Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The whole truth

Anger as Rupert Murdoch says ALL Muslims should be held responsible for terror attacks in France

Go Rupert!

Rupert Murdoch has sparked backlash online after saying all Muslims should be held responsible for the actions of jihadists.

The controversial media mogul took to Twitter after three days of terrorist atrocities in Paris.

The News Corp boss suggested that even peaceful Muslims must take responsibility for the actions of terrorists until the 'jihadist cancer' is destroyed.  He wrote: 'Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.'

He then maintained his stance, arguing that 'political correctness' made for 'denial and hypocrisy'. He added: 'Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from Philippines to Africa to Europe to US.  'Political correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy.'

His words sparked a storm on the social network, with many Muslim users outraged by Murdoch's ignorance. One user said: '"they" as in most Muslims????? You can't hold an entire religion of billions responsive for the actions of a few'

Erwin Renaldi said: 'I'm really sad reading this. Insulting my faith and I have nothing to do with the extremists and I can do nothing.'

Others questioned Murdoch's own morals, and cited his role in the phone-hacking scandal at the now-defunct News of the World newspaper.

Michael Monan replied: '@rupertmurdoch In the same way that you must be held responsible for ordering the hacking of the voicemails of dead school children?'


Islam, you have a very serious problem

Rita Panahi comments from Australia

EVERY attack perpetrated by Islamic extremists is an attack against freedom of speech — whether they’re terrorising journalists and cartoonists at a magazine in Paris or bystanders having a quiet coffee in Sydney.

These callous cowards seek to silence dissenting voices by waging a war of terror against anyone who dares question their twisted, totalitarian world view.

The time for weasel words and treading on eggshells is over. We owe it to the growing number of victims to open our eyes and ­acknowledge the unmistakable reality that radical Islam and

Western values cannot coexist peacefully. These extremists despise our way of life — our freedom, openness and diversity is an affront to their despotic, backward attitudes.

We must stop pretending these incidents have nothing to do with Islam. They quite clearly have everything to do with extremist Islam and the sooner we admit this truth the better we can work to protect our people and values from this scourge.

The viciousness of these subhuman savages was on display on the streets of Paris as they walked up to an injured policeman lying helpless on the ground and shot him dead at point blank range without missing a step.

It mattered not that Ahmed Merabet was a Muslim. They didn’t care that his arms were raised in surrender. He was shown no mercy.

These are not people who can be reasoned with or counselled into adopting our values of humanity, tolerance and liberty.

We in the West must stop blaming ourselves for these acts of brutality. There are those among us, the so-called “progressives”, who seek to explain the behaviour of terrorists by pointing the finger at the victims.

According to these enlightened souls, homegrown terrorism is our fault. We are to blame for not being welcoming enough, for creating an underclass of disenfranchised young men, for being part of the US-led coalition in the Middle East, for supporting Israel’s right to exist, for printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, for raising the terror alert level — indeed if you rationalise hard enough any act can be considered provocation to Islamic ­extremists.

Let’s not forget that it’s other Muslims who are the biggest victims of Muslim extremism

This victim blaming is an insult not only to the victims but also to the overwhelming majority of Muslims migrants, who appreciate the abundant freedoms and opportunities available to them in countries such as Australia.

It’s a mistake to presume that all Islamic people want us to change our ways or laws to better fit the values of their homeland.

But there is undoubtedly a minority of troublemakers who seek to change our free societies into the type of place they fled from and, as we have seen around the world, it only takes one radicalised attacker to cause wide-scale mayhem.

The barbaric death cult that is Islamic State has inspired a new legion of radicalised Islamic men, and even some women, to commit atrocities in the name of Allah against Western targets.

But let’s not forget that it’s other Muslims who are the biggest victims of Muslim extremism. On the same day three heavily-armed gunmen butchered 12 innocent people in Paris, there was another terror attack in Yemen, where a suicide bomber killed dozens of police recruits outside a station. The death toll stands at 37 and will grow.

However, it’s when these acts of base brutality occur in Western nations that many fully appreciate the threat radical Islam poses to the world. We should feel comfortable to readily call out elements within any culture or religion that are incompatible with our cherished values of equality, freedom and democracy.

It’s time politicians, including the Prime Minister, stopped tiptoeing around issues involving cultural or religious sensitivities for fear they’ll be labelled intolerant.

Nothing is gained by pandering to extreme elements in the vain hope that we’ll impress upon them that the path to assimilation is preferable to fundamentalism. The fear of Islamophobia and an imagined mainstream backlash against the Muslim community has become a bat used to beat down all valid criticism.

It is worth noting that, while the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo poked fun at Islam, it also regularly satirised Christianity and Judaism. And yet there have been no attacks by enraged Catholics or Jews.

This reveals the lie that all religions are equally bloodthirsty; in the 21st century only one religion is at the centre of terror attacks around the world.

We have followers of one religion who think they are entitled to butcher those who offend their prophet?

Frankly, if your all powerful deity is so fragile a cartoon poses a threat then you may want to reconsider your belief system.

The editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stephane Charbonnier, said in a 2012 interview, a year after his magazine’s headquarters were firebombed by Muslim extremists angry with a satirical cartoon, that they would continue “until Islam is made as ho-hum as Catholicism”.

Shamefully, at the time, there was no shortage of progressives willing to blame the magazine and its staff for “inciting” the attack.

In the same interview Charbonnier said: “I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.” Tragically he was among those murdered this week by Islamic extremists.

We cannot be scared into ­silence or intimidated into self-blame; the problem lies with radical Islam — not our Western democratic societies.


