Thursday, July 21, 2016
Scratch many Leftist men and you will find misogyny underneath
Australian female Leftist Nelly Thomas discovers that Leftist men really have no principles at all. I could have told her that. I also agree with her that their Leftism is an important ego support for them
I am unashamedly left wing. What some call left wing bias, I just call being correct. Mine, like most people’s views, are complex, but in short, I believe in the community over the individual. If you think of “socially progressive”, just locate Finland on the political spectrum, keep on moving to the Left and you’ll find me there in the nude, holding a Mapplethorpe. I also have a vagina and I like to make decisions about what to do with it, so I am a feminist. Does that inform my world view? Yes it does. No thanks required.
Like any good communista-feminista I follow as much public discourse about feminist and left-wing issues as I can stomach. As a comedian, I do as many left-wing and feminist gigs as I can (plus, they’re so lucrative). As a human, I have many left-wing men in my love-camp. And I am sick to bloody death of Unexpected Sexists Arseholes.
You know the ones: they’re usually highly educated, right-on, articulate and watch a lot of Game of Thrones. They champion refugees, attend Pride Marches, wear Reconciliation t-shirts and love a White Ribbon. They tell jokes about Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. They care deeply and you really do love them. But scratch the surface or, say, turn up at a polling booth and lots of them – far too many of them – turn out to be USA’s. It’s so disappointing.
They’re tricky these fellas. They’re smart, so they can defend almost anything rationally. Most often, they mount good free-speech defences of their stuff with sophisticated arguments like, “I can say what I want.” And they can. But my kids are 3 and 8, and even they know you don’t get to say what you want without ramifications.
And there’s a clue, because frankly, they often have the emotional intelligence of an adolescent badger. Poke them a bit and they bite back hard. Unfortunately, like the douchebags from high school, when challenged, they often do a good impersonation of a sexually frustrated pit-bull and attempt to reduce you to nothing more than a slippery vulva.
I’m not sure what’s going on for these dudes, but I think it has something to do with the fact that unlike the Neanderthals many of us grew up with, when “progressive” men are called out on their sexism they often seem gutted: like their very identity has been challenged.
Indulge me for a second. Think of your dad not doing the dishes in the 70s. Maybe mum challenged him and called him a lazy sh*t, he laughed, picked up a tea towel and waited for his standing ovation.
Think of the contemporary progressive dad. All the research shows he’s probably still not doing the dishes (metaphor, big picture) but challenge him on this inequality and there’s a good chance he’ll feel that the very idea of who he is has come into question: but I’m one of the good guys, I’m trying so hard, I’m a feminist goddamn it!
This leads to the absurd and head-scrambling situation where progressive men – in both the public and private spheres – are arguably harder to call out on their sexism than a Sam Newman.
I know for sure this can be true of progressive male comedians and it certainly seems to be true of their journalist and commentator mates.
Germany took in more than 2million people last year – equivalent to the populations of Houston, Brisbane or Paris
A record 2.14 million people moved to Germany last year, a 46 per cent increase from 2014 after an influx of refugees, the Federal Statistics Office said.
The figure represents the populations of Houston in the US, Brisbane in Australia or Paris, France.
It said around 45 per cent of the 2.14 million immigrants who arrived in Germany last year were citizens of other European Union countries, 13 per cent were from non-EU European countries, and 30 per cent were from Asia, mainly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. Five per cent were from Africa.
The Interior Ministry said earlier this year that 1.1million migrants entered Germany last year with the aim of seeking asylum but the number of migrants who applied for asylum last year was much lower at 476,649. Those who wish to seek asylum have faced delays in making their applications.
It was not immediately clear whether the numbers from the statistics office were based on that data.
A record 998,000 people left Germany last year, a nine per cent increase compared with 2014.
That led to net migration of 1.14 million, also an all-time high figure, the Statistics Office said.
In June The Dalai Lama said Europe risks losing its identity by taking in too many migrants and warned: 'Germany cannot become an Arab country.' Tibet's spiritual leader said refugees should only stay temporarily and return home to rebuild their countries when the conflicts have ended.
The Dalai Lama, who has himself lived in exile for over half a century, said: 'When we look into the face of every single refugee, especially the children and women, we can feel their suffering.
'A human being who is a bit more fortunate has the duty to help them. On the other hand, there are too many now.'
In an interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he said: 'Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country. Germany is Germany. 'There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult.'
He said 'from a moral point of view too, I think the refugees should only be admitted temporarily'. 'The goal should be that they return and help rebuild their countries.'
No other country has been as tolerant and accommodating of religion and religious people as America, write the sponsors of the First Amendment Defense Act
From its very beginning, our nation has been home, harbor, and refuge to a wide range of religious beliefs. No other country has been as tolerant and accommodating of religion and religious people as America.
But in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, our nation’s commitment to religious liberty has been put to the test.
During oral arguments in that case, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli confirmed that if the court created a right to same-sex marriage, then the Internal Revenue Service would be empowered to revoke the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that maintain a traditional belief of marriage.
And the threat doesn’t end there. Schools that have educated children for decades could lose their accreditation. Hospitals could be shut down. This would be a huge blow to the civil society that helps stitch our nation together.
The First Amendment Defense Act would protect these vital institutions. It is a narrow and targeted response that would do one thing and one thing only: prevent the federal government from discriminating against people’s beliefs about marriage and what it entails.
The bill reaffirms the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, by stating unequivocally that the federal government may not revoke or deny a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license, or certification to an individual or institution based on a religious belief about marriage.
The First Amendment protects each of us from punishment or reprisal from the federal government for living in accordance with our deeply held religious or moral convictions. Adhering to these convictions should never disqualify an individual from receiving federal grants, contracts, or a tax status.
This bill is absolutely critical to the many charitable and service organizations in this country whose convictions about marriage are fundamental to their work and mission.
Guaranteeing the full protection of these organizations’ First Amendment rights will ensure that faith-based adoption agencies are not forced to discontinue their foster care and adoption services on account of their belief that every child needs a married mother and father. It will protect religiously affiliated schools from losing their accreditation or being compelled to eliminate housing options for students. And it will protect individuals, regardless of their beliefs about marriage, from being deprived of eligibility for federal grants, licenses, and employment because of their deeply held convictions.
Now, you may hear tall tales—and some outright falsehoods—about this bill. Some may suggest that FADA would give private businesses a license to violate anti-discrimination laws with impunity. This is just not so. The bill does not preempt, negate, or alter any civil rights laws, state or federal. To be clear: This bill does not take anything away from any individual or group, because it does not modify any of our existing civil rights protections.
The First Amendment Defense Act does not allow federal workers or businesses that are contractors to deny services or benefits to same-sex couples; and it does not allow hospitals to refuse medically necessary treatment or visitation rights to individuals in same-sex relationships.
Questions surrounding marriage today are difficult, and reasonable people of good faith will reach different judgments about how best to protect religious liberty. But the First Amendment must remain our lodestar. Any differences of opinion can be constructively worked out—even and especially as to particular provisions of this bill—if our shared concern remains preserving the American tradition of religious liberty.
German axe attack on train: home-made Isil flag found in room of Afghan refugee who injured four
Police shot dead the suspect, a 17-year-old Afghan refugee, as he attempted to flee the scene. The assault in Wurzburg was the latest suspected terror attack to shock Europe following the atrocity in Nice last Thursday.
"It is quite probable that this was an Islamist attack," said a ministry spokesman on Monday, adding that the attacker had apparently shouted "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest) as he stabbed people.
On Tuesday morning, the Bavarian interior minister said a homemade Isil-flag was found in the teenager's bedroom.
The attacker was said to have been carrying "weapons for slashing and cutting”, according to German media reports, including an axe.
Three people were "seriously injured," 14 people were left in shock, and one other person suffered minor injuries. Among those injured were four member of a Hong Kong family.
"The perpetrator was able to leave the train, police left in pursuit and as part of this pursuit, they shot the attacker and killed him," said a spokesman for the Wurzburg police.
Joachim Herrmann, the interior minister of Bavaria state, said the assailant had arrived as an unaccompanied minor in Germany and had lived at first in a shelter and then more recently with a foster family in nearby Ochsenfurt.
There were no further details on the circumstances of the teenager's death, and police declined to suggest what the motive was for the attack. "At this time everything is possible," the spokesman said.
Germany is on the frontline of Europe's migrant crisis and has already suffered two attacks by suspected Islamist extremists this year.
They include a knife attack in Grafing in May, when a man allegedly shouted "Allahu Akbar" before attacking four people and killing one of them.
And in February a 15-year-old girl identified as Safia S. stabbed a policeman in the neck with a kitchen knife in what prosecutors later said was an Isil-inspired attack.
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.