tell people how to vote," he said.

"Many of us have friends and family who are gay, and it is absurd to think we hate them. We love them very much. It is possible to hold different views, yet still love people. So this does not need to be a source of division throughout Australia. We can differ, yet still respect and care for each other and let the voting determine the issue."


Trump Condemns Racism, but Here's the Real Problem

Racism remains a problem because some folks are invested in it. Fascism, meanwhile, threatens Liberty

Donald Trump signed a resolution condemning racism Thursday. Trump said, "As Americans, we condemn the recent violence in Charlottesville and oppose hatred, bigotry and racism in all forms." He continued, "No matter the color of our skin or our ethnic heritage, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We are a Nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. As one people, let us move forward to rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans." Sounds pretty much like his Inaugural Address.

Trump’s statement came on the heels of a one-on-one meeting with Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the only black Republican senator. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the problem of race relations and possible solutions to help bring about greater unity in the nation. After the meeting, Scott, who was critical of Trump’s response to the Charlottesville violence, said via a spokesman that he "was very, very clear [with Trump] about the brutal history surrounding the white supremacist movement and their horrific treatment of black and other minority groups." Moreover, "Rome wasn’t built in a day, and to expect the President’s rhetoric to change based on one 30-minute conversation is unrealistic. Antifa is bad and should be condemned, yes, but white supremacists have been killing and tormenting black Americans for centuries. There is no realistic comparison. Period."

The difficulty with the issue of race in America today is the often convoluted nature by which it is both understood and discussed. Scott is absolutely correct about the past history of white supremacy and the evil it inflicted on blacks. But it is also true that today white supremacist groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis represent the extreme fringe within America — they have no political power and they have been soundly rejected by the vast majority of Americans for decades now. Those few individuals who cling to the racial hatred espoused by these groups are essentially living in a fantasyland of a bygone era.

However, what Scott seems to be missing or maybe too easily dismissing is the larger and growing real threat to Liberty. That threat is the rise and growing appeal of extreme leftist groups like antifa. There is no question that antifa advocates using violence and justifies its violence by labeling those it attacks as fascists and Nazis, gross irony notwithstanding. Couple that with the fact that antifa explicitly calls for the silencing and suppression of free speech rights and Americans should rightly be concerned. But what makes antifa currently the greater threat than these fringe white supremacist groups from yesteryear has been a sympathetic mainstream media that has been all too willing to overlook or excuse antifa’s violent rhetoric and actions.

When ethnicity is conflated with political ideology the result is a virulent form of identity politics that so demonizes the "other side" that it is unable to hear, let alone consider, opposing ideas or opinions. Identifying with and protecting the group or tribe is prized above all other values. Individual identities and opinions are overshadowed and subordinated by the collectivist group identity. This is where faulty concepts like "white privilege" or "micro aggression" originate. No longer are individuals judged by their own words and actions, but by their tribal identity. The irony with groups like antifa or Black Lives Matter is that they practice the very things they claim to be fighting against.

The rioting over the weekend in St. Louis following the acquittal of a police officer in the shooting death of a black man attests, once again, to this problem of conflating a political agenda with racism. Over the last eight years, Barack Obama lowered the bar for civil unrest and racial discord. And that’s the nice way of putting it. The consequences of that are what we’re now witnessing across the country.

As Morgan Freeman once said, the best way to deal with racism is to "stop talking about it." The reality is that most Americans aren’t racists. Like a scab, the more it’s picked at the more it bleeds and the longer it takes to heal. We’ve been picking at this scab for so long now, one would think that slavery is still happening today in America.


Why is anyone talking about DACA when the RAISE Act ending chain migration still has not passed?

"Chain migration cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on immigration!"

Now we’re talking. That was President Donald Trump on Twitter on Sept. 15 throwing out another condition to his calls for Congress to legalize former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that allowed illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors to remain.

The stipulation came a day after Trump, speaking in Ft. Myers, Fla. said, "Very important is the wall. We have to be sure the wall isn’t obstructed because without the wall I wouldn’t do anything… It doesn’t have to be here but they can’t obstruct the wall if its in a budget or anything else" and "If there’s not a wall, we’re doing nothing" and "We’re not looking at citizenship. We’re not looking at amnesty. We’re looking at allowing people to stay here…"

In addition, Trump had assured his followers on Twitter on Sept. 14 that "No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent."

So far, then, Trump’s conditions for any deal on DACA are four-fold: 1) No chain migration allowing DACA extended relatives access to the U.S.; 2) No path to citizenship for DACA illegal immigrants; 3) A boost to border security must be included; and 4) The wall must be built in the budget.

That is far from a done deal, since it is not at all clear that House and Senate Democrats — or Republican leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for that matter — have agreed to any of it.

Trump’s conditions came after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) rushed to the microphones to declare that a deal had been had with Trump. That DACA would go through without any preconditions. The remainder of the week was spent by Trump, the White House and Republican Congressional leaders disabusing anyone of the notion that the deal was done.

Now, either, Democrats overstated what had been agreed to. Or, Trump is walking back what was turning out to be a bad, bad deal.

Either way, observed President of Americans for Limited Government Rick Manning in a statement issued on Sept. 14, "this could wind up being a productive conversation about how to enforce the nation’s laws and reform a broken system."

Manning called on Trump to add one more condition to his negotiation, which is to pass the RAISE Act. "The paradigm must be to pass the RAISE Act, end chain migration, move to a merit-based system, build the wall and secure the border first as the concrete foundation of a solution to the illegal immigration problem."

Manning added, "The American people elected President Donald Trump to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, secure the border and to end chain migration in the immigration system. To put America and Americans first." Passing the RAISE Act would do that.

The RAISE Act, proposed by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) would, according to the bill’s description by the White House, "replaces the current permanent employment-visa framework with a skills-based system that rewards applicants based on their individual merit… reduces overall immigration numbers to limit low-skilled and unskilled labor entering the United States… prioritizes immediate family members of United States residents, including spouses and minor children, but ends preferences for extended family members and adult children… [and] eliminates the outdated Diversity Visa lottery system."

That would be an absolute game-changer. Which is why it should be the bare minimum of any legislation to do with immigration considered by Congress.

The President is right not to allow chain migration to be a part of his deal on DACA. But that should not only mean for DACA illegal immigrants, if they are allowed by Congress to remain, who would be blocked from bringing their extended families. Instead, the entirety of chain migration should be ended, and a skills-based system put in its place by passing the RAISE Act.

Besides that, Trump’s call for the southern border wall to be built, enhanced border security and no path to citizenship for illegal immigrants are critical, common-sense stances that would affirm the mandate he received from the American people in 2016 to address these issues.

But here is the most critical condition of all. These things need to happen before any consideration of DACA or any other illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Amnesty of any kind cannot be put before fixing the broken system and enforcing the law. The American people got bamboozled by similar broken promises in 1986. That can never be allowed to happen again.

Granted, Congress is needed to appropriate funds for the wall and border security, and to pass the RAISE Act. And Trump appears to recognize that he can use DACA as leverage to get these things he promised. It will be up to Trump’s supporters to decide, if achieved, if that’s good enough. But an honest process on this issue has to include the President’s priorities. Otherwise, there shouldn’t be any deal.

As President Trump is quickly learning, the debate on DACA is fraught with pitfalls. Trump made big promises in 2016 that he would put the American people first when it came to immigration policy. At a minimum, that can only mean passing the RAISE Act, ending chain migration, securing the border and building the wall. Other considerations like DACA should only come later.


I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued

In 2012, my promotional printing company, Hands on Originals, was approached by a customer to print a message that conflicted with my conscience. When I said no, they sued me

Hi, my name is Blaine Adamson. I got into the T-shirt printing business because I wanted to create Christian shirts that people would want to wear. Christian T-shirts at the time were so cheesy, they were so bad.

For all the years that I’ve been running my business, Hands on Originals, I’ve happily served and employed people of all backgrounds, of all walks of life.

That’s why it was hard in 2012 when a customer sued us after I politely declined to make T-shirts promoting the local pride festival. I was surprised because I work with and serve gay people. But I can’t print any message that goes against my faith, no matter who asks me to print it. And whenever I can’t print something, I always offer them to another local print shop.

As is the custom for T-shirt makers of all kinds, I’ve declined plenty of orders in the past. For example, I was once asked to make a shirt with Jesus on a bucket of chicken, with chicken coming out of the bucket. I didn’t feel right making that one. I’ve been asked to make a shirt promoting an adult film, one that promoted a strip club, and one or two that promoted violence. I couldn’t in good conscience print any of those shirts.

Another shirt we declined was a simple black shirt with white text that read, "Homosexuality is a sin." I didn’t feel right making that one either. I don’t think that’s how Jesus would have handled the issue; Jesus would have balanced grace and truth.

I have gay customers and employ gay people. For example, we have printed materials for a local band called Mother Jane whose lead singer is a lesbian. That was never a problem for us because, as I said, we’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages.

Shortly after our case started, two lesbian printers in New Jersey voiced their support for us because they didn’t want to be forced to print messages that would violate their consciences.

That’s why I was glad when a judge ruled that I had the freedom to decide which messages I wanted to promote. An appeals court also agreed. Unfortunately, though, the government has appealed again, this time asking the Kentucky Supreme Court to hear the case.

The bottom line, for me? I love designing T-shirts, and I’d be pretty crushed if I had to close down Hands On, especially after all the years of building the business, serving the community, and doing what I love.

All we are asking for is that the government not force us to promote messages against our convictions. Everyone should have that freedom.



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 September, 2017

Trump Calls for Tougher Travel Ban, Bemoans Political Correctness

Following the Friday morning suspected terrorist attack in London, President Donald Trump tweeted that the "travel ban in the United States should be far larger."

The president began his address of the London train attack by calling it the work of a "loser," and terrorists losers in general, in two consecutive tweets. He also said that terrorists "must be dealt with in a much tougher manner."

"Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!"

"Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner.The internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off & use better!"

In another tweet, he then addressed the "travel ban" on some Muslim-majority countries he implemented through executive order during the first month of his presidency.

Trump tweeted, "The travel ban in the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific- but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"

The travel ban, which the administration initially argued was not a "ban," has come under fire from various activists and politicians since its implementation.

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's limits on the travel ban this week, the Washington Free Beacon reports:

The full Supreme Court concurred with Justice Anthony Kennedy on Tuesday to overturn a lower court's limits on the Trump administration's travel ban.

The court issued a one-paragraph summary statement late Tuesday evening overturning a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Washington Post reports.

Tuesday's ruling concurred with the preliminary ruling issued by Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday evening. Kennedy's ruling was also summary; neither offered reasoning for the decision, although this is not an abnormal practice.



Political correctness runs amok in sports media

Before Colin Kaepernick took a knee and became a movement, he was a pretty good football player. And then, he wasn’t anymore. Whether his foray into social activism coincided with his athletic devolution is debatable, but it is clear that we would not be talking about the fellow today if he were practicing his throws instead of scolding white society for being racist.

And that’s his right; and as far as protests go, it’s pretty tame stuff. But the people around Kaepernick are not quite as innocuous, including his girlfriend, Nessa Diab, who tweeted out a racist picture of Ray Lewis. Diab juxtaposed a photo of Lewis hugging Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti with a shot of Samuel L. Jackson’s slave hugging Leonardo DiCaprio’s master in Django Unchained. The implication was unmistakable: Black athletes who don’t disrespect the flag or the national anthem are Uncle Toms, while people like Kaepernick are heroic.

I don’t know about you, but I’m fed up with the politicization of sports. It was bad enough when Eagles fans started boycotting games because they didn’t like the fact that reformed dog torturer Michael Vick was on the team (and can I say he turned out to be one of the most decent and humble men to ever wear the green and white?)

But now it’s really gotten out of hand, with people caring more about what happens off the field (or court, or ice) than on, and grafting their political grievances onto the games themselves. We have Colin K., weeping about the racism inherent in denying a job to a washed-up athlete with too much baggage. We have ESPN giving the "Arthur Ashe Courage Award" to Caitlyn Jenner instead of a courageous teen who died of brain cancer, primarily because Jenner changed from male to female on a Diane Sawyer prime-time special. I have to say that if acquiring a set of breasts is considered courageous, half of Hollywood should have qualified for the award.

And speaking of ESPN, the network has produced a cottage industry of hysterical, "you can’t make these up" gaffes that show just how far up the derriere of political correctness they’ve traveled. First, there was the decision to remove a broadcaster named Robert Lee from covering a football game at the University of Virginia because they were worried that, in the wake of the tragedy in Charlottesville, it would seem tasteless. Robert Lee is Asian American and has about as much to do with the Confederate general as Vivien Leigh, who won an Oscar for playing a woman who supported General … oh, never mind.

Then there was the debacle of Sergio Dipp, who spent his inaugural appearance on the network by rambling on about how wonderful diversity and immigrants and all that stuff is, when the people who are paying to watch a football game didn’t care about the cultural heritage of the coach and just wanted to hear some marginally coherent commentary from the sideline. He explained his performance as follows: "All I wanted to do was to show some respect, making my debut as a minority on American national TV, the biggest stage out there, on the most heartfelt day in this great country made up by immigrants, but on some people’s perspective, it all went wrong." That "most heartfelt day" was 9/11 and frankly, it wasn’t a time to extol the virtues of immigrants, especially not at a football game.

But ESPN has decided it must now carry the water for the Social Justice Warriors and inject its own view of how the world should be into the sports arena. So when Curt Schilling wrote, "A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much," he was immediately fired. But when Jemele Hill, another employee, tweets, "Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists," she gets a finger wagged in her face and the network comes out with "We have addressed this with Jemele and she realizes her actions were inappropriate." And she still gets a paycheck and a covert wink from the higher-ups.

I wonder why Schilling wasn’t given the same consideration. I wonder why starring in a reality show is courageous. I wonder why worrying about triggering snowflakes with the last name of "Lee" is an issue, and why some Dipp goes all Emma Lazarus on Monday Night Football.


National Idolatry and Constitution Day

By federal statute, September 17 is designated as a holy day in the American civic religion. On that day in 1787, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention affixed their signatures to the document that they had created and that governs us today. The website constitutionday.com encourages public demonstrations of love for the Constitution and features a picture of smiling and diverse citizens waving American flags and looking up as if a god is about to descend.

Exactly what we are supposed to celebrate is not clear. A national debt above $20 trillion? A president and Congress with few, if any, limits on their power? A Supreme Court that dares to hold that the antediluvian definition of marriage is unconstitutional?

The priesthood of our civic religion admits we face challenges but claim, in the words of the editors of Investor’s Business Daily, that the Constitution is "as close to perfect as man has come" in the science of government.

So what document could rival our Constitution? Actually, the constitution that preceded it.

The Articles of Confederation, drafted by the same Continental Congress that declared independence, is truer to the Spirit of 1776 than any plan of government that ever existed.

The United States, in their infancy, sought a union strong enough to guide the collective desire for independence from Great Britain but unable to infringe upon the right of self-government in the individual states. Contrary to what our high priesthood tells us, the Articles were an American success story. In 1783 the Treaty of Paris officially ended the American Revolutionary War. King George III acknowledged that the 13 former colonies were "free sovereign and independent states" that could govern their affairs without interference from the distant British Parliament in Westminster.

The people had little to fear from a union styled as "firm league of friendship." Congress had no power to act upon individuals. Instead, it had to work through the state governments. In this manner, the states served as mediators between Congress and the people. This buffer provided greater security to the people in their rights secured by the state constitutions.

The Articles also restricted congressional power with term limits. Under Article V, "no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years." The Articles endeavored to prevent the establishment of an American ruling aristocracy and championed the idea that public service should be open to individuals as talented as those already holding power (or perhaps more so).

Before the Confederation Congress could borrow money, a supermajority of delegates had to approve. Although the confederal government struggled with fiscal issues because of the cost of the War of Independence, the supermajority requirement was meant to protect the fiscal soundness of the government and to prevent the rulers from incurring unnecessary debt. Congress was to live within its means absent extraordinary circumstances.

Under the Articles, there was no omnipotent judiciary that claimed the final say on the meaning of the charter of government. The Confederation opted for a more modest judicial system in which Congress could only create courts to adjudicate maritime matters. State courts were the institutions that decided disputes among the citizenry.

While the states enjoyed vast powers, we should not think that they operated with no limits. The Articles imposed reasonable restrictions on the state governments. For example, absent the consent of Congress no state could send or receive ambassadors, enter into treaties, or engage in war. The Articles sought to make the states one as to foreign policy but leave them otherwise free to govern their internal affairs.

Of course, the Articles were not perfect. Congress needed an independent power to raise revenue, and the struggles to service the debt after the peace was concluded ultimately led to the Philadelphia Convention and our more energetic system of national government. Modest revisions in the Articles could have permitted the United States to function as a viable confederacy for the remainder of their existence.

Rather than bow down and venerate the Constitution on September 17, Americans should dust off the Articles of Confederation and study the handiwork of the Continental Congress. In it they will find a plan of government that makes liberty the primary object of government and power serving as a mere satellite.


Extraordinary black on black violence

A brawl has been captured on video of two couples fighting in a New Jersey Walmart on Saturday while their young children look on in horror and try to stop the fight.

In the minute long video, the two couples can be seen tussling near the jewelry section in the store.

The two sides appear to be a woman and man both wearing black tops versus another couple in red and burnt yellow shirts. 

As they beat on each other, two little girls can be seen trying to stop the chaos and hit on one of the women to stop while crying.

Another woman wearing a pink blouse comes up and tries to separate the mothers while their partners continue to duke it out.

More people start to spectate and grow more in concern for the children who are almost being trampled by the fight.

A woman wearing galactic blue and purple leggings comes to assist, removing the children as the woman in pink detains one of the mothers.

As the fathers continue fighting, Walmart personnel intervene and tries to stop them and the mother in yellow who has now joined the fight.

Meanwhile, a woman wearing a pink jacket and a headscarf starts screaming at everyone involved in the fight 'What about the kids?' and 'STOP!'

As the father in the black shirt gets separated from the fight, she literally steps in front of him and keeps repeating 'look at your kids' until it dawns on the man that he was fighting in front of him.

She yells for him to 'walk away' and he finally turns to see his family.

As the other couple walks toward them again, the woman in the pink jacket who has managed to control the situation more than the employee staff starts screaming at them to think about the kids as well.

The video ends with all the couples in corners being visited by patrons and staff who chastise them for having fought in front of the children. 



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 September, 2017

"Racist" America

IT WAS early September 1956, the High Holidays were approaching, and Elihu Schimmel was in the Cold War's coldest theater.

The young internist, an Orthodox Jew, had graduated from Yale Medical School in the spring of 1954 and gotten married the following year. A week after his wedding, he'd entered the Navy with the rank of lieutenant. Now he was the medical officer on the USS Lindenwald, a dock landing ship steaming in the Arctic Ocean as part of a squadron charged with supplying the DEW Line — the far-flung Distant Early Warning network of radar stations built to detect incoming Soviet bombers in case of an attack on North America. For three months each summer, before polar ice made the seas impassable, multitudes of military personnel brought construction materials, communications equipment, and fuel to the web of northern bases stretching across Canada.

As the only Navy doctor in the Arctic Ocean that summer, Schimmel was responsible for the medical care of men on dozens of ships. Often he had to be transported — by helicopter, by launch, by seaplane — from the Lindenwald to another vessel to see a patient. But with Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) just around the corner, Schimmel was wondering whether a few men could be moved in the other direction. Specifically, a few Jewish men: enough to assemble a minyan, a quorum of 10, so that services could be held on the most sacred days of the Jewish year.

There were a few other Jews on the Lindenwald. One was an Army private named Sam Levin, who was assigned to the 588th Transportation Company. Hundreds of men from the 588th were serving on ships throughout the area, and Levin knew quite a few of them, including several who were Jewish — enough, he told Schimmel, to make a minyan. If they could get those guys aboard the Lindenwald by sundown on Sept. 5, they could hold proper Rosh Hashana services — perhaps the first ever to be held in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.

But would the Navy and Army be willing to indulge a few Jewish service members? Would it go to the trouble of transporting men to the Lindenwald and let them temporarily skip their regular duties for religious reasons? Schimmel didn't know, but — nothing ventured, nothing gained — decided to ask.

He approached the Lindenwald's executive officer, Lieutenant Commander Paul Hurry. Without hesitating, Hurry told Schimmel that he and Levin could count on the Navy's support, assuming there was no objection from the Army. So Schimmel went to the Army colonel commanding the 588th. Recounting the story to me last week, he couldn't recall the colonel's name, but he's never forgotten his response: "Done. Absolutely. I'll have the orders drawn up."

They were as good as their word. By the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 5, a handful of Jewish troops from other Navy vessels in the Arctic were aboard the Lindenwald. That day's shipboard "newspaper" — a mimeographed handout called "DEW Line Daily" — matter-of-factly listed "the schedule of Jewish Services for the High Holidays," to be held in the Crew's Lounge that evening. For the benefit of curious readers, it went on to explain the significance of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur in Jewish culture ("days of repentance and of rededication ... called collectively the Days of Awe ... according to tradition, everyone is judged ... ends with a final sounding of the ram's horn").

At 1900 hours (7 p.m.), an announcement was broadcast over the public-address system: "Attention all hands: Jewish divine services are beginning in the crew's lounge. The smoking lamp is now out in all parts of the ship." In Navy jargon, it was a directive banning anyone from smoking anywhere on the Lindenwald: a gesture of reverence for the tiny group of High Holiday worshipers.

After Rosh Hashana ended, Schimmel dashed off a quick letter home. "We had 100% attendance, which fortunately was just 10 boys," he wrote. "Only one other boy read Hebrew . . . so we had services mostly in English. Took 2-2½ hours both days. . . . Ship & Army personnel were very cooperative and interested in the services — Commodore (via chaplain) came through with an official dispatch to release all Jewish personnel for services — I really never expected any airborne lift to assemble us! I'm very grateful."

Schimmel's Navy stint ended the following July, and he went on to a distinguished medical career in Boston. Now 87, he is still grateful at how readily the military accommodated his religious needs. "I never encountered the least whiff of negative reaction," he told me. Having grown up in an America where casual antisemitism was widespread and bigotry toward minorities far from taboo, he'd had no reason to think the Navy would be particularly enlightened.

In reality, the US military establishment is remarkably broadminded about religion. As far back as the Spanish-American War, thousands of Jewish troops were granted furloughs to attend High Holiday services. During World War II, with more than half a million American Jews in uniform, military commanders authorized High Holiday services and Passover seders, many of which were attended by hundreds of service members. Some of those services ached with poignance: In 1945, some 500 Jewish GIs assembled on Rosh Hashana to pray in Verdun, France — a city from which every Jew had been eliminated during the Nazi reign of terror.

This month, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California will host a full schedule of High Holiday services and meals for Jewish officers, enlisted personnel, and veterans.
Gathering a minyan aboard the Lindenwald from ships throughout the Arctic took some operational doing. But according to Jonathan Sarna, the prominent Brandeis University historian, such "non-trivial logistical exercises" advanced two goals important to US policymakers.

One was displaying America's commitment to religious liberty, reinforcing the contrast with the Soviet Union, where religion was banned and believers were cruelly persecuted. The other was strengthening cohesion within military units by refusing to countenance anti-Semitic (or anti-Catholic) prejudice, and by bending over backward to treat religious minorities with courtesy.

To this day, Elihu Schimmel glows when he recalls the respect with which he and his fellow Jews were treated as they prayed aboard the Lindenwald in 1956. When the High Holidays begin at sunset next Wednesday, Jewish soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines on duty around the world will again gather in prayer, with the full support of the US military. May those men and women, and the grateful nation they serve, be blessed with a safe and sweet new year.


A multicultural cannibal

A CANNIBAL caught scoffing a woman he beheaded has died in hospital after a police shoot out.

The Sun reports Aphiwe Mapekula, 23, collapsed in a hail of bullets with arm, leg and stomach injuries when police tried to arrest him at his home. He apparently ignored several warning shots as he continued to eat Thembisa Masumpa’s raw flesh.

Officers finally opened fire on him when he attacked them with a knife, police said.

Mapekula is said to have slit 35-year-old Thembisa’s throat and hacked off her head in Mount Frere, South Africa, on 9 September.

His horrified mum called police after witnessing the gruesome slaughter. But officers said he was tucking in to Thembisa’s raw flesh by the time they turned up.

He then attacked them with a knife before being shot, said police Captain Edith Mjoko.

He was then taken to hospital where he died a few days later on September 12.

Mapekula’s devastated mother said: "I never raised a son like this one. I never imagined this."

But neighbours said she did odd jobs at his home and was washing in the back yard when he attacked her.

Captain Mjoko said: "He killed her with a knife by cutting her throat. "When the mother of the suspect saw what was happening she rushed and called the police to the scene. "When they arrived the suspect was busy eating the flesh of the deceased.

"Police ordered him to stop and to hand himself over. "He went berserk and stormed at them with the knife. "Several warning shots were fired to deter him but in vain."

Mayor Bulelwa Mabengu suspected Mapekula could have been drugged up. "I believe that drugs and substance abuse was a major contributing factor and yearn to call upon law authorities to show a more proactive visibility in our area," she told RNews.

Mapekula was under police guard when he died at Nelson Mandela Hospital‚ Mthatha. Spokesman Sizwe Kupelo told TimesLive: "He was transferred with gunshot wounds and needed emergency surgery. But he unfortunately died."


'If you don't know, vote no': Gay, conservative professor joins the push to oppose same-sex marriage

Flinty was a good-looking guy in his early years so I always suspected that he had a good time with the ladies. It seems I was wrong

Professor David Flint, who is openly gay but discreet about his personal life, quoted another gay conservative, Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones, to argue why voters should vote 'no' in the federal government's postal vote survey.

'As Alan Jones said in 1999, if you don't know, vote no,' the 79-year-old academic told Sky News Australia.

'We just don't know what's going to happen.'

Jones, a perennial top-rating broadcaster on radio 2GB, is actually in favour of gay marriage but shares former Liberal prime minister John Howard's concerns about religious freedom.

'I'll be voting 'Yes' for same sex marriage. But John Howard is right. We must protect parental & religious freedoms and freedom of speech,' Jones tweeted last week.

The phrase 'if you don't know, vote no' was used by opponents of Australia becoming a republic during the November 1999 referendum on whether to cut ties with the Queen.

That phrase actually belonged to future prime minister and Howard government minister Tony Abbott, who was the leader of the 'No' case 18 years ago as an ardent constitutional monarchist.

Mr Abbott is now a leading 'No' case campaigner, despite having a lesbian sister, Christine Forster, who supports gay marriage.

Professor Flint, who is also a monarchist, has joined gay couple Ben Rogers and Mark Poidevin in publicly speaking out against gay marriage.

The men from Wollongong, south of Sydney, fell in love 15 years but don't want to tie the knot. Mr Poidevin, a practising Catholic, opposes gay marriage on the grounds it could be a slippery slope that leads to polygamy.

'If we make one exception for one community - that being the same-sex couples - where does it stop?,' he told the ABC's 7.30 program earlier this month.

'Do we then see other cultures being allowed to have multiple marriages?  'Do we allow, see the age of consent being lowered for another group of minorities? 'That is my concern of where it would lead.'

Mr Poidevin hasn't always opposed the idea of same-sex marriage, having popped the question to his partner five years ago.

Professor Flint, a former head of the Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is a former Labor Party member turned conservative with close ties to John Howard, who is spearheading the 'No' campaign.

Gay former High Court justice Michael Kirby is a monarchist who supports gay marriage and will be voting 'Yes'.

The Coalition for Marriage launched its 'Vote No' campaign at Sydney's Darling Harbour on Saturday night.

Ballots are being sent to Australian households and are due back by November 7.


Town of the damned: the Australian town with ‘staggering’ child sex abuse rate

Aboriginal men very commonly abuse their women and children but it seems to have got really out of hand in this community.  Only a much increased police presence would seem to offer any hope of control

ONE tiny town is in the grip of a paedophile epidemic which in a population of 1400 has seen 184 sexually abused. Warning: Confronting.

ROEBOURNE, Western Australia, is in the grip of a paedophile epidemic that has seen such a high incidence that child sex abuse is "normal".

Police have charged 36 men with more than 300 offences against 184 children from Roeburne and surrounding communities.

West Australian Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan has described the rate of alleged child sex offending in Roebourne as "staggering" and the problem as "a cancer".

The former gold rush town, which has a greater population of around 1400, lies in the Pilbara region 1500km north of Perth.  The Pilbara, with vast mining resources and sparsely populated Aboriginal towns, covers 500,000 square kilometres stretching from the Indian Ocean to Central Australia.

Roebourne, where the streets are lined with brick and stone colonial buildings, has dwindled since its 19th century boom as the largest settlement between Darwin and Perth.

It has now been singled out as a festering mess of intergenerational child sexual abuse where kids are more likely to be raped than almost anywhere else on earth.

"It’s a war zone out there and the victims are little kids," Mr O’Callaghan told the ABC in a recent news report following the multiple arrests of local men under ­Operation Fledermaus.

In a nine-month operation across areas including Roebourne and the neighbouring city of Karratha, police identified almost three times as many suspects as the number arrested.

The scale of the abuse uncovered was the worst WA Police had ever seen and the communities were in an "almost unrecoverable crisis", Mr O’Callaghan claimed.

Earlier this month, The Australian reported that child sex abuse in Roebourne was so "normal" that even jailing known paedophiles was not enough to end it.

That was the opinion of West Australian Child Protection Minister Simone McGurk who visited Roebourne following the ­Operation Fledermaus arrests. "Yes, you would have to say that, through the sorts of numbers we are starting to see," she told West Australian Bureau Chief, Paige Taylor. "It’s intergenerational. Many of these perpetrators were victims themselves."

Alcohol, drugs and violence afflict the Roebourne and surrounding communities whose population is more than half indigenous.

In September last year, police made a public announcement to residents encouraging them to report child abuse.

Several Aboriginal women, young people and children came forward and in the same month, police charged three Roebourne men with child sex offences against girls aged between 13 and 16.

A 45-year-old man was charged with indecent dealing with a child over 13 and under 16 years, offering a prohibited drug and possession of drug paraphernalia.

A 52-year-old man was charged with two counts of sexual penetration of a child over 13 and under 16 years and one count of indecent dealing with a child over 13 and under 16 years.

A 39-year-old man has been charged with indecent dealing with a child over 13 and under 16 years.

Minister McGurk said "child protection workers, specialist police officers and other dedicated resources [were] on the ground giving support to the families and the community".

"I’d like to acknowledge the strength of the children, the families … who have the courage to come forward," she said.  "Actually coming forward is a first step in systemic change."

Commissioner O’Callaghan, however, identified another factor in the community, which is 80 per cent on welfare. In an article he wrote for The West Australian, Mr O’Callaghan said child sex offenders were spending welfare money on drugs and alcohol to lure children.

"A further pattern emerging is that offending activity seems to increase when offenders receive substantial amounts of money and spend it on a combination of alcohol, drugs, gambling and sex.

"Knowing that welfare payments contribute to increases in many types of offending, particularly alcohol and drug-related offending, is hardly rocket science.

"Linking such payments to an increase in sexual abuse of children, however, is a much newer phenomenon."

Communities in WA and South Australia were trialling a cashless debit card for welfare recipients, which cannot be used for alcohol, gambling or illicit substances.

Seven years ago, a WA government report painted a bleak picture of the life of Aboriginals in Roebourne.

The Roebourne Report said alcohol abuse, child neglect, violence and crime were occurring at an alarming rate.

Annual alcohol consumption in Roebourne Shire was 26.8 litres per person, three times the state average.

Cannabis use was rife among young people.

On fortnightly welfare pay days, gambling soared and children were left to their own devices. Unsupervised children roamed the streets at night and house break-ins were viewed "as the rite-of-passage for many Roebourne youth".

