Thursday, July 19, 2018






Standing Against the Rainbow Mafia's Speech-Squelching Agenda

Republican Gov. Paul LePage of Maine "just said no" to a plank of the homosexual agenda

A funny thing happened on the way to another progressive effort, led by the Rainbow Mafia, to restrict Americans’ freedom:

Republican Gov. Paul LePage of Maine “just said no.” He vetoed a bill that would have banned state therapists from working with individuals troubled by feelings of same-sex attraction or the idea that their gender identity and chromosomal reality are a mismatched set — a.k.a. gender dysphoria.

LePage’s reasons for doing so couldn’t be clearer. “This [bill] is so broad that licensed professionals would be prohibited from counseling an individual even at the individual’s own request,” he wrote. “We should not prohibit professionals from counseling an individual even at the individual’s own request. We should not prohibit professionals from providing their expertise to those who seek it for their own personal and basic questions such as, ‘How do I deal with these feelings I am experiencing?’”

He also struck a blow for religious freedom and parental rights. “Parents have the right to seek counsel and treatment for their children from professionals who do not oppose the parents’ own religious beliefs,” he added. “Because the standard of practice for these professionals already prohibits any practice or therapy that would amount to physical or mental abuse, what we are really trying to regulate are the private, consultative conversations between a licensed provider and a client.”

Anyone remember which side of the political divide champions the right to privacy, to the point of indulging in hysterical paroxysms with regard to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the thought that Roe v. Wade might be overturned? That particular right to privacy has precipitated more than 60 million abortions since 1973, making a complete mockery of Bill Clinton’s 1996 assertion that the Democrat Party’s policy stance on abortion was that it should be “safe, legal and rare.”

The Rainbow Mafia and its allies in the media and Democrat Party denigrate any conversation between a therapist and a patient that attempts to address an individual’s own concerns with homosexuality and transgenderism as “conversion therapy.” And while a UCLA study revealed that historical concerns about some of the techniques employed in conversion therapy that began as early as the 1890s are legitimate, LePage made it clear he isn’t endorsing anything that could be construed as abusive. “At no time should such treatment take the form of mental or physical abuse,” he wrote, “and such treatment should always be subject to the statutory requirements of the standard of care for that profession.”

The same study reveals that nine states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont — as well as the District of Columbia currently ban conversion therapy. Therapists in those states who employ the practice can be disciplined for doing so. Yet even those states can’t ignore the First Amendment: The laws generally don’t apply to religious or spiritual leaders acting in a religious capacity, provided they are not paid for their services.

The study further notes that opinion polls show a substantial majority of Americans in Florida, Virginia and New Mexico have supported a ban on conversion therapy, and that members of Congress have introduced a bill, The Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, aimed at classifying conversion therapy provided for a fee as consumer fraud.

No doubt it’s indelicate to ask, but who’s attempting to convert whom? Perhaps polls should be taken to find out whether Americans are on board with state-sanctioned ruination of religious Americans’ livelihoods for failing to embrace the homosexual agenda, or teaching the transgender agenda at the kindergarten level in public schools to children — often with no opt-out choice given to parents who don’t want their children indoctrinated with “LGBTQ” propaganda.

Maybe Americans should be asked if they were okay with an Obama administration that mandated the imposition of the transgender agenda absent any input from Congress. Using Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as their vehicle, Obama & Co. threatened to initiate lawsuits, and withhold federal education funds from states that did not give students claiming to be members of the opposite sex access to bathrooms and lockers rooms of their choice. Other entities followed suit, ultimately leading to a 2015 law in Oregon that provides Medicaid coverage for the gamut of transgender treatments, including surgery — regardless of age.

The ultimate abrogation of parental rights regarding this particular type of “conversion therapy”? In Oregon, patients as young as 15 are not required to get parental consent for it. In other words, children can decide on their own to get life-altering vaginoplasties and double mastectomies — but psychotherapy advising them that such drastic measures might not be a good idea is forbidden.

Matt Moonen, executive director of Equality Maine, insists LePage is wrong. “Studies show that this actually causes harm to minors who are subjected to this so-called treatment so this sends a pretty terrible message from the governor to LGBT kids across the state,” he stated.

Here’s a message for kids across the state: Extensive data collated in 2016 by Dr. James Cantor revealed that 60-90% of children who believe they are transgender change their minds when they reach adulthood. Here’s another message: These children attempt suicide at a rate 20 times higher than their peers.

But psychotherapy that might address these realities should be banned?

LePage pointed out that Maine’s legislature, which failed to override his veto, has a decidedly curious outlook with regard to human rights. Led by Democrats last April, they voted against a bill that would have criminalized female genital mutilation (FGM) — as in the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia for cultural, rather than medical, reasons. “What we should not be doing is counting potential victims at-risk by counting the number of Somali, Egyptian and Gideon females in immigrant families in Maine. Not unless we are willing to face the racism in that calculation and the racism and misogyny entrenched in so many of us,” declared Democrat State Rep. Charlotte Warren at the time.

How about facing the calculation that progressives will abide barbaric traditions utterly inimical to American values under the rubric of supporting multiculturalism and diversity?

LePage sees the irony in the legislature’s priorities. Yet irony is the wrong word, and California’s legislature reveals why. While Maine legislators would like to see certain conversations banned, California legislators passed a law in 2015 compelling conversations: Pro-life medical clinics were ordered to supply abortion literature to their clients. That law was just overturned (5-4) by the Supreme Court, which viewed the mandate as a violation of free speech.

How can two different state legislatures reach diametrically opposed ideas regarding free speech? Because protecting it comes in a distant second to serving the progressive agenda. And if it takes diametrically opposed and thoroughly misguided positions on the First Amendment to “win by any means necessary,” so be it.

Gov. Paul LePage is one governor who won’t be intimidated by the Rainbow Mafia — at least this time. Here’s hoping there are others.

SOURCE






Facebook ‘tells trainee staff not to take down violent videos’

Just conservative ones

Facebook content moderators are instructed to leave videos of violent abuse on the site to improve user experience, an investigation has found.

When dealing with a graphic violent post, moderators are told that they have three options — ignore it, delete it, or mark it as disturbing, which places restrictions on who can see the content.

Clips showing the “repeated kicking, beating or slapping of a child or an animal by an adult”, “the inflicting of a burn or a cut wound by an adult” or “the tossing, rotating or shaking of an infant too young to stand by their wrists, ankles, legs, arms or neck” are not taken down. Instead they are marked as “disturbing child abuse” and remain accessible to anyone who claims to be over 18.

An undercover reporter for Channel 4’s Dispatches filmed training sessions at CPL Resources in Dublin, Facebook’s largest centre for UK content moderation. Trainees were shown a video of a young boy being stamped on as an example of what type of abuse would be allowed to remain on the platform.

When asked why violent content was left on the site, a moderator told the reporter that it was “for better user experience”. He added that “if you start censoring too much, then people lose interest in the platform . . . It’s all about making money at the end of the day”.

Roger McNamee, a venture capitalist and an early investor in Facebook who has since criticised it, told Dispatches: “From Facebook’s point of view this is, this is just essentially, you know, the crack cocaine of their product. It’s the really extreme, really dangerous form of content that attracts the most highly engaged people on the platform.”

Nicci Astin, who campaigns against child abuse, reported the clip of the boy being stamped on to Facebook in 2012 but was told it did not violate the terms and conditions. It was not removed.

“Initially you see a little tiny boy, he must be about two or three in the video, with a man talking to him and shouting at him,” she told Dispatches. “Then he was hitting him and punching him, he was throwing him about. Then he was stamping and kicking on him. And then obviously the video cut. You’re left with knowing absolutely nothing apart from a sickening feeling that you’ve just seen some man beating up a tiny little boy.”

It emerged that the boy was treated in hospital and his stepfather jailed in Malaysia, where the clip was shot. The video, shared 44,000 times in the first two days of posting, remains online without a graphic content warning.

Facebook told Dispatches that it did escalate such issues and contact the authorities. It said that the video should have been removed.

Richard Allan, vice-president of public policy at Facebook, said: “Shocking content does not make us more money, that’s just a misunderstanding of how the system works. . . People come to Facebook for a safe, secure experience to share content with their family and friends. The vast majority of those two billion people would never dream of sharing content that, like that, to shock and offend people.”

Julian Knight, a Tory member of the Commons digital, culture, media and sport committee, said the revelations were alarming but not surprising and criticised Facebook’s response to the MPs’ questions about extreme content.

In the documentary, to be shown tonight, Facebook bosses also admit that moderators are not allowed to take down pages with many followers, such as that of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, even if they breach its rules.

SOURCE







In Germany, the 'Immigration' Worm Has Turned

I'm in Berlin at the moment, staying not far from Checkpoint Charlie, through which I passed many times during the Cold War, and not far from the spot where, sledgehammer in hand, I did my small bit to dismantle the Berlin Wall in November of 1989.

So much has changed in the nearly 30 years since that memorable moment: McDonald's and KFC have franchises on either side of the intersection of the Friedrichstrasse and the Zimmerstrasse, where the Wall briefly opened to allow a narrow passage from the American sector's principal checkpoint across a short block flanked on both sides by the Todesstreifen of barbed-wire and machine-gun free-fire fields.

On the western side -- actually the southern side, by the compass -- the fearsome Wall was gaily painted with graffiti; on the other, it was a blank slate of gray concrete, fully reflective of the Stalinist Leftist orthodoxy of the only captive nation that even remotely tried to make a go of the Marxist economic, social, and moral lie.

Now, three decades after the Wall came down, I'm back in East Berlin talking to old and new German friends -- most of them Ossis, or East Germans -- about the current state of Germany's overriding social and political issue: the influx of more than one million cultural aliens, mostly from the Muslim ummah and thus by faith and profession profoundly opposed to Western Judeo-Christian civilization. And their answer is... not good for the Merkel administration.

Since the end of WWII, the German impulse has been to apologize for... well, just about everything since Arminius wiped out the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest in the year 9 AD. And, to be fair, they've had a lot to apologize for. In the western sectors, occupied by the French, the British, and the Americans in the war's aftermath and united to form West Germany, they quickly got their economic system up and running, restored much of the infrastructure that had been obliterated, and got on with the business of building a social democracy that became a model for the rest of Western Europe.

But the restoration of Germany society was in part paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, who supported an enormous military force (upwards of 200,000 military personnel at the time of reunification in 1990) as the U.S. and NATO faced off against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact nations across Charlie and all over Europe.

Too Late, Germany Realizes Its Mistake

The American presence preserved the peace and, eventually, was critical in the West's victory in the Cold War. But it was bad for Germany in that it gave the Germans the luxury to take the "high moral ground" and abjure their own self-defense while they poured money into social programs. Having been effectively a ward of NATO and America, the Germans unhappily combined their war guilt with the mistaken moral superiority of their newfound pacifism.

The result was that they were completely unprepared for the consequences of their Ossi-raised chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow free entry to the "Syrian" "refugees" in 2015, a vast trekking horde of mostly male Muslims of military age from as far away as Afghanistan, who marched on the rich countries of the West, passing through Greece and Hungary and Italy on their way to the greener pastures of France, England, and Germany. Proudly proclaiming a "welcoming culture" and mouthing Merkel's slogan, "Wir shaffen das" (We can handle this), Germany opened its arms to the "diversity" delusion.

What the Germans expected to welcome were people fleeing oppression, and who would abide by German norms of social civility, which include peace and (especially) quiet, who would quickly learn to converse and interact on a sophisticated level -- who would become, in short, exactly like most Germans. What they got was an Islamic rabble wholly uninterested in Germany except how to exploit its hospitality while loudly complaining about it. The molestation of more than a thousand German girls in Cologne by Muslim "refugees" on New Year's Eve in 2015 was the first indication that North African sexual norms were coming to roost in Germany. And while the government has downplayed "migrant" crimes against the local women, the word still gets out and around.

In Germany, the case of a young Muslim refugee charged with the rape and murder of a teenage girl has captured media attention and rocked Germany’s Jewish community: The victim, 14-year-old Susanna Feldmann, was Jewish. Missing since May 22, the girl’s  body was found June 6 buried in a shallow grave near her hometown of Mainz. The case has rattled Germany, which is beset with worries about crime emanating from the large Muslim refugee population — many of whom are young, single men, frustrated and aimless.

While many facts have come out since the body of Susanna Feldmann was found and the suspect was arrested and interrogated, the incident still feeds populist speculation and anger at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who in 2015 opened the door to more than a million refugees from the war-torn Middle East on humanitarian grounds. Many are young, single men between 16 and 30 years old — like Ali Bashar,  the 20-year-old former asylum seeker who admitted killing Susanna.

Now the realization is dawning that few, if any, of Mutti Merkel's kinder are going to turn into Germans or become assimilated into the host culture. The realization has been delayed by the international media's cultural-Marxist insistence on conflating citizenship with ethnic nationality and declaring there is no difference between them. This may be true in the United States, which is unique among nations, but most definitely is not in continental Europe, where the modern nation-state first evolved; in Germany, the jus sanguinis made possible the prompt repatriations of the Volga Germans -- whose families had lived in Russia for hundreds of years -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, until 1990 when Germany introduced a very limited form of birthright citizenship, children of foreigners born and raised in Germany had no call on German citizenship at all.

It's not a conclusion most Germans are comfortable with, but as the gap between fantasy and reality widens, inevitable conclusions are being reached. Merkel's recent climbdown on "immigration" may have temporarily saved her administration, but it's only a matter of time before she falls, to be replaced with someone who realizes "Wir kann das nicht schaffen."

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers and to tighten the border with Austria in a political deal to save her government. It was a spectacular turnabout for a leader who has been seen as the standard-bearer of the liberal European order but who has come under intense pressure at home from the far right and from conservatives in her governing coalition over her migration policy.

Although the move to appease the conservatives exposed her growing political weakness, Ms. Merkel will limp on as chancellor. For how long is unclear. The nationalism and anti-migrant sentiment that has challenged multilateralism elsewhere in Europe is taking root — fast — in mainstream German politics.

Ms. Merkel agreed to the latest policy after an insurrection over migration policy led by her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, threatened to bring down her coalition. Mr. Seehofer demanded that Germany block migrants at the border if they have no papers, or have already registered in another European country. Ms. Merkel, who supports free movement across Europe’s borders, has been opposed to any moves effectively resurrecting border controls until Monday night, when she made the deal to stay in power.

Anyone who's ever spent a week in Germany -- and I've spent a good deal of my life here -- could have known that Merkel's social experiment in soft-headed egalitarianism was doomed to failure. The Islamic invasion of the West is succeeding in places like France, where it has taken advantage of the French civic dogma of laïcité and the residual anti-Christian sentiment of the French Revolution, first by having the religious trappings of Islam ignored and now, as the Muslim population grows, by forcing the French to take notice of their faith and demanding its open expression in contravention of French law.

Meanwhile in Britain, the church founded by Henry VIII in a fit of pique, and currently presided over by a 92-year-woman, looks to be on its last legs except in a strictly ceremonial sense; into this spiritual void has rushed the former colonials of Africa and Pakistan, bringing vibrant Islam with them.

Whether the Germans are made of sterner stuff than the Brits and the French remains to be seen. Certainly, everyone is trying to tread as lightly as possible, tiptoeing around the unpleasant truths while trying to avoid the even-more-unpleasant consequences of Merkel's folly. At this point, the best that can be hoped for is a halt to further invasion, rapid processing of the alleged "asylum" seekers and speedy repatriation of those found to be unqualified, even under the generosity of the German constitution's Asylrecht -- which has already undergone a considerable rollback since 1993.

It's important to remember that the Germans have seen this movie before, starring the Turks, who came as Gastarbeiter in the 1960s and, rather than returning home the way the Spanish, Greeks and Italian guest workers largely did, stayed in Germany to evolve a parallel society in which they stayed Muslim and Turkish. But the non-assimilation of a new, restive group of militant Muslims who've arrived not in search of a job but of a handout, is a whole new order of magnitude for Germany.

How will they react? With the Wall now gone for longer than it was up, Germans still shudder at the memory and don't wish for Checkpoint Charlie to reappear in the form of restrictive immigration policies. But that Wall was built by the Communists, and meant to keep the East Germans in, whereas the nationalist movements now sweeping Europe want to keep Islam out -- the way they have since the Battle of Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna. The Germans are going to have to decide, and quickly, which side of the Wall they're looking at it. The future of Europe depends on it.

SOURCE





Australian judge bans niqab in court's public gallery

A Victorian judge has banned a woman whose husband is facing terrorism charges from wearing a niqab in court, saying it posed a potential security risk.

The woman applied through her husband’s lawyers to wear the face veil, which she said was a “a fundamental way in which she observes her faith”, while sitting in the public gallery to support him through the six-week trial.

She said she had been permitted to wear the niqab during a committal hearing in the magistrates court and was willing to show her face to security guards manning the metal detector and weapons check at the court entrance to verify her identity.

But the supreme court judge Christopher Beale said the risk of a mistrial or other incident caused by “misbehaving” in the public gallery would be heightened if a person could not be instantly identified because their face was covered, and ruled that the risk outweighed the infringement upon the woman’s right to freedom of religious expression.

“Deterrence, identification and proof are all served by a requirement that spectators in the public gallery have their faces uncovered,” he said in a decision handed down on Monday.