UK: Was the first privately run NHS hospital victim of a stitch-up by opponents of business providing healthcare? 

The first hospital to be run by a private firm has been put into special measures following a damning report by the NHS watchdog.

Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS trust, in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, was rated ‘inadequate’ by the Care Quality Commission, which gave it the lowest ever score for patient care.

Hours before the report was published, Circle, the firm which has run the hospital since February 2012, announced it was pulling out.

Last night there were fears that the hospital was the victim of a stitch-up by opponents of private enterprise in the NHS.

The decision by Circle and the CQC report are major blows to the Government which is aiming to increase the private sector’s involvement in the NHS to improve services.

The hospital had been hailed as a ‘miracle cure’ for the NHS – and the report flies in the face of glowing patient surveys and a recent award for best NHS trust for patient care.

Circle’s withdrawal triggered a political row, with Labour blaming the Conservatives for handing the contract to the firm despite flaws in its business plans.

The Tories pointed out it was Labour and shadow health secretary Andy Burnham who had decided Hinchingbrooke should be run by a private firm. As health secretary, he put the contract out to tender in 2009 when the hospital’s financial failures were so bad that it was threatened with closure.

The CQC report found serious failings in the A&E unit and warned it is ‘potentially unsafe’ for children due to a lack of specialist doctors and nurses.

Crucially, the watchdog rated it ‘inadequate’ for caring – the lowest score so far given to a trust.

The CQC also warned that food, drink and call bells were being left out of patients’ reach, and some were denied pain relief.

Circle is challenging the findings and believes it has been judged unfairly as part of a tougher, new inspection system. The Mail also understands that at least one of the 35 inspectors is a member of campaign group Keep Our NHS Public and may have been unfairly critical.

But the damning report was the final straw for Circle which also blamed funding problems and the ongoing A&E crisis for its decision to pull out of the deal.

The firm said the local group of GPs, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group, had slashed its budget by 6 per cent last year and imposed unfair financial penalties.

The CCG wanted to fine the hospital £5million for apparently missing a series of targets on A&E, waiting times and cancelled operations, even though performance was far better than neighbouring trusts. The firm negotiated the penalty down to £1.3million but this year the CCG is threatening to fine it £2million for missing A&E targets.

Hinchingbrooke had been one of the few hospitals to hit the A&E target of 95 per cent of patients treated within four hours. But in mid-December this began to slip when there was a sudden surge in attendances.

The CQC’s findings are at odds with an award given to the hospital in May for being the best trust in England for quality of care, by the data monitoring firm CHKS. It has also performed consistently well in the ‘friends and family test,’ a survey asking patients if they would recommend the hospital to loved ones.

But Professor Sir Mike Richards, the CQC’s chief inspector, said there were ‘a number of serious concerns, surrounding staffing and risks to patient safety, particularly in the A&E department and medical care’.

‘There were substantial and frequent staff shortages in the A&E department,’ he said. ‘There were a number of other areas of concern, some related to the way in which the trust is led and run.’

He added: ‘Where hospitals are failing to promote good care, we will say so, regardless of who owns and runs them. They are not a judgment on the role of the private sector in the NHS or on franchise arrangements.’

Hinchingbrooke will be handed over to the NHS Trust Development Authority – a watchdog that will discuss urgent improvements with managers. One option would be to put the contract out to tender to other private firms. Alternatively, it could be taken over by the neighbouring and much larger Peterborough and Stamford NHS Trust – which could see it lose A&E and maternity services.

Mr Burnham said: ‘Patients who rely on Hinchingbrooke will be worried … ministers must provide urgent reassurance and set out a plan to ensure the continuity of services … It was the decision of the Coalition in November 2011 to appoint Circle and they must take responsibility for this mess.’


Sowell: Inequality is Driven By Failed Government Policies, Not the "Legacy of Slavery"

In a recent interview with "Uncommon Knowledge" host Peter Robinson, famed economist and syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell expanded on a favorite research topic of his: Namely, race in America.

Last November, for example, he wrote this:  "New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof asserts that there is "overwhelming evidence that centuries of racial subjugation still shape inequity in the 21st century" and he mentions "the lingering effects of slavery." But before we become overwhelmed, that evidence should be checked out. [I]f we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state.”

And in that interview with Brooks, Dr. Sowell attempted to do just that.  He explained that contrary to the unsubstantiated and fact-free theories of revisionists, blacks were generally better off before LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ programs were rolled out and adopted.

He gave several statistical examples to defend his contention.

“In 1960, which would be almost a hundred years after the end of slavery, 22 percent of black kids grew up in homes with only one parent,” he said. “Thirty years later, after the liberal welfare state, that number had more than tripled.”

“We can speculate on how much that 22 percent was due to the legacy of slavery,” he conceded. “But we know that that tripling was not due to the legacy of slavery; it was due to the legacy of a whole different set of policies.”

What's more, he also gave two educational examples to prove his point.

“Stuyvesant High School in New York, as you know, you get into it by only passing a very tough exam,” he said. “In 2012, the percentage of black students who had gotten into Stuyvesant High School was less than one-tenth of the percentage of black students who had gotten into Stuyvesant High School 33 years earlier.”

But Stuyvesant was by no means an outlier, he pointed out.

“Dunbar High School in Washington [was] an elite black high school for a very long time,” he added. “In 1993, the number of kids out of Dunbar High School who went on to college was less than it was 60 years earlier, which would have been in the depth of the Great Depression.”

Translation: Failed government policies are (mostly) to blame for, as Kristof put it, “inequity in the 21st century." Slavery, according to Sowell, is a much smaller factor.



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, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: