Saturday, July 31, 2004

 

PC LANGUAGE STUDIES

They teach totally useless crap while ignoring most of the classics of English literature (for instance). My son went right through his school years without ever hearing of such great English poets as Coleridge and Wordsworth. He had literally not even heard their names!

"ABORIGINAL language studies will become a major part of the school curriculum in an Australian first that takes indigenous education to a new level across New South Wales. The formal lessons in Aboriginal languages will be driven by demand from local communities, but it is hoped thousands of non-indigenous students will support the program.

NSW Education Minister Andrew Refshauge today will launch a new syllabus for mandatory and elective courses in Aboriginal languages for students from Kindergarten to Year 10. Students in Government and independent schools will be able to study an Aboriginal language subject in primary school, for their School Certificate and for the HSC.

Initiatives to teach and revive the state's 70 indigenous languages will be spearheaded by specialists who will help teachers in the classroom

More here

posted by jonjayray 10:48

|

Friday, July 30, 2004

 

LEFTIST INTOLERANCE

They are just hate-filled towards any hint of what they see as incorrect

"In the spring of 2001 at a party with lots of intelligent, highly educated people I opined causally that President Bush was more intelligent than many people gave him credit for and that his program of cutting taxes would help the economy to get out of the recession that we were then experiencing.

You should have seen the reaction: first, a shocked silence (I saw literally jaws drop) and then an attack. In essence I was told that because I admitted that the guy was not a moron and some of his policies may be reasonable that I "had a closed mind". When I recalled some of my experienced with central planning I was told that because I lived in totalitarian state this made me unfit to judge socialist policies because I was prejudiced (the same people were well aware that I abhorred totalitarianism and socialism, but that view was acceptable when they considering me one of them, and became unacceptable when the perceived that I may be "on the other side"). A person who attacked me quite violently was someone that I considered until this moment a very close friend. In the end I was called a "GOP Conservative" - for this crowd this was the ultimate insult. I admit - I ended up crying. And I never felt comfortable with these people again.

But what really changed? I still have my scientific degree. I did not forget the countless books that I read. I still believe that at least some drugs should be legalized, I would not have government prohibit practice of abortion (though with certain caveats), I care for the environment very much, though I want the environment protection to be based on scientific principles, and I am all for genetic engineering, including human cloning, when we will be able to do it safely. I am Darwinian and agnostic. I support gay marriage, at least legal unions. Are these positions of Bible thumping conservative, as perceived by so called Progressive left?"

See here

posted by jonjayray 11:32

|

Thursday, July 29, 2004

 

WHAT THE FAT WARRIORS WON'T TELL YOU

Feminism has made us fatter

"There's no doubt we are fatter. One in five Australians are now classified as obese and, no, it's not because they've redefined what obesity means. We are really bulking up.

The main reason is not lack of exercise. In the 1980s and most of the '90s, when obesity shot up, there was little decline in exercise. So don't blame the TV or the computer. In fact, in the US, obesity is actually highest in those states with the lowest rates of computer ownership.

The main reason we are fatter is that we eat more. Between 1985 and 1995 in Australia the energy intake (mainly carbohydrates) of boys rose almost 15 per cent, and for girls 12 per cent. If you exercise the same amount but eat more, you're likely to get fatter. So far, so clear. But why do we eat more? In the latest issue of The Public Interest, a respected US journal, professors Inas Rashad and Michael Grossman say the rise in obesity is matched closely by a rise in the number of restaurants and takeaway joints. And what has created the demand for these places? Increases in rates of labour force participation by women.

According to these experts, as non-work time for women became increasingly scarce and valuable over the past few decades, time devoted to at-home meal preparation decreased. Families began eating out more often. This lays on the lard because restaurants of all kinds - including the most expensive sit-down places - use far more fat in their food preparation than most home cooks. So even if you don't eat any more by volume in a restaurant, you're more likely to be putting on the pounds. And you're also likely to eat more as the food tastes better".



THE BLAME CULTURE TAKES A KNOCK

Court upholds individual responsibility -- about time

"A $5 MILLION payout by a New South Wales council to a man who became a quadriplegic after diving off a rock platform has been overturned. Ernest Vairy sued Wyong Council after he lost the use of his arms and legs after diving off a rock platform at Soldiers Beach, on the central coast, on January 24, 1993. The council was ordered to pay Vairy $5 million.

But the NSW Court of Appeal today overturned the decision saying the risks of diving from the platform should have been obvious and therefore there was no need to warn swimmers. "A danger is obvious where both the condition and the risk are, in the individual circumstances of the case, apparent to, and would be recognised by a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff exercising ordinary perception, intelligence and judgment," President Keith Mason and Justices Murray Tobias and Margaret Beazley said in their judgment."

posted by jonjayray 10:00

|

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

 

CHILD RAPIST SUES BECAUSE PRISON "BORING"

Courtesy of the taxpayer

"A child abuser is suing prison bosses because he is unhappy with his living conditions behind bars. John Callison, of Penicuik, Midlothian, is preparing to use European human rights legislation for the œ20,000 case, which could cost the taxpayer up to œ500,000. The 64-year-old former worker at Edinburgh Zoo claims his cell at Peterhead Prison, in Aberdeenshire, is too small, that he has to slop out and that the work he has been given is "monotonous."

Callison, who was convicted two years over a ten-year catalogue of abuse against two boys and a girl, says the conditions under which he is being held are causing him to lose self-esteem and suffer "stress, depression, disgust, embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish." The prospect of taxpayers' money being awarded to a convicted child rapist - whose crimes were described as "abominable" by a High Court judge - has horrified politicians and victims' groups.....

Callison's case comes just weeks after a knife-wielding robber, Robert Napier, who attacked a terrified woman, won œ2540 for having to "slop out" in jail. A judge agreed his human rights had been breached by the "degrading" use of a bucket rather than a toilet in cells at Glasgow's Barlinnie Prison."

More here

posted by jonjayray 10:52

|

 

FLAG CORRECTNESS

An email from a reader in the Australian State of New South Wales. There are two groups of indigenous Australian blacks, the Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders. The islanders are Melanesians and are still mainly found just South of New Guinea in Australia's Northernmost outpost -- a couple of thousand miles away from New South wales. They are however officially part of Australia's Northernmost State -- Queensland

"A fascinating little piece of NSW government PC. Most public schools in NSW display the Australian flag, the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Island flag. I don't disagree with any of these in principle as they are all now 'official' Australian flags. I just find the choice of the TSI flag (a very attractive flag) apparently over the NSW state flag, which doesn't get a look in, as an odd choice. In Queensland the TSI flag may make sense, but why here in NSW? It would seem to me that the Norfolk Island flag would deserve at least equal standing to the TSI flag."

Norfolk Island is populated by whites and was until relatively recently a Dependency of New South Wales. So two flags of places mainly inhabited by whites are NOT flown but two "black" flags are -- even though there is a much better case for the two omitted flags to be flown. Pathetic.

posted by jonjayray 10:51

|

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

 

TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM NOT PC

"Onward Muslim Soldiers is jam-packed with some of the most politically incorrect statements about Islam (e.g., "Jihad and killing is the head of Islam."), though it is instructive to note that many of these statements, like the example above, are direct quotes from Muslim religious leaders themselves. Such is Spencer's tack in providing his critical analysis of Islamic writings, history, and current practice....

Spencer's thesis that Islam is an intolerant religion is not a politically correct vision, nor one that is widely accepted among scholars- big surprise. Despite the fact that he provides dozens of supportive examples throughout his well-documented book, Onward Muslim Soldiers will undoubtedly come under attack as being filled with "racist attacks" against Muslims. To be sure, if he had published his book in France he would be facing the same sort of legal offensive by hysterical rights groups that make a living out of defending the status quo of European multicultural rot.

The most absorbing point, if not the main point, of Onward Muslim Soldiers is that most Western countries, and especially France, are serving the twin gods of multiculturalism and tolerance to their own demise. The big question with respect to the Muslim immigration to Europe and America: How can a tolerant society (as characterized by the West) survive the presence of an intolerant minority (as characterized by Islam)?

Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn asked exactly that question just before he was assassinated last year on the eve of Holland's national elections. Fortuyn, a self-professed homosexual and unapologetic libertine (whose kitchen featured portraits of Marx and Lenin) was consistently vilified by Europeans as "far right" despite the fact that in most ways he supported the postmodern, post-Christian Holland of hashish cafes and licensed prostitutes. What set him apart? Fortuyn believed that traditional Islamic values are incompatible with the liberal, secular societies of the West and warned that immigration from Islamic countries threatens to change Dutch values inalterably. He once called Islam "a backward religion," arguing that while Christianity and Judaism have gone through the laundromat of humanism and enlightenment, as much cannot be said of Islam.....

Fortuyn, however, was able to vocalize what his Dutch brethren are unwilling to accept, that most Muslims commonly believe that the only legitimate basis for a society-and that would apply to Dutch society as well as anywhere-is the Sharia, the Islamic law that the Taliban was so strictly enforcing. Spencer quotes an imam in Holland: "The Sharia does not have to adopt to the modern world because these are divine laws. People have to bend to the Sharia." .... Fortuyn's fatal mistake was to warn Holland against the Trojan horse of intolerance it is inviting into its society in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism.

Tensions between Islam and European secularism are also apparent in the realm of women's rights. If the principles of classic Islamic law hold sway, women will be reduced to second-class citizens."

More here

posted by jonjayray 08:37

|

Monday, July 26, 2004

 

THE PC CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST

Political correctness has drained all the life, diversity and colour out of the stuff that kids are given to read in school these days (see here) so you might expect that they would end up concluding: "reading fiction" = "being bored". They do indeed seem to have concluded just that in recent years:

"Literary reading is in dramatic decline with fewer than half of American adults now reading literature, according to a National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) survey released today. Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America reports drops in all groups studied, with the steepest rate of decline - 28 percent - occurring in the youngest age groups.

The study also documents an overall decline of 10 percentage points in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, representing a loss of 20 million potential readers. The rate of decline is increasing and, according to the survey, has nearly tripled in the last decade. The findings were announced today by NEA Chairman Dana Gioia during a news conference at the New York Public Library.

"This report documents a national crisis," Gioia said. "Reading develops a capacity for focused attention and imaginative growth that enriches both private and public life. The decline in reading among every segment of the adult population reflects a general collapse in advanced literacy. To lose this human capacity - and all the diverse benefits it fosters - impoverishes both cultural and civic life."....

By age, the three youngest groups saw the steepest drops, but literary reading declined among all age groups. The rate of decline for the youngest adults, those aged 18 to 24, was 55 percent greater than that of the total adult population . ...

"America can no longer take active and engaged literacy for granted," according to Gioia. "As more Americans lose this capability, our nation becomes less informed, active, and independent minded. These are not qualities that a free, innovative, or productive society can afford to lose....

The survey asked more than 17,000 adults if - during the previous 12 months - they had read any novels, short stories, poetry or plays in their leisure time, that were not required for work or school."

More here

posted by jonjayray 10:41

|

 

LAZY PEOPLE MUST NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

Or so the British government service designed to place people in jobs seems to think:

"When Pauline Millican wanted to hire a receptionist for her family's busy opticians practice, she thought it reasonable to include the phrase 'hard-working' in the advert. But when she phoned the vacancy through to a Jobcentre she was shocked to be told: "Sorry, you can't say that. It's discriminatory." A bewildered Mrs Millican persisted and said she wanted to get across the message that this was not a job for the workshy. But she was even more flabbergasted when told: "We will only include 'hard-working' if we can say that you insisted on it."

In the politically correct world of the workplace, it seems, it is wrong to discriminate against lazy people. When Mrs Millican received a letter from the Jobcentre confirming that the vacancy was being posted, she was astonished to find that, against her wishes, the term 'hard-working' had been left out.

At the Huyton branch, where the 5 pounds-an-hour vacancy was advertised, she said: "I find it remarkable that to state 'hardworking' is discriminatory. It is just silly - political correctness gone over the top. "I want my staff to be courteous, helpful, to arrive at work on time and to be prepared to lend a hand to whatever needs doing. But it seems you daren't ask for a good day's work in this day and age. "Who am I discriminating against? Lazy people? I don't want lazy people, but then this is not a sweatshop. It is a relaxed workplace.... "Some staff have worked here up to retirement so we can't be that bad a company.""

More here

posted by jonjayray 10:40

|

Sunday, July 25, 2004

 

PC HYPOCRISY IN BRITAIN

"Male representation at the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] has fallen to crisis level as revealed in its latest annual report. Men number just 25 and make up a derisory 16.4% of its total staff of 152.

The EOC has not issued a press release on the occasion of the report's release. Its website however contains a campaigning slogan `Jobs for the boys?' in support of developing female representation in activities where they are under represented, apparently totally unaware of the hypocrisy of its stance.

The EOC claims still to be "the leading agency set up to tackle sex discrimination" and that "it is committed to challenging discrimination in all its forms and at all levels of society"."

More here.



TAKING SEX DIFFERENCES SERIOUSLY by Steven E. Rhoads

(Another review: by P. David Hornik -- excerpt)

"An experiment exposed day-old infants to a battery of sounds including wild animal calls, computer-generated language and the unhappy cries of other infants. All the babies cried the most when they heard the sounds of other crying infants, but the female babies cried longer."

That's the nitty-gritty-sex differences at one day old, when even the grimmest feminists can't claim the patriarchy has had a hand in it --and there's a lot more nitty-gritty in this outstanding book. (Another example: three-day-old girls will maintain eye contact with a silent adult for twice as long as boys will.)...

Some of the most striking findings involve females with high levels of testosterone, the "male" hormone (actually, both sexes have testosterone, but men typically have ten times more of it). Such females have been extensively researched, and it's been found that, as girls, they tend to prefer boys' toys, to like rough-and-tumble play, to be more competitive than other girls; as women, to be more career-oriented, more ambivalent about having children, more interested in casual sex -- and the list goes on. Not surprisingly, low-testosterone women show opposite, more "traditionally" feminine tendencies.

Back in the sixties, though, when less was known scientifically about sex differences -- though it's doubtful such knowledge would have helped -- the sexual revolution "liberated" both sexes to enjoy recreational sex apart from marriage and children. The closely related ideology of feminism proclaimed that women were the same as men and should have the same goals and values. By 1999, 29 percent of American women aged 35-44 were unmarried (in 1960, it was 13 percent). Since 1970, women have been twice as likely as men to be depressed. Indeed, many women blame men for their plight; studies report sharply higher levels of resentment and even rage against men for not taking relationships seriously. Other women direct the blame elsewhere; a childless Australian newswoman reaching her forties writes that she's "angry that I was foolish enough to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel. Angry that I was daft enough to believe female fulfillment came with a leather briefcase."