Beale said lawyers for the accused had indicated there were other women who would also wear niqabs in court if permission were granted, which would further confuse identity issues because “such dress tends to be very similar”.

Lawyers for the woman argued that she did not pose a security risk and would abide by all court orders, but Beale said the stress felt by people accused of serious crimes was often shared by family members and that “as a consequence of that stress, incidents happen from time to time in court”.

“Australia is obviously a multicultural society and I agree that religious dress should be accommodated as much as possible, but the right of religious freedom and the right to participate in public life are not absolutes,” Beale said in his decision.

He said the Victorian charter of human rights recognised that rights “may be subject to limitations which can be ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom’”.

Lawyers for the woman said there was an implied right of wear a veil when not giving evidence, citing a number of cases in Commonwealth countries.

Those cases generally concerned whether a person was able to wear religious facial coverings while giving evidence and did not contest a person’s right to wear religious attire when not on the stand. Among them is a ruling by the New South Wales court of appeal concerning a civil damages trial against NSW police, which upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the complainant could not wear her niqab while giving evidence.

“A requirement that spectators have their faces uncovered is not to force anyone to act immodestly,” Beale said. “First, the exposure of one’s face in a courtroom cannot reasonably be viewed as an immodest act: subjective views to the contrary cannot rule the day, or the management of a courtroom.

“Second, if someone feels strongly that it would be improper for them to uncover their face in court, they can choose not to attend.”

He said the trial could be livestreamed to another room in the court building to allow the woman to follow it if she chose not to remove her veil.

The Victorian equal opportunity and human rights commissioner, Kristen Hilton, said religious and cultural rights were protected under Victorian law, and that those rights also applied in a courtroom.

“Victorian law is clear that when courts are acting in an administrative way – such as making decisions about procedure in the courtroom – they must consider and act compatibly with human rights,” Hilton said.

“The law allows for restrictions on human rights, such as restricting a person’s right to observe their religion or culture through what they wear, but limits are only justified where there is clear evidence the limit is reasonable.”

SOURCE 

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

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

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




Wednesday, July 18, 2018



UK Cathedral Had Man Arrested For the 'Disturbance' of Reading the Bible

Last month, British police arrested a man for reading the Bible outside of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. The police officer asked the preacher to move off of Cathedral property, at the request of church staff. When the man refused, he was arrested for a "breach of the peace." In a statement to PJ Media, the Cathedral defended its actions, but went on to say that it worked out a deal with the preacher to allow him to read the Bible going forward.

"Why am I having a problem reading the Bible, the Word of God, when the Lord has told me to read the Bible here?" the preacher asked the policeman in a video of the incident.

"Security staff here have asked me to move you off the property," the cordial policeman replied. "Staff here have asked you to leave." The officer suggested that all the preacher needed to do was move a few feet. "All you need to do to save any kind of breach of the peace and anyone getting in any trouble is to move your location."

To this, the preacher refused. "Then we're going to have to arrest you for breach of the peace," the officer responded.

"Yeah, you'll have to do that to me. You'll have to take me in, because I'm not moving," the Bible reader responded. "The Lord has asked me to read the Bible here. These people need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. You're not allowing them to hear it."

The preacher went on. "This Bible is all I'm reading. It's the King James Bible, which is authorized by the Queen."

Later, the Bible reader became more belligerent. "You are trespassing on God's authority," he told the policeman. "I am telling you, sir — I know you're police, I appreciate your work — I am not committing a crime. I am giving the word of God and that is not a crime."

As the preacher turned back to read the Bible, the policeman arrested him, and a woman filming the encounter asked, "Are you saying reading the Bible is breaching the peace?"

The Cathedral argued that it was breaching the peace, but not because he was reading the Bible.

"In order to provide a prayerful and safe space for all, including on the Cathedral's land at the entrances to the building, St. Paul's Cathedral has a policy of limiting any form of public protest, demonstration, preaching or other source of disturbance to people outside the Cathedral," a St. Paul's spokesperson told PJ Media on Thursday.

"The Chapter's policy is to allow a short interval and then ask the person to desist, and to involve the police if they refuse to stop or to move off the Cathedral's land," the spokesperson added.

Then the Cathedral spokesperson directly addressed the incident. "The police are supportive of this policy and on one occasion briefly arrested a man who had persistently returned to read loudly passages from the Bible because he was refusing to respond to police requests from Cathedral staff to move on."

The Cathedral made peace with the street preacher afterwards. "After this incident, the man concerned had a meeting with one of the Cathedral clergy, following which Chapter agreed to suspend its policy for this particular person so that he could read the Bible, as requested, for half an hour outside the Cathedral once a week."

The Cathedral ended its statement by insisting that it upholds the Bible. "the Bible, including the King James version, is read within the Cathedral at every one of the four weekday services, five on Sundays," the statement concluded.

Last October, on the 500th anniversary of Reformation leader Martin Luther nailing the "95 Theses" to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, conservative Anglicans protesting the British church's growing acceptance of same-sex marriage and homosexual activity. Both practices contradict clear Bible teachings.

"When the church redefines sin and eliminates repentance, it can no longer offer the good news of eternal salvation from sin in Jesus; the church no longer remains distinctly Christian; it is no longer salt and light in the world," the Reformation-style declaration read.

"Where leaders refuse to repent and submit themselves to the Word of God, the Lord raises up new leadership for His church and new structures: just as He did through Martin Luther 500 years ago," the statement ominously declared.

One of these protest documents appeared on the doors of St. Paul's Cathedral, which was the tallest building in London from 1710 to 1867 and remains the second-largest church building in Britain. A symbol of British identity, St. Paul's hosted the funerals of Lord Nelson, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher.

Following the unbiblical trend in favor of LGBT issues, St. Paul's Cathedral has an LGBTQ ministry called "Integrity." In 2012, the new dean of St. Paul's, Rev. Dr. David Ison, said the Church of England should embrace gay marriage.

No, Jimmy Carter, Jesus Wouldn't 'Approve of Gay Marriage'
"We need to take seriously people's desire for partnership and make sure that the virtues that you see in married relationships are available to people who are gay," Ison declared. "You can regard two Christian gay people as wanting to have the virtues of Christian marriage." He also insisted that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

It remains unclear whether this street preacher who insisted on reading the Bible is part of the same protest movement regarding St. Paul's Cathedral's acceptance of LGBT identity, but given the Cathedral's original hostility to him and given his insistence on reading the Bible as if it were not being preached there, it stands to reason.

SOURCE






Gun policy climbdown

Earlier this month, a long-running legal dispute between a self-described anarchist and the US government was finally settled. The outcome will have significant ramifications in the United States and potentially even the rest of the planet.

But let’s step back for a sec.

This all started with a guy called Cody Wilson. He runs a company called Defense Distributed that makes 3D guns and shares the blueprints so that anybody can download them in their own homes.

The US State Department took legal steps in 2013 to stop Cody’s company from operating, saying it violated international traffic and arms regulations - basically, firearm exportation laws.

Cody and the Second Amendment Foundation - a gun rights group - fought the restrictions by saying that it violated two parts of the US constitution - the right to own a gun and the right to free speech, which they argued was implied in the sharing of the gun blueprints.

Last week, the US State Department settled its case with Cody and the Foundation, dropping its claims that posting the blueprints online violates export laws.

“Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3D files and other information at issue,” the Second Amendment Foundation said in a statement

The government will also pay back a “significant proportion” of the lawyer’s fees used to fight the case for the last five years, the Foundation said.

Cody did not respond to Hack’s request for interview, and the Second Amendment Foundation declined a similar request.
What does this actually mean?

The settlement creates a big roadblock for any further attempts at gun control in the US. If people can simply download a blueprint and print it at home, restrictions on the physical manufacture and sale of weapons may become obsolete.

In fact, just months after going live, Cody’s website had 400,000 downloads. That was back in 2013, when 3D wasn’t as advanced as it is now.

Cody, who described himself as a “principled anarchist”, says he’s making a deliberate political statement in opening up gun manufacturing for everybody.

SOURCE






Military Vets of Another War: On Gender

While the two parties get ready to rumble over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s replacement, there’ll be no argument over one thing: just how important the courts have become. Republicans and Democrats may be animated over President Trump’s SCOTUS pick, Brett Kavanaugh, but it’s because they all agree — the courts’ decisions are affecting every facet of American life. And the latest debate at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is living proof.

With the exception of Barack Obama and his administration, there aren’t a whole lot of Americans clamoring to spend their taxpayer dollars on gender reassignment surgeries. The 44th president did his best to force the issue, insisting the VA, HHS, and Defense Department make these procedures the newest (and most controversial) obligation of unwilling Americans. Then, to our great relief, voters elected Donald Trump — many, based on his pledge that he would do away with the radical social experimentation of his predecessor.

Fortunately, they didn’t have to wait long. The new commander-in-chief rolled back the transgender policy in the military and did his best to put the brakes on the fierce debate over taxpayer-funded sex changes. Everything was going according to plan — until the courts got involved. At least two military veterans decided to sue the Trump administration into an all-expenses-paid gender transition (which, if you ask medical professionals, hasn’t proven effective in treating serious mental health conditions like this one). Now, thanks to the courts, the VA is under significant pressure to reconsider its position on covering gender reassignment surgeries for vets.

Last Friday, the VA put out its first official “feelers” on the issue with a request for public comment. And while liberals insist that the department is just “going through the motions,” there’s no telling what the activist courts (which have become quite fond of stripping this president of his constitutional authority) will demand next. The VA did point out that the Defense Department memo on the president’s transgender policy “noted considerable scientific uncertainty and overall lack of high quality scientific evidence demonstrating the extent to which transition-related treatments, such as sex reassignment surgery remedy the multifaceted mental health problems associated with gender dysphoria.”

That’s certainly in keeping with the latest research from Harvard University and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, both of which wrote in JAMA that despite what the sexual extremists might say, there’s absolutely no conclusive evidence that procedures like gender reassignment are actually helping people. (Obama’s CDC admitted as much in 2016.) In fact, part of the VA’s hesitation is spelled out in its public comment page. One of the questions asked is: “Given the challenge of the high rates of Veteran suicide, what does the evidence, including peer-reviewed evidence, suggest about the impact of gender alterations on the rates of suicide and suicide ideation among those suffering from gender dysphoria?”

FRC’s Peter Sprigg knows the answer to that one. In several of his papers, he cites a very important 2011 Swedish study, which showed that even AFTER having gender reassignment surgery, people who identify as transgender had a suicide rate 19 times higher than the general population. That completely undermines Obama’s suggestion that giving people who identify as transgender everything they ask for will do anything to reduce their suicide rate. On the contrary, extreme policies like this one come at the expense of the population they claim to help!

Then, of course, there’s the sky-high price tag (which the other side denies). “It’s just a ridiculous argument that this is going to be some costly issue that they have to cover,” said Sasha Buchert, the attorney representing the veterans. But, as Peter has pointed out, it’s not as ridiculous as Sasha thinks! Male-to-female surgery would cost a whopping $110,450 per person, and female-to-male up to $89,050. And that doesn’t include the rounds of pre- and post-hormone therapy!

When America’s heroes can’t even get the routine care they need, surely we can think of a better investment than this one — a radical procedure that too many patients live to regret

SOURCE






Boys and girls ARE very different -- and only feminists would be warped enough to claim otherwise

Outnumbered: Parents reveal what it's like when their entire brood is the opposite sex, including a disappointed father who spent thousands trying to get his girls interested in football

All parents struggle with the demands of family life from time to time. But spare a thought for those who aren't just overwhelmed — they're also hopelessly outnumbered in terms of gender.

Whether it's a mum of all boys or a father with lots of little girls, it can be lonely when you're the only representative of your sex in the family. So, do the outnumbered parents secretly yearn for a child made more in their image, or would they never have it any other way? And what do they say to strangers who ask if they're going to try again for that elusive boy or girl baby?

Jamie Crawford, 40, is a business owner and lives in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, with his wife Frances, 32, a civil servant. They have four daughters, Ella, eight, Faye, six, Juliet, three, and Cora, seven months.

Jamie says: At the gym I'm teased for only producing girls. But I laugh along because I genuinely couldn't be happier to be a dad of daughters. I don't feel less of a man because I don't have a son, although I know that attitude still exists.

At work, customers are always asking me when Frances and I are going to try for a boy. They can't believe our family is complete without one.



But I grew up the youngest of four boys, and I've got lots of male friends. I don't need a boy at home, too!

Since Ella was born I've been on a steep learning curve in all things female. Sometimes I can't believe the things I know — like how you only put conditioner on the ends of your hair to stop it getting greasy, and which outfits go on what dolls.

Quite often, after dropping the older girls at school, I'll find myself singing along to their Frozen CD, forgetting it's just me in the car. I know all the words! I can be in and out of the bathroom in ten minutes flat, and as the girls become teenagers I suspect I'll be allowed even less time.

I don't want to turn into an over-protective dad, but I know the world can be a dangerous place, especially for young women — so I'm planning to teach them all self-defence.

I was actually relieved when we found out we were having a fourth girl last year. A boy would have been smothered by three big sisters, it just wouldn't have been fair. We've no plans to try for a fifth, our family is definitely complete.

Wife Frances says: With each pregnancy all I cared about was that the baby was healthy — not its gender. But by the time Cora came along we'd decided to find out early what we were having, because I couldn't bear the incessant 'you must be hoping for a boy' comments.

The only downside is that because they like the same toys and TV shows, there's a tendency to lump them together. I have to remind myself to give them enough one-on-one attention.

Claire Rocks, 33, lives in Darlington with her husband Matthew, 41. They run a childcare business and have five sons, Cameron, 15, Harvey, 12, McKenzie, seven, Caelan, five, and Cohen, three.

Claire says: I live in a world of superheroes and smelly socks, and keeping the fridge stocked is a daily struggle. We get through eight loaves and 24 pints of milk a week. As I'm just 5ft 1in it's a matter of time until I'm the smallest in the house.

I get cross, though, when people make assumptions about my boys. Everyone presumes the house is chaotic and boisterous, with Matthew and I more like referees than parents. I hate those negative stereotypes, because it's how you raise children that dictates their behaviour, not their gender. My sons may argue, like all siblings, but they don't fight — I simply wouldn't tolerate it.



I'm quite a firm mum. They are the men of the future and I'm raising them to respect and value women, and to be gentlemen.

I found out with each pregnancy what I was having but only because I'm impatient. I was never disappointed. We did pay for an extra private scan with my last pregnancy, though, because neither of us could believe it was a fifth boy. A part of me assumed we were due a girl after four sons! I know there are things I won't get to experience, such as girly days out with a daughter and helping to plan her wedding.

But then I see the amazing relationship the boys have, and I know this is the right dynamic for me.

Husband Matthew says: We've been asked so many times if we are going to try for a daughter. I can't understand why people feel our family is less than perfect, as it's just right for us. I even think dads who don't have sons might envy me a bit — having five boys is brilliant.

We did consider a sixth baby, but decided five was enough. If we had a daughter now it would be a shock.

Daniel Nutkins, 36, lives in Harlow, Essex, with wife Gemma, 34, and they are health coaches for a nutrition company. They have four girls, Lois, ten, Jamie, nine, Taylor, seven, and Thea, 22 months.

Daniel says: When Gemma was pregnant with our youngest, she kept saying she felt different and was convinced it was a boy. Deep down, I hoped she was right because I knew that was my last chance to have the son I've always dreamed of. When Thea was born I was thrilled, but a boy would've been wonderful, too.



I've spent thousands of pounds trying to interest the girls in football, which is my passion. I've tried everything from pink Arsenal strips to training camps and trips to matches, but none of them has any interest.

So I've resigned myself to playing shops, beauty salons and hairdressers. I even had my hair cut short because I was sick of them 'styling' it for me!

Recently I went to see my GP with a sore ankle. As I took off my shoe and sock to be examined, I remembered too late that the girls had insisted on painting my toenails with glitter polish. He was very surprised.

But when I'm snuggled up on the sofa with my daughters, I couldn't be happier. I love all the cuddles I get.

Wife Gemma says: When I see families with just boys I feel relieved I had girls, as I think they're calmer and easier to manage. I love dressing them all the same, they get so much attention when we're out and it looks adorable. I'll be sad when they refuse to let me!

Becky McCall, 42, is a full-time mum. She lives in Amersham, Buckinghamshire, with husband Richard, 43, chief operating officer of a London brokerage firm, and their four sons, Noah, 12, Ethan, 11, and twins Jacob and Isaac, seven.



Becky says: When we tried for a third child, I did think it would be nice to have a girl after years of toy trains and cars, but Richard was sure it would be a boy. He's one of three brothers, and was convinced we'd only have boys, too.

Then we found out it was twins — and the shock eclipsed the news they were also both boys. I decided it was for the best after all, because boys are all I know.

Still, when Richard and the boys are huddled around their latest Lego creation, I crave female company. Someone to watch Mary Poppins with, or just browse the shops.

Instead I have spent a lot of time hunting for insects in the garden and watching sport. I realised early on you have to exhaust boys or they get up to mischief, and they rarely sit still.

I've lost count of the trips to A&E with broken bones and cuts needing stitches. While friends' daughters will chat about their day at school, I'm more likely to get a grunt and a one-word answer.

But it's totally worth it. Walking down the street surrounded by my handsome sons, I feel like such a proud mother.

I love that we can do everything as a family because the boys like the same things.

Husband Richard says: I'd have loved a daughter. but it's tougher on Becky. With a girl, the house would feel more balanced. But as a father to four sons I feel very lucky.

Jamie Hallworth, 29, lives in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester, with his wife Lauren, 29, who works in the NHS, and their daughters Lacey, eight, Bryleigh, five, and two-year-old twins Tilly and Heidi.

Jamie says: Sitting in a Saturday morning ballet class, I do marvel at how my life has changed. I've swapped football with friends for tutus and pirouettes.

I really wanted a son. Someone to kick a ball about with and to carry on my family name, because both my sisters plan to change theirs when they get married.

With our first baby, I hardly had time to think about whether I wanted a girl or a boy — it was so busy and exciting. But the second time around, when the 20-week scan revealed it was a girl, I admit there was a flicker of disappointment. At that stage we weren't planning to have more children, and I thought my last chance for a son had gone.



When we decided to try again, and Lauren became pregnant, I thought maybe it would be third time's a charm! But it wasn't to be, and Lauren and I agreed it was probably better as our home was so girl-orientated by then.

I've learned it's all about the details when you have girls. They must have the right coloured hair bows, and if one gets a French plait I have to do one for all of them!

We can't leave the house without being bombarded with comments from passers-by. Some of the best were: 'Is that why you lost your hair?' 'Do you have two bathrooms?' and 'They must cost you a fortune!' I just laugh along.

People tell me that when girls are older they stay closer than boys do, and I hope that's true. I see the bond Lauren has with her mum and I want to be as close to the girls when they grow up.

Wife Lauren says: I tell Jamie he was destined to be surrounded by women! I was desperate for our first baby to be a girl, because I'm an only child and very close to my mum, so I really wanted that bond with my own daughter.

I did feel a bit disappointed each time for Jamie, as I knew he'd have loved a son. Practically though, it's so much easier only having one gender. They're such a little pink pack, I couldn't be happier.

SOURCE

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

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

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

Monday, July 16, 2018






Preventing domestic violence:  There is only one way

Wife and partner bashing is an abhorrent crime and one reads almost daily of stories about it.  You find stories in the mainstream media with some frequency but where you really read such reports is in Quora.com, which solicits all sorts of stories direct from individuals.

Given the large concern about such incidents, governments have been exerting themselves to do something about it. But their efforts are ridiculous.  They just make statements about it and say what a naughty thing it is to do.  There is no evidence that such preaching does any good -- probably for the excellent reason that it does in fact do no good.

The nice middle class people who hear and read such messages are the ones to need such advice least. 

There is of course no perfect solution but there is one that would PREVENT, not just punish, most such behaviour.  And that flows from the fact that most such assaults are by people already well-known to the police for aggressive behaviour.  Most have prior convictions for violence or at least have in their past come to the attention of police for such behaviour

So if any offender has a record of any serious violence towards people or animals they should simply have their liberty permanently taken away.  In most instances they should be jailed.  They won't be able to act out in jail.  And such a policy would protect the community generally, not only women, which is a big bonus. If they show no respect for others, they cannot expect others to respect them

The cost would be a larger jail population but how do you count the cost of saving the lives and well-being of many abused women? A one-percent cut in the bureaucracy would probably yield enough to cover he cost.  And jailing could be a lost less costly than it now is. Instead of the motel-like conditions that are now often provided in jails, a bare minimum for life support could be provided.

This is of course a "tough" solution but it is the only one with any prospect of effectiveness.  Anything else is pissing into the wind

I have argued previously that releasing serious criminals after a short period of imprisonment is asking for trouble.  See also here -- JR







Man Who Stopped Gun Thief Fired For Good Deed

A manager at Academy Sports was fired from his job after he prevented a would-be robber from stealing a firearm from the Florida sporting goods store.

Dean Crouch, 32, was working at Academy Sports in Tallahassee when Jason White walked up to the firearms counter and asked to look at a .40-caliber handgun, reported The Tallahassee Democrat. White allegedly raced for the front door when handed the firearm, and Couch quickly tackled him to the ground. (RELATED: Armed Walmart Shopped Kills Alleged Carjacker)

While waiting for police to arrive, White was taken to the store office where it was discovered that he had allegedly stolen a backpack, two matching magazines and five boxes of matching ammunition.

“He repeatedly said ‘I stole and I admit to it’ and ‘I will steal again when I get out of jail,'” a Tallahassee officer wrote in a police report.

Crouch was put on suspension following the incident and after a month-long investigation, Academy Sports notified him on Tuesday that he was fired for violating a company policy prohibiting employees from touching customers, according to Fox News.

The spokeswoman for Academy Sports defended the company’s actions telling the Democrat “While the incident ended without injury, actions inconsistent with corporate policies were taken.”

Crouch, who is married and the father to two young children, is now facing financial distress. Without the income from his job, he is forced to put the family’s home up for sale.

“I was really dumbfounded honestly, that Academy would do something like this. I worked so hard for Academy, put some blood, sweat, and tears into this place,” Crouch told WTXL. “I had great staff and for them to come through and fire me over trying to protect the community, it really hurts me personally.”

Crouch has been an employee of Academy Sports for more than two years and is considering a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

SOURCE






‘Extreme Poverty’ Is Extremely Rare in the U.S., Says New Research

Overestimates appear to be the product of unreliable survey data.
A recent dust-up between the U.N. and the Trump administration reinvigorated the debate over “extreme poverty” in the U.S. The U.N. claimed an astounding 18.5 million Americans were mired in this condition; the latter said the true number was a mere 250,000 — fewer than one in 1,000 Americans.

As I’ve noted previously, the U.N.’s number was absurd, relying on a definition of extreme poverty that no one else uses. But there is a legitimate debate over the true extent of extreme poverty — typically defined as a household income under $2 per person per day, which is something like one-tenth of the poverty line — with estimates ranging from a few hundred thousand to a few million. And in new research presented at the American Enterprise Institute Tuesday, the economist Bruce D. Meyer and two co-authors make a forceful argument that the lower numbers are the correct ones.

Their own estimate is that “at most one-quarter of one percent of households are living on less than $2/person/day” — about 326,000 individuals in total — and that these are overwhelmingly single adults, sometimes students. Indeed, the authors were unable to identify a single family with children that was extremely poor in their data.

Claims of rampant extreme poverty first rose to prominence with the 2015 publication of the book $2 a Day, the central claim of which was that 4 percent of American families with children fell below that cutoff — largely because the 1996 welfare reform made it harder to get cash assistance. The book itself made clear some serious limitations of this number, though. For one thing, it was limited to cash income, and the estimate fell by half when food stamps were included. And for another, it was based on survey data, meaning that individuals reported their own income. It’s well known that people tend to underreport their welfare benefits and off-the-books cash in surveys, and responses are particularly suspect when individuals claim to subsist on essentially no money.

In response, some critical researchers tried to correct the survey data to account for underreporting, or looked at households’ spending rather than their income, and reached radically lower estimates. But neither approach is entirely satisfactory. That’s where the new work of Meyer et al. comes in.

Meyer’s team has assembled an impressive data set that starts with the government survey used in $2 a Day (the Survey of Income and Program Participation, or SIPP), but also includes administrative data from various government agencies. As a result, instead of trying to statistically estimate whether a survey respondent is underreporting his income and benefits, Meyer et al. can simply look at federal and state records to see how much that individual received. This allows the authors to make more comprehensive and accurate adjustments to the survey data than anyone else has been able to. The biggest tradeoff is that they currently have administrative food-stamp data from just eleven states, so their fully adjusted national estimates need to be scaled up from those — but fortunately, these states are demographically similar to the country as a whole.

Their raw estimate, based only on cash income reported in the survey, is that 3 percent of all households (and nearly 10 percent of single-parent households) live in extreme poverty. Add in self-reported non-cash benefits and it’s down to 2.1 percent. Account for the fact that a small share of respondents claim to have little or no income despite working many hours at a paying job — clearly a mistake — and we’re at 1.3 percent. Reclassify low-income households that actually have substantial assets (such as $5,000 in cash or $25,000 in real-estate equity), and it’s 0.9 percent. And when you consult the administrative data to account for the underreporting of income and benefits, it falls more than two-thirds, reaching the final estimate of 0.24 percent. Incredibly, many of the individuals who move out of “extreme poverty” when these adjustments are made appear not to even be poor, much less extremely poor.

Meyer et al. demonstrate beyond a doubt that claims of extreme poverty are tremendously overblown.

The results are similar when they switch gears, repeating the analysis with the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), another government survey they can match to their administrative data: Just 0.12 percent of households are in extreme poverty once the proper corrections are made. This is an estimate of full-year extreme poverty, whereas the SIPP estimates pertain to a four-month period, which likely explains why it’s so much lower.

This is not quite the final verdict on the extreme-poverty question. As the authors note, none of this accounts for off-the-books income that people might not report to survey-takers, and the authors’ administrative data are far from comprehensive; they aren’t able to correct for underreporting of unemployment insurance, veterans’ benefits, workers’ compensation, cash welfare, or the child tax credit. On the other hand, however, just as surveys undercount government benefits, they also neglect the homeless, which number in the hundreds of thousands on any given night. The authors suggest a “next step” to their research will be to mine additional sources of data to address both of these limitations.

At the event debuting the results, Laura Wheaton of the Urban Institute also raised some technical issues with the analysis, including the way the authors estimated earnings for people who reported working for pay but not earning much money (they multiplied the hours by the minimum wage, which may overestimate earnings for some self-employed and tipped workers).

Meyer et al. demonstrate beyond a doubt, though, that claims of “extreme poverty” are tremendously overblown. One can be concerned about the poor without claiming that such incredibly severe deprivation is common in this country — so perhaps it’s time to shift our focus accordingly.

SOURCE






Australia: Protesters accuse NSW library of ‘spreading propaganda’ with drag queen event

ANGRY protesters have slammed an upcoming storytelling event for children and adults which will be hosted by a drag queen.

As a gesture of support for the Wollongong Queer Arts Festival, the city’s central library is hosting the July 21 event, in which Roxee Horror — the alter-ego of Adam Larkham — will read stories, sing and make crafts.

However, the seemingly harmless event has raised the ire of hundreds on social media who have launched homophobic slurs at the event and its host.

Many accused the library of using taxpayer’s money to “spread propaganda” and “sexualising children” by choosing a drag queen to host an event that will be attended by people of all ages.

Some irate locals even wrote to the library to express their dismay and called for the event to scrapped.

However, staff hit back at some of the abusive messages posted on the library’s Facebook page.

“Thank you for your feedback,” wrote a spokesman for Wollongong City Libraries. “The libraries’ support of the Wollongong Queer Arts Festival is an opportunity to highlight that it doesn’t matter who you are, where you are from or what motivates you to come into the library, this is a safe and inclusive space for everyone.”

Messages of support for the event have also begun to appear on the library’s Facebook page — with one reading, “If you don’t like it, don’t come.”

Another commenter wrote: “I think this is marvellous. Teaching kids and the community that people come in all shapes and sizes through the art of storytelling, and demonstrating the importance of respect, love, kindness and education.”

Another said: “Don’t let the haters get you down. This is a wonderful opportunity for children who may be LGBTQ+ or children of parents within the LGBTQ+ community to see positive role models out and about in the wider community.”

Ms Horror, who hosts drag bingo nights and other events in the area, appeared to be excited for the event when she announced it on her public Facebook page.

“Cannot wait to read some books and do some craft!” she wrote.

The library’s manager Jenny Thompson told the Illawarra Mercury she doesn’t care about the criticism of the event.

“The central library is a pretty big place, and our community and our world is a big place and there is space for everybody,” she said.

“We offer a range of different events for all different parts of the community and this is, I guess, part of our community we haven’t done that overtly for before. “So it’s important to us that we’re getting with the program.”

SOURCE 

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

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

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




Sunday, July 15, 2018






Why do so many people hate Trump for telling truths they don’t want to hear? Isn’t that what ALL politicians are supposed to do?

By Piers Morgan

President Donald Trump is the kind of guy who comes to your house for dinner and then half way through the meal says he hates your food. Oh, and as he leaves, adds for good measure that he’s not very keen on your curtains either.

He wouldn’t see that as being rude so much as being brutally honest.

Plain, blunt speaking has been the hallmark of his bombastic, in-your-face behaviour throughout his 50-year career as a billionaire real estate tycoon.

I’ve known President Trump a long time and he’s always called things exactly how he sees them in the moment, regardless of any offence they may cause.

This tendency has made him a massive success in business, and helped land him the presidency of the United States.

It’s also made him one of the most divisive and polarising public figures in the history of Planet Earth.

But one thing it’s no longer credible to feel is ‘shock’ when he does it.  He ALWAYS does it.

So spare me all the risible ‘I’ve never been so offended!’ nonsense spewing forth from the usual suspects today at Trump’s tub-thumping tirade against his host Theresa May and her Brexit policy, as he arrived in Britain.

President Trump calls a spade a spade. We know that, and we can expect that every single day of this extraordinary presidency.

And this morning, he didn’t just call a spade a spade so much as take the spade and smash it all over Theresa May’s political career, reputation and backbone.

He believes the British Prime Minister’s severely watered down new Brexit plan, rubber-stamped with her cabinet at her country home Chequers a week ago, is not actually Brexit because the EU would still retain some control over trade deals.

‘If we do a deal like that,’ Trump told The Sun, ‘we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK so it would probably kill the deal because we have enough difficulty with the European Union. We are cracking down right now on the European Union because they have not treated the United States fairly on trading.’

Trump said May ignored his advice on how to negotiate Brexit. ‘I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route.’

Now, it obviously wasn’t particularly tactful for him to say this literally as Marine One, the presidential helicopter, landed at Blenheim Palace for last night’s fancy dinner hosted by the target of his attack. But that doesn’t mean Trump isn’t right both in his sentiment and his timing.

Full disclosure: I voted Remain. I don’t think Britain should be leaving the EU and wish the 2016 Referendum vote had agreed with me.  But it didn’t.

Instead, a whopping 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU, and they understood that to mean we leave the club and all its rules, seizing back full control of our economy, our borders and our laws.

They understood that because May’s predecessor David Cameron, who was the Prime Minister who called the Referendum, repeatedly made this crystal clear in the run-up to the vote.

A major positive of life after Brexit, we were assured by the politicians who drove the Leave campaign, would be that we could trade completely freely with countries outside the EU and in particular America.

Yet May’s new plan doesn’t allow for that, however she tries to spin it. As Trump told The Sun: ‘The deal she is striking is a much different deal than the one the people voted on. It was not the deal that was in the referendum.’

No, it’s not. And no amount of frantic political spinning can change this unarguable fact.

It’s not just Trump who thinks that. David Davis, May’s own Brexit Secretary, resigned within 48 hours of the plan being ‘agreed’, closely followed by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

They too believe this plan does not amount to Brexit and that it’s a betrayal of the democratic will of the majority who voted for it. I agree with them, even if personally I hope we end up with a deal so fudged it’s like we never really left.

Just as I also agreed with Trump’s scathing criticism earlier this week of America’s NATO colleagues for not paying their proper bills on defence.

It’s absolutely disgraceful that Germany, the biggest country in Europe, pays just 1.2% of its GDP on defence (compared to America’s 3.8%), yet rakes in billions from Russian gas supplies – empowering Vladimir Putin, who many view as the biggest security threat to Europe.

Trump’s rhetoric may be inflammatory, his tweets may be provocative and occasionally insulting, and some of his policies like the recent immigrant child separation scandal have been disgraceful, but that doesn’t negate his right to criticise his friends when they’re wrong. Isn’t that what proper friends so?

I certainly do that to my friends, and I expect them to do the same to me, so long as it is delivered without personal abuse.

Theresa May has boxed herself into a predictably awful place. Her new Brexit plan is deeply unpopular with everyone – from the EU to Remainers who don’t think she’s gone far enough and Brexiters who don’t think she’s gone far enough.

So as things stand, Britain is heading off an enormous, historic cliff in a few months time with huge new doubt over its ability to use its biggest parachute – a big new trade deal with the U.S. - for a soft, safe landing.

In these circumstances, it’s not rude and offensive of Trump to tell her straight what the reality is – it’s a cold, hard and vitally important truth.

And isn’t there a wondrously delicious irony that all those screaming ‘Don’t be so rude, Mr Trump!’’ are the same ones gleefully supporting the absurd, pathetic 20ft orange baby Trump balloon that flew over Parliament today? For sheer breath-taking rudeness, mocking the leader of our No1 ally in such a childish, pitiful way takes some beating.

Yet it’s entirely consistent with the rank hypocrisy that surrounds so much of the Trump-bashing agenda.

The same people who fiercely defended President Barack Obama when he urged Britain to vote Remain in the referendum are now furiously condemning Trump for ‘sticking his nose into Brexit’.

And the anti-Trump protests today are substantially bigger than anything seen for the recent visits to the same city by President Erdogan of Turkey and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia – two men who make Trump look like a choirboy when it comes to their dictatorial, war-mongering, human rights abusing, women and gay oppressing regimes.

I’m glad President Trump has come to Britain and given my Prime Minister some home truths. It’s the perfect time for him to do it. If she has any sense, she’ll pour him a cup of tea and listen to him.

SOURCE






Columnist Resigns After Her Site Removes Her Piece on Transgenderism and Hollywood

Conservative columnist Daniella Greenbaum announced her resignation from Business Insider on Thursday after the news website deleted her opinion piece arguing that actress Scarlett Johansson should not be chastised for playing a transgender role.

“I wish I could say I am surprised,” Greenbaum wrote in her resignation letter. “Unfortunately, what happened with my piece—the tarring of a commonsensical view as somehow bigoted or not thought out; the capitulation on the part of those who are supposed to be adults to the mob—is a pattern happening all over the country.”

Greenbaum’s column about Johansson’s role in upcoming film “Rub & Tug” was published on Friday. It was later deleted when other Business Insider employees claimed they found it offensive.

“Scarlett Johansson is the latest target of the social-justice warrior mob,” Greenbaum wrote in the column. “The actress is being chastised for, well, acting.”

I believe female actors can play men and trans men. That is the apparently controversial view that inspired BI to take down my piece. I have resigned from @businessinsider and explain why in my letter to

The column was originally scrubbed from the site. Business Insider partially republished it on Tuesday as a heading with no text, except for a note stating that Business Insider deleted the column because it did not meet “editorial standards,” reported CNN.

Business Insider created new guidelines for its opinion pieces on “culturally sensitive topics, such as marginalized communities, race, or LGTBQ+ issues” because of Greenbaum’s column. Its global editor-in-chief sent an internal email on Monday announcing that all “culturally sensitive” stories will be examined by the writer’s editor and a site executive editor or editor-in-chief, reported CNN.

“Ultimately, it is the first editor’s responsibility to flag culturally sensitive stories,” Nicholas Carlson, Business Insider’s global editor-in-chief, wrote in the email. “It may be hard to tell which are and which are not. The policy is to err on the safe side, even if it slows us down.”

Carlson also banned the phrase “social justice warrior,” which Greenbaum used in the first sentence of her column. “There should be no partisan name-calling,” he wrote in the email.

SOURCE







Anti-Catholic bigotry

Are there too many Jews on the Supreme Court? Just raising the question is enough to raise eyebrows. In some circles it would be proof of bigotry. Count me among those who would detect at least a whiff of anti-Semitism. Why, then, are pundits questioning the Catholic representation on the Supreme Court, and getting away with it?

The latest example comes by way of an article originally published by Religion News Service on July 11; it has been picked up as an op-ed by several newspapers. “Catholic-Heavy Supreme Court Moves Right as the Church Moves Left.” That is the title of an article by Jacob Lupfer.

What occasioned Lupfer's concerns about a “Catholic-Heavy” Supreme Court was President Trump's selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court. Lupfer describes Kavanaugh as a “doctrinaire conservative,” one who is “more heavily and outwardly invested in his Catholic identity than his mentor [Justice Anthony Kennedy].”

Is this because Kavanaugh is a lector at his parish? Is it because the nominee cited his work helping the poor while working for Catholic Charities? The red flag thrown by Lupfer was followed by some red meat for anti-Catholic bigots. He says Trump is “exacerbat[ing]” and “heighten[ing]” the “angst (or excitement, depending on who’s being asked)” about “the institution's ever more conservative Catholic majority.”

In other words, it is not the bigots who are to be blamed for raising the issue about too many Catholics on the high court. It's Trump's fault.

Lupfer then offers a pass to Senator Dianne Feinstein for her anti-Catholic attack on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who was on Trump's short list to replace Justice Kennedy.

In her questioning of Barrett, Feinstein said of her, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” We all know what that meant. Lupfer manages to spin Feinstein's bigoted comment saying it was nothing more than a “gaffe.” No, a gaffe is unintentional. Feinstein's comment was scripted. And she never apologized.

Worse, Lupfer then accuses Feinstein's critics of using her remark as a “rallying cry for conservatives enthralled with the notion that devout, orthodox religious people are systematically excluded from positions of elite influence, and particularly positions of legal authority.” In other words, when those offended by bigoted comments complain, they are exploiting the issue. Would this apply to others as well, or just Catholics?

Lupfer offers a dire warning. “The triumph of conservative Catholicism on the court has a dark lining,” he informs. The darkness, he says, is evident in the way “the Catholic Supreme Court” has ruled on liberal causes.

“The Catholic Supreme Court”? Kavanaugh, who is Catholic, may replace Kennedy, who is also Catholic. The other four Catholics are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It should be noted that Sotomayor identifies as a “cultural Catholic,” not a practicing one.

Conveniently, Lupfer never mentions that three of the Supreme Court Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan—are Jewish. Do we have too many Jews on the Supreme Court?

Jews are approximately 2 percent of the population, yet they make up a third of the high court. Catholics are not nearly as overrepresented: they are approximately 25 percent of the population and make up slightly more than half of the Supreme Court.

We don't have too many Catholics or too many Jews on the Supreme Court. What we have are some of the best jurisprudential minds in the nation. Those who think otherwise are the problem, not the religious affiliation of those on the high court.

SOURCE






Lauren Southern appears on Sky News Australia, making one point very clear



CONTROVERSIAL alt-right YouTube star Lauren Southern has appeared on Sky News Australia making it clear that she is “happy to be white”.

The 23-year-old Canadian activist, who touched down in Australia yesterday, told Sky News host Rita Panahi that she feels “zero shame whatsoever for being white.”

“If I were black I could say I’m proud, if I were Asian I could say I’m proud, if I were any other ethnicity I could say I’m proud because that’s how our culture is, but if I’m white and I say I’m proud the media will go nuts.”

Ms Southern, who previously worked for Canadian website Rebel Media, was barred from entering the UK earlier this year for distributing “racist” flyers reading “Allah is a Gay God” and “Allah is trans” outside a restaurant in the English town of Luton.

Ms Southern is in Australia to headline a tour that advocates for free speech.

She was originally denied access from entering the country, but her visa was approved by the Home Affairs Department on Tuesday.

After landing in Brisbane on Friday sporting a “It’s okay to be white” T-shirt, Ms Southern claimed to have received online rape threats. “I was just reading the comments on the article that came out about the ‘It’s okay to be white shirt’, and someone was saying, ‘I hope she gets raped’,” she told The Daily Telegraph.

She told the publication she believed the “unprecedented” number of hurdles being put in her way to enter Australia were due to her criticism of radical Islam. “There are so many people that are offended by debate and free speech that sometimes governments cower. It’s just way easier to play into the hands of people who are totalitarian,” she said.

“I have criticised radical Islam, I have criticised the increasing blasphemy laws that are being brought into our societies. You won’t see Christians violently attacking people for criticising their religion like you do with Islam, things like the Charlie Hebdo attack.”

The outspoken activist will tour Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Auckland alongside commentator Stefan Molyneux later this month.

Ms Southern’s visit will also feature screenings of her documentary film Farmlands, which delves into the racially charged issue of South African farm killings.

The alt-right activist has also revealed that she plans to have dinner with Pauline Hanson after receiving a Tweet from the One Nation Leader on Tuesday.

“Sorry to hear about your trouble getting a visa @Lauren_Southern,” the senator tweeted. “If you are still in Oz when Parliament sits in August you have an open invitation to dinner. “I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on the situation in South Africa & on Islam. “Good luck with your tour.”

In a wide-ranging interview with The Daily Telegraph, the activist said Australians should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves against a “totalitarian” government.

“I think the Americans have it right. The idea of having guns is essentially to protect yourself from a totalitarian government,” she said.

“You can see that, for example, in Paris — where they have horrific shootings and terrorist attacks, the theatre attack, the Charlie Hebdo attack. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the world in France yet these horrific attacks and shootings still happen. Unfortunately there will always be bad people and bad people don’t follow the law.”

Australia has had just one mass shooting — a domestic violence incident — since former Prime Minister John Howard banned semiautomatic and other military-style weapons in 1996. America has had 154 this year alone.

During her week-long visit in Australia Ms Southern, a friend of confessed troll Milo Yiannopoulos, told The Daily Telegraph there would be heavy security at her shows to protect herself from “crazy protesters”. She said she regularly received death threats.

SOURCE 

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

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

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



Friday, July 13, 2018



Making the police afraid to do their jobs is not a good idea

The heavy attacks on police under Obama are now bearing fruit -- with escalating crime.  Note that the cops accused in the Freddy Gray case were all eventually exonerated

BALTIMORE – Just before a wave of violence turned Baltimore into the nation’s deadliest big city, a curious thing happened to its police force: officers suddenly seemed to stop noticing crime.

Police officers reported seeing fewer drug dealers on street corners. They encountered fewer people who had open arrest warrants.

Police questioned fewer people on the street. They stopped fewer cars.

In the space of just a few days in spring 2015 – as Baltimore faced a wave of rioting after Freddie Gray, a black man, died from injuries he suffered in the back of a police van – officers in nearly every part of the city appeared to turn a blind eye to everyday violations. They still answered calls for help. But the number of potential violations they reported seeing themselves dropped by nearly half. It has largely stayed that way ever since.