A high proportion of Roebourne children considered vulnerable in terms of their physical, social and emotional development.

According to Roebourne local, Violet Sampson alcohol abuse has turned the town’s grandmothers into safe house operators.

Ms Sampson told news.com.au that she began looking after her grandchildren when their parents were out drinking. "I have three kids here," she said. "When their parents split up and went off drinking, the kids came to me.

"When they need a good sleep, without overcrowding and a feed, I take them. "And they can go to school in the morning.

"It’s what grandmothers do here in Roebourne, Karratha. Aboriginal families we look after the kids."



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 September, 2017

Labelled bigots for protecting our child's innocence: Upset by their son's confusion when a six-year-old classmate changed gender, they took him out of school. Little did they know the hatred it would unleash

To witness the vilification of Christian parents Nigel and Sally Rowe this week, you’d have thought they’d not just broken each and every one of the Ten Commandments but hurled Moses’ stone tablet from the silenced bell tower of Big Ben as well.

Take the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show, during which their religious ideals were said to be ‘as extremist as people like ISIS’. Or This Morning’s Phillip Schofield, who hectored them: ‘You are the ones with the problem.’

Their problem? To voice concern about their six-year-old son’s ‘confusion’ when a classmate began turning up to his Church of England primary school asking to be treated as a girl one day and a boy the next, which flew in the face of the family’s Christian beliefs.

The school responded with a letter defending its approach on pupils ‘exploring their gender’ and warning how ‘incredibly seriously’ it would take any ‘transphobic behaviour’, such as the failure ‘to use [the pupil’s] adopted name or using gender inappropriate pronouns’.

Given their son is at an age when he hasn’t yet mastered joined-up writing, let alone the politics of personal pronouns, the Rowes, who also have a son aged eight, were horrified.

They have since removed him from his school on the Isle of Wight and are now bringing a legal challenge in the hope that guidelines — that require schools to accept the wishes of children and their families regarding gender identity, and which are being rolled out in schools the length and breadth of Britain — will be open to public scrutiny.

‘My son still believes in Father Christmas. He is six years old. It’s an age of beautiful naivety,’ says Sally, 42, a housewife and part-time teaching assistant.

‘They should be exploring nature, playing ball on the beach, skateboarding — doing the things boys do. You think: "Why can’t they just let children be children?"

‘Imagine going into school at six without knowing whether the boy sitting next to you is going to be Johnny or Julie today. Then having to treat them like a girl if they’ve decided they’re a girl — or a boy if they’ve decided that today they’re going to be Johnny.

‘This transgender agenda is almost like a trendy thing that’s infiltrating schools, and if you don’t subscribe to it you are a bully. The hatred we’ve received is . . . is . . . ’

Sally is in tears now. She stops. Collects herself. ‘This is painful for us, really painful,’ she says. ‘We’ve been so churned up. This is our community, our friends and now . . . now . . . ’

‘Now’ Sally’s phone pings with nasty texts, while Nigel, who runs his own plumbing company after giving up his job as an aerospace engineer, has received numerous vitriolic phone calls and emails. He looks as if he’s barely slept a wink in the week since announcing their legal challenge.

These are not hard-hearted bigots. Indeed, they only took this stand after a great deal of soul-searching, for each of them was deeply involved in the community and the school. So much so that they took part in a school assembly each week and helped with reading classes.

Indeed, when a boy in their elder son’s class announced in a Show and Tell lesson two years ago that she had decided to be a girl and wanted to be addressed by a girl’s name, the Rowes, owing to their close friendship with the child’s parents, resolved to live and let live.

This time, however, they felt the situation was asking too much of very young children. ‘This boy in our youngest son’s class, who’s six at the moment, decides one day to be a girl and the next to be a boy,’ says Nigel, 46.

‘One night I was putting the boys to bed, reading them a bedtime story and having a little chat as we do every night, when my son said, "Daddy I’m confused. How can — let’s call him Peter — be a boy one day and a girl the next?" It was really upsetting him. At least if the child was a girl all the time you’d have some chance of explaining.

‘We wrote to the school expressing our concerns and received that letter about transphobic bullying back. We felt we had no choice but to do what we’ve done.

‘It wasn’t an easy decision. We care for these families. We care for the school. This is not about them. We are challenging the education authority and the diocese on the guidelines they’re giving. We believe they’re quoting from laws [the Equality Act 2010] that don’t apply in this situation; that’s because the age of when someone is legally recognised as transgender is 18.’ His eyes rest on a happy family photograph taken months ago. He shakes his head and is visibly upset. Sally rubs his arm.

‘When we went to see the head and deputy head to tell them we were removing our son from school, they said: "To be honest we’re not surprised,"’ she says. ‘The head told us: "We’ve done everything we’ve been told to do. I have no choice. If a child wants to come as whatever, I have to accept it or I could lose my job." ’

Now Sally shakes her head in despair. She is, she confesses, ‘scared stiff’. Such is the hate campaign being waged against them she is terrified for her family’s safety.

Time and again this gently-spoken couple have questioned whether they should have taken this stand. In truth, I suspect they often wish that they hadn’t. For they are an easy-going, outdoorsy couple more comfortable on the beach with their boys than in a TV studio.

They are also, though, people of conscience who, while fully accepting that not everyone shares their Christian values or their views on gender identity, believe in their right to bring their children up according to their religious beliefs without being forced to submit to the wishes of the rainbow activists.

After all, imagine the condemnation had Sally or Nigel accused these activists of being ‘as extremist as people like ISIS’. This is what one Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) campaigner was allowed to label the Rowes’ fellow Christians without so much as a raised eyebrow on the BBC.

‘It’s all so bizarre,’ says Sally. ‘Nothing seems real any more.’

Take, for instance, a discussion on a BBC current affairs programme this week during which it was claimed that the mother of the older transgender child had said her daughter, who is eight, was ‘scared’ following the Rowes’ stand. The couple were lambasted for airing their grievance so very publicly when the interests of vulnerable children were at stake.

That child, however, is the very same one whose mother plastered her story over the pages of a tabloid newspaper two years ago after she decided to become a girl.

Sally says they had known this child’s family since pre-school and the mother had spoken to her a number of years ago about her then son becoming more interested in stereotypically girls’ toys, such as Barbies, and more feminine in his behaviour. ‘She said she didn’t know what to do. I told her not to worry. There’s often a bit of confusion, isn’t there?’

Things changed, according to Nigel, after the BBC broadcast Louis Theroux’s Transgender Kids documentary in April 2015. ‘I believe that was the catalyst for the whole of Britain,’ he says. ‘The statistics for transgender children went from something like 300 to 3,000 after that programme.

‘I remember speaking to the child’s dad in the playground after the documentary and he said: "He wants to be a girl, but I’m not sure. We’re going to discuss it." It went from that to the child announcing in Show and Tell: "I am now a girl."

‘Our son came home and said, matter-of-factly, So-and-so’s now called, let’s say Sarah, and is now a girl. We didn’t want to make a big thing about it because our son was only six. But gradually questions started.

‘They’re like: "A boy can be a girl?" "A girl can be a boy?" "A boy can marry a boy?" That’s fine with some people, but as Christians we believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

‘Our boys don’t even know how a baby is made. They know it came out of mummy’s tummy but that’s about it. Gender for them is trying to work out why they have a willy and mummy doesn’t.’

The Rowes muddled through school with their elder son for another year. Sally says he became increasingly withdrawn and reluctant to go in. They decided to home school him at the end of Year 2.

‘"Sarah" was wearing skirts and had grown her hair by then. ‘But it has nothing to do with boys wearing frocks,’ says Nigel, who spent much of his childhood in Africa, where his father worked as an economic adviser to developing countries receiving aid. ‘If a child came into school in a kilt or a sarong, it wouldn’t bother me. When I’m in Kenya I wear a sarong. ‘Saying this is about us being upset that a boy is turning up to school in a dress is trivialising it.’

Sally nods: ‘My youngest son has dressed up in girls’ stuff. He has a fancy-dress box and used to love dressing up as Supergirl. It’s just experimenting. Kids experiment. You don’t make a thing of it.

‘Academics and medical professionals are divided on whether we should introduce young children to transgender policies.

‘Ninety-eight per cent of gender-confused children stick with their biological sex once they’ve gone through puberty.

‘How many of us were tomboys when we were little but enjoy being women now?’

Their younger son was part way through Year 1 when the second child — the one currently confused about their gender — joined the school. Sally and Nigel’s youngest told his parents: ‘One day he was a boy and the next day a girl,’ which ‘confused’ him, and they decided enough was enough. The exchange of letters followed, leading to where they are today. They went public on their decision about legal action last week.

On Saturday night the mother of the older transgender child, Sally’s friend, phoned at 10.45pm. ‘She said: "I can’t believe it. You’ve got the kindest heart, how could you do this to me?" She broke down and kept sobbing: "How could you do this," ’ Sally recalls.

‘I said: "I haven’t mentioned your name. I haven’t mentioned the children. I haven’t mentioned the school. I care for you but you have to understand our feelings." Then she put on Facebook: "Sally Rowe is going to sue my beautiful daughter’s school."

‘I sent a text saying: "This isn’t about you. I’m not attacking you." ‘This is a concern for children all over the country. We have to take a stand. We’re taking legal action so these guidelines that affect all of our children can be debated and scrutinised publicly.

‘The last I heard from her she said: "I am going to the police tomorrow because this is inciting hate." I’d explained to her before that we’re not being hateful.

‘We’re doing this because we’re concerned. If anything, we’re going to receive the hatred.’ Which they have, by the bucket-load. So much so that there is a sense of bewilderment today, as if they’ve fallen down Alice In Wonderland’s rabbit hole and nothing is the same. ‘Some mums have texted to say: "I’m sending you a big hug" but don’t want to speak publicly.

‘One parent texted on Sunday to say: "Big love from our family and you’re in our hearts and thoughts," but nobody wants to put themselves through the hostility we’ve faced . . . ’ Again, she is on the verge of tears.

‘We’re trying to keep a low profile. The people who are lovely and supportive have told us to keep off social media. There’s been a torrent of nastiness. It does churn us up. It does affect you, the foul language, the ranting down the phone. Nigel’s tummy has been in knots since last Saturday.’ She nods to her husband.

‘I don’t understand it,’ says Nigel. ‘When you go to hospital and your child is born, they lift them up and say: "It’s a boy" or "It’s a girl." That’s the way it’s been for centuries. ‘Why is there now such a social agenda to change that?’


Judge Suspends City’s Ban of Farmers Over Their Marriage Views

A federal judge ruled Friday that the Michigan farmers who were banned from selling their produce at a farmers market on public property because of their religious beliefs about marriage may resume selling their goods there as early as Sunday while their case proceeds.

The decision provides much-needed relief to Steve and Bridget Tennes, owners of Country Mill Farms in Charlotte, Michigan. East Lansing city officials had banned the Tennes family from selling at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market over a Facebook post addressing the farm’s policy on hosting same-sex weddings.

"As the court found, East Lansing officials changed their market policy to shut out Steve because they don’t like his Catholic beliefs regarding marriage," Kate Anderson, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing the Tenneses, told The Daily Signal in an email.

"The court was right to issue this order, which will allow Steve to return to the 2017 farmers market while his case moves forward," Anderson wrote.

The Tenneses told The Daily Signal in an interview earlier this week that the farmers market in East Lansing is the largest market where they sell.

"Since June 1, we’ve already missed three and a half months of being able to attend East Lansing Farmer’s Market, where we’ve served everyone for the last seven years," Steve Tennes said by phone Wednesday.

"Now we only have about six weeks left of the market to be able to sell, and the … East Lansing Farmer’s Market was the largest farmers market [where] our family sold organic apples and cider."

In May, the Tenneses filed a federal lawsuit against East Lansing over the decision to ban them from selling produce at the city’s farmers market, even though their farm is 22 miles outside the city in a different jurisdiction.

"Due to our religious beliefs, we do not participate in the celebration of a same-sex union," they wrote in part on Facebook in August 2016, in response to a question about the family farm’s services as a wedding venue.

The Tenneses, who are Catholic, say they have never before faced a discrimination complaint of any kind.

The city responded to the couple’s lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss the case. Country Mill Farms sought an injunction allowing the Tenneses to return to the market while the case proceeds.

Both motions were heard for an hour Wednesday before District Court Judge Paul Maloney in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

In his decision issued Friday, Maloney did not address the city’s motion to dismiss.

His decision to grant the Tenneses the temporary injunction is good news for the family, although their legal fight is far from over. Maloney has yet to rule on the merits of their case.

In the meantime, lawyers for Country Mill Farms are taking the ruling as a positive sign for the family.

"Just like all Americans, a farmer should be free to live and speak according to his deeply held religious beliefs without fear of government punishment," Anderson said.


Hope Hicks Shows Accomplishments for Women, by Women, Count Only If You’re a Democrat

This week, Hope Hicks became communications director for President Donald Trump, joining press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to make the first female-led White House communications team in history.

Naturally, this was celebrated in every major female-oriented publication.

Just kidding.

The announcement came in the form of a promotion for Hicks, who has been serving as interim communications director since Anthony Scaramucci’s dramatic departure. The 28-year-old from Greenwich, Connecticut, keeps a uniquely low profile, and is thought to be one of Trump’s most loyal and trusted advisers.

In addition to Hicks, the White House also announced Mercedes Schlapp a senior strategic communications adviser.

To be clear, I didn’t expect Elle, Vogue, Cosmopolitan, and the rest of these "women" magazines to celebrate Hope Hicks or any other woman in the White House for their politics. In fact, they’ve made it pretty clear where they stand on Donald Trump’s presidency.

But I do expect these "feminist" magazines to celebrate the fact that yet another young woman has climbed to the top in her field—in the White House, no less.

This is a perfect example of the problem that Sheryl Sandberg and so many others attempt to highlight. The problem with women’s equality isn’t that women can’t get jobs—it’s that they’re underrepresented as they work their way up the career ladder.

We can debate why this is for years to come, whether it’s because they leave the workforce earlier than men, whether it’s the type of industries they go into, what they actually want out of their careers, or whether they’re actually being treated unfairly. But the reality is, women lag in leadership roles, and the White House is doing its part to change that.

Putting aside the politics involved, you’d think the president of the United States’ choosing women to lead his communications team would be a big deal for female-focused publications, particularly coming from a man they so often paint as a misogynist.

But of course, feminists are staying silent, showing once again that accomplishments for women, by women, only count if you’re a Democrat.

We, on the other hand, think it’s pretty awesome, and would like to recognize Hicks, Sanders, and all the other women in the White House for setting an example for young girls and women, that they can lead and inspire from inside the nation’s most important office.


Thought crime fears motivate same-sex marriage opponents at 'no' campaign launch

Australia is at the moment having a plebiscite to determine if homosexual marriage will be instituted

Leading "no" campaigners, including Turnbull government MPs, say they fear it will become illegal to oppose same-sex marriage in word or even thought, if gay marriage is legalised.

The extraordinary claims, made at the campaign launch for the Coalition for Marriage on Saturday night, went as far as expressing fear that thought crime would be punished by law.

Cory Bernardi drives 'No' campaign

The South Australian senator claims that the anti same-sex marriage campaign is on the 'right side of legal and moral history'.

Matthew Canavan, a member of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's cabinet until he resigned over his dual citizenship, told the 1500-strong Sydney audience: "The 'yes' side want to make it illegal to just express a different view about marriage, that is their agenda."

On the sidelines, he told Fairfax Media he feared "a strong push to effectively eradicate the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, to make it illegal".

Asked if his concerns about freedom extended as far as thought-crime, replied: "Yeah, well it is. The anti-discrimination [laws], particularly the state-based ones, are very wide ranging in application."

Senator Canavan was backed by Turnbull government minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Australian Conservatives leader Cory Bernardi, who said these were valid concerns of same-sex marriage opponents.

"If the state redefines marriage, it also redefines how you can speak, think, advocate and believe about marriage," Senator Bernardi said. "That is the very real consequence of what is to come if we lose this battle."

Several speakers at the $15-a-head event cited the case of Tasmanian Archbishop Julian Porteous being hauled before the state's anti-discrimination commission over a booklet opposing same-sex marriage - a case in which the church prevailed.

Speakers also portrayed the "no" side as the victim of a concerted campaign by elites, the media and big business. There were boos from the audience for Sydney lord mayor Clover Moore, who is backing the "yes" side with ratepayers' money.

Coalition for Marriage spokeswoman Sophie York described the "yes" side as "carefully orchestrated, cashed-up and ruthless".

To rapturous applause, she suggested a "no" vote in Australia could be the start of a global "push back" against same-sex marriage, which has been legalised in more than 20 countries.

Outside, 60-year-old Doreen Kirchner from Pennant Hills said she feared moral decline if marriage were to be expanded to include gay couples.

"I think if same-sex marriage gets in it'll be a slippery slope downhill morally. And I want to protect my children and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren," she told Fairfax Media.

"I don't have a problem with gays per se, I don't have a problem with them having a civil union. But the Marriage Act is for a man and a woman."



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 September, 2017

Sweden Releases Sex Guide for Migrants Explaining Why Rape Is Wrong

Only academics would think that a guide for mostly illiterate people they imported is going to work…  It shows how far out of touch with the people they are that they now have to keep and deal with

Swedish officials have released a new "sex guidebook" aimed at tackling the rising number of sexual assaults committed by newly arrived migrants.

"We have seen a great need for young people to get more knowledge and a great need among the adults to get help and support in how to talk about these issues," Youth and Civil Affairs Authority Director General Lena Nyberg explained, according to Metro.

The guidebook, which is titled "Youmo in Practice," talks on the subjects of sex education, health, gender issues, women's rights, consent, and explains that it's illegal to rape women.

Nyberg added that migrants, which have been arriving to Sweden in increasing numbers over the past several years, come from diverse cultures and need to be made aware of the country's laws. "One of many parts is to [talk] with young girls and boys about what one can and cannot do," she added.

The guide also reportedly covers "Western views on gender equality" and "LGBT rights."

The Gatestone Institute said in a report on Thursday that Sweden received as many as 163,000 asylum seekers in 2015, while United States only took in 70,000 asylum seekers under former President Barack Obama that same year.

The think tank argues that Sweden's high rape statistics is due in part to the country expanding its sexual offenses law back in 2005 and then again in 2013, which now includes consent rape as well.

Still, it noted Swedish reports that have described a number of gang-rapes connected to migrants in the country. One report stated that 15 unaccompanied migrant boys from Afghanistan were convicted of gang-rapes of other boys in just over a year.

Police reports, such as one from 2016, have also commented on sexual assaults committed by migrants.

"In cases where the crimes were committed by perpetrators in a larger group in public places and in swimming pools, the perpetrators were mainly young people seeking, or recently receiving, asylum in Sweden," the 2016 report stated.

A separate Swedish study found that there were 10,000 reported sex crimes in the country from 2011 to 2016.

Back in February, an article in The Local rejected descriptions in international media that Sweden is a "rape capital" of Europe, arguing that there are different standards in collecting statistics in sexual assaults.

"In Sweden, each case of sexual violence is recorded as a separate incident. So for example, if someone says they were raped by a partner every day for [two weeks], officers will record 14 potential crimes. In other countries the claim could be logged as a single incident," it said.

Still, another article from Metro earlier in September said that there have been as many as 150 sex attacks and 20 rapes at various festivals around the country in 2017, signifying a significant rise from the numbers reported last year.

In one instance, the Br?valla Festival announced that it is canceling its event for 2018 after a total of 23 sex assaults and four rapes were reported at the festival this year, with organizers admitting they were powerless to stop the attacks


Can a Christian Serve as a Judge Anymore?

Earlier this month, during a judicial confirmation hearing for 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Barrett, who is a Catholic law professor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., questioned whether Barrett could be a Christian and a judge at the same time:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that—you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

What caused Barrett to draw such a charge?

Feinstein appeared to be questioning Barrett based on a scholarly article she wrote exploring what a Catholic judge should do when the law required something that went against their faith.

What did Barrett say in the article? Based on Feinstein’s question, one would think she brought down the theological cudgel and sided with faith over the law.

Hardly so. Barrett actually wrote that the judge should recuse him or herself in such cases, as "[j]udges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge."

Let us assume that Feinstein actually read the article. Instead of questioning her over such sentiments, Feinstein should be happy that Barrett would bind her public service by moral principles. Does she want judges who are not so bound?

Perhaps Feinstein should direct her own question toward herself. What is her own dogma? Her own beliefs obviously cause her "concern" that someone of serious Christian faith would hold a position of public service.

The point is that everyone has private beliefs that guide the way they live their lives. The only question is what those beliefs are.

As the writer David Foster Wallace noted during a commencement speech to Kenyon College graduates many years ago, "In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship."

So, what does Feinstein worship? What personal beliefs guide her? It sounds like she believes in a public square scrubbed clean of Christians. If so, what gives her the right to impose that "dogma" on Barrett and others?

Feinstein should be happy that Barrett has a moral code by which she will act ethically. Why would anyone want a judge who lacks such a code?

The more people believe there is a higher power watching their actions and requiring them to do the right thing (such as telling the truth and refusing a bribe), the less likely they are to act unethically—a crucial quality for judges and other public servants.

Later in the same hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,—not to be outdone—jumped in with his own inquisition into her religious beliefs and asked Barrett: "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?"

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this type of anti-religious grilling resurface in our modern political era.

When Russell Vought was nominated for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget earlier this year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., thought it appropriate to quiz him about a blog post he wrote defending the Christian view of salvation in the context of a private theological debate.

As I wrote at the time, Sanders’ views­—refusing to approve of a nominee for nothing but his private religious beliefs—were the ones that were bigoted, not the other way around.

Durbin should realize his intolerance is showing in this case.

Regardless, this whole episode exposes a flaw in thinking about the connection between one’s core beliefs and the law. Everyone has beliefs that guide their lives. The only question is what they are.

As a society, we should want people in positions of public trust who have principles guiding them to act ethically and serve the public well. No American should ever be forced to choose between their faith and public service.

If Feinstein and Durbin realized that, they would vote to confirm Barrett immediately.


Never Forget: Muslim Hate Crime Hoaxes
Another year. Another Sept. 11 anniversary. Another opportunity for grievance-mongering Muslim agitators to decry the imagined "epidemic" of "Islamophobia."

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) convened with Mad Maxine Waters and other House Democrats in Washington, DC, to mark a somber occasion this week. No, not the coordinated jihadi mass murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people of all races, nationalities and religions on 9/11. Instead, they lamented Sept. 12 — "the 16-year anniversary of the day that South Asian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Arab, and Middle Eastern Americans woke up to a new political reality in which the safety of our lives and the security of our homes were irrevocably compromised."

For left-wing zealots, the bloody lash of worldwide Islamic terrorism pales in comparison to the so-called "backlash" against Muslims. SAALT disseminated prefab tweets and declarations naming President Trump, outspoken anti-sharia activist Brigitte Gabriel and her grass-roots group, ACT for America, as well as "law enforcement, immigration enforcement, vigilantes," and "white supremacists" as their enemies.

They’re all the same to the tolerance mob.

And "backlash" is a catchall trash can for everything from sideward glances to off-color jokes to offensive cartoons to unresolved crimes to actual acts of intimidation or physical violence. Mixed in with two shootings and a stabbing over the past year classified as hate crimes, SAALT noted that in August "a Minnesota mosque was firebombed in what the governor rightly declared an ‘act of terrorism.’"

One of those things is not like the other. I contacted the FBI this week to ask about the Minnesota mosque incident. It is unsolved after more than a month, and a $30,000 reward for information remains unclaimed. An agent based in Minneapolis acknowledged to me that "it’s always a possibility" that the crime may be a hoax.

That’s what the Sept. 12 gripers want you to forget: People lie. And too many Muslim opportunists deceive in order to distract and divide.

Just two weeks ago, an alleged hate crime fell apart after a 22-year-old Muslim man admitted he had "exaggerated" an assault in a Durham, Ontario, park restroom. Canadian police dropped charges against a 57-year-old man whom the Muslim man claimed had shouted anti-Muslim epithets and punched him in the face.

"We could have charged him with obstructing police or mischief and he was cautioned for those two offences," a police official told the Toronto Sun. But the faker escaped without punishment.

In late August, Indiana State University professor Azhar Hussain received one year’s probation for fabricating anti-Muslim threats and an assault. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of obstruction for justice and harassment after lying to cops this spring about being attacked and sending anti-Muslim hate mails to the school.

"Based upon the investigation, it is our belief that Hussain was trying to gain sympathy by becoming a victim of anti-Muslim threats, which he had created himself," the campus police chief concluded.

In June, a small fire at a Des Moines, Iowa, mosque generated national headlines — until a young Muslim woman was arrested for starting it.

"Security cameras in the mosque showed a woman, later identified as Aisha Ismail, 22, pouring lighter fluid on the carpet and then starting the fire," police reported. "It doesn’t appear that she was trying to burn the place down," the local chief said. "It seems like she was trying to make a statement."

In Houston, a "suspicious" fire at a Houston mosque in 2015 turned out to have been set by one of the center’s own worshipers who prayed there five times a day for five years. The unindicted terror-funding co-conspirators at CAIR-Houston had clamored for law enforcement authorities to "investigate a possible bias motive for this fire" due to "the recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide."

That same year, New Yorker Kashif Parvaiz was convicted of murdering his wife in front of his child after police debunked his cover story of being attacked by a group of bigots who called the family "terrorists."

For every rare and bona fide act of "Islamophobia" in North America, there are multiple acts of Islamo-faux-bia ginned up to stir attention, milk public compassion and generate unfounded fear.

It’s bad enough when the Islamo-faux-bists operate any other time of year. It’s downright disgusting when they exploit the true horrors of 9/11 to hype their delusions of systemic post-9/12 oppression and collective victimhood.


Christians Outperform FEMA in Disaster Relief

It's not necessarily a knock against government, but it also shouldn't be surprising.

After a dozen years without a major hurricane, the U.S. has been hit hard in recent weeks, getting rocked first by Hurricane Harvey in Texas, and then Hurricane Irma hitting Florida. In both cases, the storms destroyed thousands of homes and impacted millions of lives. And in both cases, ordinary faith-based groups and churches beat government to the scene to aid victims.

What the average American news consumer may not know is that faith-based relief groups have provided roughly 80% of the aid. Methodists, Presbyterians and other denominations sent out relief crews to help with cleanup after Harvey. Samaritan’s Purse, the Christian non-profit founded by the Reverend Franklin Graham, brought a convoy of trucks loaded with food, chainsaws and other goods. Seventh Day Adventists began dispersing bottled water, diapers, clothing and other supplies. Mormons have also gotten in on the act, providing truckloads of water, hygiene kits and other relief supplies for the victims of Hurricane Harvey, as well as opening up their church buildings as command centers for coordination of relief efforts. They will also be sending in thousands of volunteers to help with the cleanup and recovery from these storms.

Beyond the U.S., Baptist volunteers are already on the ground in the Caribbean, assessing needs there.

That’s just scratching the surface.

It’s amazing to see churches and their volunteers already on site giving assistance before FEMA shows up. Many of these Christians are veterans of previous disaster relief efforts, able to assess needs and get to work without waiting on government bureaucrats for direction. Often times, FEMA plays a supporting role in the work the churches have begun. This is the essence of the American spirit, and of the Christian spirit — self-reliance and charity working hand in hand.

While the victims of these disasters rejoice at the sight of these Earth-bound angels come to provide assistance, not everyone is pleased at non-government-authorized charity. Some have sought to prohibit churches from receiving federal funds to aid in their disaster relief efforts.

As of now, FEMA guidelines prohibit federal aid from going to any institution that allocates more than half of its space to "religious programming," which would obviously include virtually every church. This despite the fact that many of the same churches being denied federal funds have already opened up their facilities to victims of these disasters and as coordination centers for relief efforts. Several churches are suing.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump tweeted the following message on the subject: "Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane Harvey (just like others)."

(We’ll offer the caveat that churches should do and are doing what they can whether backed by the feds or not.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) also highlighted the unfairness of targeting for discrimination the very religious organizations that are doing the most to alleviate suffering. "This policy discriminates against people of faith. It sends the message that communities of worship aren’t welcome to participate fully in public life," he said. "It reduces the facilities and volunteers time, talent, and effort available to support the broader community. And it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent 7-2 ruling in Trinity Lutheran. … In other words, it is unconstitutional. It is unreasonable. And it is impeding ongoing recovery efforts."

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a militant secularist organization seeking to eradicate every last vestige of religion, and specifically Christianity, from American public life, has actually condemned allowing faith-based charities the same access to government resources that non-religious groups enjoy.

Barry Lynn, founder of the anti-religious group, made the following statement, stunning in its abject contempt for religion and its heartlessness toward the victims these Christian groups assist: "We know a lot of people in Texas are suffering, and we are sympathetic. But the fact that something bad has happened does not justify a second wrong. Taxpayers should not be forced to protect religious institutions that they don’t subscribe to."

Not discriminating against religious groups providing critical aid to disaster victims is a "wrong"? Lynn’s is an outrageous statement worthy of condemnation.

The irony of the anti-religious secularists’ position is that they are not themselves willing to provide the same relief they seek to prevent churches from providing. As Arthur Brooks, respected social scientist and president of the American Enterprise Institute, points out regarding charitable giving in America, "Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people. In years of research, I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people."

When seeing those in need, Christians act upon a moral imperative required by their religious beliefs, without thought of earthly reward. In the Christian faith, when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or give drink to the thirsty, we are serving Christ, for it was Christ himself who declared, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."



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 September, 2017

Durham cop blames ‘political correctness’ in prosecution alleging homophobic comment

Some frank advice was targeted by an outsider

A veteran Durham police officer has come out swinging as he fights charges of discreditable conduct relating to allegations he made homophobic comments during an exchange with potential recruits.

The pursuit of Police Services Act charges against Sgt. Tom Andrews is a waste of resources, the officer’s lawyer, Bernie O’Brien, said as a disciplinary tribunal began on Tuesday morning in Whitby.

“This is a Durham police management issue that’s gone amok,” O’Brien said. “We think this is a grotesque waste of taxpayers’ dollars.”

O’Brien said Tuesday he’ll file an application to have the prosecution of Andrews declared an abuse of process. He’s also seeking removal of the prosecutor assigned to the case.

The allegations against Andrews relate to April of this year when he was acting as staff sergeant in Oshawa. A notice of hearing from the service says Andrews, asked to speak to two recruits, used vulgar and discriminatory language when he warned them about maintaining stellar reputations as officers.

According to the notice, Andrews told the recruits, “You can sleep with a thousand women and you’re a king. But you fellate one man and you are a c---s----- for life.”

The comment, made in front of an officer who’s openly gay, was “unprofessional, inappropriate and harmful to those who did and would have heard them,” the notice states.

The complaint that led to the charges, however, was not made by the recruits or other officers in the office at the time Andrews made them. A third party filed the complaint after hearing about the exchange, O’Brien confirmed.


Even Jews are not allowed to be critical of Islam

THE launch event of a new group called the Australian Jewish Association (AJA) will go ahead, despite being booted out of Melbourne’s Beth Weizmann Community Centre.

Beth Weizmann was booked to host the event several months ago, but when it was revealed last week that the event would be titled, The Threat of Islam to Jews, it was cancelled by Zionism Victoria, which runs the centre.

The AJA was established by Jewish community members from Sydney, Melbourne and Perth to be “a new voice for the community”.

According to its mission statement and policy principles it will be “based on genuine authentic Jewish and conservative Australian democratic values” and will “be guided by Torah (in its broad sense) in policy development and advocacy”.

“You can expect it to be more direct and outspoken on matters of principle rather than cowed by political correctness,” its website says.

Regarding Israel, AJA president David Adler said that the AJA’s policy is that the West Bank should be part of the Jewish State. “Should a Palestinian state be created in Judea and Samaria and would that lead to peace? Our view is no,” Adler said.