As Rhoads sums it up: "Since the 1970s . women have made dramatic strides in their access to and advancement in well-paid and traditionally male occupations. But in their intimate world, their desire for sex with emotional involvement and leading to permanence is much more difficult to achieve than it used to be.""

More here. (Via OzConservative)

As I see it, the main influence of feminism on women was to make them more masculine -- which deprived them of much of what they instinctively wanted. In particular, the attitude to sex that feminism encouraged could be seen as a masculine plot. But a lot of the radical feminists seem to have been lesbians anyway so I guess it really WAS a masculine plot. Many lesbians seem much more like men than like women

posted by jonjayray 11:21

|

Saturday, July 24, 2004

 

POLITICALLY CORRECT KING ARTHUR

"Jerry Bruckheimer's most recent rendition of King Arthur raises a fascinating question: is the political correcting process implemented intentionally, or does such revision simply occur by momentum once patterns of thought start heading in a certain direction?

The newest King Arthur purports to tell the "real story" that inspired the legend of Camelot. The Cliff's notes version is this: King Arthur was really the Roman commander named Lucius Artorius Castus, leading a group of conscripted "eastern knights" charged with repelling Rome's enemies at Hadrian's Wall in Britain. These "knights" are pagan cavalrymen from the Central Asian region that lies between the Vistula River and the Caspian Sea, known as Sarmatia.

Guinevere and Merlin are actually "Woads" (named for the blue dye used to paint the body before battle that gained notoriety in the movie Braveheart). These Woads are pagan barbarians who constitute Rome's primary enemies beyond the Wall to the north. Merlin is not really a magical wizard but a mystical Shaman-like freedom-fighter leading the Woads; Guinevere is not a queen in flowing robes, but rather a proto-feminist archer who goes to battle in William Wallace-style face paint.

The Woads simply want to be left alone after facing great persecution and torture by the Catholic Romans, who are willing to implement any hideous means to convert and enslave the natives. With the exception of Arthur (who is part-Woad), the Christians are almost uniformly duplicitous, and dare I say it, evil. Meanwhile the real enemies are coming down from the north, and they are the blonde-haired Aryan-looking Saxons. The ruthless Saxon leader's most notable quotation is along the lines of "don't breed with the locals, you'll taint our blood.".....

And so we have it. It wasn't noble Christian British knights who sat around Arthur's round table and forged the legendary Camelot. It was the combined ingenuity of pagan Woad face-painters and Central Asian cavalrymen. It was not a refined queen who embodied the ideal medieval Lady, but an arrow-slinging Goth chick. And for good measure, don't forget, it was the technologically advanced barbarians who brought sophisticated artillery into battle, not the Romans. I'm sure glad that Hollywood has set the record straight. I was worried we were being fed a bunch of rubbish.

More here

posted by jonjayray 09:44

|

 

HEALTH NAZIS

"We know what's best for you" -- except they don't

Last month yet another scientific report was released detailing the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. That's right, the benefits of moderate drinking. But don't expect to hear about this good news from Budweiser or Bacardi.

The Federal Trade Commission prohibits brewers, vintners and distillers from communicating to consumers any factual information regarding the health benefits of their legal products....

News accounts last month summarized a new study published in Archives of Internal Medicine. The study by researchers in Boston found that moderate drinking reduces the risk of heart-related deaths in men with high blood pressure. Men with high blood pressure who reported imbibing one or two drinks a day were 44 percent less likely to die from cardiovascular disease.

This is not shocking news. The health benefits of moderate drinking have been known to the medical community for some time now. Alcohol is known to be good for the heart, to increase levels of so-called good cholesterol, thin the blood, ward off artery-clogging clots, and reduce the chance of heart attack. These recent findings suggest that men who suffer from hypertension can benefit from a martini or two in the evening. Researchers suspect the same is true for women, and the kind of booze doesn't seem to make a difference, either. Alcohol is alcohol, whether ingested as beer, wine or distilled spirits.

The nanny-state health Nazis do not want this kind of factual information to reach consumers. One hand-wringing neo-prohibitionist, pouring cold water on this good news, huffed that the Boston study sends "a very bad public-health message" about alcohol. For these types, there is no such thing as responsible, moderate drinking. It's prohibition or nothing....

The same restrictions apply to tobacco, if anything a product even more irrationally despised by the nanny staters than liquor. There is, for example, ample clinical evidence that switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco can dramatically reduce one's health risk. Yet the federal government and tobacco prohibitionist "health" groups refuse to recognize the facts, thus preventing such life-saving information from reaching consumers.

More here

posted by jonjayray 09:43

|

Friday, July 23, 2004

 

WHEN PC GETS REALLY ALARMING

"Four learning-disabled students sued the organization that administers the medical school admission test, alleging they were denied extra time to take the exam in violation of California's disability laws. The discrimination lawsuit, filed Monday in Alameda County Superior Court, argues that students who have trouble reading can learn to practice medicine if they receive enough time and a distraction-free setting in which to complete the Medical College Admission Test.

"Without accommodations, I really can't show what abilities I have," said plaintiff Brendan Pierce, 28. Pierce, who has dyslexia and attention deficit disorder, graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, in 2000 with a psychology degree and has completed premedical courses at Mills College. He said he's always done well in school, having been given extra time on his exams since junior high."

More here.

So you want to be given a doctor who can't read very well and who has attention-deficit disorder? I think I would be suing the Association of American Medical Colleges if they DID allow such a person to pass their tests



BRITAIN IS NOW A "THERAPEUTIC" STATE

The term 'nanny state' is a misnomer for the current form of authoritarian government. The concept of the 'therapeutic state' better captures the distinctive character of public health under New Labour. The target of government measures aimed at changing a wide range of behaviours deemed to be unhealthy is the individual citizen who has internalised a sense of personal inadequacy and responsibility for health. Though government intervention is more coercive and intrusive than in the past, it is mediated through a range of 'caring' professionals and its authoritarian character is obscured. Nanny is a straw person, the counsellor is the personification of the therapeutic state.

A nanny state is one that is authoritarian but paternalistic, bossy but benevolent. Nanny forces the children to eat their greens and to take their medicine, but it is only for their own good. In some respects, the British government during the Second World War behaved in this way, imposing food rationing, media censorship, restrictions on travel, blackouts, etc. Emergency measures to contain epidemics, from smallpox and cholera in the nineteenth century to SARS in the twenty-first, involve restrictions on civil liberties, such as quarantines, to limit the wider threat to society. Regulations to reduce death and injury on the roads - speed limits, breathalyser tests, seat belts, motor cycle helmets - are more familiar examples of 'nanny state' initiatives.

Nanny state measures tend to be imposed collectively and temporarily, justified by exceptional circumstances, such as war or pestilence. If, like driving regulations, they are introduced with long-term effect, this requires convincing evidence that they achieve the desired benefits (which was rapidly produced). It is worth noting that, even when these conditions have been fulfilled, there has often been considerable popular resistance to such measures. Though the nanny state has generally been able to rely on support from doctors and other professionals for its policies, it has also had to resort to coercive powers to enforce compliance with regulations introduced to enhance public welfare.

The most striking contrast between today's therapeutic state and the nanny state of the past is the absence of popular opposition. On the contrary, opinion polls reveal substantial majorities in favour of measures currently under discussion, such as bans on smoking in public places and restrictions on advertising of 'junk food'. Where is the campaign to uphold the rights of smokers in pubs and restaurants? Have we seen demonstrations demanding the right to eat junk food or indulge in binge drinking?

It is also striking that whereas the health benefits of quarantine or seat belts are clearly evident - even to those who defy them - those associated with current policies are dubious and contentious. For example, the dangers of passive smoking have been the subject of academic debate for more than 20 years. The current consensus that banning public smoking will save up to 1,000 lives a year is a triumph of propaganda over science. At least there is some evidence in this area: in relation to the health benefits of advertising bans and food-labelling regulations there is none at all.

The apparently unstoppable momentum of the campaign for a ban on public smoking reveals the key dynamics of the therapeutic state. Not only is it supported by non-smokers, but a majority of smokers also approve of a measure which will prevent them from pursuing this traditionally convivial activity in pubs, clubs and restaurants. This reflects the fact that many smokers have internalised the way in which smoking has been re-conceptualised in the public health campaigns of recent years. Up to the 1990s, smoking was generally regarded as a bad habit, if one that provided some respite from the cares of work and family life. This view of smoking was confirmed by the fact that, in response to mounting publicity about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer from the early 1960s onwards, several million people abandoned the habit. Furthermore, most did this without the benefit of any professional intervention....

When smokers confessed that they welcomed bans on public smoking as a further measure to protect them from themselves, the public health zealots recognised the triumph of their bleak ideology. The stage was set for the leaders of the British Medical Association to march to Downing Street bearing aloft a banner in the form of a supersized cigarette packet carrying the legend 'Passive Smoking Kills'. If the nanny state is a paper tiger, the therapeutic state is a much more formidable adversary, not least because so few even recognise it as an enemy.

More here

posted by jonjayray 08:46

|

Thursday, July 22, 2004

 

ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY

"The debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ultimately grounded in our understanding of human nature, values, and the role of human relationships in creating and defining the type society we desire. For the vast majority of Americans, these issues are defined in the context of the Bible and religious traditions.

Everyone knows the secular and radical "gay rights" side of the argument; the public schools, universities, and mainstream media faithfully present it to us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, falsely portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic.

The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction, same-sex marriage, is equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a "big lie" created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the "gay rights" agenda.

In one of the founding documents of the "gay liberation" movement, published in the mid-1980's, the National Gay Task Force laid out its plan to create this "big lie." These are just a few quotes from "Waging Peace," as reported in The American Enterprise magazine:

We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.The public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged. These images should be combined by a method propagandists call the bracket technique.

The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan horse enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our children. But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry".

More here

posted by jonjayray 10:59

|

 

THE FARCE OF MODERN BRITISH "JUSTICE"

The criminal as victim again

A UK judge decided that nine Afghans, armed with four guns, two hand grenades and a knife when they hijacked a packed plane in Kabul in February, 2000, forcing it to fly to Britain, and who threatened over a four day period to kill all 173 people on board and destroy the plane, were to be released unpunished and allowed to freely live in the UK because they might get treated badly if they are returned to Afghanistan.

The case cost taxpayers nearly $60 million. The loss in respect cannot be calculated.

More here. (Via Jerry Lerman).

posted by jonjayray 10:58

|

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

 

PC LED TO ABU GHRAIB

"Thanks to Rep. Heather Wilson, New Mexico Republican and a former military officer, we now know the sequence of events that led to the American military police abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison. A military investigation in late summer 2003 of the 800th Military Police Brigade under Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller found a breakdown in discipline at the prison. When told that her troops were not even saluting, the general refused to order them to begin doing so.

Central Command, concerned about the breakdown but apparently worried about disciplining one of the highest ranking female Army officers in Iraq, devised a compromise bureaucratic solution to hand control of the critical central interrogation prison at Abu Ghraib to the military intelligence unit questioning the prisoners. The critical order was issued October 12, 2003, and was confirmed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez in November. This put the interrogators in charge and was the precipitating event for what investigating Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba called sadistic criminal abuses, the first one of which apparently took place on October 17, 2003.

Army policy is to make MP's responsible for order within the prisons and for the physical safety of the community and the prisoners. In order to prevent abuse, interrogators are limited to a staff role so that the simple existence of the MP's becomes a restraint upon what they are able to do. Interrogators seek information that may save the lives of their comrades and have a tremendous incentive to use intimidation right up to the boundary of acceptable use. Once the interrogators were placed in charge, the limits were removed and they directed the MP's, unfamiliar with the limits and undisciplined by previous experience, to soften up the prisoners...

To a personnel officer, the worm in the apple was a simple bureaucratic decision, the equal opportunity assignment to unit command without consideration of sex.... No values are higher in the Arab world than male honor and female purity. Placing a woman in charge of Iraq prisons when the U.S. was trying to win the hearts and minds of the population was an affront to this culture.

Even when Gen. Karpinski was finally disciplined, the liberal cultural niceties remained so powerful that she was merely given a letter of reprimand that would keep her from being promoted, when she had already decided to retire.

So a little bureaucratic rule based upon progressive utopianism and political correctness collided with a foreign culture based upon male honor. The resulting pictures will fill al Qaeda's ranks with terrorists for generations to come".

More here



A CONFESSION?

"WE do rash things when a gun's easily at hand"? So this Australian Greenie says .... Have others got to pay for her lack of self-control?

"New South Wales Premier Bob Carr is being called on to show leadership on gun control and convene a summit to further tighten firearm laws.

A recent triple murder-suicide has prompted the Greens' Lee Rhiannon to say there are too many guns in circulation. She says while most licensed gun holders abide by the strict controls for gun storage, others do not.

"We all know we all lose our temper in the heat of the moment," she said. "We do rash things when a gun's easily at hand on top of the cupboard, in the boot of the car, people grab it and regret using it afterwards."

But the Sporting Shooters Association says it is the state of mental services which are the problem, not guns."

More here

posted by jonjayray 10:58

|

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: THE BRITISH BUREAUCRACY DOES NOT CARE

Immigration officials in London who, although only 4 miles from the Brixton police station, kept claiming they were too busy to come down and take into custody two illegal immigrants that the police had been looking for for 11 years. The two had to be released from custody because, after 24 hours, nobody came for them.

Said one police source, "We must have rung up 20 times and they kept saying they'd come in an hour. It's maddening for us and exposes the asylum shambles. It's almost a daily problem."

UK Sun 14-Jul-04



THE USUAL SOVIET CONTEMPT FOR FREE SPEECH AND TRUTH: IN CALIFORNIA

They think they are above the law. And they don't mind lying either

Showing profound contempt for free speech, Occidental College in Los Angeles has fired the student host of a popular student radio program and found him guilty of sexual harassment due to satirical jokes made on the air..... Antebi had hosted a popular radio show on Occidental's student radio station for three years. The show, "Rant and Rave," was a forum for political parody and provocative humor. The program frequently mocked Occidental's administration, its student government, and various political and social causes. Antebi was also a vice president in Occidental's student government, where he was highly critical of various administrative decisions.

In response to Antebi's biting on-air satire, three students filed sexual harassment complaints against him in March 2004. Two of his accusers were student government rivals who had unsuccessfully tried to have him recalled from office on different grounds earlier in the year. In their complaints, the offended students claimed that Antebi's show promoted "disrespect and slander" against "women, diversity, and Occidental College" and thus constituted a form of punishable "hostile environment" harassment. Occidental administrators then fired Antebi from his radio show... Then, on April 12, Occidental found Antebi guilty of "sexual and gender hostile environment harassment," ignoring both the college's promises to defend free speech and California's "Leonard Law," which guarantees free speech to students at private colleges and universities in California...

"When FIRE first became involved, Occidental seemed poised to expel Jason Antebi," said Lukianoff. "Thanks to our relentless pressure, Jason was able to graduate. However, Occidental has not reversed or remedied his punishment, the ruling against him, his firing from the student radio station, the ruthless tactics used to defend the college's actions, or the dissolution of the entire student government."

Sandra Cooper, Occidental's general counsel, responded to FIRE's concerns with an April 2 letter that not only failed to remedy the wrongs done to Antebi or the student body, but also distorted facts and implied, without any evidence, that Antebi had committed a variety of serious offenses including vandalizing cars and making harassing phone calls. On May 6, FIRE responded with a detailed twenty-eight page refutation of Cooper's claims.

"Had FIRE not been behind me every step of the way, I would not have my diploma right now," said Antebi. "I'm not sure which of Occidental's actions is more distressing: the punishment for my clearly protected speech or the unethical behavior on the part of the administration to try to justify and conceal its shameful and deceitful actions."

More here.

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

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 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.

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

posted by jonjayray 10:48

|

Monday, July 19, 2004

 

HOW PC WARPS MODERN EDUCATION

The Australian example -- but much like the USA

"Before the mid-1960s, each of the State education departments issued clear syllabi for each subject, which detailed knowledge and skills that students were expected to attain at each year level. Teachers had to teach to the syllabus and students were examined on both their knowledge and skills. Inspectors were employed by the various departments to ensure that this process was observed.

Students who failed to meet the minimum required standard had to repeat the year level, and testing was used as a means of monitoring the effectiveness of instruction. This approach was abandoned for one in which the emphasis was on listing the competencies students should develop during certain blocks of years in their schooling (e.g., Years 9 and 10). The teacher is given a wide latitude in writing the syllabus. Accompanying this change was the introduction of a range of educational techniques such as open classrooms and whole-language approach to teaching English, many of which have since been discredited.

These changes, according to Donnelly, have been integral factors in the decline of standards. Research conducted in 1996 indicated that in Year 3, 27 per cent of students did not meet the minimum standard and 28 per cent the minimum writing standard. Students with poor skills were allowed to be promoted to the next year level with the result that foundational literacy and numeracy difficulties were not addressed....

Given the freedom allowed by the curriculum approach, some students will still leave school, having read significant works of English literature and with a fair knowledge of the narrative of world history. Others, however, will leave school having studied little more than pop culture such as Neighbours, The Simpsons or reality TV and with little knowledge of the key events in history, thus leaving them culturally illiterate.

Too many students are presented with an education that is pervaded with left-wing ideologies, such as Marxism, feminism and postmodernism. For example, Australian history has become a deprecatory litany of the evil deeds of white settlers, and geography a thinly disguised promotion of extreme environmentalism. This is consistent with a left-wing view which sees education, not so much as a means of developing individuals and preparing them for their role as adults in society, but as a catalyst in the struggle for equality and social change - or, at its most extreme, as a means of "smashing the capitalist system".

Perhaps one of the clearest indicators of parental dissatisfaction with government education is the significant rise in the numbers of parents who have abandoned government education for independent schooling, with many citing a lack of values in the government system as a significant reason. Perhaps it would be more accurate to argue that in many cases parents object to the approaches to education that are taken, for example, prohibitions on teaching Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet because it defines heterosexuality as the normal sexual orientation, thereby marginalising gay and lesbian students."

More here

posted by jonjayray 08:37

|

 

ALL TOBACCO IS INCORRECT

I mentioned recently on Dissecting Leftism that smokeless tobacco appears to be much less harmful than smoked tobacco. I was not surprised therefore to hear from one of my readers that smokeless tobacco is banned in some parts of the world. It sounds disgusting to me, though.

Anyway, more from Dr. Rodu (PDF) on the matter: ""But anti-tobacco extremists reject harm reduction and insist that the only acceptable approach to tobacco use is no use whatsoever.... Tobacco harm reduction faces opposition from a powerful crusade that has waged war -- incorrectly and irrespomsibly, on all tobacco products... In a desperate attempt to crush all discussion of tobacco harm reduction, the crusade exaggerates or fabricates health risks from smokeless tobacco use". Rodu estimates that if all American smokers were to switch to smokeless tobacco, deaths related to tobacco use would drop from about 440.000 a year to merely 6000. Anti-tobacco groups have no problem with the death of hundred thousands of smokers each year, who otherwise could be saved by switching to smokeless tobacco products!

Dennis Mangan has a big post on the same subject.

posted by jonjayray 08:36

|

Sunday, July 18, 2004

 

"Taking Sex Differences Seriously"... By Steven Rhoads

Book Review (Excerpts):

"Throughout most of human history people have known by instinct, by intuition, and by personal experience that men and women are different. And they are different in all sorts of ways.

But recently academics and others, more or less buttressed by feminist ideology and political correctness, have begun to sing a new tune. Thus the current wisdom tells us that men and women are not different after all. Perceived differences are due to society, not biology, and sex and gender differences are both interchangeable and malleable.

Gender is a social construction, we are told. Moreover, one can change one's gender like one changes one's clothes. Male today, female tomorrow, bisexual one day, homosexual the next, and so on. This is the brave new world of the gender-benders, and thus the reason for this book.

The thesis Rhoads offers is simple and direct: men and women are different, and those differences are basic, profound and rooted in our very nature. With a wealth of documentation and research, Rhoads sets the record straight, informing us of the clear scientific and biological case for male-female differences.

Hormones and other chemical/biological determinants cannot be dismissed when assessing gender. Their very presence means that nature has hotwired the human species into two clearly different sexes, and these differences cannot be wished away by social engineers.

And these changes can be found from our earliest moments, refuting any notion that social or environmental factors are the sole explanations for such differences. For example, day-old infants will cry when they hear a recording of another infant crying, but girls will cry longer than boys....

Rhoads also notes that those researchers who are working in this area, seeking to demonstrate the biological and physiological fixity of the sexes have real trouble getting funding and publicity, because of the stranglehold of political correctness and feminist orthodoxy. And the majority of these sex difference researchers happen to be women".

More here

posted by jonjayray 09:09

|

 

GUNS ARE INCORRECT EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T HARM OTHER PEOPLE

Or does this dear little soul think that banning guns will prevent suicide? Wouldn't it make more sense to restrict the availablity of knives? -- a knife being the only murder weapon used in this case

Greens MP Lee Rhiannon has called for an overhaul of New South Wales firearms licensing system after yesterday's triple murder-suicide in the Hunter Valley town of Gresford. Michael Richardson, 32, is believed to have stabbed his wife and suffocated his two children, before turning a gun on himself.

Police have confirmed Mr Richardson lost his gun licence last year after a failed suicide attempt but had it reinstated by the firearms authority several months ago.

Ms Rhiannon says it is unacceptable that the licence was renewed. "The New South Wales licensing system needs a big overhaul," she said. "It is extraordinary that a year after he attempted suicide that the police renewed his cancelled licences.

"We're not blaming any individual officer but clearly the current system is inadequate, there is also the issue of the availability of guns that needs to be considered as well."

From Australian ABC

posted by jonjayray 09:08

|

Saturday, July 17, 2004

 

AN AMUSING "DEFENCE" OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

There is an account of political correctness by a Leftist blogger here (Via Quiggin) which has me flummoxed. He gives a reasonable account of what PC is, why it is and how it works and then tries to explain it away as harmless. This is what he says to defend it:

"Their own obsession with status and social control through shaming means that many of those on the right misunderstand the motivations behind what they see as political correctness. Just as classical liberals do not set out to promote economic inequality the so-called chattering classes or elites do not set out to create and maintain a hierarchy of moral status. Most just want a society where people are not humiliated because of who they are. They want a decent society."

Is that the best he can do? I am not sure I follow completely what he is driving at but all that I can see there is a repetition of the normal PC claim: We are the good guys who want a decent society and you Rightists are all wrong and don't care about a decent society. He exemplifies what he claims Leftists do not do! He is just being a righteous PC-er himself. He says that the PC crowd do not try to create a "hierarchy of moral status" yet he is clearly doing just that!

I guess I shouldn't expect clear thinking and writing of a Leftist. Emotional outbursts rather than logic are their forte.

posted by jonjayray 10:58

|

 

CIVIL RIGHTS NOW BEING REMOVED

In the name of civil rights! Leftists will use any excuse to remove people's liberties

"This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The achievements of the civil-rights movement in bringing about a more just and equal society are undoubtedly well worth celebrating. However, these achievements have not come without costs. In particular, it's worth pausing to consider the growing threat more recent and draconian anti-discrimination laws pose to American civil liberties.

While the civil-rights laws of the 1960s were generally sensitive to civil libertarian concerns, contemporary anti-discrimination laws often are not. For example, in deference to freedom of association and privacy considerations, the 1964 act prohibited discrimination only in public facilities such as restaurants, hotels and theaters. Newer laws, however, often prohibit discrimination in the membership policies of private organizations ranging from large national organizations like the Boy Scouts of America.

The framers of the 1964 act also were sensitive to religious freedom and wrote into the law a limited but important exemption for religious institutions. Many recently enacted state and local laws, however, contain no religious exemption. Moreover