The launch event, featuring Adler and Australian pastor Mark Durie, was due to be held at Beth Weizmann on September 10.

However, the centre’s chair Sam Tatarka stated last week, “Having just become aware of the details of the event, which had been booked as a ‘public speaker’, and after due consideration we have decided that we are not prepared to have the Jewish Community Centre of Melbourne used for or associated with an event that on its face, seeks to foment fear and hatred.”

Adler said he was disappointed with the decision. “It would have been expected that instead of reacting to erroneous information, that the management of Beth Weizmann would have made contact with us, the organisers, to find out the truth,” Adler told The AJN.

“As soon as possible we gave them additional information for consideration because they had made false assumptions and we informed them that the talk, or similar ones, had been presented in NSW Parliament in March this year and at Limmud New Zealand last month.”

One of those talks was due to be held last night (Wednesday) at North Shore Synagogue where Adler was due to speak on the topic of Islam and the Jews – Lessons for Australia.

The relocated launch event has not been endoresed by Mirzachi Synagogue, but it will be held in Mizrachi Synagogue’s Goldberger Hall in Melbourne with the same revised title.

Stating that Beth Weizmann was wrong to withdraw as hosts, Adler said, “Part of our Jewish tradition is to debate and discuss contentious topics, providing you do it in a reasonable way without incitement.”

He said “more than one communal organisation” offered to host the talk at a new location.

Adler hadn’t wanted to name the new venue earlier as he was reluctant to “attract the aggressive and irrational group who, without information and based on false assumptions, went off the rail”.

AJA originally listed outspoken gym owner Avi Yemini as a leader of the organisation on its website, but was subsequently removed.

“He has never been an office bearer, or a spokesman, nor will he fulfil any of those roles,” Adler said. “He did volunteer to assist with social media. His profile appeared for a short while on the website. The office bearers discussed it and said it should be removed.”


How political correctness kills language freedoms

The push for politically correct language may be well intentioned enough, but its consequences are often appalling. It can rob us of one of the most important of all human freedoms: the right to use words to mean what we want them to mean.

The first problem in prohibiting certain word usage is that there is an assumption that the intention of the speaker or writer is known. In literary criticism this is called the intentional fallacy; the invalid notion that the author’s intention can readily be derived from the words.

To give an example, this writer was a weekly satirical columnist for BRW, a business magazine. I wrote a joke about Asian drivers, which was deemed to be politically incorrect, even racist. I tried to explain that the joke was actually directed at people who held such views, not at Asian drivers—something I thought was obvious enough and well enough flagged—but it was deemed inadmissible. It was assumed that there could be only one possible intention, no matter how much it was explained that this was not my intention.

A similar dynamic could be seen in a reader response to a headline on this web site. The headline, 'Do we ban the nun's veil next?' was sarcastic. But one reader interpreted it as potentially nun-bashing (and presumably politically incorrect). This kind of confusion is actually quite common; readers can interpret intent in very different ways.

And here lies the problem. Analysis of politcial correctness necessarily relies on making assumptions about intent. The language is targeted in a very legalistic way, and more complex aspects such as intention, context, or potential multiple layers of meaning, are ruiled out.

There is no doubt that a great deal of Shakespeare’s language, especially the swearing, does not meet the PC strictures, for example. It is a good thing that many of the Bard’s words are unfamiliar to modern ears, otherwise we might lose our greatest writer. Although at least it is widely acknowledged that his intentions were always subtle and complex.

Just how absurd political correctness can become was reinforced for me during a teaching exercise I was involved with in primary school. The teacher told the class that they would be learning about how to deal with dogs.

‘A lady will be showing you a big black dog,’ the teacher said. ‘You can’t say that, Miss—it's racist,’ an eight year old protested, horrified. To him, just using the word ‘black’ was unacceptable in itself. Out of the mouth of babes.

The second problem with political correctness is that assumptions have to be made about meaning. Again, this is because the PC approach is legalistic. In law, words tend to have strictly defined semantics; in the English common law system underpinned by precedent. There tends to be, deliberately, a very limited range of reference and, as much as possible, a one-to-one correspondence between the word and the thing being denoted.

To say the least, there is more to words than this. Read any decent work of literature and you will observe language that produces a range of meanings, including enacting meanings from the way the writer uses the words themselves.

One does not have to agree with the absurd exaggerations of French deconstructionist literary critics such as Jacques Derrida—that the ‘author is dead’ and there are as many possible meanings as there are readers: a principle they did not apply to their own writings of course—to see that language can mean many things to those who receive it. Read William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity and the point becomes clear enough.

Yet in the PC approach, it is assumed that those who derive one meaning, who have been offended, have the sole right to define what the words signify.

Viewed this way, political correctness represents an extraordinary attack on basic human freedoms that are almost as fundamental as the freedom to think what we want. It is even reaching the point in the public environment where what is not said is being deemed ‘incorrect’. Witness the furore over Donald Trump’s comments on the Charlottesville violence. What Trump said was broadly factually correct; that both sides were violent. He was pilloried because of what he did not say, or at least didn’t say at the right time: that neo-Nazis are unacceptable.

Political correctness is increasingly being applied to absence, as well as presence, which means not just making assumptions about what the words denote, but also what silences connote. As any philosopher will tell you, deducing from absence is a dangerous course. And once again it involves making assumptions about intention; purporting to be inside the speaker's mind.

Language that is intended to be hurtful should be deplored. But there is a high cost associated with outlawing any language use, because such initiatives can only be applied, crudely, to the words themselves. They cannot apply to the person’s intentions—that would require further evidence—and they rule out the possibility of multiple meanings.

The PC approach easily descends into authoritarianism and aggression. When such aggression is associated with those purportedly being protected, it ultimately does them no favours.

The way to a more tolerant society is to take a mature approach to language, to see it in all its complexity and polyvalence. And perhaps develop a little looseness: remember what used to be said in the schoolyard, that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Sadly, many are going in the opposite direction.


FEMA bigotry: Banned Aid Ripped by Trump
When Hurricane Harvey ripped through Texas, most people never dreamed it was the beginning of a bigger storm over religious freedom. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened when three Houston churches applied for FEMA funding — only to be denied for being “too religious.” Thanks to a 20-year-old policy guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, any institution that spends more than half of its space on “religious programming” isn’t eligible for aid. That’s ridiculous, argues the churches’ attorneys at the Becket Fund, especially since two of these congregations sheltered victims and distributed more than 8,000 meals to the community. “The churches are not seeking special treatment; they are seeking equal treatment. And they need to know now whether they have any hope of counting on FEMA or whether they will continue to be excluded entirely from these FEMA programs.”

That hope came Friday in the form of a tweet from President Donald Trump. “Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane Harvey (just like others),” he insisted. It was the latest sign that this White House is committed to cleaning up the mess — not just from the hurricane, but from Obama’s two terms of religious hostility. Trump’s position ought to go a long way to righting this 1998 wrong, especially now that Congress is piling on. In a letter to FEMA Administrator Brock Long, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) calls out the injustice.

This policy discriminates against people of faith. It sends the message that communities of worship aren’t welcome to participate fully in public life… It reduces the facilities and volunteers time, talent, and effort available to support the broader community. And it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent 7-2 ruling in Trinity Lutheran… In other words, it is unconstitutional. It is unreasonable. And it is impeding ongoing recovery efforts.

“When disasters strike,” he pointed out, “it’s our churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations that spring into action, offering crucial facilities, manpower, and numerous other forms of support to affected communities.” And, as USA Today explains, that isn’t one conservative’s opinion. It’s a fact. “Faith groups provide the bulk of disaster recovery, in coordination with FEMA,” reads the headline. Crediting the churches’ “unique expertise” in disaster relief, it explains what “integral partners” these institutions have been in helping the hurting, applauding the sophistication of these groups — especially Samaritan’s Purse — in getting volunteers, food, clothes, and money quickly to the victims who need it. By USA Today’s count, at least 75 percent of the volunteer army is faith-based — making FEMA’s policy all the more outrageous. I can personally attest to how churches are increasingly on the front lines of relief in these natural disasters.

Why would the government turn away humanitarian assistance from one of the biggest pools of support? Could it be that Big Government doesn’t like competition? In Louisiana, we saw something very similar with Hurricane Katrina. Instead of partnering with local churches, FEMA kept faith-based groups at arm’s length, leaving a less effective and more expensive government to fill the void. Yet churches kept on, reacting spontaneously to the needs they saw around them.

That’s because, to Christians, this isn’t about what they’re “getting” from government. As Houston’s Pastor Charles Storker said, “The Hi-Way Tabernacle is here to help people. If our own government can help us do that, that’d be great. And if not, we’re going to keep doing it. But I think that it’s wrong that our government treats us unfairly just because we’re Christians.” Now, with the American Red Cross under fire for mismanaging money (“They are the most inept unorganized organization I’ve ever experienced,” said one Houston councilmen), it seems even more urgent that the government fund proven outreach partners.

Not surprisingly, the militant secularists at the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State don’t see it that way. “We know a lot of people in Texas are suffering,” Barry Lynn’s office told reporters, “and we are sympathetic. But the fact that something bad has happened does not justify a second wrong. Taxpayers should not be forced to protect religious institutions that they don’t subscribe to.” In the year of rebuilding from Baton Rouge’s flood, I haven’t seen anyone under the banner of atheism offering to help. Instead, atheists like to snipe at the groups that are actually on the ground with chainsaws and food pantries like Franklin Graham and others.

It all proves author Arthur Brooks’s point: “Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people. In years of research, I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people.” (A point Baylor researchers emphasized in their study about faith-based organizations and the homeless.) In his book, Who Really Cares? he details how religious people are more charitable “in every measurable nonreligious way — including secular donations, informal giving, and even acts of kindness and honesty — than secularists.” And that charity isn’t just good for the victims — it’s good for America.

“Money giving and prosperity exist in positive feedback to each other,” Brooks explains, “a virtuous cycle, you might say. For example, in 2000, controlling education, age, race, and all the other outside explanations for giving and income increases, a dollar donated to charity was associated with $4.35 in extra income. Of this extra income, $3.75 was due to the dollar given to charity. At the same time, each extra dollar in income stimulated 14 cents in new giving. All told, this is evidence that charity has an excellent return on investment, far better than the return from the vast majority of stocks and bonds.”

That generosity has a multiplying effect. So, before liberals or atheists complain about helping faith-based groups do their job, let’s remember that there’s plenty of incentive to help them — and absolutely no constitutional grounds not to.



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


14 September, 2017

A rapist in a women’s prison? Society has lost the plot

It is time people took a stand against the trans ideology

What kind of society puts a male rapist in a women’s prison? In what nation would it be considered acceptable to put a man convicted of raping two girls into an enclosed space with hundreds of women? In Britain. In 2017.

Incredibly, Martin Ponting, who was sentenced to life in 1995 for the rape of two girls under the age of 16, was recently moved to the all-women prison of Bronzefield in Surrey because he now identifies as a woman and goes by the name of Jessica Winfield. He has now been segregated from the other prisoners at Bronzefield presumably for some serious misdemeanour. (For making advances to women, say sections of the press, though the prison authorities deny this.) To place a rapist among women because he claims to be a woman might prove to be the moment the cult of genderfludity crossed the line from irritating to psychotic.

Let’s be clear: it is wrong and cruel to make female prisoners live with a rapist. Whatever their crimes, women prisoners have a right to expect the utmost safety. These women should not be made to share their living quarters with someone serving a life sentence for committing serious crimes against young women. This is not to say criminals, even serious criminals, can never be reformed. Prison should seek to redeem even the worst of people. But Ponting is still serving his sentence; he is still being punished; so we can assume he is still considered a threat, particularly to the kind of people he previously victimised: vulnerable females. To put him among vulnerable women is to elevate his narcissistic identity play over the sense of safety of hundreds of women. It prizes his feelings over women’s security. It tells him — and society — that an individual’s personal fantasy now takes precedence over other people’s reality.

The pro-trans media’s response to the discussion of Ponting and his segregation at Bronzefield has been extraordinary. Sections of the tabloid press have expressed concern at the placing of Ponting in a women’s prison. His move to a women’s prison is a ‘kick in the teeth’ to his victims, one newspaper says. He is a ‘rape menace’, say reporters. I agree. This is why he’s in jail: because he is a rape menace. Yet trans-sympathetic columnists have become irate, not at the placing of a rapist in a women’s prison, but at the tabloid press’s use of phrases like ‘transgender rapist’. That this is a statement of fact — Ponting is both transgender and a rapist — matters nothing to these policers of language for whom any expression of disrespect for the trans ideology is a despicable act of ‘transphobia’.

Some pro-trans observers have slammed the media for ‘deadnaming’ Ponting — that is, mentioning his old name, Martin Ponting, rather than solely using his new name, Jessica Winfield. But Ponting / Winfield committed his crimes under that ‘dead’ name. Martin Ponting is on public record as having committed two rapes. The idea that we should erase that name to avoid offending his trans sensibilities is perverse: it erases matters of legal record; it memory-holes the name of a criminal. It negates history itself: in this case that a man called Martin Ponting raped two girls. To instruct the media never to mention the name ‘Martin Ponting’ is to engage in a victim-disrespecting act of Orwellian erasure. It once again elevates the eccentric sensitivities of one individual over the rights of everyone else: in this case the right of the public to know and speak about all the details of a crime.

This strange urge of trans activists and commentators to accord more sympathy to Ponting than to women prisoners — to argue the corner of a rapist rather than women — speaks volumes about how unhinged the trans ideology has become. Or rather how abjectly unwilling society is to withstand this ideology and to tell its believers that they are wrong. In the treatment of Ponting’s belief that he is a woman as more important than the concerns of hundreds of actual women, we see in extreme form the extent to which society is now expected to bow before the narcissistic individual and his or her demands for recognition; to validate every identity, even where that identity is self-evidently irrational.

And where this expectation of validation is annoying and sometimes illiberal in everyday life — such as when student officials pressure people to use pronouns like ‘ze’ or when feminists are harassed online for saying men cannot become women — in the case of prisons it becomes positively dangerous. A society that cannot say even to a man convicted of rape, ‘You are not a woman’, is a society that has truly lost the moral plot. It is a society that has left the realm of reason and objectivity for the unbalanced, unpredictable and plain dangerous terrain of post-modernism, in which what an individual feels counts for more than what others know to be true.

It is time we asserted our right to opt out of trans people’s fantasies. If a man wants to refer to himself as a woman, that is absolutely his business. But there is no reason the rest of us have to accept that he is a woman. There is no reason the birth registrar has to change the sex on his birth certificate (replacing the truth with a lie), or that a women-only college has to accept him as a student, or that the prison system has to place him in a women’s prison.

The rise of the trans ideology speaks to a really problematic 21st-century idea: that society has a duty to respect our chosen identities. It doesn’t. Society must only respect our rights — our right to speak, our right to vote and our right to personal autonomy — not what we believe. Society must uphold our freedom, not our feelings. So yes, a man has a right to say, ‘I am a woman’, but society is perfectly within its rights to say: ‘No, you are not.’ And it should say this more often. It is terrifying that nobody in a position of authority thought to say to Ponting: ‘Jessica, you are not a woman, and you will not be going to a women’s prison.’


Donation Processing Company Drops 'Hate Group' Christian Nonprofit

Last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) seemed to claim another scalp. On Thursday, the credit card processing company Vanco Payment Solutions dropped the Christian nonprofit Ruth Institute (RI) over claims that RI "promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse." The group has been listed on the SPLC's "hate map" since 2013.

"The Ruth Institute's primary focus is on family breakdown, and its impact on children. If this makes us a 'hate group,' so be it," the RI's founder and president, Jennifer Roback Morse, declared in a statement.

Vanco sent the Ruth Institute a letter Thursday, declaring that it was canceling their service immediately. "Vanco has elected to discontinue our processing relationship with The Ruth Institute," the letter read. "The organization has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse. Merchants that display such attributes are against Vanco and Wells Fargo processing policies."

In a statement to PJ Media, Vanco confirmed that "we terminated our processing relationship with the Ruth Institute on Thursday, August 31." A Vanco spokesperson would neither confirm nor deny whether or not the company's conclusion that RI "promotes hate" was inspired by the SPLC's "hate map."

Morse reported that "no one from Vanco, Card Brands, or Wells Fargo ever contacted the Ruth Institute to inquire about how we 'promote hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse.'"

The Vanco statement did not explicitly link its reasoning with the SPLC "hate map," but the Ruth Institute has been listed on this map since 2013, Morse noted. "To the best of our knowledge, no one has ever been inspired to riot or shoot anyone by our activities," the RI president said.

This stands in marked contrast to the SPLC, which has been linked to two domestic terror attacks.

In the summer of 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins III broke into the Family Research Council (FRC), a Christian nonprofit in Washington, D.C., that the SPLC's "hate map" lists with RI as an "anti-LGBT hate group." Corkins aimed to murder everyone in the building, and he later pled guilty to committing an act of terrorism. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. During an FBI interrogation, he said he targeted the FRC because of the SPLC "hate map."

This past summer, Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson shot people at a Republican Congressional Baseball Game practice, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). Hodgkinson "liked" the SPLC on Facebook. Furthermore, the SPLC had repeatedly attacked Scalise for a speech he gave to a white supremacist group in 2002. The SPLC attacked him for it even after he apologized and was called a "sellout" by white supremacists.

Such carelessness has emerged again and again throughout the SPLC's history. In 2014, the group placed retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on its "Extremist Watch List." Just last week, the group removed the innocent historic town of Amana Colonies from its "hate map." While the SPLC eventually removed Amana Colonies, it first defended the "hate" label because a white supremacist website claimed to have had a book club in one of the town's restaurants.

In a series of three videos, the anti-Islamist group Quilliam International revealed the SPLC's ever-changing reasons for listing Muslim Maajid Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim extremist." One of the reasons the SPLC gave for targeting Nawaz? His visit to a strip club for his bachelor party.

Along these lines, the Ruth Institute compiled all the items that some groups have found objectionable on a page called "Where's the Hate?" Morse suggested that Americans check out this material for themselves, before deciding that the Ruth Institute is a "hate group."

The SPLC was originally founded to fight white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in court. In recent decades, however, it expanded its legitimate list of racist hate groups to include mainstream conservative groups which which it disagrees.

Morse argued that the SPLC hate map places RI "right next to the guys with white hoods and swastikas," in order to silence debate on the sexual revolution.

"If you go around saying that kids don't really need their parents and adults can make any sexual choice that they want and it will all be good because we will contracept away all the problems on one hand or abort away the problems, or the kids will be so resilient that it will all be fine, that's completely irrational. It's completely crazy," Morse told the Christian Post.

In fact, the SPLC's former spokesman, Mark Potok explained that the group's primary goal is to destroy its political opponents. "Our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them," he said. He later added that the SPLC's criteria for what makes an organization a "hate group" are "strictly ideological."

In addition to RI and the FRC, the SPLC's "hate group" list includes Christian organizations like D. James Kennedy Ministries, Liberty Counsel, the American Family Association (AFA), and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), along with other groups like the American College of Pediatricians and the Center for Immigration Studies. It also lists Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz and women's rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali as "anti-Muslim extremists."

Despite the group's shaky track record and history of terror connections, it has been raking in cash after the riots in Charlottesville, Va. George Clooney and his wife Amal pledged $1 million to the group, and the company J.P.Morgan pledged $500,000. Apple CEO Tim Cook was even more generous, announcing his company would give $1 million to the SPLC and that it would set up a system in iTunes software to let consumers directly donate to the organization.

Other companies like Lyft and MGM Resorts have also partnered with the SPLC, and many companies have matched their employees' contributions to the group, including big names such as Disney, Kraft Heinz, Shell, and Verizon. Pfizer, Bank of America, and Newman's Own have each given the organization at least $8,900 in the past few years.

The SPLC does not need this money, however. The Washington Free Beacon recently reported that the group sent multiple transactions to foreign entities, including two cash payments of $2.2 million into funds in the Cayman Islands. The SPLC takes in $50 million in contributions each year, and had $328 million in net assets as of 2015.

Recent support has not been limited to monetary assistance, however. CNN broadcast the SPLC's "hate map" on its website and Twitter account this month (with the FRC still marked on the map). Two other major media outlets, ABC and NBC, parroted the SPLC's "hate group" label against ADF last month.

In June, the charity navigation website GuideStar adopted the SPLC "hate group" list, marking each profile of the targeted organizations as a "hate group." This action inspired the first of three lawsuits against the SPLC, launched by the Christian nonprofit Liberty Counsel. Maajid Nawaz followed up with his own lawsuit soon after, and D. James Kennedy Ministries has been the most recent group to sue the SPLC for defamation.

While Morse vehemently protested having her organization unceremoniously blacklisted, she defended Vanco's right to make such a decision.

"Vanco, Card Brands, and Wells Fargo are private businesses. The Ruth Institute respects their right to conduct their businesses as they see fit," Morse said. Chillingly, she added, "We just wish wedding photographers, bakers, and florists received the same respect."

Morse referred to photographers, bakers, and florists because such professionals have been penalized for refusing to take part in same-sex weddings. These people did not discriminate against LGBT people, but rather opted out of serving a particular event. Even so, they have been fined and ridiculed.

Such cases include Washington state florist Barronelle Stutzman, Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, Michigan farmers Steve and Bridget Tennes, Colorado baker Jack Philips (whose case will come before the Supreme Court), and many others. An LGBT megadonor has declared his intention to "punish the wicked," by continuing to penalize such actions.

While Morse defended these companies' right to cut off business with her, she did take a different kind of offensive line against them.

"The Vanco company markets itself to religious organizations," the RI president noted. "We surmise that Vanco dropped us because we hold views about marriage, family and human sexuality that are considered 'Anti-LGBT.'"

Although groups like the SPLC may brand such ideas as "hateful," Morse noted, "Our beliefs are the common heritage of all Christian groups. Christian organizations that utilize Vanco's services may wish to reconsider."

The Ruth Institute president was not calling for a boycott per se, but rather a concerted effort on behalf of Christian nonprofits to shame Vanco into reversing its decision. This is exactly the same kind of campaign the SPLC is waging against such groups, but RI decided not to brand Vanco a "hate group." Instead, Morse called on other Christian groups to reconsider working with the company.

Finally, Morse reiterated that the Ruth Institute will still accept donations the old-fashioned way. "Donors to the Ruth Institute can rest assured that their private information has not been compromised," the president said. "Supporters can send checks to our main office, 4845 Lake St.; #217; Lake Charles, LA 70605."

With Apple, J.P. Morgan, George Clooney, CNN, and all sorts of groups teaming up with the SPLC to wage a campaign against nonprofits like the Ruth Institute, Morse's organization needs all the help it can get.


The Cleveland Browns — Getting It Right?

After controversial national anthem shenanigans, the team showed class before yesterday's game.

Four weeks ago, a group of Cleveland Browns players took a knee (ostensibly to pray) during our National Anthem. Recall, if you will, that former San Francisco star quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who started this absurd celebrity knee protest, is now unemployed – and his unemployment is being blamed on NFL “racism,” even though more than 70% of NFL players are not white.

A week after the Browns’ protest, former Browns Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown criticized the Browns team and Kaepernick for disrespecting our country:

Colin has to make up his mind whether he’s truly an activist or whether he’s a football player. … I’m going to give you the real deal. I’m an American. I don’t desecrate my flag and my national anthem. I’m not gonna do anything against the flag and the national anthem. I’m going to work within those situations. But this is my country, and I’ll work out the problems, but I’ll do it in an intelligent manner.

As a result of Jim Brown’s remarks and protests from NFL fans, the following week all the Cleveland Browns players stood for the national anthem.

Sunday, the Browns organization took another step in the right direction. Ahead of their game against the Pittsburgh Steelers – and the anniversary observance of the 9/11 Islamist attack on our nation Monday, the Browns took the field flanked by U.S. military personnel, police and first responders. This was, arguably, a repudiation of Kaepernick – and by extension, the former St. Louis Rams and their fake “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” charade after the Ferguson race-bait riots of 2014.

As for Kaepernick, don’t feel too bad for him. According to Business Insider, “After leading the San Francisco 49ers to consecutive NFC championship games and one Super Bowl, Colin Kaepernick was rewarded with a ‘record’ seven-year, $126 million contract in 2014. But after three seasons of declining production, including one season of headlines surrounding his protest of the national anthem, [Kaepernick has only] received $39.4 million from the deal.”

Not a bad run for a child born to a destitute white woman, abandoned by his black father, then adopted and raised in privilege by Rick and Teresa Kaepernick, an affluent white couple. His anger is badly misplaced — it is his birth father who was his “oppressor,” not America, where a very generous white couple came to his rescue. (Wait, that sounds a LOT like the bio of an “oppressed” former president.)

As for the NFL, their MSM viewer ratings are the worst on record for an opening season – and the same can be said for ESPN’s ratings


Feds spend $138G asking 4-year-olds about their 'internal sense of gender identity'

The National Science Foundation is spending over $130,000 on a study that asks four-year-olds about their "internal sense of gender identity."

A grant for a two-year study was awarded to the University of Washington this summer. The project will interview 250 children aged four to six, and their parents, asking a series of questions about "gendered behavior."

"Prominent theories of gender development have discussed the degree to which gender identity results from an internal sense of gender and socialization processes," according to the grant. "However, tests of these theories have been limited because, for most children, internal gender identity and environmental socialization substantially overlap, rendering it impossible to distinguish the relative impact of each factor on gender development."

The study will investigate whether gender theories, such as Gender Schema Theory that blames society on differences between genders, are sufficient for today's "wider range of human gender experiences," where there can be anywhere between 3, 37, and 58 genders.



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 September, 2017

Does poverty cause suicide?

That it does is the implicit message below.  And it is true that the poor suicide more.  But is the poverty the cause of the suicide?  In the case of the person highlighted below it would seem to be an hereditary depressive illness.  Many close relatives to him had suicided too.

From my reading of the literature, social isolation and loss of important relationships are the main cause of suicide. We need connectedness with others. So how do we explain the correlation with poverty?

I think we need to see poverty not as a cause but as an effect.  many things can lay you low financially, including mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.  And there is also extravagance, monetary incontinence. If you repeatedly blow all your money soon after you get it, you are going to be long-term poor. And extravagance in turn can reflect deficient impulse control, which is again a mental weakness. 

And a major correlate of poverty is IQ.  Some people just cannot cope with modern work requirements.  Jobs have become more complex as time has gone by.  Digging ditches manually was so simple anyone could do it but few jobs are that simple anymore. So the low IQ person is more likely to be unemployed, often for long periods.  And unemployment is depressing in a host of ways.  And it is ultimately a depressive state of mind that leads on to suicide.

So a more measured and detailed look at people at risk of suicide is what is needed for prevention purposes. Just blaming poverty is irresponsibly simplistic and unlikely to help.  The most officialdom is ever likely to provide is anti-psychotic and anxiolytic medication.  The churches will be the major source of social and emotional support. Neither governments nor Leftist organizations have any track-record in that function.

I was standing inside a tacky “instant cash loan” place in main street, Dandenong, I had just applied for a $200 loan.

“Sorry love we can’t help you today,” the Eastern European lady at the loan shop I’ll call CASH NOW EXCITING WOW said.

I was broke and living on a friend’s couch. I went to three other “instant cash loan” places who said no to giving me a loan that day. Plus I’d been into Centrelink and asked for a cash advance — I got rejected for that too.

I also had a bad back and was losing my battle with the insurance company. I’d just borrowed money from a friend earlier that day — she needed it by the next morning for her daughter’s school excursion. CASH NOW EXCITING WOW’s final rejection meant I realised I couldn’t repay her by that night like I promised.

Twelve months earlier I had a well-paying, high-status job; I’d been on TV, the radio, I wrote for magazines — everyone took my call when I was a journalist — most people wanted to be my friend.

After CASH NOW’s rejection I felt disconnected, life seemed pointless; broken beyond repair. I walked for hours plotting ways to die. I eventually followed one street all the way to Dandenong Hospital’s emergency room and told them I wanted to kill myself.

It wasn’t the first time I’d been suicidal. But it was the first time that financial despair had driven me to it.

And the experience turned out to be illuminating in more ways than one — years later, I would start reading and find what is rarely talked about: The link between being on a lower-income and suicide.

Not that long ago terms like “affluenza” and “cashed-up bogans” were freely thrown around. Yes we know that “money doesn’t make you happy”, but being dirt poor can drive you to despair — male suicide in Australia was at the highest in the 1930s Great Depression.

Many studies show the link between unemployment and suicide: unemployed men suicide about 4.62 times the rate of employed men in Australia according the latest research by the University of Melbourne.

The latest available ABS figures show Australia’s annual suicide rate is 12 per 100,000 — the highest in 10 years. We know men are more at risk, so too LGBTI people and the indigenous. But since 2002, ABS data hasn’t recorded occupation or income (currently it looks only at age, race, gender) of those who have taken their own life — when it did it showed the unemployed, tradies and labourers were the ones most likely to suicide.

Contemporary figures showing the link between income, class and suicide proved hard to find. But the suicide rate for trades people is 21 per 100,000 and for labourers it’s an astonishing 34 per 100,000 (nearly triple the national average).

Compare that to the suicide rates of male managers of 7 suicides per 100,000, and middle-class professionals of 13 per 100,000.

There are a few aberrations including veterinarians and those working in the medical profession, who have high suicide rates, but otherwise the trend appears relatively clear.

“The main drivers of suicide are disconnection, and a loss of hope and purpose,” Alan Woodward Director of Lifeline Australia told news.com.au.

“We know financial struggles and personal indebtedness is a factor that can lead people to feel suicidal ... if you are unemployed there is a strong chance your social network will reduce and you may experience some loss of a sense of contributing to the community.”

“Some occupations have some features, less control of the nature of their work, less fulfilment, job satisfaction, possibility to exposure to unsafe areas.

And of course — most of those jobs are male-dominated. “Traditional masculine behaviour and attitudes have been found to relate to reduced and delayed help-seeking for mental health problems,” he said.

When I reflect back on the day my financial crisis led to suicidal ideation, I do think about the lack of meaning in my life right then. I had tried to do everything right: I had been studying law, I’d spent most of my life climbing the socio-economic ladder just as my parents had lifted themselves out of their parents’ poverty. There I was — begging for money.

My Dad is on a disability support pension after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder 10 years ago. He has attempted suicide a few times. His Dad had schizophrenia and suicided. My Dad’s brother also took his own life, so did my cousin.

Back at Dandenong hospital the day I was completely broke and suicidal, I ended up speaking with a great psychiatric nurse, who gave me a very good counselling session, an antipsychotic and a bed for the night.

While it didn’t solve my problem, it did help me deal with these issues with a clearer head the next day.

And while mental health is clearly not just all about the individual, I did need to get my head together initially to work out how to solve my problem.

I’m extremely grateful for the help and cherish the fact I have gone to live another seven fulfilling years.


The new faith is very oppressive

Leftist orthodoxy is the new dominant religion of the Western world and it is every bit as bigoted and oppressive as Christianity was at its worst

In July, a 28-year-old engineer at Google broke the Internet—and lost his job—when he circulated an internal memo calling for a more open dialogue about gender parity at the company. In Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber: How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion, the author, James Damore, spoke out about Google’s unwillingness to allow a diversity of perspectives.

Some of the ensuing commentary claimed he misinterpreted the science he cited, but the majority insisted that, for the most part, though he may have overstated the relevance of some, his data were correct. Far more important than the memo’s contents, however, was the reaction to it, which revealed the limits of science to inspire reason and tolerance.

In the world of psychometrics, the Thematic Apperception Test is a projective measure that uncovers attitudes, thinking patterns and emotional responses by showing the subject a series of drawings and having them tell a story they imagine the drawing tells. The Google memo can be thought of as a similar test. After reading the memo, some described it as an effort to promote diversity and combat groupthink. Others described it as anti-diversity, and a “diatribe against women in tech.” How the reader reacted to the memo is a function of the reader’s story, not the content of the memo.

Welcome to the world of post-rational discourse.

To scientists, for whom data has no moral content, the firestorm that ensued appeared to be the result of not understanding the data. As a result, much has been written about the science Damore cited. To the authors of articles defending the science in the memo, the negative emotional reaction to Google’s gadfly was beyond preposterous, leading women in science to declare that “sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts” and “truth isn't oppressive.”

Today, however, for what seems to be an increasing proportion of the educated left, even the mere willingness to discuss certain kinds of facts is “harmful.” The data in the memo wasn’t necessarily misunderstood. It was beside the point. Or perhaps more accurately said, the fact that he was willing to cite it was the problem. As one person tweeted at me, “speaking in averages degrades people.” The online magazine, Quillette, even suffered a cyberattack as a result of posting four scientists’ mostly supportive replies to the memo.

As John McWhorter has rightly pointed out, “[c]ertain questions are not to be asked.” And when they are, they are received “with indignation that one would even ask them.” Even more pernicious, however, they inevitably lead to the implication that not only is asking these questions a symptom of the problem, but the presence of the asker is, too.

How does this happen? To those seeking truth through science, facts are amoral. When using this scientific thinking, things are either true or untrue, not morally right or wrong. As Sam Harris points out in The End of Faith, Moses either parted the Red Sea or he didn't. Jesus was either born of a virgin or he wasn't. Mohammed either flew to heaven on a winged horse or he didn't. That there is scientific evidence that none of these things are possible given what we know about physics and biology does not deter people from their faith. That's definitional for articles of faith. The problem arises, however, when members of a faith choose to silence or punish nonbelievers and those who have too little faith. For Harris, there is no moral issue with questioning the historicity of the religious claims mentioned above—because he is not a believer. To true believers, however, questioning claims of faith is heresy.

In faith, there is certainty. Whatever contravenes faith or allows for uncertainty is, by faith’s definition, wrong. Faith requires being “right.” Science, on the other hand, requires uncertainty and the freedom to be wrong. And therein lies a conflict. Among true believers, those who are “wrong” are heretics, blasphemers and demons. Among true scientists, those who are wrong are merely—well, wrong. Being wrong in the scientific search for truth is acceptable and expected. One must be willing to be wrong in order to search for truth. Being wrong regarding faith’s claim of truth, however, is unacceptable and may even be unforgivable—it is the work of a devil. “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God,” wrote philosopher Eric Hoffer. “But never without the belief in a devil.” 

What happened at Google is part of an illiberal orthodoxy that is intensifying on college campuses across the country. Last school year alone, incidents ranged from the tame to the violent. At Wellesley College, feminist Laura Kipnis, who spoke out for “grown-up feminism,” was the subject of a letter written by members of the faculty who claimed she “imposed on the liberty” of students, and her presence caused them “injury” and “distress.” Students called her out as anti-feminist. At the Evergreen State College, vigilante students called out evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein for speaking out against celebrating a day without white people. They vandalized property, held administrators and others hostage, and intimidated the professor, his students, and even police until eventually the police could not keep the professor or his family safe on campus. At Reed College, students called out assistant professor Lucia Martinez Valdivia, who identifies as mixed-race and queer for being a “race traitor,” “anti-black,” and “ableist.” They accused her of “gaslighting” students because she spoke out about questioning feelings of oppression. “I am scared to teach courses on race, gender or sexuality or even texts that bring these issues up in any way,” she said. “I’m at a loss as to how to begin to address it, especially since many of these students don’t believe in historicity or objective facts (they denounce the latter as being a tool of the white cisheteropatriarchy).”

Perhaps what makes the Google scenario stand out from even the most astounding campus reactions is that Google is not a college campus, but a company. And not just any company, but one responsible for much of the scientific, historical and objective facts that many, if not most of us find online.

Although Google’s CEO admitted that “much of what was in that memo is fair to debate,” Damore’s views were not, in the end, debated, as he had hoped they would be. At least not at Google.

Google has joined the callout culture.

Who will be next?



Corbyn Monoxide: why does the British Left get away with anti-Tory hate?

It’s supposed to be a joke, of course, and we’re all supposed to laugh. But imagine – just try to imagine – if these students had written such vile comments about Muslims or gays; or if a group of young Tories had written such things about any of Corbyn’s “kinder, gentler” disciples; or (worse) if Kippers had written such comments about… well, anyone really; for everything a Kipper utters is hate, and any comments they hurl at anyone for holding an opposing political opinion is… um, ‘bigotry’.

Conservative-inclined youngsters are routinely pilloried (if not formally investigated and disciplined) for their casual racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., etc. (for putting “minority students at risk and in a state of panic and fear“). But left-wingers seem to get away with it: none of these students is likely to be hauled before a disciplinary committee and threatened with expulsion for putting young Tories in a state of panic and fear. No, that sort of retribution is reserved for Christians and Conservatives who dare to utter Christian and conservative things on Facebook or Twitter, joke or not.

We live in an age where the police prioritise investigations of social media ‘hate’ campaigns (actually, it doesn’t have to be a campaign: a single lighthearted comment will suffice), unless the targets are Conservatives and/or Christians, and then it’s ‘fair comment’ (or fair game). And then the left-wing “sexists, anti-Semites and other scumbags” spout their bile by the hogshead; the left-hand of terror pours out onto the streets, terrorising Tories with demands for their “heads on sticks“, illustrated with Theresa May’s head impaled on a bloodied spike. ‘Defy Tory rule‘ they cry. ‘Police and fascists‘ may be legitimately attacked, they insist (and for ‘fascists’, read Tories). It is perhaps unsurprising that Conservative MPs receive threats to life and limb every single day: if the left is persuaded that Tories are evil, the world would obviously be a better place without them – ‘Tories scum, kill 4 fun‘, and then they can burn in hell.

As Julie Burchill notes, there’s something reminiscent of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four ‘Two Minutes Hate’ about it:

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within 30 seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

O, but it’s only a joke, you say. Yes, indeed, one of the peddlers of that anti-Tory hate has since been gripped by sincere remorse and guilt, and has issued a humble, heartfelt apology:

What a charmer. No doubt he’d be first in the queue to lampoon the Tory student who insisted that his/her racist/homophobic/islamophobic comments had been a joke: if Tories aren’t quite evil enough to gas, poison or burn, they’re certainly sufficiently f***ing idiotic to treat with absolute contempt by defecating in their beds.

Or is that a joke, too? Hard to tell: it’s not the crying-with-laughter emoji. Still, having your bed used as a toilet is preferable to being assassinated. Or was that a joke, too? Hard to tell: John McDonnell didn’t use any emojis at all.

Conservatives Party members are literally being driven into hiding; Conservative students are bullied, shunned and shamed into silence: “I don’t want to be friends with racists, sexists, or homophobes. And I don’t want to be friends with Conservatives either,” writes Rebecca Roache on Oxford University’s Practical Ethics website. Petronella Wyatt explains what’s going on:

…recent reports suggest that a new generation of Right-of-centre students are suffering a similar persecution. Such is the institutionalised and increasing hatred of Tory students at Oxford that last week a group of them demanded the same equal-rights protection as gays, disabled people and ethnic minorities.

Conservative members of Corpus Christi College’s junior common room (JCR) claim they are “often actively isolated, personally attacked and made to feel unwelcome” because of their political views.

…At other universities, Conservative students say they are being treated as “scapegoats” for the introduction of higher tuition fees. Luke Black, 20, vice-president of Nottingham University Conservative Association, told a Sunday newspaper that “there is a growing Left-wing bias at universities. People assume we are like the Bullingdon Club without meeting us.”

Samuel Roberts, 21, a history student at Corpus Christi, who proposed the motion for greater protection, says such a climate is “uncomfortable”, while Stephanie Cherill, 19, president elect of OUCA, says there has been a deterioration in the attitude of JCR members towards people who are Right of centre. “This poses a threat to the atmosphere of intellectual discussion, as well as to the welfare of members,” she says.

And what do Oxford University’s proctors do about it?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Right-wing students – Conservative or Christian – are simply ‘fair game’. You can joke about poisoning them, gassing them, or burning them alive because, unlike Muslims, gays and the disabled, they basically have no feelings.

Or at least no feelings about which the Left is remotely troubled.


Racist homosexual supporters in Australia

The fight for marriage equality is important. But there’s no room in it for racism, writes Anisha Gautam

Growing up in Australia with a hyphenated migrant identity is a unique experience, and yet it would be fair to say that most migrant Australians, particular those with visible differences, will at some point in their lives face at least two, very common racist sentiments. The first one is the ubiquitous question “Where do you come from?” as though, despite our multicultural make up, it is impossible to believe that a person with brown skin, say, might just “be” from Australia.

The second is a statement, that old chestnut: “Go back to where you come from.”

As a somewhat outspoken advocate for minority rights, I cannot count the number of times I have had that sentiment hurled at me with the utmost contempt and hatred. It is a sentiment that is most often expressed when a migrant Australian is deemed to be insufficiently ‘grateful’ to the nation as, for example, when a migrant Australian dares to criticise an unjust government policy.

It is also expressed when a migrant Australian simply dares to express an opinion that the xenophobic right simply doesn’t agree with.

I was very disappointed, however, when I recently found the same sentiment being expressed by advocates of same-sex marriage under an article about the ‘No’ campaigner Dr Pansy Lai. “If she doesn’t like our modern secular society with western values of equality,” one commentator write, “maybe she should leave.” Another commentator suggested that perhaps Dr Lai “would be more comfortable practicing back in China where SSM is illegal”.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely do not agree with Dr Lai. Her opinions on same-sex marriage are, as far as I’m concerned, wrong, and her contribution to the ‘No’ campaign ad was both absurd and harmful. Dr Lai’s organization – the Australian Chinese for Families Association – is also doing the nation a great disservice in advocating against the Safe Schools Program, which aims to protect the most vulnerable of the nation’s children. Moreover, if true, it is abhorrent that the organisation advocates the dangerous and discredited conversation therapy as a “cure” for same-sex attraction.

As far as I am concerned, Dr Lai, in coming forward as a public advocate against same-sex marriage has left herself open to many things. She is currently facing, I would argue rightly, the contempt and scorn of those of us fighting to legalize same-sex marriage as a matter of human rights and human dignity.

What she should not face, however, no matter how abhorrent her opinions, are calls to “go back to where you come from.” Because when you say it to her, you say it to me, and to every other migrant who considers himself or herself Australian. Because when you tell one migrant Australian that they are not welcome in the country because their opinion is unacceptable, you tell every one of us that our welcome, too, is contingent in saying and doing the ‘right’ thing, whatever the issue may be. Because it is racist.

If you think my argument is unfair, take a moment to read the comments under articles on Cella White, the white woman in the same video for the No campaign who claimed that her son’s school encouraged him to wear a dress. Not once will you see any calls for her to leave the country because while her argument is called out as absurd and her stance bigoted, being white, her “Australianness,” her right to continue to live in Australia, is never called into question.

The fact is, migrant Australians are not all the same. We do not think in the same way, we do not vote for the same parties. Some of us are progressives and willing to fight for a more just world, and others are willing to fight to keep the status quo. As sad as it makes me to say it, just as I have the right to be progressive, so Dr Lai has the right to be bigoted. When we accept others into our national fabric, we need to do so wholeheartedly, accepting that they are Australian unconditionally, for good or for bad.

Most of us have been put in a situation we did not want, having to participate in what is essentially a national survey on whether or not our LGBTIQ allies should have the same rights that the rest of us have had for centuries.

This campaign has been exactly what the government promised it would not be: hateful, cruel and divisive. It is important that we continue to fight the misinformation published by the ‘No’ campaign but we must do without compromising our ideals as agents of social progress.

Resorting to racism is not a strategy we should engage, if we want to win the bigger war against all injustice.



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 September, 2017

It is impossible for homosexuals to form a true marriage

They can at best impersonate a real marriage

In Australia we are currently having a nation-wide postal survey on Australian marriage law in order to determine whether the definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexual relationships. https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/

There is currently a lot of talk about same sex marriage being marriage equality. But is it?  It will in fact always remain fundamentally different

As I see it, by nature, a man and woman are different not equal.  Equality does not enter into it. And that difference brings a diversity of capacities to the marriage -- a diversity that a homosexual union cannot usually have.  No doubt there are, for instance, some homosexual men who are good with children but homosexual men in general cannot give the near-guarantee of being good with children that a heterosexual woman can give.  The diversity of the parties in a normal marriage gives the marriage as a whole a nearly double range of strengths and possibilities.  What one partner cannot do the other might, making the partnership as a whole more versatile.  Division of labour will be much more effecrtive.

And it is presumably specialization and division of labour that have caused men and women to evolve differently in the first place.  A partnership that has far fewer possibilities for division of labour is flying in the face of evolution and can rarely if at all be as strong and effective.

Men and women are necessary to each other, and only in that sense are they equal to each other.  A half plus the other half equals the whole. But a half plus the same half merely equals the same half.

A man and a woman are two halves that make a whole. A man and woman together become one, make life, become part of the ongoing flow of nature. A man and a man, and a woman and a woman, cannot do that without the assistance of the other sex, so their marriage is not equal to the marriage of a man and woman.

But it is no business of the government to ask what anybody does with their private bits.  It is only when the Left asks government to describe something as what it is not that an issue arises.  But in the great spirit of Anglo-Saxon compromise,  there would seem to be no objection to issuing homosexual couples with a certificate naming them and headed: "Homosexual marriage certificate".  That would make clear that the marriage is a special case and not a true marriage -- JR

Father, 31, who took his one-year-old daughter to hospital with a leg rash was falsely accused of child abuse

This can only be explaimed as NHS negligence.  A skin specialist mistook a fungal infection for a burn????  He should be sent for retraining or at least not further used in forensic matters.

And why could they not do an immediate biopsy anyway?

This is only one of such "mistakes" and it will alert real child abusers to keep their kids away from hospitals.  People who DO  bring their children in should be subject to a rush to judgement

A father was wrongly accused of abusing his baby daughter when he took her to hospital with a rash on her leg which doctors suspected was a burn.

Worried Kevin Gardiner, 31, of Ridgewell, Suffolk, sought medical attention for one-year-old Amara when he spotted the bright red mark on her left thigh.

But doctors immediately called in social services and police, who quizzed him on suspicion of hurting the tot.

Due to the accusations, Mr Gardiner was separated from Amara, his newborn baby daughter Genevieve and his partner Jasmine Yates for over a week.

He said: 'It was heartbreaking. I obviously felt like my life had been taken away from me when I hadn't done anything and I was being punished.

'All we were trying to do was the right thing and then I ended up being accused of hurting.

'I couldn't focus or think straight, I didn't know if my family were being taken away and I might never see them again.

'I couldn't sleep or eat. When I did sleep I didn't want to wake up. I felt so run down, I kept having breakdowns all the time and it left me feeling suicidal.'

Mr Gardiner and Ms Yates, 20, first noticed the rash while changing Amara's nappy at their home on June 29.

She displayed no other symptoms of being unwell and so the couple asked their health visitor, who came to their home moments later, what it could be.

They were told to make an appointment with their local GP who sent them to West Suffolk Hospital the same day.

Despite a skin specialist being called in to examine Amara's leg, doctors were adamant the mark was sinister and called the authorities.

Full time mother Ms Yates  said: 'As soon as we turned up at the hospital, we could feel them suspecting us of doing something to Amara.

'They were watching our every move and did nothing to reassure us that she wasn't seriously ill.

'It was like they weren't considering it could be anything else, other than us abusing our child.

'They started asking us if she had been in any accidents or if anything had rubbed against her leg and before we knew it the police and social services turned up.'

Doctors also demanded that the couple's four-month-old daughter Genevieve was brought in for examination.

Ms Yates was then told to take the girls to stay with her mother - while police threatened Mr Gardiner with arrest if he made contact with them.

He was not allowed to say goodbye to his family, and forced to go and stay with relatives.

Ms Yates said: 'After the hospital said it was a burn they said we had to stay the night, I could stay with Amara but Kevin was told he had to go home and that he would have to come back in the morning with our 10-day-old daughter so she could be checked over.

'It was so upsetting. We just wanted our family together and to enjoy time with Amara and our new baby.

'Social services kept turning up to check on the girls. They were really checking up on me and making sure Kevin hadn't been in touch.

'It was so distressing for Amara because she didn't know why she couldn't see her daddy. They're so close and it really affected her.'

After a week, the hospital rang to confirm the mark on Amara's leg was actually a fungal skin infection.

Mr Gardiner, a council worker, was then allowed to return to his family on July 10, but the couple say they are yet to receive any apology from the hospital or social services.

He said: 'I was just over the moon I thought I might never see them again.'

But Ms Yates added: 'They should have run the tests before jumping to that conclusion.

'I'm so wary now to take her to the doctors. What if I was taking her in for something else and they started all this up again?'

Rowan Procter, executive chief nurse at West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'We are sorry to hear of the distress Ms Yates and her family are feeling, and would encourage Ms Yates to log any concerns formally with our patient experience team.

'The protection of children is of utmost importance to the trust, and we have rigorous processes in place to ensure potentially vulnerable children are safeguarded from harm.

'Whilst we cannot disclose details about any incident such as this, we apologise for any unnecessary stress that may have been caused.'

The family say social services carried on visiting them until last week, but they were given no explanation for their continued involvement.

They are now considering taking legal action.

Kevin added: 'Neither of us have even been in trouble before or given them any reason to think we might harm either of our girls.

'We love them to pieces and couldn't and wouldn't do anything to hurt them.

'I feel like they've been out to get me from the start. It's been the worst time of my life.

'All I wanted was to protect with my little girls. Social services are the ones causing the harm, not me.'

A spokesman for Suffolk County Council said: 'Suffolk County Council has a statutory duty to follow its child protection procedures when such concerns are raised.

'This is particularly important when we receive any referral from a specialist consultant within a local health authority.

'We discussed the situation with the family at the time who understood that we were following our statutory duties and we concluded our involvement when we received further information from the health authority following their initial diagnosis.'


Political correctness is incorrectness

Some wisdom from the University of Maine

Gentrification is the idea of taking cheap, poor or underdeveloped areas and bringing them up to middle or higher class standards. It appears as progress, but it actually does not address the underlying issues of poverty. As strange as this may sound, the Comedy Central cartoon “South Park” made me realize that there is another form of gentrification in our society – that is political correctness (PC).

In one episode, the character Nathan says, “What is PC but a verbal form of gentrification? Spruce everything up, get rid of all the ugliness in order to create a false sense of paradise.” I believe there is a wisdom in this line. Modern political correctness is not protecting marginalized communities. It is a self-satisfying and ineffective way to move society forward.

Let’s look at the relationship between how we view language and social progress. Obviously overt racism is bad, but PC language does do more harm than good. For an individual to look at the world through a PC lens, you need to see existing hierarchies and power structures. I agree with the idea that some groups are more privileged than others. What does this mean for how we act towards one another? The politically correct answer is to use certain language to avoid offense. It seems harmless enough, but this action requires the acknowledgement of your own privilege. From your raised position, you look down on others and treat them as lesser people,  not as a true equal. This is not fixing a power structure; it is affirming one that’s also patronizing.

Political correctness also solves nothing if underlying social stigmas and attitudes aren’t changed. Changing “shell-shocked” to “post-traumatic stress disorder” doesn’t help veterans get the care they need. Changing “disabled” to “differently-abled” doesn’t increase accessibility. In fact, changing words just gives people a safe way to continue to discuss horrible ideas in the open. Changing words to mean less offensive things leads to an effect called the euphemism treadmill. We can change words, but if the people who adopt them don’t change their ideas then we are not moving forward. Words don’t matter if intentions never change.

Political correctness has caused words that matter to lose their meaning. People are eager to throw out terms like sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic and transphobic. However, the words get thrown around so much that they have rendered themselves meaningless. A racist person should never get into office but when the word has lost its meaning, that attack no longer works. People get called racist for asking a dumb or inappropriate question, and that same word is used to describe the Klu Klux Klan. Any rational person can see the difference between the two but when the line isn’t so clear, the use of the word doesn’t work.

A study out of Stanford has also shown that PC language can lead to bad behavior through a phenomenon call moral self-licensing. Through PC language, individuals endow themselves with a sense of higher virtue which then paves the way for bad behavior. Last year, I wrote about punching Nazis and the reasons I thought it was not the way to address the issue. The idea that punching Nazis is okay is entirely based in the psychology of moral licensing. The internal logic works like this: since I hold an enlightened view of the world, it is now okay for me to engage in violence. The narcissistic gratification that is derived from moral self-licensing paves the way for bad behavior.

People are also tired of having to watch everything they say or do in order to not offend people. With language, it is all about intention. When people use some of these phrases that are deemed “microaggressions” they are not evil. Racism is evil – naivety is not. Equating normal people with horrors that led to the worst of history is not an effective strategy for progress.  

I’m not saying that politically correct people are bad. I’m arguing that the current trends of tolerance and social justice are not the proper means to an end that I assume most rational people want. We should work towards a world that is cosmopolitan and culturally diverse. I would rather people be politically correct than uncaring and oppressive, but it still is an ineffective form of social change. It fed the Trump movement. It does not bolster progress, and it may in fact hinder social change.


Why I refuse to let my daughter be taught by a fat teacher

The nursery assistant was clearly a lovely woman: kind and great with children. But as I watched her play with my two-year-old daughter, I felt a growing sense of unease.

She was only in her 20s, but she was already obese — morbidly so. She moved slowly and breathlessly, her face flushed.

Would she, I wondered, have the lightning reflexes needed to save an adventurous toddler from imminent danger?

And what sort of unhealthy habits would she teach my daughter, who would be eating her lunch and tea there each day?

Looking around, I noticed that she wasn’t the only extremely overweight member of staff. I couldn’t help worrying about the message this was sending to the children in their care: that being very fat is normal and — when children adopt role models so readily — even desirable.

My anxiety about this was the main reason I chose not to send my daughter to that nursery, despite its Ofsted rating of ‘Good’. Instead, she goes to another, where the staff are all a healthy weight.

Is this snobbery or ‘fatism’? I don’t think so, but plenty will disagree with me.

This is the first time I have publicly admitted to feeling this way. Aware that the reaction would be anger and vilification, I censored myself. I told everyone I preferred the other nursery because it was smaller and friendlier. I knew I would be accused of discrimination, or ‘fat-shaming’, if I admitted the truth.

It’s not politically correct to comment on anyone’s size any more, and certainly not to say anything negative about obesity. Some even see the word ‘fat’ as equivalent to a racial or homophobic slur.

Fat-positivity — also known as fat acceptance — has gone too far. Originally a response to discrimination against those who aren’t slim enough to fit into society’s beauty ideal, it’s now an excuse for the severely obese to celebrate their bodies, the consequences be damned.

Activists say that ‘fat is beautiful’ and being obese isn’t a problem. Anyone who points out it’s not a good thing to be so overweight is condemned. Telling a woman she should think about losing weight for her health is, apparently, now ‘anti-feminist’.

Take last week when I, perhaps foolishly, entered a Facebook discussion on obesity. A friend had shared a blog post by an overweight woman who was expecting a daughter. Worrying her child would also be overweight — a state she seemed to assume was not preventable — she talked about how she would bring up her child to deal with ‘fat antagonism’ and help her grow into a ‘fat-positive person’.

The response was a roar of approval: everyone agreed the woman’s sentiments were marvellous, and wasn’t it terrible that large women are made to feel ashamed of their bodies.

But I found it problematic — and said so. People should not be fat-shamed, but I had to point out that it was not inevitable the woman’s daughter would become fat. Nobody is born obese.

And, more importantly, being overweight is not healthy, so, rather than teaching her daughter to accept it, she could teach her that it was something to be avoided if possible . . . and how.

While I didn’t expect my comments to be very well-received, I didn’t anticipate the hostile reception I got. I was sworn at and accused of being discriminatory and of ‘trolling’. When I tried to defend my position, I was told I was upsetting people by making them feel bad about themselves.

Scientific evidence was denied — people said I was misquoting studies linking obesity to heart disease. I was asked to stop commenting. Shut up and go away.

My crime? Being a healthy weight. I was told the outsized don’t want to be dictated to by slim people who can’t understand what it’s like to be fat — lumping me and everybody with a BMI under 25 together, as if we were all Kate Moss. But as I, and most people who aren’t overweight, know only too well, staying a healthy weight isn’t easy.

For me, it has been a lifelong struggle. The only reason I’m slim (I’m a size 10), and by no means skinny (I have a tummy and thighs that jiggle), is because I watch what I eat and exercise regularly.

Perhaps I feel so strongly about this because I’m a slim person with a fat person inside, wanting to burst out. My body clings on to every calorie it can. A doctor told me evolution had ensured I would survive a famine — not that useful for a 21st-century North London girl with a sedentary job.

So I have little sympathy for those who blame their genes or hormones for being fat. My grandmother was morbidly obese, and I have a hormonal condition — an underactive thyroid — which causes weight gain.

When my thyroid stopped working, I rapidly put on weight, going up to a size 14 and almost 11 st (I’m only 5 ft 3 in). I hated it: my thighs rubbed together and I had a muffin top. It took several years for medication to regulate my hormones and several more to lose the weight I’d gained.

It wasn’t about dieting, it was about establishing a routine that would keep me slim for life: doing at least half-an-hour’s exercise every day and never eating more than 1,500 calories. But I don’t just want to stay slim for my health: I like being able to wear close-cut, fashionable clothes and feeling fit, especially now I have a toddler to run after.

Rolls of fat are not attractive — I shouldn’t be scared to say that.

Research has proven that, in many ways, being obese is as unhealthy as smoking. It causes cancer, heart disease and diabetes and can impede fertility. Studies also disprove the notion one can be fat and fit. The heavier you are, the more likely you are to suffer from heart failure or stroke.

If that nursery assistant had been chain-smoking, everyone would have condemned her. But as a public health concern, the only real difference between smoking and obesity is that you can’t passively get fat.

Although even that is open to question. For studies have shown your friends can have as much impact on your size as your genes. Your chances of becoming obese go up by a staggering 57 per cent if your best friend does. A friend in greed truly is a friend indeed.

It’s not just because you’re likely to spend time sharing fries or tubs of Haagen-Dazs. It’s because it changes your perception of what is an acceptable weight. Obesity becomes the norm.

That, on a larger scale — pun intended — is what has happened to society. According to obesity statistics, 27 per cent of adults in England are obese and a further 36 per cent are overweight. So the majority of people are now fat: it’s banal, not exceptional.

When size 16 is the average, it seems normal and desirable. It might be, for a woman who is 6 ft, who at size 16 probably won’t be overweight. But a 5 ft woman almost certainly would be.

Vanity sizing means clothing sizes have increased along with women’s girth, normalising larger bodies. While I may be a size 10 today, in the Fifties I would have been a size 14, which was then considered voluptuous.

When people talk about Marilyn Monroe being a curvy size 16, usually to make themselves feel better, they don’t realise she would fit a 10-12 in today’s clothes. Society is in a state of denial.

Whatever the apologists say — and the fat lobby has tried to blame the rising obesity problem on everything from the ubiquity of junk food to an airborne virus — in most cases, obese people are responsible for their own bulk.

There’s a simple reason you put on weight: you expend fewer calories than you ingest. Many fat people say that they have a slow metabolism, but it’s been shown the overweight often have faster metabolisms than slim people.

Once any underlying medical conditions have been dealt with, there is no reason the majority shouldn’t be able to achieve a healthy weight.

Yes, some do have complex psychological or emotional issues that cause them to overeat. But is telling them it’s fine to be obese really going to help them?

People can’t help being tall or short, old or young. We can’t help the colour of our skin, our cultural background or the place of our birth. We shouldn’t criticise anyone for these things. Obesity isn’t the same: people become fat.

I don’t think that the disgust response to obesity is a social construct. I believe it’s innate because we know unconsciously that it’s a dangerous state.

Discrimination is never good. But neither is obesity. So let’s stop celebrating it, and instead offer a bit of tough love.



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 September, 2017

Italian versus Anglo mothering

Below is an extreme but accurate portrait of a culture clash.  It should remind us that what is "correct" in one culture can be incorrect in another culture.  I grew up with a lot of Italians around so I am aware of the generality of what the author describes.

I am myself a reserved, undemonstrative and independent Anglo -- which has large implications for family ties. French sociologists such as LePlay and Emmanuel Todd find the English family incomprehensible.  They see it as chaotic.  Where people in  Latin cultures keep up close family ties, the English can easily go for years without seeing close relatives.  The English family seems impossibly non-existent to Latins.  It is as if family is everything to Latins, but nothing to those of us of English descent. Germans too are much like Anglos in that respect.  It does seem to be a racial thing.

And I am a pretty typical Anglo.  Up until recently, I had gone for a couple of decades without seeing my quite gorgeous and vivacious kid sister -- even though she lives only a half-day train-ride away.  I can't help being what I am but I do nonetheless admire the Italian approach to life and am rather resolved to try to be more like them.

I do rather agree with Nonna Gemma below

My mother is the doyenne of Australian etiquette, June Dally-Watkins. My mother-in-law is an almost illiterate farmer from the mountains of eastern Tuscany. Both are formidable, wise women.

But their mothering styles are biting opposites. One is a successful Australian businesswoman whose life's work has been her career, the other a humble Italian woman who has dedicated her life to her family. Trying to glean child-raising tips from both has pretty much done my head in.

It might even be time to give up trying to be a good mum – or as my kids would say, mom. Or maybe mamma. Now 18 and 16, my children are half-Australian and half-Italian. They speak English with American accents and Italian with Florentine accents, and they flow easily between one and the other depending on their company.

With such inherent cultural diversity, they don't seem to suffer too much identity confusion. Whereas my maternal compass – born and raised in Australia, with one culture and one language – is frazzled. For 20 years I've been travelling between Sydney and my home in Florence, trying to work out which culture has the best parenting principles for my polyglots.

Striving to be a good mum, mom and mamma by reconciling my birth culture with my new culture, I've naturally looked to my mother as a role model. But while navigating the choppy waters of my children's teenage years, I observed my mother-in-law, too.

Nonna Gemma on daily life:  "Never let your husband see you idle. When the working males return home, the women must not be seen relaxing. Men must believe their women are constantly on the move, cleaning, cooking, washing, ironing, keeping house with rigour and determination. You are a signora. Ideally, you won't have to work outside the home."

My mother: "Work. Get a job. He might leave you so you must have a career to fall back on. Look fabulous at all times. When at home, wear casual clothes and look even more fabulous."

Nonna Gemma on cooking: "Always make something the grandchildren love, something they've eaten many times so that your food will not fail to disappoint, a reliable, heart-warming dish using a well-worn recipe of lasagne, or roast chicken with roast potatoes. Pasta should be home-made, chicken hand-reared and potatoes home-grown."

My mother: "Cook something no one has ever tasted or heard of. Use a new recipe adapted to what's in the fridge."

Nonna Gemma on raising children: "Never let the children do sleep-overs. One never knows what other families do when they're in their own homes."

My mother: "Let your children go. Trust them to make their own decisions, and the right decisions."

Nonna Gemma on raising teenagers: "Give them lots of cash. Buy them clothes because they are the family's mascot, our representatives when out and about. Repair their clothes with a fully kitted-out sewing box."

My mother: "Make children get a job to learn the value of hard work and money. Clothes are birthday and Christmas presents. There might be a hotel sewing kit in my cabin luggage bag."

Nonna Gemma on school lunches: "Nothing beats a container of pasta with a tomato sauce made from scratch with garlic, basil, olive oil and parmesan cheese. In a second container add chargrilled chicken with salad."

My mother: "A sandwich made with white sliced bread and last night's chicken and lettuce should do it."

Nonna Gemma on university education for their grandchildren: "Why should they leave home for university? Why have babies if you're only going to send them away? At 18, they're still children."

My mother: "The world is their oyster. Make them international people. Let them stand on their own two feet. Send them away."

Nonna Gemma on table manners: "There are none."

My mother: "Put your knife and fork together to show you've finished. No. Not like that, the blade must be facing inwards towards the fork. No. The plate is like a clock and the handles must be at six o'clock."

The only way to tackle such opposing child-rearing advice is to try to mix and match their guidelines until the balance between Italian "smother love" and Australian "tough love" is just right, like one of my mother-in-law's recipes.

Anglo-Saxons show their children they love them by teaching them how to do everything for themselves. Italians show they love their children by doing everything for them. Trying to be a good mum, for me, is about harmonising that while focusing on how I feel. Most people in bicultural families live in the present, look to our children's future and try to honour the past. Finding the best child-rearing process in the middle of all that cultural identity can be hard, especially with such wildly different matriarchs.

Both women are contradictory in every way, but hearing their opinions opens up different worlds for me as a mother. Neither way is right, just as neither way is wrong. There are two lifetimes of insight in their approaches, and there is value in learning from both. If only I could fathom how.

Maybe it's time to stop trying so hard, to stop judging, comparing, choosing and balancing. Perhaps if I keep my kids close, while trusting them to make the right decisions, I'll succeed in being a good mum as well as bringing their grandmothers' attitudes into alignment. There is only one thing I know for sure about motherhood, and it applies regardless of where you come from: children thrive on love, no matter what the language.


Popular British psychiatrist says it's wrong to call Trump mentally ill because you don't like him

By Dr Max Pemberton

Does Donald Trump have a mental illness? It’s a question that has been gaining more and more traction since he was elected President.

Lately it’s reached fever pitch on social media, with many people convincing themselves — and others — that he must have some sort of mental health problem: that he’s a narcissist, a psychopath, or psychotic, or that he has dementia.

Last week, Dr Allen Frances, a psychiatrist of world renown who oversaw the editorial team that wrote the manual on how to diagnose mental illness, finally spoke out on this. While he’s been scathing about the President, Dr Frances has criticised the ‘armchair diagnoses’ that Trump has been given and has categorically ruled them out.

I’m pleased that someone with his gravitas has said this. While I don’t like Trump or much of his politics, the debate around his mental health is not only unhelpful but downright offensive.

Firstly, what has prompted many people to question his mental health is that they find his views unpalatable. They simply cannot understand why someone would think those things.

But having offensive views is not a mental illness. You can disagree with people and not like them, without them having to have a serious psychological problem.
Evoking mental illness as a reason is profoundly lazy, as it avoids having to engage in debate. It allows the person’s views to be dismissed out of hand, explained away by an aberration of their mind rather than a view that should be debated and beaten.

But the suggestion that if Donald Trump can be shown to have a mental illness, then he isn’t fit to be President, is also grossly offensive to those with mental illness.

Having a mental illness does not — and should not — preclude you from holding public office. The world is full of people with a mental illness doing brilliant work.

The natural conclusion to ‘Trump is mentally ill’ is that those with mental illness shouldn’t be leaders. This is utter tosh. And it’s repellent because it perpetuates the stigma of mental illness.

What has been particularly shocking is that it’s not just lay members of the public who have been wading in on Trump’s mental health, it’s professionals. They should be ashamed.

As they’ve not actually assessed him professionally, everything they say is just guesswork. And it does mental health professionals and their patients a great disservice to suggest this is all there is to reaching a diagnosis. The profound damage that can occur when professionals stray into making diagnoses from afar is considered a gross violation of professional ethics under what is known as the Goldwater rule, which emerged out of a situation not dissimilar to now.

The rule, which has been in place since 1973, prohibits U.S. psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated.

It came about following the 1964 presidential campaign when a self-aggrandising, anti-establishment figure, who mobilised disenfranchised, right-wing voters, ran for president. His name was Barry Goldwater. Liberals loathed him and did all they could do discredit him, while one magazine, Fact, approached 12,000 psychiatrists, asking if they thought him psychologically fit to be president.

The vast majority didn’t respond but over 1,000 did, saying they didn’t think he was fit to be president. Some suggested a diagnosis.

Goldwater lost the election, sued the magazine for libel and won substantial damages.

The parallels between Trump and Goldwater are obvious, except that Trump became President.

There is nothing new in this: throughout the history of psychiatry, this technique for discrediting people has been used by unscrupulous people to silence, remove, eradicate or weaken opponents.

In the Communist bloc countries it was commonplace, for example, to brand critics as ‘insane’. As well as discrediting them, this provided an excuse to forcibly institutionalise them.

Mental illness was used to crush democratic processes — and it should make all of us profoundly uncomfortable that we have so easily strayed back into similar territory.


Who is Behind the Rise of “Antifa”?

Just what is the Antifa movement? Who are these people, who funds them and what are their goals? The name is short for Antifascist. In other words, those young, white and black kids marching in hordes with masks covering their faces, wearing black uniforms, carrying baseball bats, knives, chains and home-made flame throwers claim they are against fascism.

They insist they are on the scene to combat the hate emanating from President Trump, white nationalists, neo Nazis and anyone else for whom they have contempt. Any idea, philosophy or data that conflicts with their world view is heresy.  Throw the concept of "Israel as Occupier"  into this Dumpster of ideology.

Their simplistic beliefs center on the perspective that all people, no matter their race, gender and religion are the same. And they consider every foreign culture as inherently nobler than the one they grew up in.  So the 20 year old white kid from the Upper East Side, driving his Dad's BMW, who went to Horace Mann and Yale, desires to live in a thatched cottage somewhere in Africa drawing water from a well. With no credit card and cell phone!

In short, they are anarchists whose goal is to bring this nation to its knees, weaken it to the point of being non-governable and then they assume some sort of people-power will bring it to the level of utopianism. Sounds like the Bolshevik revolution that resulted in Stalinism and over 70 million deaths. All of course as a means to liberate the common man.

Recent riots in Berkeley and D.C. were initiated by Antifa. They have beaten Trump supporters, set cars afire, utilized pepper spray and hair spray canister flame throwers, smashed store windows, robbed ATM's and prevented speakers at colleges whom they deem to be Fascists from addressing student groups. Are these signs of anti-fascism?

Although appearing ragtag they are well organized and their members seem to assemble at a moment's notice So, who has organized and financed them? Let's focus in on former President Obama and his puppet master George Soros as possible villains.

Virtually unknown to the public Obama formed the group, Organizing for Action (OFA) in 2013 in preparation for him leaving office. This gang has trained more than 10,000 Leftist organizers, who in turn, are training more than 2 million youths in Saul Alinsky tactics. In 2014 they raised over 40 million dollars which will be used, according to  Michelle Obama,  to "change our country and to bridge the divide between the world as it is and the world as it should be." Sounds like revolutionary talk to us.


The "anti-racists" of today are very much like the "racists" they scorn

Something has gone horribly wrong with the once noble, optimistic, humanist goal of anti-racism. When I got involved in anti-racist activism in the early 1990s, it was about defending the ideals of universalism against the divisive logic of the state and establishment; against those who would have us believe that blacks and whites were fundamentally different and should therefore distrust each other. It was also about defending the equality of autonomy. It was an argument for the ability and right of ethnic minorities to navigate public life and work life, built on a conviction that they were as capable as any white person of doing so.

Now, perversely, and depressingly, ‘anti-racism’ – those scare quotes really are necessary – means almost entirely the opposite. The new creed of anti-racism explicitly grates against the universal, and in fact encourages racial thinking. So-called progressives’ casual use of the dehumanising term ‘white people’ – as if they are an indistinguishable racial blob, with no class or political differences – speaks to their embrace of racial fatalism. Their adoption of the depressing ‘stay in your lane’ ideology, where any white who gets too into anti-racism can expect to be accused of ‘whitesplaining’ how to tackle privilege, reveals their instinct for segregation, of the moral if not physical variety.

And their treatment of black people as history’s victims, as the wounded produce of past crimes, as requiring the policing of language and censorship of certain ideas to guard their sensitivities, confirms their abandonment of the goal of autonomy. Through their surrender to the racial imagination, the logic of segregation and the cult of black victimhood, they reveal not only that they have jettisoned the old ideals of anti-racism, but that they have accepted the ideas that underpinned racism – the foul ideas of racial difference, social separation, and black moral weakness.

All the new racialists disguised as anti-racists are engaged in the game of class and social erasure. So Reni Eddo-Lodge, author of Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race, likewise says all white people enjoy privilege, even the poor ones struggling for jobs. Because, she says, a white-sounding name on an interview form for a naff job is more likely to get a positive response than a black-sounding name.

How lovely of a celebrated journalist to lecture poor whites about their privilege. Of course she doesn’t account for differences among whites. What about a Polish-sounding name? What are his chances? Or an Irish-sounding name? Having been brought up in an Irish part of London in the 1970s and 80s, I know very well that all whites are not equally privileged. But these migrant and class differences are obliterated by the new racialists. They do the very thing that they view as an unspeakable thoughtcrime when it’s done by others: they void entire peoples, entire historic experiences. Irish, Polish, Jew, Greek, whoever: you don’t matter, your specific experiences do not matter, because you are white. You are racial animals and your stories do not count.

Whatever. To those of us who have no interest in cultivating a victim identity, and who prefer to struggle against, rather than wallow in, certain historical or past difficulties, it doesn’t really matter that the new racialists erase certain migrant and class experiences; it’s water under the bridge that they write their PhDs in buildings constructed by white men like my dad and take a shit in toilets fixed by white men from Poland.

But what is important is why they do this. Why the politics of identity is so hostile to discussions of class and so quick to neuter the experiences of those who don’t fit into identitarians’ narrow, divisive narrative. It’s because their aim is not actually to understand the true social relations and power relations of 21st-century capitalist society, far less do anything serious to challenge them. Rather, it is to secure their position on the pedestal of victimhood, to sanctify their own experiences, necessarily at the expense of other people’s experiences, in order to strengthen their moral claim to victimhood and thus improve their standing in a society that prizes suffering more highly than struggle and autonomy.

This, fundamentally, fuels their instinct for erasure. This is why middle-class Ms Bergdorf must bizarrely describe the homeless as privileged. This is why identitarians and, for shame, Corbynista-style leftists must lump all white people together with no overarching consideration of the true dividing line of the modern era: class.

Because they are chasing victimhood, not progress; theirs is a pursuit for the moral currency of suffering, not for the political goal of equality or autonomy; this is competitive victimhood, not radical idealism, and therefore its constant and foul instinct is division and distinction. The new identitarians must continually distinguish their experience against others – even against the homeless, even against the working class – because their aim is the narcissistic one of self-victimisation rather than the social one of an end to class and social division. In fact, they intensify division, including racial division: it’s inevitable, they must, in order to differentiate their suffering from yours, or mine, and everyone else’s.

The end result is a politics that is more misanthropic than hopeful, more reactionary than radical. A politics which writes off entire swathes of people as innately prejudiced; which sidelines class; which erases the poor if they have the wrong skin colour; which encourages us to advertise our weaknesses rather than cultivate our strengths – and our demands. No wonder the mainstream political and cultural elites are so in love with the politics of identity: it is the most pacifying, divisive ideology of our time. It is the new divide and rule. It does what racism once did. Anti-racists – no scare quotes this time – should declare war against 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


10 September, 2017

Another charming multiculturalist

Police in Delaware say two day care workers prevented a stranger from walking out with two infants.

State Police say a man pushed a worker at Happy Kids Academy in Newark early Friday to enter the facility.

Spokesman Sgt. Richard Bratz says the man went to the infant room, punched another worker in the face, and picked up two infants.

Bratz says when the man tried to leave with the babies, a worker stood in front of the door to stop him. Another worker grabbed one baby.

Troopers say a worker caught the second baby before the child fell to the ground. The suspect ran away. Bratz says police arrested the man nearby.

Bratz says 47-year-old Calvin Davis will be charged with kidnapping and other offenses.


In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

In a major upcoming Supreme Court case that weighs equal rights with religious liberty, the Trump administration on Thursday sided with a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.

The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.

The DOJ’s decision to support Phillips is the latest in a series of steps the Trump administration has taken to rescind Obama administration positions favorable to gay rights and to advance new policies on the issue.

But Louise Melling, the deputy legal counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the couple, said she was taken aback by the filing.

“Even in an administration that has already made its hostility” toward the gay community clear, Melling said, “I find this nothing short of shocking.”

Since taking office, President Trump has moved to block transgender Americans from serving in the military and his Department of Education has done away with guidance to schools on how they should accommodate transgender students.

The DOJ also has taken the stance that gay workers are not entitled to job protections under federal anti-discrimination laws. Since 2015, the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission has taken the opposite stance, saying Title VII, the civil-rights statute that covers workers, protects against bias based on sexual orientation.

Federal courts are split on that issue, and the Supreme Court this term might take up the issue.

Indeed, lawyers for Jameka Evans, who claims she was fired by Georgia Regional Hospital because of her sexual orientation and “nonconformity with gender norms of appearance and demeanor,” on Thursday asked justices to take her case.

Citing a 1979 precedent, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected her protection claims.

Taking that case, along with Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, would make the coming Supreme Court term the most important for gay rights issues since the justices voted 5 to 4 in 2015 to find a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.

The case of Phillips, a baker in the Denver suburbs, is similar to lawsuits brought elsewhere involving florists, calligraphers and others who say providing services to same-sex weddings would violate their religious beliefs. But these objectors have found little success in the courts, which have ruled that businesses serving the public must comply with state anti-discrimination laws.

Mullins and Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, along with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages were legal at the time, and then hold a reception in Colorado.

But Phillips refused to discuss the issue, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to have anything to do with same-sex marriage. He said other bakeries would accommodate them.

The civil rights commission and a Colorado court rejected Phillips’ argument that forcing him to create a cake violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of expression and exercise of religion.

The court said the baker “does not convey a message supporting same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law.”


The Book Was Right: Breasts Are Meant to be Sexy

If you want to get your books sold, you have to be careful not to raise the ire of the social media mafia. Take poor old Alex Frith, the author of Growing Up for Boys, a guide to puberty. His publisher has just decided to pulp all the remaining copies because a wowser named Simon Ragoonanan raised a Facebook storm over three sentences: "Girls have breasts for two reasons. One is to make milk for babies. The other is to make the girl look grown up and attractive."

Shock! Horror! How could he say such a thing? It makes it sound like women are wired for sex appeal. It's a pity they don't show the same outrage towards those sex education books which encourage unchastity.

    Well, as a trained behavioural scientist, I've got news for Mr Ragoonanan. The book is right!

     If you stop to think about it, certain biological principals should be obvious. In order to perpetuate your genes to the next generation, you not only have to be in good breeding condition, but you have to advertise the fact to the opposite sex. You also have to be able to recognize the same status in potential mates. Thus, animal species have evolved various signs to indicate their status.

     It is not only breeding status. A baby chimpanzee has a tuft of white hair on his bottom. That means, when he annoys an adult and runs away, he flashes a signal saying: I'm a baby; don't hurt me.

    For breeding status it is usually an emphasis on the practical ability to breed, but sometimes it is arbitrary. For instance, you will recall that, when you were growing up, you not only filled out in the right places, but also developed pubic hair. There are good practical reasons why a man should have broad shoulders and a woman broad hips, but the only reason for pubic hair is to reveal that you are no longer a child, but are now a potential father or mother. The hair also retains scent secretions from the apocrine glands, but the scent is also a social signal of maturity.

    Likewise, a man's beard serves no practical purpose except to convey to the world that he is a man - and not a boy or a woman. You perhaps haven't noticed - although the ancient Greek sculptors certainly did - that a man also possesses a low ridge of bone over his eyebrows. This, along with his normally bushier eyebrows, produces a mini-frown, and lends an air of toughness to him - because a woman needs to know that a man can not only give her a baby, but can protect her. His large "Adam's apple", which gives him a deeper, louder voice has the same effect.

     Now let us move to the female of the species. If you watch any group of monkeys and apes long enough, you will notice a couple of things. The first is that the females are sexually receptive only for a relatively short time around the time of ovulation. They usually signal this by their bottoms swelling and, as often as not, turning red. It drives the boys wild.

Human females have dropped this signal for a number of reasons. Firstly, as explained in an earlier article, they have evolved the method of keeping the father of their child by their side by offering sex during their infertile period. Secondly, the large muscles in the human buttocks, which hold us upright, tend to make swelling difficult. Also, being upright, humans tend to mate face to face.

   The other thing about monkeys and apes is that the females are  pretty much flat chested when not nursing a baby. Humans are the only primate whose non-lactating females possess prominent breasts. They are there as a social signal to demonstrate that she is no longer a girl, and can now feed a baby. They are also an erogenous zone.

     So, there you have it: the book was right. If you have boys approaching puberty, go out and order a copy before the publisher destroys them all. If, as a grown up, you wish to know about the origin of human instincts, see if you can obtain a copy of Desmond Morris' bestseller, The Naked Ape. Although it was written fifty years ago, most of its contents have stood the test of time. Indeed, it was instrumental in my taking up ethology, the study of animal behaviour.

For a more modern title, try Love Signals by Dr. David B. Givens (1983), which explains in detail the body language used in courtship, how to interpret it, and even how to dress in order to be sexy.


Southern Poverty Law Center Distorts the Legacy of Confederate Statues

In the wake of the ongoing controversy over Confederate monuments, many who would like to see them removed immediately have pointed to one chart that shows when the statues were put up, presumably to prove they are inherently hateful.

A widely cited study, created by the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, claims that most of the Confederate statues were constructed specifically in the period under “Jim Crow” laws that targeted black Americans, or in opposition to civil rights.

The fact that they were erected during these two time periods supposedly proves the case that they were meant to intimidate or to “remind” Southern blacks of continuing white supremacy.

The Southern Poverty Law Center then further implies that defending these statues amounts to buoying hate groups, like the one that caused a riot in Charlottesville. The far-left group then one-upped itself by warning that the continued existence of Confederate monuments and symbols could “unleash more turmoil and bloodshed.”

This is an astoundingly paranoid claim given how few people even noticed or cared about the existence of the statues until about a month ago.

Moreover, by making unverified claims about the reasons the statues were built, the Southern Poverty Law Center simplifies the meaning of thousands of monuments that were actually built for a variety of reasons, simply to impugn the motives of a majority of Americans who don’t want to see them removed.

According to a Marist poll, a large majority of Americans (62 percent) favor keeping the Confederate statues, while only 27 percent said they want to take them down. Even a plurality of black Americans also believe the statues should stay.

It would likely shock the 44 percent of black Americans who support keeping the statues to learn that they are supporting white supremacy.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been careless in the past about the way it labels “hate groups,” lumping in mainstream conservative organizations with neo-Nazis, which at least in one case has led to actual violence.

The broad brush with which it treats these statues is yet another example of how it muddles reasonable differences of opinion. While some monuments were undoubtedly built for sordid and ugly reasons, many others were not, or leave a more complicated legacy than the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to portray.

The Confederacy died when Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.

Nevertheless, the story of the Americans who fought on both sides of that conflict did not begin or end in the horrible four years of war that nearly destroyed our nation and killed 1 in 4 fighting-age men in the country.

When the Civil War broke out in 1861, the global consensus was that America was finished. Even after the Union triumph in 1865, there were extreme doubts that the country could reunite.

It’s a miracle that it did.

In the years immediately after the war, the period when the Southern Poverty Law Center seems to suggest erecting monuments made the most “sense,” most Americans had bigger priorities than statue building.

But as time went by, many in both the North and the South wanted to pay tribute to the generation that went through perhaps the most defining moment in our nation’s history. Much of the bitterness toward old foes began to dissipate, and many tried to rebuild an American consensus.

The anger that existed between the North and South cooled, and the wisdom of President Abraham Lincoln’s famous second inaugural address—“with malice toward none and charity for all”—began to take hold in earnest as decades passed.

As the country began to truly heal from the scars of the Civil War, the monuments and memorials it built varied, and in spite of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s insinuations, were not all created as symbols of white supremacy or to glorify the cause of the Confederacy.

For instance, Charles Francis Adams Jr., a direct descendent of Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams, was born in Massachusetts and fought for the Union Army.

Adams was an anti-slavery man who had put his life on the line to destroy the Confederacy, but in a powerful speech delivered at Harvard University in 1903, he argued that it would be reasonable and positive to build a statue of Lee in the nation’s capital.

He noted that Lee was not the one-dimensional bogeyman that he and many in the North thought of when they fought his Army of Northern Virginia.

Though the war had, thankfully, banished the twin evils of slavery and secession, Adams argued that it was important to remember that good men often fought for bad causes, and to give dignity even to the defeated.

Ultimately, in the end, Lee and the boys who fought in grey “were our countrymen.” Adams argued that depicting Lee atop his steed in Confederate uniform would be educational, and show a once “dreaded and respected” opponent accepting the consequences of defeat.

Rather than a glorification of the Confederacy, some monuments are rightly understood as tributes to the greatness and endurance of the United States, which had come through a bloody trial still capable of reuniting Americans on the same side once more.

A statue to Confederate Gen. Joe Wheeler stands in the Capitol Building and was recently targeted by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi as one of the monuments that needs to go.

But, like many of the targeted monuments’ subjects, Wheeler’s legacy is complicated. After the Civil War, he rejoined the United States military and fought for our country with distinction in the Spanish-American War. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Shall Americans destroy a statue to a man buried in our most hallowed ground?

The Atlanta monument attacked by protestors in the days after the Charlottesville incident is yet another good example of how extremism and dehumanization of history leads to misdirected rage and destruction.

The monument, constructed in 1911, depicts a Confederate soldier being guided by an angel to lay down his arms in a sign of peace and unity, not glorification of the Confederate cause. The construction had been spearheaded by former Southern soldiers who had toured the North and wanted to create a symbol of healing.

It was among the many monuments built during the supposedly racist spike that the Southern Poverty Law Center pinpointed, which, by the way, also coincides with the 50th anniversary of the war. Americans wanted to pay tribute to their parents and grandparents in much the same way modern generations do for the World War II generation that is now passing on.

Is this a symbol that deserves destruction?

Adams and many others who erected or supported the statues across the battlefields and once war-ravaged cities that dot the South hoped they would stand for more unity, not less.

They knew the price of fraternal feud more than we, hopefully, ever will. But still, they chose forgiveness.

Once Confederate, Now American

The legacy of many Civil War monuments, both Northern and Southern, extends far beyond the four years of the Civil War.

Unionist regions, which recovered faster from the war, began building monuments within several decades. The massive statues to Union generals that rise over the streets and squares of New York City and Washington, D.C., are the legacy of this movement.

The South rode the coattails of Northern industrial monument construction, relying on its new and cheaper mass-production techniques to construct the monuments themselves at a more affordable expense to small groups and towns. This explains the curious fact that statues to soldiers in the North and South often look identical.

Southerners were buying statues mass-produced in Northern factories—an almost comical symbol of how the regions were rebuilding a national consensus.

It’s clear from the opinion of most Americans that our society still sees value in keeping Confederate monuments. Whether honoring fallen ancestors, seeing the humanity in foes, or in remembering the evils of slavery, they can serve many purposes to our generation, and future ones who will undoubtedly interpret the statues in different ways than we will.

A few heinous extremists don’t deserve to define the debate for the rest of the country, and the Southern Poverty Law Center does a disservice to paint Americans—of many generations—with such sweeping and one-dimensional strokes.



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 September, 2017

How The Transgender Crusade Made Me Rethink My Support For Gay Marriage

Over the course of the last few months, whenever I write or tweet anything, on any topic, I usually receive a caustic social media response about my position on transgenderism. These trolls post links to my tweets about the subject and screenshots, as if showing me my own recent opinion is some sort of gotcha. These individuals even send tweets to my husband and employers, perhaps in hope that they will use their power over me to get my opinion in check with The Approved Position.

One Twitter follower who “favorited” a tweet of mine about my view on transgenderism even received an email from a stranger demanding to know if her decision to “favorite” my tweet meant she agreed with me. I’ve been called every name in the book: hateful, bigoted, transphobic, etc. All for having a belief that was utterly uncontroversial just three years ago: men are born with penises, women are born with vaginas, and, to quote the great Ben Shapiro, facts don’t care about your feelings.

We Are Being Made to Care

Many of my fellow millennial conservatives, out of what they view as courtesy, use the preferred pronoun and name for individuals who identify as transgender. Here is why I won’t: We will be made to care.

The phrase is care of another great conservative thinker, Erick Erickson. He coined it in the midst of the gay marriage debate. During that debate, I was like many of these younger millennial conservatives. I naively thought the issue was merely about gay marriage, and thought “Hey, marriage is great, so let’s just give into the Left’s demands about the redefinition of a cornerstone of our society because not doing so would be bigoted.”

But there was more to the Left’s battle with conservatives than that. It wasn’t just about redefining marriage to these activists; it was also about punishing those who weren’t 100 percent on board, especially religious Christians. The livelihoods and lives of bakers, photographers, farmers, and the CEO of Mozilla were destroyed for not completely adhering to the Thought Police’s demands. These Americans were made to care.

The Trans Police Are Frightening Control Freaks

My colleague Joy Pullmann provided just the latest example last week of how the progressive Left is making the rest of us care about the transgender debate: “Angry parents stampeded a California charter school board meeting Monday after a teacher read her kindergarten class picture books about transgenderism to affirm a gender dysphoric classmate. During the class, parents say, the gender dysphoric boy also switched clothes to look more like a girl in a ‘gender reveal.’ Parents were not notified beforehand of the discussion or the classmate’s psychological condition, and learned about it when their confused kindergarteners arrived home from school that day.”

For Acculturated recently, I gamed out a frightening thought experiment about how parents who decide not to play along with their child’s gender dysphoria could one day be faced with a visit from Child Protective Services.

The Left has shown the totalitarian manner in which it exacts support, or at least silence, from everyday Americans. We’ve seen how lives were destroyed in the wake of the gay marriage debate, how many individuals were shouted down into submission by the side that proclaims itself to be “open-minded” and employed the slogans “No H8” and “Love Wins.” For many conservatives, including myself, the lesson has been learned.

With every tweet aimed at publicizing and shaming my position on transgenderism, the progressive Left is solidifying my decision to call Bruce Jenner by his given name instead of the name he has chosen because of a condition that mental health professionals once took seriously. Playing along with delusions isn’t a kindness to those suffering from other psychological conditions, and it isn’t a kindness for those with gender dysphoria either.

And if we lend credibility to the notion that adults can choose their sex, parents who refuse to allow a child who, just the week before, self-identified as a butterfly to choose her own gender could then be accused of denying their child health care (because many progressive activists view opposite-sex hormones and plastic surgery as health care now).

My answer for those on the Left who ask me “Why do you care what transgender individuals call themselves?” is simply this: because you have made me.


I’ve fought my whole life for equality. But John Lewis pretending both sexes are the same is ludicrous

No longer can I restrain myself: John Lewis ditching ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ labels, M&S attacked by campaigners for ‘sexist’ trainers — what on earth is going on?

In any other circumstances I would put this down to whimsy. A bit of a marketing ploy, in that oh-so lucrative month of September, when parents are digging deep into the family coffers for new uniforms, in a bid to grab their attention — and their cash.

But this trend to steer children’s clothing departments away from anything ‘gender binary’ (even the pompous phrasing sounds ludicrous) is gaining ground.

Put simply, the family-friendly store announced its children’s clothes would bear labels reading ‘girls and boys’ or ‘boys and girls’ and its sections would no longer be divided along obvious gender lines.

In short, clothes will be clothes. A pretty party dress and Action Man pyjamas? Gender-neutral.

I don’t think anyone at John Lewis anticipated the backlash from the general public who — thank goodness — still have a modicum of common sense on this issue.

Do campaigners spearheading this ‘gender-neutral’ movement honestly think that changing labels will change biology and actually do away with boys and girls — and the whole male/female divide?

Of course it won’t. Girls will be girls and boys most definitely boys, and they prefer it that way. Some may call this conditioning, but what’s the alternative? Crude social engineering, which we know doesn’t work.

In fact, I see the gender-neutral movement as almost cult-like in its determination to stamp out so-called differences, which could prove ultimately harmful.

Not everyone wants their girl child perennially parading about like a pink Barbie Princess, nor their son clad from day one like a butch rugger player or Formula 1 driver, but we still need these ‘anchoring’ points in our lives, the little membership passes to our individual clubs.

We still need to recognise femininity and masculinity and not confuse them. Even those who, as children, experiment with gender identity usually revert to typical symbols of gender eventually.

We’ve all known dungaree-wearing tomboys, forever climbing trees and sporting grazed knees, who in adulthood metamorphosed into veritable Marilyn Monroes and conversely, the macho ‘Action Man’ who shows you pictures of himself as a two-year-old, complete with ringlets and a frilly frock taking dancing lessons.

Did the clothes, activities or hairstyles make any difference to their eventual gender identity? Not a jot. But that doesn’t mean boys and girls’ clothes don’t have a place.

I’ve always considered myself a feminist. I’ve fought for equal opportunity and rights and to give women a voice and better education so they can make the fullest use of their potential. But believing in equality doesn’t mean that I believe men and women are the same.

I’ve always rejoiced in my ‘femaleness’. I’ve never felt held back by ‘biological determinism’. I unashamedly enjoy all things feminine — from make-up to cooking — but this hasn’t stopped me being ambitious and able to hold my own in the world.

‘Glamour’ to me does not spell weak, repressed or victimised. Rather, it’s a form of self-expression. In any case ‘femininity’ is not composed of one attitude, emotion or concept, but can mean different things at different times. To restrict the terms male and female — as gender-neutral campaigns do — may have the aim of broadening options, but in reality it has the opposite effect.

Every time we try to eliminate a ‘stereotypical’ quality in one sex, we’re actually diminishing it for both. Introducing gender-free clothing is like imposing the Mao suit on everyone (and of course the Chinese eventually reverted too to male and female clothing).

In fact, there’s more than a whiff of Maoism about the whole boy/girl clothing label issue. As an anthropologist, I know that, without exception, all studies show societies everywhere, at every point in history, differentiating the sexes. Clothing — and other artefacts — act as symbols of these differences, which is what the campaigners hate.

They call this ‘stereotyping’, arguing that it holds back women, denies minorities their rights and recognition, and limits people.

In some instances, such as the crinolines and corsets of old, there is a grain of truth in this, but a whitewash in the other direction misses the broader point; that gender specific clothing gives people categories to provide a sense of belonging.

Once you do away with them the world not only loses its colour but its clarity and its ‘markers’. It becomes a formless place without differentiation, like a garden full of concrete slabs instead of a range of plants and flowers.

Imagine, too, if other groups started to campaign to eliminate all differences. The overweight could demand that manufacturers only offer a ‘one-size-fits-all’ sack-like garment; those of different hair colours could demand that there is never a reference to ‘blondes’ or ‘brunettes’ (as these definitely stereotype).

Spectacle wearers could demand that everyone be forced to wear glasses; short people that only they can wear heels so that all height differences are equalised. The list is endless.

Why should gender be the only ‘stereotype’ picked out from all the many biological variations if we take all this to its logical conclusion?

I think it’s about time someone did show just how absurd this movement is — and how it could end up making our world not only a drabber place but an extremely diminished one, rather like a cult that demands everyone wear the same shapeless smock, hair-cut and facial expression.

Initiatives like the John Lewis ‘Boys & Girls’ range will surely make me — and many others — make a greater effort to find distinct ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ baby clothes, trainers and toys. I shall seek out pink with a vengeance. I shall relish sequins, glitter and frou-frou. One friend is so incensed she’s threatening to dress like Barbara Cartland!

It’s about time for the backlash to begin in earnest before too much damage is done.


‘You should never feel guilty about what you eat’

These days you can’t go a week without hearing about another ‘superfood’ or the health benefits of a new food trend. Even Starbucks has jumped on the bandwagon, announcing its latest caffeinated offering: the turmeric latte. No doubt this was inspired by food bloggers decreeing that turmeric is a ‘superfood’.

Chef Anthony Warner is unlikely to be impressed with turmeric’s good press. Writing as his blogging alter-ego The Angry Chef, Warner declares: ‘There is no such thing as a superfood.’

Warner has dedicated himself to debunking the health myths behind the food fads that have been multiplying ever since the phenomenon of food-blogging took off. In his witty and slightly ranty blog, he has pulled apart many of the popular dietary trends of the past few years, from sugar-free diets to ‘paleo’ and the alleged miracle benefits of coconut oil. The blog quickly gathered momentum and this year Warner brought out his first book: The Angry Chef: Bad Science and the Truth About Healthy Eating.

In an attempt to understand what I really should be eating, I spoke to Warner about his work. He tells me what made him angry in the first place: ‘It goes back to a time when I saw one of these new breed of clean-eating gurus speaking at a food stall at a food industry fair. I’d heard about this idea of people going online and talking about healthy eating. I thought it was interesting, so I went along. Some of what she was saying seemed sensible, like eat vegetables, but some things seemed quite strange, and unscientific, and some of it was definitely untrue. So I started looking into it – and this is before it was a massive thing.’ He continues:

‘As it grew in popularity I got quite worried about it. I thought, how can they get away with saying stuff like this so publicly and not being challenged? And nobody seemed to be challenging it, particularly. I started complaining about it more and more and so started writing about it… [The blog] got popular quite quickly because people could see this stuff happening but no one was talking about it and I think it caught a bit of a wave.’

Warner, who works as a chef for a large food manufacturer, points out that when the food industry makes health claims about food, it has to adhere to strict European regulations. For food bloggers, however, there are ‘no checks and balances’. ‘I just felt like it was about time someone starting saying something and holding these people to account for what they’re saying.’

Health-food blogs like Deliciously Ella and Hemsley and Hemsley have become household names and have made plenty of money from telling people which foods to cut out and which to eat more of – all in the name of healthy living. Has Warner had any response from the food-blogging world? ‘None of the high-profile ones will engage with me. I would be delighted to do an event and be onstage with them and talk about the food claims. No one will really debate with me.’

I’m not surprised. When Warner tackles dietary claims, he is thorough, researching and referencing scientific studies in order to challenge the pseudoscience, making him a daunting prospect in a debate. In his book, he examines and then tears apart spurious claims, or as he often calls them, bluntly, ‘bullshit’, made by food and lifestyle sites. Goop, Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle site, comes under fire in the chapter on detox diets for its claim that ‘wild blueberries (only from Maine) draw heavy metals out of your brain tissue’.

Warner has spent his working life as a chef, working in restaurants before moving into the food industry, but he has a scientific background. He has a degree in bio-chemistry and his scientific curiosity has remained with him. Today, he doesn’t hold back when attacking pseudoscientific health claims. In his book, he says: ‘Rule No1 in the Angry Chef Guide to Spotting Bullshit in the World of Food is: never trust anyone who claims to have a food philosophy.’ Yet despite his directness and alter-ego, he doesn’t actually seem that angry. Rather, he is concerned about the damage dietary myths can wreak on people’s relationship with food.

‘The worst aspect is the small minority of people who might be pushed towards a disordered relationship with food. An eating disorder specialist told me, if you’re going to a barbecue tomorrow and you’re worried about the food you’re going to eat there, then you probably have a disordered relationship with food.’

The recent phenomenon of ‘clean eating’ is one Warner finds particularly troubling. He explains what it is: ‘What happened is, 30 or 40 years ago, a lot of people were on a diet. That’s because everyone wanted to be thin – which was troubling in itself. As you go into the millennial generation, and even a bit before, people thought dieting is a bit old hat. Everything needs to be effortless these days. So in order to justify this idea of effortless thinness, a lot of people started excluding food groups from their diets and putting together pseudoscientific justifications for doing that, so it didn’t seem like a diet.’

He mentions some popular clean-eating beliefs, like carbs are bad for you and sugar is poison. ‘None of them have any basis in fact’, he says. ‘[They say] I’m eating clean because I want to be well, I want to have the glow – and they never mention thinness. But that is what it’s all about. When you exclude stuff from your diet, you lose weight, there’s no doubt about it. But in order to do that, you’re saying some foods are bad and damaging and hurtful, and that can create fear around foods.

Perfectly healthy things to eat, like rice or pasta – you’re making people afraid of those foods in order to justify excluding them. As soon as you say you’re eating clean, then you’re saying that foods you’re not eating are dirty, and that language is particularly damaging. Because we believe we are what we eat.’

Thanks to social media, the reach of the clean-eating brigade is enormous. This can make it even more harmful. ‘If you speak to anyone who works with eating disorders, they will tell you [that] pretty much everyone who comes in with an eating disorder is following some kind of clean-eating diet. I feel it has risen so fast, and there are not enough checks and balances.’

I ask him about Public Health England’s latest food panic over sugar, giving rise to the fizzy-drink tax and fears over ads aimed at children. Warner says people do, in general, eat too much sugar, and ‘some sensible steps’ have been taken to tackle this. But he believes ‘influencing’ is key, rather than ‘taxing or ordering’. Once again it is the messaging around food that he takes issue with. ‘A lot of messaging around sugar… uses this language of shame and guilt. I think there is no place for this at all… There’s no place for making people feel guilty for what they’re doing or how they feed their children. It’s not helpful… If you’re moralising too much, you’re in danger of pushing people away.’

He points out that where public-health campaigns have had success is among affluent groups: ‘We’re in danger of leaving a lot of people behind. We need to be careful about it and not be too judgemental, or shaming, or tell people off.’

The vegan diet is one that has been making headlines recently. Just this week, Jeremy Corbyn said he has been toying with the idea of going vegan (he’s already vegetarian) and the recently released Netflix documentary What The Health caused quite a stir with some of its claims about the health benefits of a vegan diet. Is veganism just another food fad?

‘I have no problem if someone takes a moral decision to go, look I’m troubled by exploiting animals in order to eat’, he says. ‘It’s not what I want to do, but if that’s someone’s moral standpoint on it, then it’s fine… But I don’t like the moralising and the shaming of other people, that really offends me. Any sort of moralising about other people’s food and telling people their food is bad and making them feel guilty is just not right.’

Not surprisingly, Warner takes issue with much of the ‘trash science’ tied up with the vegan movement. What The Health is a ‘propaganda movie’, he says. It presents a ‘stupid mangling of evidence and misunderstanding of data’: ‘The way they adopt bad science into the vegan movement is just embarrassing. I know vegans who are embarrassed about that movie.’

‘There’s a lot of powerful motivating psychology for people to have deep-held beliefs about veganism and it makes them believe some really stupid stuff’, he continues. ‘That intense motivation to be vegan and that intense disgust about eating animal products translates into them believing ridiculous conspiracy theories.’

Okay, so we know what The Angry Chef doesn’t like. But what health and diet tips would he himself offer? ‘My advice is don’t ask a chef’, he laughs. ‘My general response to questions on how to eat healthily is just to eat loads and loads of different stuff. Don’t exclude anything from your diet, unless you medically have to. Enjoy lots of different foods. Don’t feel guilty about any food. Guilt has no place when it comes to eating. And don’t make anyone else feel guilty about what they are eating.’

I can’t resist asking his opinion on my own particular food-fad bugbear: the trend for substituting normal ingredients – often carbohydrates – with vegetables. For example, pizzas made with cauliflower instead of bread bases. He’s blunt: ‘I struggle with the idea that a cauliflower base with some cheese and tomato on top is called a pizza. It ain’t a pizza.’ He’s sceptical of attempts to avoid carbs. ‘Wheat is high in B-vitamins, in fibre, it’s a really good food source. If you want to make pasta out of courgettes, if you want to make a pizza base out of cauliflower, then good luck to you’, he says. ‘But if that’s because you’re excluding something, unless you’re someone with diagnosed conditions, then why are you doing that? Maybe cauliflower pizza-base is an acquired taste, but I wouldn’t want to have to go about acquiring it.’

So are there good foods and bad foods? ‘All foods are fine, in my opinion… unless something is poisonous.’ That’s good enough for me.


Sydney Muslim sheikh says Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi is 'worse than ISIS'

Burmese Buddhists definitely don't like Bengali Muslims and are basically trying to expel them from their country.  But who does like Muslims?  Most Muslim countries won't take Muslim refugees.  It is only foolishly tolerant Western countries who take them.  In the case of the Rohingyas even the government of their ancestral country, Bangladesh, doesn't want them. Muslims are great at fighting with one-another so you can understand why Bangladesh does not want them.  In this case, however, Turkey seems willing to take some of them so let us leave them to Turkey.  They are definitely not our problem

A Sydney Muslim sheikh has suggested a female Nobel Peace Prize winner is a bigger terrorist than ISIS. Aung San Suu Kyi spent almost two decades under house arrest before becoming Myanmar's de facto leader last year.

However, Islamist groups worldwide are campaigning against the former political prisoner and democracy campaigner as ethnic Rohingyas, who are mainly Muslim, flee Myanmar for neighbouring Bangladesh.

Almost 125,000 of these stateless people have fled via northern Myanmar since the military began a brutal crackdown on Rohinya militants almost two weeks ago.

Sydney Muslim sheikh Bilal Dannoun has described the violence against the Rohingyas as a bigger atrocity than ISIS.

'The massacres of ISIS are far less than that of the Myanmars towards the Muslims,' he told his 626,000 Facebook followers.

The 43-year-old Islamic lecturer and marriage celebrant even suggested Australia should be more concerned about Myanmar, also known as Burma, than Islamic State.

'Should not governments campaigning against these terrorists be greater than the campaigns against ISIS?' he asked.

The Australian Defence Force has launched airstrikes on Syria and northern Iraq since 2014 when US-led forces started taking on ISIS.

When it comes to Myanmar, Australia began to relax trade restrictions with the south-east Asian nation in 2013 as the military junta took steps to improve its poor human rights record.

However, Ms Suu Kyi has become defensive when asked about state-sponsored violence against the Rohingyas.

She told Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday she knew what it was like to be under house arrest for almost two decades, after her National League for Democracy won a landslide election victory in 1990. 'We know very well, more than most, what it means to be ­deprived of human rights and democratic protection,' she said.

'So we make sure that all the people in our country are entitled to protection of their rights as well as the right to, and not just political, but social and humanitarian defence.'

However, she continues to deny the stateless Rohingyas citizenship in Myanmar.



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


7 September, 2017

How political correctness kills language freedoms

The push for politically correct language may be well intentioned enough, but its consequences are often appalling. It can rob us of one of the most important of all human freedoms: the right to use words to mean what we want them to mean.

The first problem in prohibiting certain word usage is that there is an assumption that the intention of the speaker or writer is known. In literary criticism this is called the intentional fallacy; the invalid notion that the author’s intention can readily be derived from the words.

To give an example, this writer was a weekly satirical columnist for BRW, a business magazine. I wrote a joke about Asian drivers, which was deemed to be politically incorrect, even racist. I tried to explain that the joke was actually directed at people who held such views, not at Asian drivers—something I thought was obvious enough and well enough flagged—but it was deemed inadmissible. It was assumed that there could be only one possible intention, no matter how much it was explained that this was not my intention.

A similar dynamic could be seen in a reader response to a headline on this web site. The headline, 'Do we ban the nun's veil next?' was sarcastic. But one reader interpreted it as potentially nun-bashing (and presumably politically incorrect). This kind of confusion is actually quite common; readers can interpret intent in very different ways.

And here lies the problem. Analysis of politcial correctness necessarily relies on making assumptions about intent. The language is targeted in a very legalistic way, and more complex aspects such as intention, context, or potential multiple layers of meaning, are ruiled out.

There is no doubt that a great deal of Shakespeare’s language, especially the swearing, does not meet the PC strictures, for example. It is a good thing that many of the Bard’s words are unfamiliar to modern ears, otherwise we might lose our greatest writer. Although at least it is widely acknowledged that his intentions were always subtle and complex.

Just how absurd political correctness can become was reinforced for me during a teaching exercise I was involved with in primary school. The teacher told the class that they would be learning about how to deal with dogs.

‘A lady will be showing you a big black dog,’ the teacher said. ‘You can’t say that, Miss—it's racist,’ an eight year old protested, horrified. To him, just using the word ‘black’ was unacceptable in itself. Out of the mouth of babes.

The second problem with political correctness is that assumptions have to be made about meaning. Again, this is because the PC approach is legalistic. In law, words tend to have strictly defined semantics; in the English common law system underpinned by precedent. There tends to be, deliberately, a very limited range of reference and, as much as possible, a one-to-one correspondence between the word and the thing being denoted.

To say the least, there is more to words than this. Read any decent work of literature and you will observe language that produces a range of meanings, including enacting meanings from the way the writer uses the words themselves.

One does not have to agree with the absurd exaggerations of French deconstructionist literary critics such as Jacques Derrida—that the ‘author is dead’ and there are as many possible meanings as there are readers: a principle they did not apply to their own writings of course—to see that language can mean many things to those who receive it. Read William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity and the point becomes clear enough.

Yet in the PC approach, it is assumed that those who derive one meaning, who have been offended, have the sole right to define what the words signify.

Viewed this way, political correctness represents an extraordinary attack on basic human freedoms that are almost as fundamental as the freedom to think what we want. It is even reaching the point in the public environment where what is not said is being deemed ‘incorrect’. Witness the furore over Donald Trump’s comments on the Charlottesville violence. What Trump said was broadly factually correct; that both sides were violent. He was pilloried because of what he did not say, or at least didn’t say at the right time: that neo-Nazis are unacceptable.

Political correctness is increasingly being applied to absence, as well as presence, which means not just making assumptions about what the words denote, but also what silences connote. As any philosopher will tell you, deducing from absence is a dangerous course. And once again it involves making assumptions about intention; purporting to be inside the speaker's mind.

Language that is intended to be hurtful should be deplored. But there is a high cost associated with outlawing any language use, because such initiatives can only be applied, crudely, to the words themselves. They cannot apply to the person’s intentions—that would require further evidence—and they rule out the possibility of multiple meanings.

The PC approach easily descends into authoritarianism and aggression. When such aggression is associated with those purportedly being protected, it ultimately does them no favours.

The way to a more tolerant society is to take a mature approach to language, to see it in all its complexity and polyvalence. And perhaps develop a little looseness: remember what used to be said in the schoolyard, that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Sadly, many are going in the opposite direction.


Please, for Everyone's Sake, Teach Your Sons to Be Chivalrous

A couple weeks ago some guy tried to steal my diaper bag at the playground. I just happened to look up and there he was, nonchalantly walking out of the park with my bag on his shoulder. I was already running after him yelling, “Hey! That’s my bag!” before it occurred to me that perhaps I shouldn’t be threatening an unknown man who’s clearly a criminal. Especially while holding my son on my hip.

I didn’t think, though, and I confronted him and, actually, I got the bag back. But as I turned around and met the startled faces of the other moms and dads at the playground who’d watched the whole thing go down, it occurred to me that not a single man had come to my aid. There were plenty of dads at the playground that day. Some who even spoke to me afterward, wondering how I’d gotten the guy to give my bag back. But no one had seen a woman in peril and stepped in.

Sure, it wasn’t like the guy was beating me to a pulp, or groping me, or anything. But he was menacing, and strong, and he was stealing my bag! I’m not your typical damsel in distress, I suppose. With my frizzy hair pulled up under my baseball cap, my feet firmly planted, my eyes glaring defiantly into the robber’s face, and my teacher voice (honed over ten years working in elementary schools) firmly stating, “That’s my bag. Give it back now.” But none of that erases the fact that I am, in fact, most definitely a damsel. And, in that moment (regardless of how I was handling it) the situation was objectively one that put me in distress.

In the era of radical feminism, in which women and men are, supposedly, exactly the same, a man coming to a woman’s aid is a pointless exercise. Or worse, it’s offensive. Had I been any other woman in that playground, in fact (I live in Brooklyn, N.Y.), I might very well have been offended had a man stepped in, feeling that I would have stood just as much chance of taking the robber on in a fight as any man. But I’m not any other woman in that playground. I live in reality. Had that man tried to hurt me, I’d have been overpowered. Might have been nice to have a little muscle to back me up.

In an article for Scary Mommy, Rita Templeton perfectly explains the problem with teaching chivalry to our sons in the age of radical feminism. “How can I preach to my sons that women are equals in every way, yet still tell them that they’re most likely the ones who are expected to pay on a date…and open doors…and adopt a general attitude of 'ladies first' when interacting with the opposite sex?” It’s an excellent question (if you, like Templeton, believe the lie that women and men are equals in every way).

Templeton goes on to say, revealingly, that “If I were dating, I’d far rather date a man who makes me feel special with those little gestures than one who treats our quality time the same way he would an outing with his best bud.” Of course she would! But her dilemma (which I give her props for exposing) is exactly the reason why men no longer feel they can protect a lady. Even if they might want to. Even if it’s right.

But, the things is, those “little gestures” aren’t just to make us “feel special.” They’re to let us know we’re safe. They’re the things a man does to tell us that, even though he’s twice our size, and twice as strong (because biology made him that way), he won’t hurt us. He pulls out our chair, or pays for our meal, or opens the door for us, not because we don’t know how to pull out chairs, open doors, or pay for things, but because it shows us that he’ll be using his superior strength to care for us, not kill us. And that if someone comes along who seems like he does want to kill us (or steal our bag), he’ll use his superior strength to make sure that other guy takes a hike.

Like Templeton, I’m also raising a son. But I have no qualms about teaching him to be chivalrous. Because I know that, even though a woman and a man are equally capable of becoming, say, brain surgeons, they aren’t equally capable of punching some guy in the head. And I also know that, because men and women are different, the kind of interplay that comes from a man taking care of a woman by protecting her physically, and a woman taking care of a man by protecting him emotionally is desirable to both.

So, though it strikes fear into a mother’s heart to say it, when my son is grown, if he sees a man threatening a woman (no matter how frizzy her hair, and defiant her gaze) I hope he’ll come to her aid. And when he goes on those first, awkward dates he’ll know (because I taught him) to pull out that chair, open that door, and pick up the tab. And if any girl tells him he’s being offensive and insists on going dutch? Well, she’s just not the right girl for him.


Foundation attacks Sen. Marco Rubio's Bible verse tweets as unconstitutional

For Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a devout Christian, tweeting out Bible verses to his three million followers has become a routine. Though these tweets regularly receive thousands of likes, one disgruntled nonprofit is claiming they amount to an unconstitutional breach of the separation between church and state.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent Rubio a letter this month informing him of this alleged violation, requesting the senator either stop tweeting from the Bible or remove "all traces of the public office" from his account.

The letter, signed by FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel, argues that Rubio's tweets constitute "government speech" and should not, therefore, "promote one religious book over others or to promote religion over nonreligion."

"By tying your government title to a social media page," Seidel wrote the Florida Republican, "you have intimately entwined your official position with the messages you send on that platform, creating the appearance of official endorsement."

Not according to legal expert Rick Esenberg.

Esenberg, president and general counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a free market public interest law and policy center also based in the Badger State, told the Washington Examiner, "There is no legal authority for the Freedom From Religion Foundation's bizarre suggestion that elected officials cannot invoke religious concepts in expressing themselves.

"In fact, there is a long tradition, from Washington to Lincoln to the present day, of them doing precisely that," he continued.

Esenberg believes any attempts to target Rubio with legal action would not succeed. "There is little chance that any court would have any sympathy for FFRF's position," he noted.

The Foundation's letter to Rubio concludes with the smug invocation of a Gospel verse practically dripping with disdain for the faithful senator. "If the law and your oath to uphold the Constitution are not sufficient to convince you to stop, perhaps you might consider reading Matthew 6:5-6, in which Jesus condemns public prayer as hypocrisy in his Sermon on the Mount," it says. "None of Jesus's supposed words mentions Twitter — perhaps he wasn't that prescient—but the condemnation of public piety is reasonably clear."

To the contrary, it seems the country could use more lawmakers like Rubio, eager to seek, share, and hold to moral guidances, including those based in religious faiths, at a time when their constituents' collective trust in institutions like Congress is decaying.


Black civil Rights Activist Argues To Keep Confederate Monuments

In cities across the U.S., calls to take down monuments to Confederate leaders are growing louder since the deadly events in Charlottesville, Va.

One of the most dramatic monuments to the Confederacy is called Stone Mountain, in northern Georgia. It's sort of a Confederate Mount Rushmore, with Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis carved into a mountainside.

Andrew Young, a former mayor of Atlanta and lifelong African-American civil rights activist, says the memorial should stay. Young served as a congressman from Georgia and ambassador to the United Nations. He was with Martin Luther King Jr. the day he was assassinated.

"That is a tremendous carving. And I don't want to see that destroyed. I don't care who it is," he says.

Young is not alone. An NPR/PBS NewsHour poll released this month found that 44 percent of African-Americans believe Confederate memorials should stay, compared with 40 percent who say they should be removed. Nationwide, 6 in 10 Americans say the monuments should remain. Still, Young's comments come as prominent Democratic and African-American activists call for the monuments to be removed or "contextualized," to avoid celebrating the leaders who supported slavery.

I'm saying these are kids who grew up free, and they don't realize what still enslaves them — and it's not those monuments.

What worries me is that this country will turn to the right so that it'll — be taking down Martin Luther King's statue next when the racist majority takes over. And I'm saying that a minority can't be provoking a racist majority that is still underemployed, undereducated and dying faster than we are — that the issue is life and death – not some stupid monument.

I would only consider adding to it a freedom bell because Martin Luther King said in his speech, "Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain [of] Georgia." He named that specifically.



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 September, 2017

Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job

Psychologists are well aware that people often do not say what they really think.  It is therefore something of a holy grail among them to find ways that WILL detect what people really think. A very popular example of that is the Implicit Associations test (IAT).  It supposedly measures racist thoughts whether you are aware of them or not.  It sometimes shows people who think they are anti-racist to be in fact secretly racist. 

I dismissed it as a heap of junk long ago (here and here) but it has remained very popular and is widely accepted as revealing truth.  I am therefore pleased that a very long and thorough article has just appeared which comes to the same conclusion that I did.  Some excerpts below:

Perhaps no new concept from the world of academic psychology has taken hold of the public imagination more quickly and profoundly in the 21st century than implicit bias — that is, forms of bias which operate beyond the conscious awareness of individuals. That’s in large part due to the blockbuster success of the so-called implicit association test, which purports to offer a quick, easy way to measure how implicitly biased individual people are. When Hillary Clinton famously mentioned implicit bias during her first debate with Donald Trump, many people knew what she was talking about because the IAT has spread the concept so far and wide. It’s not a stretch to say that the IAT is one of the most famous psychological instruments created in recent history, and that it has been the subject of more recent fascination and acclaim than just about anything else to come out of the field of social psychology.

The only way to evaluate how accurately the IAT actually measures the sort of implicit bias everyone cares about, then, is to look to the research that has been published on the test. But before doing so it’s important to zoom out a bit to the broader question of how psychologists prove a given instrument, whether one developed to measure depression, narcissism, or anything else, is accurate enough to be useful for real-world purposes. There’s an entire field of psychology, psychometrics, dedicated to the creation and validation of psychological instruments, and instruments are judged based on whether they exceed certain broadly agreed-upon statistical benchmarks. The most important benchmarks pertain to a test’s reliability — that is, the extent to which the test has a reasonably low amount of measurement error (every test has some) — and to its validity, or the extent to which it is measuring what it claims to be measuring. A good psychological instrument needs both.

The IAT, it turns out, has serious issues on both the reliability and validity fronts, which is surprising given its popularity and the very exciting claims that have been made about its potential to address racism. That’s what the research says, at least, and it raises serious questions about how the IAT became such a social-science darling in the first place.

Take the concept of test-retest reliability, which measures the extent to which a given instrument will produce similar results if you take it, wait a bit, and then take it again. Different instruments have different test-retest reliabilities. A tape measure has high test-retest reliability because if you measure someone’s height, wait two weeks, and measure it again, you’ll get very similar results. The measurement procedure of grabbing an ice cube from your freezer and seeing how many ice cubes tall your friend is would have much lower test-retest reliability, because different ice cubes might be of different sizes; it’s easier to make errors when counting how many ice cubes tall your friend is; and so forth.

This is a bedrock psychometric feature of many psychological instruments; test-retest reliability is often one of the first things a psychologist will look for when deciding whether to use a given tool. That’s particularly true if it’s the sort of test that is designed to provide important information from someone based on a single test-taking session. If a depression test, for example, has the tendency to tell people they’re severely depressed and at risk of suicidal ideation on Monday, but essentially free of depression on Tuesday, that’s not a useful test. It’s safe to say, based on how the IAT is used and marketed, that most lay people who are familiar with the test imagine that it provides useful information based on a single session.

Test-retest reliability is expressed with a variable known as r, which ranges from 0 to 1. To gloss over some of the gory statistical details, r = 1 means that if a given test is administered multiple times to the same group of people, it will rank them in exactly the same order every time. Hypothetically, if the IAT had a test-retest reliability of r = 1, and you administered the test to ten people over and over and over, they’d be placed in the same order, least to most implicitly biased, every time. At the other end of the spectrum, when r = 0, that means the ranking shifts every time the test is administered, completely at random. The person ranked most biased after the first test would, after the second test, be equally likely to appear in any of the ten available slots. Overall, the closer you get to r = 0, the closer the instrument in question is to, in effect, a random-number generator rather than a remotely useful means of measuring whatever it is you’re trying to measure.

The individual results that have been published, though, suggest the race IAT’s test-retest reliability is far too low for it to be safe to use in real-world settings. In a 2007 chapter on the IAT, for example, Kristin Lane, Banaji, Nosek, and Greenwald included a table (Table 3.2) running down the test-retest reliabilities for the race IAT that had been published to that point: r = .32 in a study consisting of four race IAT sessions conducted with two weeks between each; r = .65 in a study in which two tests were conducted 24 hours apart; and r = .39 in a study in which the two tests were conducted during the same session (but in which one used names and the other used pictures). In 2014, using a large sample, Yoav Bar-Anan and Nosek reported a race IAT test-retest reliability of r = .4 (Table 2). Calvin Lai, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard who is the director of research at Project Implicit, ran the numbers from some of his own data, and came up with similar results. “If I had to estimate for immediate test-retest now, it would be r ~= .35,” he wrote in an email. “If it was over longer time periods, I would revise my estimate downward although I’m uncertain about how much.” (In emails, Greenwald argued that Lai’s figures should be adjusted upward using the so-called Spearman-Brown formula to account for the fact that they stemmed from IATs that weren’t full-length, but Blanton strongly pushed back on that claim. I emailed a few statisticians asking them to arbitrate the dispute and basically got a hung jury.) (Update: Lai emailed me after this article went up and said that in light of research published since he provided me with the original estimate, he’d now estimate the true value to be in the neighborhood of r = .42.)

What all these numbers mean is that there doesn’t appear to be any published evidence that the race IAT has test-retest reliability that is close to acceptable for real-world evaluation. If you take the test today, and then take it again tomorrow — or even in just a few hours — there’s a solid chance you’ll get a very different result. That’s extremely problematic given that in the wild, whether on Project Implicit or in diversity-training sessions, test-takers are administered the test once, given their results, and then told what those results say about them and their propensity to commit biased acts. (It should be said that there are still certain consistent patterns: Most white people, for example, score positively on black-white IAT, supposedly signaling the presence of anti-black implicit bias.)

As for validity, over and over the IAT’s proponents have made confident statements about the test’s ability to predict behavior. In the quote from Blindside excerpted above, for example, Banaji and Greenwald explicitly claim that the test does a better job predicting behavior than explicit measures like feelings thermometers in which people numerically “rate” their feelings toward different groups — an idea echoed on the IAT’s FAQ page. This is an absolutely crucial claim, and much of the IAT’s cultural and academic gravitas flows directly out of it. If the IAT can’t predict discriminatory behavior, and can’t do so more accurately than explicit measures, then it’s a lot less useful and interesting than its proponents have made it out to be. A major conceit of the test, after all, is that it reveals hidden biases that can pop up in people who explicitly renounce discriminatory beliefs or intent.

One of the current gold standards for assessing how “real” a given effect is is meta-analysis, or the process of collecting all the studies you can find on a given question and, in effect, averaging their results. This, the thinking goes, can reduce experimenter error and bias. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a much better method than relying on any handpicked collection of individual studies. And when you use meta-analyses to examine the question of whether IAT scores predict discriminatory behavior accurately enough for the test to be useful in real-world settings, the answer is: No. Race IAT scores are weak predictors of discriminatory behavior.

The arguments and subarguments get pretty complicated and technical, but two important points stand out. One is that the most IAT-friendly numbers, published in a 2009 meta-analysis lead-authored by Greenwald, which found fairly unimpressive correlations (race IAT scores accounted for about 5.5 percent of the variation in discriminatory behavior in lab settings, and other intergroup IAT scores accounted for about 4 percent of the variance in discriminatory behavior in lab settings), were based on some fairly questionable methodological decisions on the part of the authors. The Oswald team, in a meta-analysis of their own published in 2013, argued convincingly that Greenwald and his colleagues had overestimated the correlations between IAT scores and discriminatory behavior by including studies that didn’t actually measure discriminatory behavior, such as those which found a link between high IAT scores and certain brain patterns (these studies, in fact, found some of the highest correlations). The Oswald group also claimed — again, convincingly — that the Greenwald team took a questionable approach to handling so-called ironic IAT effects, or published findings in which high IAT scores correlated with better behavior toward out-group than in-group members, the theory being the implicitly biased individuals were overcompensating. Greenwald and his team counted both ironic and standard effects as evidence of a meaningful IAT–behavior correlation, which, in effect, allowed the IAT to double-dip at the validity bowl: Unless the story being told is extremely pretzel-like, it can’t be true that high IAT scores predict both better and worse behavior toward members of minority groups. If one study finds a correlation between IAT scores and discriminatory behavior against out-group members, and another, similarly-sized study finds a similarly sized correlation between IAT scores and discriminatory behavior against the in-group members, for meta-analytic purposes those two studies should average out to a correlation of about zero. That isn’t what the Greenwald team did — instead, they in effect added the two correlations as though they were pointing in the same direction.

The second, more important point to emerge from this years-long meta-analytic melee is that both critics and proponents of the IAT now agree that the statistical evidence is simply too lacking for the test to be used to predict individual behavior. That’s not to say the two teams don’t still disagree on many issues — they do, and as we’ll see there’s some genuine bad blood — but on this point, the architects have effectively conceded. They did so in 2015: The psychometric issues with race and ethnicity IATs, Greenwald, Banaji, and Nosek wrote in one of their responses to the Oswald team’s work, “render them problematic to use to classify persons as likely to engage in discrimination.”

In that same paper, they noted that “attempts to diagnostically use such measures for individuals risk undesirably high rates of erroneous classifications.” In other words: You can’t use the IAT to tell individuals how likely they are to commit acts of implicit bias. To Blanton, this is something of a smoking gun: “This concession undermines the entire premise of their webpage,” he said. “Their webpage delivers psychological diagnoses that even they now admit are too filled with error to be meaningful.”


Google under fire from its own

"Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that the left was cheering Google for firing an employee who dared to question the company's liberal orthodoxy?" asks Investor's Business Daily. "Now the company is getting battered by the same crowd for allegedly causing a critic to be fired from a think tank."

The fired employee was engineer James Damore, whose two-pronged dissent was more than the politically correct crowd could endure. In a 10-page memo entitled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," he first asserted that Google's culture was one "which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause." Then he committed the ultimate "sin," suggesting it's possible the gender gap in certain workplace positions may have to do with the difference between men and women themselves, rather than some sort of implicit bias.

That was a bridge too far. "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK," explained Google CEO Sundar Pichai in a staff memo, even as an updated memo stated "that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves" — unless they "cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."

Progressive reaction? "Even if it creates an anti-PC martyr, firing an employee who was comfortable airing his harmful bigotry is a laudable stand," asserted Slate columnist April Glaser. "It should have been a no-brainer."

Unfortunately for the self-righteous social justice set, Google's disdain for dissent snared one of its own. Shortly after Washington think tank New America Foundation posted a piece on its website praising the $2.7 billion fine levied by European antitrust regulators against Google, company chairman Eric Schmidt made his displeasure known to New America president Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Barry Lynn, director of New America's Open Markets program, wrote the "offensive" post, asserting the EU "is protecting the free flow of information and commerce upon which all democracies depend." He also urged "US enforcers" to "build upon this important precedent, both in respect to Google and to other dominant platform monopolists including Amazon," explaining the "traditional American approach to network monopoly ... is to cleanly separate ownership of the network from ownership of the products and services sold on that network."

Lynn's post was taken down and then reposted hours later. But as The New York Times reported, "word of Mr. Schmidt's displeasure rippled through New America," leaving some people "concerned that Google intended to discontinue funding, while others worried whether the think tank could truly be independent if it had to worry about offending its donors."

They were right to worry. Last Wednesday, Slaughter informed Lynn "the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways," according to an email that simultaneously asserted the firing was "in no way based on the content of your work," while accusing Lynn of "imperiling the institution as a whole."

Lynn's 10-member team initially stuck around trying to negotiate with Slaughter, but eventually got the axe as well. In a public statement disputing the Times' story, Slaughter insisted Google did not lobby New America to expel Open Markets. Instead, she asserted, Lynn "repeatedly refused to adhere to New America's standards of openness and institutional collegiality," while offering no explanation for his team's firing.

One might be forgiven for wondering if Slaughter was influenced by the $21 million Google has bestowed on the think tank since 1999, or the fact that New America's main conference room is called the "Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab."

Regardless, leftists were suddenly aghast that some of their fellow travelers could be treated like Damore and that Google's "monopoly" should be broken up. Ultra-leftist Zephyr Teachout, who is chairing Open Markets reincarnation as an independent entity, believes Google "has established a pattern of lobbying and threatening to acquire power," reaching a "dangerous point ... where it no longer wants to allow dissent." The New York Times followed up its original story with one entitled "Google's Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks," and the Huffington Post huffed that "Google Just Proved That Monopolies Imperil Democracy, Not Just The Economy."

Should Google be subjected to antitrust statutes? The company controls 80% of the online search market and 54% of the U.S. browser market. Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon are similar behemoths, and all have made efforts to control and influence the flow of information, tilting overwhelmingly left in that regard.

But does that make any of them monopolies? Teachout insists Google "is forming into a government of itself," while admitting it couldn't succeed in "entirely" silencing New Markets. The New York Post refers to "monopolists who dominate the internet" and The Week's Ryan Cooper refers to both Google and Facebook as "platform monopolists."

Perhaps. Or perhaps they provide goods and services millions of people want. And for those that don't, perhaps there's a gargantuan opportunity for non-progressive entrepreneurs to set up alternative platforms. Better that than giving government another opportunity to put its regulatory thumb on the scale.

Are the aforementioned corporations run by largely obnoxious, self-aggrandizing leftists? You betcha. But a free society is about competition, not censorship. Leftists would prefer the latter, now that the Wrath of Google has touched one of theirs.


UK: Labour Party member for Northern electorate: Left ‘failing to confront truth of sex crimes’

Sarah Champion: ‘I’d rather be called a racist than turn a blind eye to child abuse’

The “floppy left” is failing vulnerable children because it will not confront the race factor in sex crimes involving street-grooming, according to a Labour frontbencher sacked for speaking out on the issue.

Sarah Champion attributed her party’s squeamishness to a liberal fear of being falsely branded racist.

The MP for Rotherham was dismissed from the shadow cabinet by Jeremy Corbyn last month after she wrote in an article for The Sun that Britain “has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls”.

A few days later Mr Corbyn accused the newspaper of inciting Islamophobia and stigmatising “entire communities”. Ms Champion’s departure from the Labour front bench led to claims that the party was stifling free speech.

In her first interview since being dismissed Ms Champion highlighted differences in attitudes towards race in London and in Labour’s northern heartlands.

“If I’m on the floppy left, to be accused of racism is probably the worst thing you can call me. That fear will motivate me to step away from a lot of topics I’d maybe tackle head on if I didn’t have that phobia,” she told The Times.

Ms Champion said that many Labour members and politicians based in London had “never been challenged by a reality that’s different” from their largely “tolerant, multicultural world”.

“London is not representative of the UK and it’s definitely not representative of the north of England in relation to race,” she said. “Rotherham and many post-industrial towns are still segregated.”

Ms Champion’s constituency is among a lengthening list of English towns, including Rochdale, Oxford and, most recently, Newcastle upon Tyne, in which groups of men largely of Pakistani origin have been convicted of multiple sex crimes against vulnerable white girls.

In 2014 The Times reported on how 1,400 girls from Rotherham were abused by groups of men who were said to be “almost all” of Pakistani heritageIn 2014 The Times reported on how 1,400 girls from Rotherham were abused by groups of men who were said to be “almost all” of Pakistani heritage
No similar prosecution has occurred in London. Ms Champion said that the “multicultural policies that I, through my working career, grew up with, and which Jeremy Corbyn grew up with, need a translation to come outside London”.

She said: “It’s not that Yorkshire’s racist, it’s that Yorkshire is very blunt and doesn’t sugar-coat anything. In Rotherham, people’s frustration is that if they all knew what was going on, why didn’t the people who were meant to protect them do anything about it?”

Ms Champion was strongly criticised by many Labour supporters last month when she called for research to understand why most of the convicted perpetrators of gang-linked sexual exploitation were of Pakistani heritage.

She said she found it extraordinary that some on the liberal left seemed less offended by her words than by her decision to write an article for a newspaper such as The Sun.

“Once you make a decision to be open and up front about what’s going on in this country, you want to get the broadest number of people to hear that message,” she said. “Rotherham has a working-class demographic and a lot of my older constituents read The Sun.

“I’m a Labour politician, I want us to be in government and I wanted to let people know we’re taking this seriously. I wanted to reach out to people that we don’t normally reach out to.”

Ms Champion drew a parallel between the reluctance of some people in her party to acknowledge the race factor in such crimes with the terror of being accused of racism that played a role in the longstanding failure of police forces and local authorities to prosecute offenders.

“By not dealing with the facts head on, you allow people to manipulate what’s going on.”

She emphasised that most child sexual abuse took place within the family and that the vast majority of convicted child-sex offenders in Britain were white men, usually acting alone.

“But for me, with this type of street-grooming crime, it’s no different to where we were in the recent past, with everyone knowing what was happening in the Catholic church but not doing anything about it.

“If, 15 years ago, we’d acknowledged there was a particular issue among a criminal subsection of men in the Pakistani community we could have addressed it, carried out the research and gained the understanding to challenge it, tackle it and eradicate it.”


Australia: The marriage equality movement and the new intolerance

Many important issues now can't be debated openly without inspiring immediate hysteria. Same-sex marriage is one of them. Anyone who tries to defend traditional marriage – or even highlights the risks that the campaign poses to religious freedom – is instantly treated with shock and distaste.  

Note the paradox. The marriage-equality movement has succeeded in changing public opinion across the Western world by championing love and acceptance. Polls show Australians have become more tolerant of the LGBTI community, so much so that support for same-sex marriage is now a majority view. And yet many activists have become intolerant of people who might subscribe to religious or more traditional positions.

The principal of Frankston High School says a mother's comments in a TV commercial promoting a "no vote" to same-sex marriage is false.
Thus, Australian company board members who defend traditional marriage have had to endure a hysterical witch hunt at the hands of a social media mob.

A Catholic archbishop of Hobart was regarded as engaging in hate speech because he voiced the church's scepticism about same-sex marriage.

In the US, a chief executive was run out of business after it turned out he had donated money to a state referendum opposing gay marriage.

Tennis legend Margaret Court, a devout Christian, said she would not fly Qantas because of the company's barracking for same-sex marriage. She was immediately given the pariah treatment.

It is nothing short of outrageous that these people should have been subjected to such vitriol because of their opinions. Yet they are just some of the many people who have become the target of the Twitter crowd.

What is really disturbing is that these campaigns are justified in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity". The activists are supposed to oppose bigotry, yet they impose a new stifling orthodoxy of their own. It is as if gay marriage is made a taboo subject – unless you hold the approved point of view. Who is really being intolerant here?

Our civil society should be vibrant enough to tolerate all people of whatever sexual or religious instincts. But the same-sex marriage lobby will lose the goodwill of many voters if it keeps turning its agenda into a political orthodoxy from which there can be no dissent.

Why the panic? Attitudes are shifting rapidly. As recently as 2013, Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage. Even Penny Wong was to the right of Dick Cheney! Like many westerners, they have changed their minds.

So the case for altering the definition of marriage has gathered steam. But a political debate over the subject is precisely what many of its supporters do not want. They instead want to impose a national solution via either the judiciary or the Parliament, even though the Turnbull government went to the last election on a pledge to resolve the matter via a plebiscite.

Whatever one's views, the democratic process – the plebiscite or, if the High Court approves, the postal vote – is a good thing. Both sides play by the same rules and can accept the people's verdict as legitimate. And as support grows for a legally sanctioned union between people of the same sex, the politics will follow. Isn't that how democracy works? Or are socio-cultural changes more durable when they are imposed from the top?

Alas, anyone who dares to express views outside the mainstream is regarded as a fanatic, who has to be subjected to absurd scrutiny.

We saw a telling example of this when ABC News presenter Joe O'Brien asked the Australian Christian Lobby's Lyle Shelton whether he could in good faith support gay athletes in sporting endeavours. The contorted logic here is that if you oppose gay marriage you must be a homophobe.

Yet Shelton's sin is to hold views that held sway for millennia, views shared by virtually all priests, bishops, imams, rabbis and other religious leaders.

John Stuart Mill would be aghast. In On Liberty, the great 19th-century British liberal warned: "Unmeasured vituperation, employed on the side of the prevailing opinion really does deter people from expressing contrary opinion, and from listening to those who express them."

This is a matter of grave concern that goes to the heart of contemporary public discourse in Australia. The new intolerance should appal all genuine liberals.



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 September, 2017

Fighting hate is a losing battle

An excellent article below by an apparently Leftist but clear-thinking professor of philosophy.  Judging by the courses he teaches he is in the mainstream of Western analytical philosophy. He rightly shows that you cannot fight hate.  You have to fight the ideas you hate.  That's a dismal message for Leftists, though.  Contesting ideas is not their forte.  Mostly all they can do is abuse people they disagree with. Most libertarian arguments would flummox them.  Just ask them where they get the right to tell other people what to do and they will mostly be struck dumb

By David Livingstone Smith 

Hate has been in the news a lot lately. TV news shows can’t get enough of it. Social media feeds seethe with articles about hate groups and hate speech. There are marches against hate, walks against hate, vigils against hate, and rallies against hate. The website of Southern Poverty Law Center tells us that “hate in America has become commonplace” and asks, rhetorically, “What can we do to stop the hate?”

The framing of the question suggests that it’s self-evident that the way to stop hate is by fighting it — to declare war on it.

True to the tough-guy self-image deep in the American psyche, many seem to believe that the best way to deal with anything that you don’t like is to beat the stuffing out of it. So, if you don’t like “hate,” then you should “fight” it.

This approach gets things dangerously wrong. Here’s why.

First, you can’t really fight hate any more that you can really fight cancer or wage a war on drugs. To think otherwise is slip into what philosophers call a “category mistake” — the error of treating one kind of thing as though it’s quite a different kind of thing. Suppose that I said to you that one of my students gave me a cold, and then you responded — in all seriousness — by asking me whether the cold was gift-wrapped and came with a card. If you asked me this you’d be committing a category mistake centered on the use of the verb “gave.” This is the same sort of screw-up that people commit when they talk about fighting hate. Just as a cold isn’t the sort of thing that can be gift-wrapped, hate isn’t the sort of thing that can be fought.

The idea that all decent Americans are (or should be) embroiled in a war against hate is oddly reminiscent of the Bush administration’s war on terror. As Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out in a 2007 article in the Washington Post, “The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” If “the war on terror” is a meaningless phrase, “the war against hate” is every bit as meaningless.

But aren’t the wars against terror, hate, or cancer just metaphors? Fair enough. But that’s not the end of the story. Biologist Richard Lewontin once remarked, riffing on a comment by Winston Churchill, that “The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance.” Metaphors are appropriate, as long as you remember what they’re metaphors for. And even when you’re clear about what they’re for, they have a tendency to run away with you — to structure your thinking and actions in misleading, disadvantageous, or even disastrous ways (recall the “war on terror”). I’m not so sure that everyone who pictures themselves as fighters against hate can keep their eyes on this elusive ball, and remain steady in their awareness that “fighting hate” isn’t fighting hate. Antifa — that is, the loose movement of self-styled anti-fascists who’ve been blamed for outbursts violence at protests — is a good example of a metaphor gone bad.

The idea that we’re involved in a fight (whether an actual or a metaphorical one) isn’t really the most pressing concern. More worrying is the notion that hate is the thing that we need to oppose. This line of thought projects a distorted image of what we’re up against, and may hinder effective political action.

It’s tempting to think of hate as something that’s bad to the bone. Only bad people are pro-hate, right? Well, I’m a Jew who hates Nazis. Does this make me a bad person? Does it place me on the same side of the moral divide as a Nazi who hates Jews because we are both “haters”? Should foot soldiers in the war against hate also battle against my hatred of Nazism, or is my hatred of Nazism a good, acceptable, or even morally obligatory kind of hate?

Think it through. If our hates all have the same moral valence, then you’re bound to accept our president’s assertion that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville protests. But if you can resist the temptation to gerrymander the boundaries of hate so that it includes only those people who stand for things that you disapprove of, the answers to the rhetorical questions in the previous paragraph are pretty clear. There’s good hate and there’s bad hate. Hate is morally neutral when it’s considered all on its own; what makes it good or bad depends on what it is that’s being hated.

The same principle applies to love. The white supremacists that tromped through Charlottesville brandishing swastika flags, KKK insignia, and assault rifles while chanting, “Jews will not replace us!” were people who loved their “whiteness,” feared its replacement, and had a protective attitude towards what they took to be their “heritage.” If you spend some time listening, as I do, to podcasts produced by members of the so-called alt-right, you’ll soon discover that hate plays a relatively small role in what most of them have to say. There’s a whole lot about fear (of being outnumbered by people of color), loyalty (to the white race), nostalgia (for a white supremacist past), pride (in their ethnic identity), and outrage (at “cultural Marxism”). There’s also love (of their race). And there’s also plenty of moral righteousness and contempt for those whites who don’t buy into their ethno-nationalist ideology. Of course, hate is present too — often blatantly so — but it’s not the main focus.

The same was true in the past. The statue of Robert E. Lee that galvanized the far-right groups that gathered in Charlottesville was set up to glorify the “lost cause” of the slaveholding Confederacy. The men whom these detestable monuments lionize didn’t hate their slaves any more than they hated their livestock or farm equipment. For the most part, they considered black people as so unworthy of respect that they didn’t even merit being hated.

Consider Nazi propaganda — the kind that was produced by real Third Reich Nazis, not tiki torch Nazis — and you’ll discover the same pattern. These women and men were in love with race, führer, and fatherland, and made a big deal of their attachment to blood and soil, their horror, fear, and disgust of Jews, and what they took to be the sublime moral uplift of the National Socialist cause.

As much as we’d like to think otherwise, Auschwitz wasn’t built out of hate. The historian ?Claudia Koonz reminds us in the opening pages of “The Nazi Conscience” that Nazism is unintelligible if conceived as a pure culture of hate. Nazi ideology “supplied answers to life’s imponderables, provided meaning in the face of contingency, and explained the way the world works. It also defined good and evil, condemning self-interest as immoral and enshrining altruism as virtuous. Binding ethnic comrades. . . to their ancestors and descendants, Nazism embedded the individual within the collective well-being of the nation.”

These distinctions matter. The uncomfortable truth is that sentiments like love, honor, terror, and moral righteousness have immensely greater power to move human beings to commit appalling acts of violence than hate does. The language of the “fight against hate” is a blunt instrument. It impoverishes our moral vocabulary and restricts our capacity to truly understand what we are up against at the present historical moment. Trying to dismantle white supremacism by fighting against hate is as foolhardy trying to dismantle an IED with your eyes closed. It’s likely to blow up in your face.


The Zebra killings:  Blacks systematically killing whites swept under the rug

Ron Unz

When I first encountered mention of the “Zebra killings” some years ago, the term was completely unfamiliar to me, and due to the similarities in name and location, I initially wondered whether it might be an alternate designation for the Zodiac attacks. But despite the chronological and geographical overlap, the Zebra case was actually quite different, and given its explosive details the almost total absence of any subsequent media attention is really quite curious.

Indeed, one advantage of exploring the Zebra killings is there exists only one detailed, somewhat contemporaneous account, and a couple of years ago with my curiosity getting the better of me, I finally ordered the book from Amazon. Zebra was published in 1979 by Clark Howard, an award-winning crime writer, who drew extensively on newspaper archives, court testimony, and personal interviews, with his text running over 400 pages.

 The story of the Zebra killers almost sounds like something out of a movie, although no movie was ever made. For decades, the Nation of Islam—the so-called “Black Muslims”—had been preaching that whites were “devils,” the product of a mad scientist’s controlled-breeding experiment, and that killing such “devils” was a virtuous religious act. Then, some time in 1972, certain elements of the sect decided to transform religious dogma into actual practice, and began an organized campaign to randomly kill as many white men, women, and children as they could, with the attacks occurring throughout California but especially centered in the Bay Area and the city of San Francisco. One of the alleged motives was to terrorize the local whites into eventually fleeing that city, thereby allowing the establishment of a black-dominated metropolis.

The black attackers typically went out alone or in pairs to commit the killings, usually selecting any seemingly vulnerable victims on the streets at dusk or in the dark, with their weapons of choice being guns, hatchets, or machetes. Sometimes, victims were kidnapped and brought back to safe-houses to be tortured and killed by the entire group, with their bodies afterward dismembered and discarded.

According to the later court testimony, black participants each needed to kill a total of nine white men to be awarded the coveted title of “Death Angel,” earning them the right to have their photos displayed in the Black Muslim meeting halls, while roughly double points were awarded for slaughtering white women or children, on the grounds that such killings were more psychologically difficult. Based on the number of such distinctive homicides—well-dressed black men randomly attacking whites on the street—police officials estimated that there were over 70 such killings throughout California, though based on his extensive research Howard himself believed that the true statewide total may have been close to 270 dead victims.

The period of the killings lasted for almost half a year, and once the newspapers and public grew aware of the situation, the city of San Francisco became gripped by a sense of terror, with public officials desperate to crack the case. Sometimes even politically-connected individuals fell victim, with future mayor Art Agnos barely surviving a random gunshot attack. In desperation, Mayor Joseph Alioto, a staunch liberal, initiated stop-and-search patrols that targeted a majority of the local population of adult black males as possible killers. Eventually, eight of the suspects were arrested with the aid of an informant, with four of these being convicted and sentenced to life, at which point the attacks ceased. But it appears that the majority of the participants were never caught, let alone punished.

Zebra may be purchased for as little as $4 on Amazon, shipping included, and also found online both as a PDF and in various other formats at Archive.org. But for those too busy to read it, a much shorter summary of the story may be found in an article entitled “Remembering the Zebra Killing” published in 2001 by conservative writer James Lubinskas, with his presentation closely matching the book’s facts, while the San Francisco Chronicle also ran a short retrospective around the time of the 2002 DC Sniper Attacks. There are also a handful of other small websites here and there, discussing the case and republishing some newspaper articles, including coverage of the Zebra killings in other cities.

Meanwhile, the events themselves have almost totally disappeared from public memory. When noted author David Talbot published his widely-praised 2012 book Season of the Witch covering that general era of San Francisco history, he included a discussion of the Zebra killings, and some knowledgeable San Francisco natives mentioned that it was the first time they had ever heard of the story. Indeed, the complete absence of any subsequent media coverage or investigation forced Talbot, a mainstream liberal, to cite an obscure white racialist blogsite devoted to the Zebra case as one of his only sources of documentary information on the wave of murders.

Not only did the Zebra killings represent the greatest instance of racially-motivated killings in modern American history, but the number of victims was quite possibly greater than the combined total for all other such examples over nearly the last 100 years of our history. Based on that reality, the near-absolute media blackout has been quite remarkably Orwellian and deeply disturbing. Prior to the development of the Internet, neither I nor almost anyone else would have ever encountered this important history, and I suspect that if anyone had presented us with the true facts back then, his claims might easily have been dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic.


No, Charlie Hebdo, “Nazis” Didn’t Drown in Houston

I think there's a case for defamation here

Shortly after Hurricane Harvey hit Houston, French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published this cover:

The caption reads, “God exists! He drowned all the neo-nazis of Texas!”

We should all know about Charlie Hebdo. The newspaper has a long history of attacking anyone they deem worthy, usually with crude and offensive cartoons. That wasn’t much of a problem until they published cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed. Those cartoons led to a brutal jihadist attack on their office that left twelve dead in 2015.

To be clear, I supported Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish offensive cartoons in 2015, and I support it now. CH didn’t deserve to be physically attacked for their opinions about Islam and don’t deserve to be physically attacked for their opinions about Texas. However, they do deserve mockery, scorn and derision, for numerous reasons.

First, Hurricane Harvey primarily impacted Houston, which is in no way a nazi city. Houston is actually the the most diverse city in America, “where 51 percent of all those under the age of 20 are Latinos and 19 percent are African American.” A third of city residents over age five speak a language other than English at home, and according to census reports 145 languages are spoken in Houston. Over 15,000 Houstonians speak French. The city leans liberal and recently elected a black democratic mayor who replaced a lesbian democratic mayor, who replaced a white democratic mayor, who replaced a black democratic mayor, who replaced a white democratic mayor, who replaced a female democratic mayor (Houston has had democrat mayors since 1982). And while Texas voted republican in the 2016 presidential election, Houston itself went almost completely democrat (even if you ascribe to the incredibly shallow and unbelievably stupid belief that “republican equals nazi,” you can’t pin any nazi republicanism on Houston).

And if being democrat isn’t enough, Houston also has a thriving gay community with the most gay-friendly employers in Texas, and hosts one of the oldest and largest gay pride parades in the American Southwest. Houston ain’t exactly the Third Reich.

Second, the drowning victims weren’t nazis. Six of the victims were from a single Hispanic family and included an elderly couple and four children. Another was a 60-year old Hispanic Houston police officer. Another was a nurse whose three-year old daughter was found clinging to her body. Another was an elderly woman drowned in her home, another was crushed by a tree that fell on her house, others included a clockmaker trying his save merchandise and a young man who foolishly drove around a barricade marking high water. There is no indication whatsoever any of the victims were “nazis,” and no reason to believe Hurricane Harvey just happened to strike an unknown nazi gathering. The storm killed dozens of innocent people, not dozens of nazis or any nazis at all.

Third, over 22,000 Texans died fighting nazis or their allies during World War II. Approximately 750,000 Texans served in total, making up 7% of the entire American fighting force. Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Dwight Eisenhower was a Texan, as was our most-decorated nazi killer Audie Murphy. The Texas 36th Infantry Division – MY division, by the way – participated in Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France, and was even at one point attached to the French First Army. Charlie Hebdo and many others are seeing nazis under their beds and finding them under every rock lately, but when real nazis really invaded France and really needed to be defeated, Texans showed up to do it.

And fourth, French and Texan soldiers have gone into combat together during the ongoing War On Terror, so even if Charlie Hebdo is stupid enough to think Texans are all nazis, other French people know better. One would think at a serious newspaper like Charlie Hebdo (/sarc), journalists would do some in-depth investigative work like, oh, asking a French person who’s been to Houston if it’s full of nazis. CH apparently never bothered with such minor details.

Here in Texas we don’t even know how many we’ve lost. Victims probably haven’t even finished dying yet. Bodies will be recovered from flooded homes and overturned cars for many days to come. Families desperately searching for missing loved ones are dreading the tragic news they know is coming. One family is mourning the almost indescribable loss of beloved grandparents and four cherished children. Police officers all over the state are wearing badges covered with black bands to honor our lost sergeant. Texans and other Americans of many races, religions and political ideologies have spent the last week disregarding petty differences and coming together to help each other survive and recover. And for some unknown reason that’s sure to be incredibly moronic, Charlie Hebdo chose to slander the storm’s innocent victims as “nazis.”

When Charlie Hebdo was brutally attacked in 2015, millions of Americans, including me and many other Texans, stood against the jihadist attackers and for CH’s right to free speech. Whatever I thought of Charlie Hebdo’s politics or “art,” I argued that nobody deserves to be murdered for offending someone. I still believe that. Neither I nor other Texans will shoot up the Charlie Hebdo office, or demand their right to free speech be restricted.

I’ll simply point out that the surviving Charlie Hebdo staff presumably doesn’t believe their cartoonists deserved to be murdered for their opinions; one might think Charlie Hebdo would know better than to falsely accuse innocent people of being nazis, then suggest they deserved to die for it.


Australia: Homosexual thuggery again

How's that for equal rights? Woman doctor who appeared in 'no' ad for gay marriage vote subjected to a campaign to have her STRIPPED of her medical licence

Gay marriage supporters want a doctor who appeared in an ad for the no campaign stripped of her medical licence.

A petition calling on the Australian Medical Association to 'review the registration' of Pansy Lai gathered more than 6,000 signatures in just two days.

The Chinese-born paediatrician was one of three mothers who spoke against legalising same-sex marriage in the upcoming postal vote.

The Sydney doctor claimed in the Coalition for Marriage ad that classes about gay relationships were compulsory in countries where same-sex marriage was legal.

She was speaking of the controversial Safe Schools program, of which she is a vocal opponent since speaking out last year.

The petition, on a site run by left-wing activist group GetUp!, claimed Dr Lai 'willfully spread misinformation and non-scientific evidence in order to promote the discrimination of LGBTIQ people in Australia'.

The outright attack on Dr Lai's livelihood raised concerns among other no vote supporters that other doctors could be targeted if they voiced their beliefs.

The petition alleged she broke her Hippocratic Oath and Declaration of Geneva by speaking out against gay marriage and campaigning for the no vote.

It accused her of violating a clause vowing to not allow a patient's sexual orientation, among other attributes, to affect her medical duty.

'It is clear that Dr Pansy Lai has misused her privileged position as a medical practitioner in the harmful and hateful 'no' campaign,' it said.

She 'directly caused harm' to the LGBTIQ community by appearing in the ad, the petition claimed, and accused her of not supporting her young patients.

Dr Lai did not identify herself as a doctor in the Coalition for Marriage ad, or give her name, and was only identified by the media after the video aired.

The petition said young people who identify as LGBTIQ were 10 times more likely to die by suicide, and had an 80 per cent chance of being bullied at school.

It said Dr Lai, as a paediatrician, had professional obligation to support young people who identify as LGBTIQ and appearing in the ad ran counter to this.

The petition on the GetUp!-hosted site CommunityRun was started by Melbourne IT professional and self-identified 'anarcho-socialist' Lev Lafayette.

The 49-year-old on Sunday shared a photo of himself on Facebook with Parliament House in the background.

The caption read: 'Don't tell anyone but there's an anarchist in the Federal parliament house!'

Many comments left by those who signed the petition slammed Dr Lai, who is not an AMA member, for appearing in the ad and agreed she should be deregistered.

'Homophobia and bigotry have no place in our society, and especially not with a medical professional who is working with vulnerable young people,' one wrote.

'It is overly obvious that this DOCTOR is Biased against LGBT persons In her Bias .. She clearly would be discriminant towards any patients who identify as LGBT or are having difficulty with their sexual orientation apart from Heterosexual,' another wrote.

'Her participation in this campaign is a betrayal of her oath & the young people she is supposed to help,' a third insisted.

Other signatories slammed her alleged support for gay conversion therapies, claims Dr Lai denied last week.

Monica Doumit, spokeswoman for Coalition for Marriage, said: 'In seeking to ruin the career of a doctor who dares disagree with its agenda, the same-sex marriage lobby has shown, yet again, that it has no interest in freedom of speech.  '

'The petition against Dr Lai is a threat not only to her, but to any others who might try to voice their opinion. The message is loud and clear: agree on same-sex marriage or else.

'We know that if the law on marriage changes, these activists will feel more empowered to target those who dare disagree.

'We've already seen Canadian lawyers denied professional registration because of their views on marriage, and a UK student kicked out of university because his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman was deemed incompatible with undertaking a social work degree.

'The only way to protect freedom of speech is to vote "no".'



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 September, 2017

I Was Honored to Stand Next to Him': Jeffress Recalls Leading Prayer Over Trump in Oval Office

An eloquent prayer

President Trump signed a declaration in the Oval Office this afternoon to make Sunday a National Day of Prayer for the victims of Hurricane Harvey.

Trump and the First Lady will head back to Texas and Louisiana tomorrow to assess the damage and the recovery efforts.

Pastor Robert Jeffress, of First Baptist Church in Dallas, then led a prayer for the victims of Hurricane Harvey and for the president and vice president.

"I was honored to stand next to the president," Jeffress told Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Jeffress said Trump is the most powerful man in the world, yet not too "proud" to "bow his head in the Oval Office and ask God for help."


'Eyes Wide Shut' actress: I came out as a conservative in Hollywood. Here's the incredible story of what happened next

By Julienne Davis

About a year ago I made one of the more risky decisions of my life – one that I knew could hurt my career as an actress. I decided to come out of the conservative closet and admit to my peers that I was a conservative in Hollywood.

Yes, hard as it is for some to believe, not everyone in the entertainment industry on the Left Coast is a left-winger.

An acquaintance had asked me to write for a right-of-center political magazine. I realized I would be outing myself by doing it, but I ended up writing a few dozen articles with a right-leaning libertarian slant that were well received.

Sadly, the magazine closed and I was faced with two options.

Members of the Hollywood left don’t want to listen, discuss, or even see a dissenting viewpoint that challenges their own comfortable echo chamber. It’s ironic that an industry that constantly talks about diversity is so judgmental, hateful and utterly rigid in its groupthink.

Option 1: I could start apologizing to all my Hollywood liberal friends and associates who’d been shocked by my writing and tell them: “I didn’t really mean it … it was a paid gig and I was simply doing it for the work.”

Option 2:  I could have the courage of my convictions and continue down the conservative path.

The first option may have brought me liberal forgiveness. Let’s be honest, many of us in Hollywood “whore” ourselves out for work, a pay check and another credit for our resumes.

But I knew if I took Option 1 that I would have to never speak or post anything that even squeaked of conservatism again. I would have to nod and agree with all the constant comments and wild accusations against President Trump – “the racist,” “the misogynist,” “the one who is trying to destroy the world.” Sigh.

So, being the person I am, I chose the second option. I refused to be a coward and be untrue to myself. I believed my path to be the more honest albeit more painful option.

Since then I haven’t fared well. My “unfriendings” on social media have been many – from acquaintances and close working associates to good friends – including even my best friend. It is interesting to note that all of them just stopped calling and quietly “ghosted” me, and then later unfriended me.

Unfriendings aside, the written and very public insults from Hollywood peers on social media and elsewhere have been numerous. I’ve been attacked with obscenities, called a racist, and had one person tell me he hoped I would die.

And then there was the fellow actress attacking me with an obscene sexist insult reserved for women. Unbelievably, I had short-listed that same actress for a film I was helping to cast last year!

Needless to say, I learned to tune the abuse out. What’s interesting is that I noticed a particular upsurge in unfriendings immediately after the Charlottesville incident And of course, I know why: The media of choice for the left – including CNN, MSNBC, HuffPost, the New York Times and the Washington Post – all reported the incident in such a way as if to make it appear that all Trump supporters are Nazis.

Of course, that’s false and it couldn’t be a more ridiculous spin, but the media are, after all, giving their base exactly what it wants to hear, true or not.

Even the head of CNN International, Tony Maddox, himself has stated that President Trump has been good for business.  (At least the way they report on him.)

Predictably, the majority of people in Hollywood believe the media they watch and read to be utterly and completely true, so how can I convince my liberal friends and associates otherwise?

Members of the Hollywood left don’t want to listen, discuss, or even see a dissenting viewpoint that challenges their own comfortable echo chamber. It’s ironic that an industry that constantly talks about diversity is so judgmental, hateful and utterly rigid in its groupthink.

I actually ran into a former good friend (who had of course unfriended me and stopped calling) at a film screening recently. He told me: “Oh, we’re still friends … I just couldn’t be your friend on Facebook.”

I asked him why. He said: “I have a lot of important people on my page, and I can’t be seen to have those kinds of associations.”

“Coward,” I thought.

As I try to move forward in my creative life and my career in Hollywood, it will be interesting to see how I will be able to navigate a future there.

After all, I’m a creative soul and art is art. It should be the one area where utter freedom of expression should reign, regardless of political leanings.

As for my more liberal friends who haven’t ditched me over politics, I’m truly grateful for them. It is they and maybe conservatives like me who will hopefully help to bring people together again and end this insane polarization we are all witnessing.

As for the others, I’m not going to back down and lie to get ahead. But I know that staying true to my conservative beliefs means they’ll steer clear of me so as not to be sullied with the association … much like my so-called “friends” who ditched me publicly.

Bearing this in mind, I can see that I’ll have to take my career into my own hands in trying to find producers and funding for my own screenplay to get my film cast, shot, produced and distributed.

As one very high-up industry (and closeted conservative) person said to me recently:  “Get back in that closet if you want to get that film made.”

Thanks for the tip, but there’s no going back. Wish me luck.


Confederate Monuments: The Problem With Politically Correct History
Malcolm X, as a member of the Nation of Islam, preached anti-Semitism and called the white man “devil.” After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X dismissed the murder as a case of “the chickens coming home to roost.”

In Spike Lee’s biographical drama, “Malcolm X,” a white teenage girl approaches the angry activist and says, “Excuse me, Mr. X. Hi. I’ve read some of your speeches, and I honestly believe that a lot of what you have to say is true. And I’m a good person, in spite of what my ancestors did, and I just — I wanted to ask you, what can a white person like myself who isn’t prejudiced, what can I do to help you … further your cause?” He stares sternly, and replies, “Nothing.” She leaves in tears.

But Malcolm X changed. He visited Mecca, where he saw people of all colors worshipping together. It changed the way he thought. He repudiated his anger toward whites after discovering that people were more similar than they were different. He renounced the racist ideology of the Nation of Islam, and in doing so knowingly signed his own death warrant. He was assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam.

Alabama Gov. George Wallace, in 1963, proclaimed, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” at his inauguration, and later stood in a doorway at the University of Alabama to bar blacks from entering. Nine years later, Wallace took a would-be assassin’s bullet, leaving him paralyzed. Older, wiser and chastened by the attempt on his life, Wallace changed. Wallace, one day and without invitation, went to a black church where 300 black clergymen were holding a conference. He asked to speak. Wallace asked for forgiveness. He said to the church leaders, “I never had hate in my heart for any person. But I regret my support of segregation and the pain it caused the black people of our state and nation. … I’ve learned what pain is, and I’m sorry if I’ve caused anybody else pain. Segregation was wrong — and I am sorry.”

The voters in Alabama returned the former governor to office, but this time, he received black support and made several black appointments. The damage Wallace did through his actions and rhetoric was profound, and despite the assassination attempt, he lived long enough to undo some of it.

Even a Confederate general can change.

Confederate Gen. William Mahone, one of General Robert E. Lee’s most able commanders, owned slaves before the Civil War. But after the war, he led an interracial political movement. He organized and became the leader of the Readjuster Party, the most successful interracial political alliance in the post-emancipation South. In 1881, Mahone was elected to the U.S. Senate, at the time split 37-37 between Republicans and Democrats. But Mahone aligned with the Republicans, the party founded two decades earlier by Northerners trying to stop the expansion of slavery.

From 1879 through 1883, Mahone’s Readjuster Party dominated Virginia, with a governor in the statehouse, two Readjusters in the U.S. Senate and Readjusters representing six of the state’s 10 congressional districts. Under Mahone’s leadership, his coalition also controlled the state legislature, the courts and many of the state’s coveted federal offices.

The Readjusters established what became Virginia State University, the first state-supported college to train black teachers. Democrats described the hated Readjusters and Republicans as advocates of “black domination.”

What about Lt. Gen. James Longstreet? One of Lee’s favorite generals, Longstreet not only became a Republican after the war and served in Republican administrations but also fought against the racist White League in New Orleans.

After the Civil War, Longstreet moved to New Orleans, where he urged Southerners to support the Republican Party and endorsed their candidate, Ulysses S. Grant, for president in 1968. He commanded blacks in the New Orleans Metropolitan Police Force against the anti-Reconstruction White League (a paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party) at the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. He was shot and held captive for several days. He accepted political appointments from Republicans, and even dared criticize Gen. Lee. For this “betrayal,” white Southerners pronounced Longstreet a “scalawag” and “leper of the community.”

Where does this viewing of history through the prism of modern-day feelings end? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once gave advice to a gay young man that today would be heresy. King suggested he battle his feelings, strongly implying that the young man needed therapy and sexual re-orientation. Today, that kind of advice gets one branded a Neanderthal. President John F. Kennedy, frustrated with a high-profile Democrat who hadn’t supported his election, threatened to banish him by giving him an obscure ambassadorship to one of the, as Kennedy put it, “boogie republics” in Africa. Tell that to Black Lives Matter.

History is complicated. And history requires perspective and understanding, something sadly lacking in those who seek to erase history by imposing today’s standards of right and wrong.


Political Correctness Run Amok - or - Only an Intellectual Could Think This Was Smart

On August 29, 2917 Katherine Timpf posted an article, Catholic School Removes Jesus, Mary Statues Because They’re ‘Alienating’ to Non-Catholics, saying: "The San Domenico School, the first Catholic school in California, has removed all but 18 of its 180 religious statues in an effort to be more “inclusive” and “forward looking.”

Several parents have complained about the decision, according to Marinij. She goes on to note: "Articulating an inclusive foundation appears to mean letting go of San Domenico’s 167-year tradition as a Dominican Catholic school and being both afraid and ashamed to celebrate one’s heritage and beliefs,” one of these parents, Shannon Fitzpatrick, told the news source. “In our time here, the word ‘Catholic’ has been removed from the mission statement, sacraments were removed from the curriculum, the lower-school curriculum was changed to world religions, the logo and colors were changed to be ‘less Catholic,’ and the uniform was changed to be less Catholic,”

Of course the first question I had was - If all of this "Catholicness" was so offensive to students of other faiths - why is it 80% of the student body isn't Catholic?  Apparently they and their families weren't offended.  Apparently - it seems to me - they wanted their children to be a part of this institution because it was Catholic.  Or is that too obvious for this school's board to grasp? 

They're now justifying this action because this school is "an “independent” as well as a “Catholic” school".  Well, this of course puts a different light on the subject!  Right?   Wrong!  It's a school that was a Catholic school and is now an education center run by Catholic heretics, and if I miss my guess - it will soon find it's going to be independent of a large number of students.

Whether one is a Catholic or not, whether one is a Christian or not, whether one is an atheist or not - this should be disturbing as it shows just how easily it is for heresy to seep into a religion, or any group for that matter, and destroy the values of a particular society and replace it with semi-religious secularism. 

It's easy to agree with Dan Greenfield's article  - The Left's Values Are Our State Church - when he says leftism is now the state sponsored - and in some cases - imposed religion.   Catholics, Jews and Protestants all have their heretics - the Republicans have their RINO's - and the United States has the Federal Judiciary - all undermining the values that made our society great.

Make no mistake about this - this isn't about "offending" others.  This is about Political Correctness run amok.  Political Correctness is fascism masquerading as concern for common decency.  PC is dangerous because it imparts stupidity by destroying the ability to define an issue properly.  And it's definition that leads to clarity.  Without clarity of thought there can be no decisive thinking or action.

Since they pulled this stunt after everyone signed up for this year's enrollment - it will be interesting to see what happens next year.  If what happens what I think is going to happen - this school's board will soon have clarity imposed on them.

Definition leads to clarity.  Clarity leads to understanding.  Understanding leads to good decision making.  Fire the heretics, replace the RINO's, impose term and age limits on the federal judiciary and all elected officials.  Because good decision making leads to harmony!



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 September, 2017

Another amazing police goon

The guy has got to be fired. What I find interesting is not that one police officer can go nuts and do something stupid and illegal, but that other police officers let him do it. I think I see at least three other officers there, and the one with the video camera, but not one of them stopped their dumb buddy from carrying out his foolish action. Cops support cops regardless

A UTAH prosecutor says he’s asked for a criminal investigation into a police officer who dragged a nurse from a hospital and arrested her for refusing to allow blood to be drawn from an unconscious patient.

Nurse Alex Wubbels has told media she was scared to death and trying to find anything to hold on to when a police officer manhandled her out of her hospital and handcuffed her. The officer lost his temper on July 26 and “attacked me and assaulted me and dragged me out of my emergency department.”
She says she was screaming and “just trying to hold on to anything that was keeping me safe because no one else was keeping me safe.”

Wubbels says that before her arrest, the officer was agitated and angry as she explained that hospital policy — based on state and federal laws — prevented her from drawing the patient’s blood without a warrant, the patient being under arrest or with their consent.

The video taken at University Hospital in Salt Lake City shows nurse Alex Wubbels calmly explaining to Salt Lake detective Jeff Payne that she couldn’t draw blood on a patient who had been injured in a car accident. She told the officer a patient was required to give consent for a blood sample or be under arrest. Otherwise, she said police needed a warrant.

The dispute ended with Payne telling the nurse she was under arrest and physically moving her out of the hospital while she screamed.

No formal charge was laid against her.

Nurse Wubbels hospital says it’s proud of the way she handled the confrontation. The University of Utah Health hospital said in a statement that she followed procedures and protocols correctly.

National Nurses United called it a disgraceful and outrageous act of violence for the officer to drag the screaming nurse out of the hospital in handcuffs. The union also cited a US Supreme Court ruling in 2016, which affirms that a blood sample cannot be taken without patient consent or a warrant.

Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill says that he was concerned when he saw police body-camera footage of the officer arresting nurse Wubbels.

Gill says he called Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown to request the investigation and that the chief agreed. Gill says Brown will choose an outside police agency to investigate. He declined to say what charges the officer could face.

The mayor of Salt Lake City says the arrest was completely unacceptable. Mayor Jackie Biskupski says it’s a troubling setback to efforts to train officers to de-escalate situations rather than use force.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert also weighed in, a day after the dramatic video surfaced. He says in a tweet that the footage is disturbing and he trusts police will rectify the situation.

Police Chief Mike Brown says he’s alarmed and sad the incident caused a rift between police and nurses. He says the department has taken steps to ensure it won’t happen again. The officer remains employed during an internal investigation.

But nurse Wubbels says she has accepted apologies from both the Salt Lake City mayor and police chief. She said in a statement issued overnight that felt the personal apologies were sincere.

She says they’re taking the matter seriously and she believes positive change will come out of it. Wubbels says the outpouring of support she’s received since releasing dramatic video of the exchange was beyond what she could have imagined.


The Devil's Silence
Reflect for a moment, if you will, on a gathering of Christians in Nashville, TN, a week ago. A few hundred of the most prominent Christian leaders in the country across all denominations came together to sign what is being called “The Nashville Statement.”

The statement merely reaffirms two thousand years of orthodox Christianity. The statement reaffirms marriage is between one man and one woman. It reaffirms God made us male and female and therefore transgenderism is incompatible with the Christian faith. It reaffirms the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin thereby rendering its acceptance as incompatible with the Christian faith.

These are not new ideas. In fact, they are ideas specifically found in any Bible you pick up. They are New Testament ideas. These are ideas inside mainstream Christianity. They are views shared by more than one billion Christians around the world. Nonetheless, you would have thought John Piper, John MacArthur, Russell Moore and R.C. Sproul had murdered someone in Nashville last weekend.

The mayor of Nashville denounced the Nashville Statement for using the name of the city to perpetuate hate. For the record, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which organized the statement signing, names the statements generated by the group by the city in which they are signed. Other people assailed the statement for being signed the same weekend Harvey hit Texas as if a long scheduled meeting in Tennessee needed to contemplate the weather patterns of the Atlantic hurricane season.

The hysteria from people who never read the Bible telling people who take the Bible seriously what is in it has been off the charts. Some people, like author Jen Hatmaker, objected to the Nashville Statement purely on emotional grounds. She, like so many others, has substituted Christian doctrine and sound theology for the emotion of what makes one’s self feel good. If you feel good, that must be what Jesus wanted. I assure you he did not feel good when nailed on the cross.

Now, step away from religion and delve into the other subject one is not supposed to talk about in polite company — politics. In Charlottesville, VA, white nationalists were met by antifa protestors. Even the police reported antifa showed up looking for a fight. But if anyone pointed that out, they were accused of excusing the white nationalists’ behavior. Last week, antifa savagely beat people in Berkeley, CA. Despite there being no white supremacists counter-protesting, many prominent left-wing activists denounced anyone who called out antifa. To them, antifa had a moral calling to push back against their kissing cousins in the white supremacist movement. And they are kissing cousins, just as the Nazis and Communists were.

In both instances, silence is a weapon. The devil cannot perpetuate lies when truth is spoken. As long as people speak up, it is harder to capture the minds of the young. So you must shut up and be silent. Those who would turn the world upside down are committed to ensuring your silence. You will be bullied, harassed, chased out of business, and run out of the town square. A single candle in darkness provides light so all the candles must be blown out.

The devil’s silence is coming most noticeably for the church in America. Cultural revolutionaries assail orthodoxy Christianity as hateful and bigoted. If you adhere to the faith, you must be one of those hicks or rubes bitterly clinging to guns and religion. What these cultural revolutionaries will not say, but know, is that you are a hopeless cause. They are, instead, targeting your children.

That is why you have an obligation to speak up. They only win in silence. The lie only stands in the absence of truth. That is why they try to make it costly for you to speak up. At a minimum they hope to convince you, your spouse, your pastor, and your friends that it is not worth it to speak up. But speak up you must.

The secular Left in America is increasingly angry and increasingly violent. But both are just weapons with which they will intimidate you into silence. So speak up.


Conservatives Get Key Win From Eighth Circuit Court

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that a state has the right to defund Planned Parenthood.

The 2-1 ruling specifically provided that while plaintiff Medicaid recipients who brought the suit are entitled to care, they cannot dictate that care includes Planned Parenthood facilities.

“The plaintiffs are asserting a right — the absolute right to a particular provider of their choosing — that (the law) does not grant them,” Judge Steven Colloton wrote in the majority opinion.

Several states, including Arkansas, the defendant in the suit, voted to defund Planned Parenthood after the release of a series of undercover videos that allegedly showed executives from the top abortion provider in the country discussing the sale of aborted babies’ body parts.


Australia: Father's Day ad deemed 'too political' for TV

We must not show men, fathers, and normal heterosexual marriages in a positive or beneficial light. Such displays must be banned. But pro homosexuality messages are all over the place. The more we get of these attacks on normal life in the name of helping deviants, the more people will get angry at the deviants concerned.  It cannot end well

A NOT-FOR-PROFIT group behind a heartwarming Father’s Day ad pulled from TV for being too “political” in the lead-up to the same-sex marriage postal vote has taken its website and social media pages down for “security reasons”.

FreeTV Australia, the industry group which represents the commercial free-to-air networks, earlier this week informed Dads4Kids that its annual Father’s Day ad, this year featuring a father singing his daughter a lullaby, would not be broadcast as it “likely contained political matter”.

According to The Weekend Australian, which first reported the story, FreeTV’s lawyers told the group that the ad had been “brought to our attention by the networks as potentially containing political matter”, with legal advice recommending the ad be changed to include a political “authorisation tag”.

FreeTV’s lawyers also referred the group to guidelines issued by the Advertising Standards Bureau “in light of the same-sex marriage plebiscite”, defining political advertising as “comment upon a matter which is currently the subject of extensive political debate”.

Dads4Kids told The Weekend Australian it had inadequate resources to recut the commercial to include the “authorisation tag”.

In a statement posted online, the group said every year for the last 15 years the majority of free-to-air TV networks had “graciously run these ads for free as a Community Service Announcement up until now”.

“These television commercials are simply a gentle encouragement to Australian dads, and an affirmation that they are an important figure in the lives of their children,” spokesman Ben Pratt said.

“The adverts have been enthusiastically accepted and many TV stations play them all year long as a community service. They are always released in the lead up to Father’s Day. Unfortunately what is a simple Father’s Day message has now become a ‘political’ statement.

“It is extraordinary that this is where we have come to as a country; we can no longer celebrate Father­’s Day without being forced to look at it through the lens of the same-sex marriage debate. It’s a tragedy that a political motive is now implied in any mention of fatherhood. Not everything is about same-sex marriage.”

The website for the Fatherhood Foundation has been taken offline, as has the Dads4Kids Facebook page. Mr Pratt said the group had “taken the preventative step of restricting access to our website and social media channels in order to protect ourselves and our families from the expected response to our situation”.

“We expect that in speaking up about this that we and those connected to us will be attacked and intimidated, and subject to the same vilification in both mainstream and social media that has been meted out to those who have stuck their head above the parapet on same-sex marriage, despite this not being the purpose of our adverts,” he said.

“To be clear, it was and is not our intention to enter this debate at this time through these advertisements. And what, you might ask, is in these ‘political’ adverts? They feature a father singing a lullaby to his baby. It is that simple.”

Despite the ad’s lack of political content, gay news website Pink News has accused Dads4Kids of “years of aggressive lobbying against LGBT rights”, saying it had “taken its website offline in an apparent bid to conceal itself from scrutiny”.

The move sparked criticism from the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps, with former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Liberal MP Tim Wilson both slamming the determination.

“This Father’s Day ad has been stopped from airing on TV because it’s too ‘political’,” Liberal MP Michael Sukkar wrote on Facebook. “It’s a scary world where the role of a father can be outlawed. What next?”

Nationals MP George Christensen said the ad had “fallen victim to the suppression of free speech that goes along with changing the definition of marriage”.

“So will it be too political to say the word father if same sex marriage is made legal? Will the terms husband and wife be done away with and replaced with the bland politically correct term partner?”

On Saturday, FreeTV hit back, claiming reports that it had “blocked or banned” the ad were incorrect. “The advertiser was requested, but declined, to add an identification tag to the commercial to comply with Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act,” the statement said.

“The Broadcasting Services Act requires broadcasters to ensure [that] commercials that contain ‘political matter’ identify the body responsible for the commercial, including the speakers in the commercial.

“Political matter is defined as ‘any matter that appears to comment on, encourage participation in or attempt to influence a certain outcome within a political process’.

“Recent decisions of the [Australian Communications and Media Authority] require broadcasters to consider the content of websites referred to in the commercial when deciding whether a commercial contains political matter.”



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 September, 2017

Damore revisited

Judging by his critics he was pretty right

The immediate reaction to Google’s firing of James Damore has been depressing. While Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals (as in actual Liberals, not the ones I am trying to cure) generally appreciated the memo for what it truly argued, the left and the mainstream media have blatantly and, I suspect, sometimes intentionally misrepresented what Damore was attempting to say. The pro-diversity memo was called anti-diversity, and the negative impact of biased thinking and echo chambers Damore’s memo addressed was ironically overlooked. Damore’s points were illustrated by the very people who ignored them.

I have seen a few attempts at taking a nuanced look at what Damore said (the Heterodox Academy’s literature review is the most rigorous I’ve seen), and one stood out to me. In an op-ed for PBS (a branch of the Public Broadcasting Corporation which receives nearly $500 million in taxpayer funding every year), research psychologist Denise Cummins attempts to disprove Damore’s claims. Her column is titled “What we can learn from a Google employee’s epic failure to understand gender differences.”

Cummins begins by excerpting a list of claims Damore makes about biological differences between men and women. She then writes “These claims are indeed supported by substantial research on sex differences.” In other words, in her first stab at exposing Damore’s “epic failure to understand gender differences,” she concurs with him.

Her next excerpt is two claims made by Damore about traits that are more common in women than men. These traits lead to each sex being generally more interested in different things, namely women in people and men in things. She refutes Damore by explaining, “As I’ve pointed out in a previous NewsHour article, women, on average, do indeed have more interest in living things than objects, which is why we tend to pursue scientific careers in the biological, social and life sciences.” She supports his assertions again.

Next, Cummins displays three claims Damore makes about innate personality differences between men and women and how they may lead to women being less assertive and more prone to stress in the workplace. Damore carefully avoids overgeneralizing by explaining, “these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women.” Cummins argues that, “substantial data support an alternative view, namely that people are more accurate at assessing the performance of workers of their own gender.” She cites a study from Georgetown University that supports this viewpoint (though this female former Google tech leader had a dissimilar experience). Even giving the benefit of the doubt to the Georgetown study’s findings, it does not refute anything Damore says. It simply adds nuance to the discussion.

In Damore’s introductory paragraph to his memo, he admits his arguments are, “by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.” It seems that what Cummins calls an “epic failure” is more like a failure to account for every single tidbit of nuance regarding several complex issues within the confines of a 10-page memo, irrespective of the fact that Damore openly conceded this at the memo’s outset. If Cummins’s point is that Damore could not make the impossible possible, I unequivocally agree with her.

Cummins’s last gripe is to disagree with Damore’s skepticism about empathy’s role in the workplace. She cites a single study and refers to the results as “objective facts.” So much for nuance…

In the end, Cummins winds up citing Damore himself to support claims that men have a greater drive for status and that this drive is rewarded in the workplace (one of Damore’s suggestions is revamping this reward system to encourage more gender diversity at Google).

How can Cummins refer to Damore’s memo as an “epic failure” to understand something while agreeing with, providing nuance to, or simply noting that there are alternative views to everything Damore actually does understand?


The alt-left: toy-smashing tosspots

Both the alt- right and left are engaging in moronic behaviour.

There is some debate as to whether we can conceivably talk about the ‘alt-left’. Does the term have any meaning? Is it but a sly invention of the alt-right in order to reduce its opponents to a level moral footing – as if to say ‘you’re no better than us’?

The term certainly enrages those on the activist left, who regard themselves as championing the poor, marginalised, women and ethnic minorities against the behemoths of ravaging neoliberalist economics and white privilege. There could be no possible moral equivalence between such noble characters and the creepy, brutal voices of neo-Nazism, elitism and white nationalism. Surely?

Surely indeed. Events this summer suggest that the term ‘alt-left’ is justified – that is to say, if the prefix ‘alt’ denotes sulky, rancorous, childish thuggery. This is the year that some sections of the left lost all pretence to holding the moral high ground. The alt-left has become ideologically fanatic, with its lust for instability now clear to behold.

The most obvious manifestation of its evolution into a febrile cult is its new mania for iconoclasm. Remember at the beginning of the 2000s, when we were horrified at the Taliban for blowing up ancient statues? Yet 16th-century-style statue-smashing has become mainstream in the US, as the alt-left has cultivated a craze for pulling down inanimate representations of people.

It began on campus in regards to statues of patrons who didn’t live morally spotless lives, but this summer spread to Confederate war figures. A statue of Thomas Jefferson at the University of Virginia is now being threatened, a Columbus statue in Baltimore has been vandalised, and there has been talk this week of pulling down Nelson’s column in London.

There is something deeply sinister about this Khmer Rougesque desire to erase the past. But we are indeed witnessing the gestation of something akin to a Year Zero outlook among the alt-left. It’s not just its discourse that openly celebrates violence – ‘Kill White People’ and ‘Kill Cops’ are slogans designed to inflame vengeful passions among the righteous. It’s not just its brutalistic adulation of street activism, as so beloved of Black Lives Matter and Antifa. No, the profoundly terrifying aspect of the alt-left is its religious-like desire for moral and mental purity.

The alt-left seeks hygiene of the mind. It wants to expel undesirables. It wants to cleanse and protect minds with trigger warnings, Safe Spaces, No Platforming and censorship. It sees free speech as dangerous because it allows freedom of thought. The alt-left has consequently developed a Manichean mindset. One routinely hears rhetoric of ‘you are either with us or against us’, as the alt-left increasingly directs its ire at ‘centrist fence-sitters’. This is the language of Stalin.

It’s thus quite easy to talk of the alt-left, and of it being just as bad as the alt-right. Each other is of moral equivalence, in that each is peopled by intolerant, toy-smashing tosspots. But events this year have started to make me believe that the alt-left is possibly even worse.


Police goon in Seattle

Motorcyclist Alex Randall, of Shoreline, doesn’t believe he was riding unsafely when he was confronted by a gun-wielding detective with the King County Sheriff’s Office this month.

But even if he was “driving reckless,” as the detective claimed, Randall said it was alarming and unnecessary for the law-enforcement officer to point his gun at the 31-year-old rider while he sat on his bike at a traffic light.

“I still get clammy hands when I watch it,” Randall said of the video. “It was so terrifying.”

The detective’s boss, Sheriff John Urquhart, apparently agreed.

Randall said the sheriff called him Monday just hours after Randall uploaded the video of the unusual traffic stop to YouTube.

“Urquhart didn’t waffle,” Randall said. “He said, ‘No, this is wrong and everybody feels terrible about it.’ ”

In a post on his personal Facebook page, Urquhart wrote Tuesday that he was “deeply disturbed with the conduct and tactics that were recorded.”

“Drawing your weapon on someone when investigating a misdemeanor traffic offense is not routine,” he continued.

The detective was identified Wednesday as Richard Rowe, 53. He has been placed on paid administrative leave while his actions are investigated.

Rowe is assigned to the Woodinville Police Department. The City of Woodinville contracts with the sheriff’s office for police services. He did not return calls seeking comment.

Randall, who works in IT for a Seattle finance company, has logged 100,000 miles on various bikes he’s owned over the past 10 years, he said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

He admitted that he has exceeded the speed limit on many occasions, and has shared images on social media of himself shooting the bird at what he calls “passive-aggressive” slowdown signs affixed to utility poles in his neighborhood. But those pictures were supposed to be a joke online, he said.

“Yes, I speed sometimes. No, I am not reckless,” he said. “I’ve laid my bike down, but I’ve never been in a multicar accident.”

In the video, which was taken with a helmet-mounted GoPro on Aug. 16, Randall’s Yamaha YZF-R1 pulls up behind other vehicles at a stoplight at the intersection of North 145th Street and 5th Avenue Northeast at the border of Shoreline and Seattle.

Rowe, the detective, appears, on foot, on the rider’s left side with a handgun tucked in tight to his chest and pointed at Randall.

Rowe, who appears to startle the motorcyclist, does not immediately identify himself as an officer but says, “How ya’ doing?”

The rider curses, and then says, “What are you doing to me?”

“What do you mean what am I doing?” Rowe replies. “You’re (expletive) driving reckless. Give me your driver’s license or I’m going to knock you off this bike.”

“I will pull over. I am unarmed,” the rider said.

In the exchange that follows, Rowe repeatedly asks the rider for identification, threatens to “dump” the bike if it’s moved and then takes the rider’s wallet from his left pocket.

The rider tells Rowe several times that he cannot hear through the helmet and asks for permission to move the bike off the roadway, turn it off or take off his helmet. Rowe’s vehicle can be seen in a part of the video, and it appears his emergency lights are activated.

“I’m sorry. You have a gun drawn on me … I’m a little panicked,” the rider says.

“Yeah, you’re right, because I’m the police,” Rowe said. “That’s right. When you’re driving and you’re going to place people at risk at 100 mph-plus on the god-dang roadway.”

After looking at the Randall’s ID, Rowe puts his gun away, says he’s with the sheriff’s office and then tells the rider that reckless driving is “an arrestable offense.”

Randall said he never heard a siren.

He said that Rowe did not display a badge or give his name. He also did not issue Randall a ticket.

“I think he saw the camera and he became extremely cordial,” Randall said.

Randall said he showed the video to a few friends, including some who work in law enforcement, and they suggested he contact police to report the incident.

“The fact that he didn’t fill out a use-of-force report tells me he knows he was wrong,” Randall said.


Australia: Lawyers demand apology over endorsement of gay marriage

The dean of law at Sydney’s Notre Dame University and a coalition of barristers and academics have joined the revolt over the endorsement of same-sex marriage by the legal profession’s peak associations in NSW.

Professor Michael Quinlan, who heads the university’s law school in Sydney, is the most senior of 11 legal academics and lawyers who have issued a joint statement denouncing the NSW Law Society and the state’s Bar ­Association for endorsing same-sex marriage “laws” before draft legislation has been made public and without consulting members.

Their statement calls for both organisations to apologise and ­immediately withdraw the ­endorsement.

It contained errors of law and had left the misleading impression that all lawyers in NSW support gay marriage, the statement says.

“Had there been consultation with members, and had the members supported the issuance of such a document, improvements in the language and content could have been made to ensure the joint release accurately states the law,” their statement says.

The Law Society is under growing pressure for endorsing gay marriage in a joint press release with the Bar Association and the NSW branch of the Australian Medical Association.

Sydney solicitor Robin Speed, who is president of the Rule of Law Institute, has given Law Society president Pauline Wright until 4pm next Friday to dissociate the ­organisation from the joint press release or face the prospect of legal action.

Mr Speed believes the Law ­Society has given the false and misleading impression that gay marriage is favoured by all 29,000 solicitors in NSW.

An organisation of Catholic lawyers, the St Thomas More ­Society, says solicitors have complained of being intimidated at their workplaces for publicly criticising the endorsement of same-sex marriage by the professional associations and law firms.

The statement by Professor Quinlan and the other signatories says the three professional bodies made an error when their joint press release suggested the definition of marriage in Australia may be discriminatory under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“This is simply not correct,” the statement says.

“Some may believe that the joint release, given its authors, is a correct statement of the law but it is not, as the Senate committee ­report which looked into this question found.

“The claims made in the joint press release suggest a version of the international jurisprudence on same-sex marriage that is difficult to justify on any view of the current law.

“There is simply no international covenant that confers a right to same-sex marriage.’’

Professor Quinlan and the other signatories issued the statement in their personal capacities under the auspices of the Wilberforce Foundation, an organisation devoted to protecting common law values, rights and freedoms.

“Before making a statement on such an issue, the Law Society or NSW and the Bar Association of NSW ought to have consulted with their members or, at least the statement ought to indicate that bit has been prepared without consultation with members,” their statement says.

The Law Society’s Ms Wright said the society regularly makes resolutions through its council on a range of important legal policy issues.

“I recognise there will be divergent and strong views within the profession on any of these matters,” Ms Wright said. “But the overwhelming majority of responses received from the profession following the release of the joint statement have been supportive.

“We welcome the contribution of the Wilberforce Foundation to this important issue just as we ­always welcome and consider open debate on all policy matters.’’

The Bar Association has earlier stated its policy on gay marriage has been in place for several years.

The signatories to the Wilberforce Foundation’s statement ­include Notre Dame associate dean of law in Sydney Keith Thompson, Sydney barrister ­Michael McAuley, Adelaide barrister Christopher Brohier, Neil Foster of Newcastle University’s law school, Brisbane barrister Simon Fisher and Perth academic Augusto Zimmermann from the West Australian Law Reform Commission.



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)