“What officers are doing is they’re just driving looking forward. They’ve got horse blinders on,” says Kevin Forrester, a retired Baltimore detective.

The surge of shootings and killings that followed has left Baltimore easily the deadliest large city in the United States. Its murder rate reached an all-time high last year; 342 people were killed. The number of shootings in some neighborhoods has more than tripled. One man was shot to death steps from a police station. Another was killed driving in a funeral procession.

“In all candor, officers are not as aggressive as they once were, pre-2015. It’s just that fact.”
Gary Tuggle, interim Police Commissioner of Baltimore

What's happening in Baltimore offers a view of the possible costs of a remarkable national reckoning over how police officers have treated minorities.

Starting in 2014, a series of racially charged encounters in Ferguson, Missouri; Chicago; Baltimore; and elsewhere cast an unflattering spotlight on aggressive police tactics  toward black people. Since then, cities have been under pressure to crack down on abuses by law enforcement.

So has the U.S. Justice Department. During the Obama administration, the department launched wide-ranging civil rights investigations of troubled police forces, then took them to court to compel reforms. Under President Donald Trump, Washington has largely given up that effort. "If you want crime to go up, let the ACLU run the police department," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a gathering of police officials in May.

Whether that scrutiny would cause policing to suffer – or crime to rise – has largely remained an open question.

In Baltimore, at least, the effect on the city's police force was swift and substantial.

Police typically learn about crime in one of two ways: either someone calls for help, or an officer sees a crime himself and stops to do something. The second category, known among police as an “on-view,” offers a sense of how aggressively officers are doing their job. Car stops are a good example: Few people call 911 to report someone speeding – instead, officers see it and choose to pull someone over. Or choose not to.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent.

“Immediately upon the riot, policing changed in Baltimore, and it changed very dramatically,” says Donald Norris, an emeritus professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, who reviewed USA TODAY's analysis. “The outcome of that change in policing has been a lot more crime in Baltimore, especially murders, and people are getting away with those murders.”

Police officials acknowledge the change. "In all candor, officers are not as aggressive as they once were, pre-2015. It’s just that fact," says acting Police Commissioner Gary Tuggle, who took command of Baltimore's police force in May.

Tuggle blames a shortage of patrol officers and the fallout from a blistering 2016 Justice Department investigation that found the city's police regularly violated residents' constitutional rights and prompted new limits on how officers there carry out what had once been routine parts of their job. At the same time, he says, police have focused more of their energy on gun crime and less on smaller infractions.

"We don’t want officers going out, grabbing people out of corners, beating them up and putting them in jail," Tuggle says. "We want officers engaging folks at every level. And if somebody needs to be arrested, arrest them. But we also want officers to be smart about how they do that."

The change has left a perception among some police officers that people in the city are free to do as they please. And among criminals, says Mahogany Gaines, whose brother, Dontais, was found shot to death inside his apartment in October.

 “These people don’t realize that you’re leaving people fatherless and motherless,” Gaines says. “I feel like they think they’re untouchable.”

SOURCE







Dr. Peterson and the Reporters

One ingredient in the astounding fame of Jordan Peterson is his capacity to show just how lazy, obtuse, unprepared, smug, knee-jerk, and prejudiced are many journalists at leading publications.

In a tendentious New York Times profile, for example, Peterson is held up for ridicule when he cites “enforced monogamy” as a rational way of fixing wayward, sometimes violent men in our society. If men had wives, they’d behave better, Peterson implied, and they wouldn’t “fail” so much. The reporter, a twenty-something from the Bay Area, has a telling response to Peterson’s position: “I laugh, because it is absurd.”

Her condescension is unearned. With no background in social psychology or cultural anthropology, she doesn’t get the framework in which Peterson speaks. But that doesn’t blunt her confidence in setting Peterson’s remarks into the category of the ridiculous. And the category of the sexist, too, as the subtitle of the profile makes clear: “He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women—all these wives and witches—just behave?”

By “enforced monogamy,” though, all Peterson means is a society that prizes stable one-to-one relationships, not a society that forces women into domestic servitude. It’s a term drawn from sociology (hardly a right-wing, patriarchal zone). But the reporter, Nellie Bowles, casts it as pernicious nonetheless. She didn’t bother to do any homework in the fields in which Peterson works.

Another blatant case of ineptitude is an interview a Vox reporter did with a feminist philosopher, the subject being Peterson’s recent book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The reporter, Sean Illing, displays his integrity with one of his first questions.

    Peterson has been called a “sexist” and a “misogynist.” To be honest, I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of his work, but I haven’t read his book and I haven’t listened to all his lectures. I’m curious what you think.

What is one to say about a journalist who not only doesn’t bone up on the central subject of an interview, but also doesn’t realize that admitting this destroys his credibility? (Peterson has a rebuttal to the Vox interview here, where he points out the astonishing professional irresponsibility of the professor.)

A few weeks ago, Peterson sat down with the Economist for a long interview largely on the issue of male-female relations. At one point (around minute 43), Peterson notes that everyone in society is “controlled” in one way or another. The conversation shifts into the ways in which women sometimes get out of control, acting in a “bullying, detestable manner” (Peterson’s words) toward other women. It’s hard to “cope” with that, he observes, because it can be “unbelievably vicious,” and it usually takes the form of “reputation destruction, innuendo, and gossip.”

It isn’t hard to imagine the interviewer, a liberal female, growing irritated at a man talking about women behaving badly. When Peterson concludes that women engage in those kinds of tactics much, much more than men do and states, “That’s what the data indicate,” she has to interrupt.

“Where is that data on innuendo and gossip?” she asks, in a tone blending mockery and annoyance.

Clearly, she thinks that no such data exist. Peterson pauses for a moment, as if he has just understood that she has no awareness of the context of his remarks. The area of adolescence studies has probed these tactics thoroughly, he tells her, and “it’s a well documented field.” Researchers have studied aggressive behavior and found clear differences in male and female expression. Women prefer verbal forms of it, men physical forms.

“There’s a whole literature on that,” he continues.

But the interviewer still has a hard time accepting it: “Just to be clear, you think that is predominantly a female modus operandi.”

Peterson rightly picks up on her choice of words. “It’s not that I think it. It’s that the clinical literature indicates that. … I’m not  making this up!”

She still acts as if the whole outlook is new to her, and rather offensive, too. Once again, we have a journalist who didn’t read anything of the background material when she prepared for this interview.

These three cases typify what we might call the Peterson Effect. Peterson brings social science findings to bear on thorny matters of men and women. Those findings run against the progressive goal of eliminating male-female differences. The journalists are unaware of the science, but they are steeped in the ideology. It’s an obdurate mix of ignorance and certainty.

Peterson fans like his interviews because they have experienced that smugness before. To watch someone stand up to it, to hear him cite clinical data and hold firmly against a party line they know is dishonest and coercive—that goes a long way to explaining the Peterson phenomenon.

SOURCE





CNN Has Complete Meltdown Over Kavanaugh Decision, Cannot Believe He Is a White Male

It’s not as if the media didn’t have enough reasons to melt down over federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh being picked to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump. But did you know he’s a white, cisgendered male?

… Oh, you did? Well, this is apparently a shocking fact inside CNN, and they’re not taking it well at all.

An article that may truly break new ground for inanity even for the fine folks at CNN reports that most justices have been white males, and this is apparently an incredibly bad thing.

“Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, 113 justices have served on the bench. Of those, 107 have been white men,” the article reads.

“On Monday night, President Trump announced his nominee to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals. If confirmed, he would be the 108th — and wouldn’t shift the diversity of the current court.”

The six exceptions, just in case you weren’t keeping track, are Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

“The first appointment — when Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall — wasn’t until 1967. When Johnson announced the nomination, he said he thought it was the right thing to do and the right time to do it. Thomas’s appointment happened decades later, in 1991 under George H. W. Bush (the first Bush),” CNN reported, the parenthetical apparently for the kind of low-information reader CNN loves.

“Sotomayor, one of the four female justices, is also the first and only Hispanic justice in history. (Some say Justice Benjamin Cardozo, who was Portuguese, was the first Hispanic member, but he doesn’t qualify under current census standards.)”

“No justices so far have identified as Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander.”

Now, wait a minute — I didn’t think one could identify as being a different race. Didn’t some NAACP chairwoman get in trouble for this? I can’t seem to remember her name (probably because she changed it).

Of course, two different minorities are overrepresented on the court, and you may not be surprised to know what they are (at least in a CNN article).

“We’ve never had a Jewish president, but eight Jewish justices have sat on the bench, including current justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Stephen Breyer,” CNN reported.

“At its founding, the court was made up of almost entirely Protestant members, and a majority of the 113 justices throughout history have been Protestants.

“The court today, which also has five Catholics, is more diverse. Neil Gorsuch, who Trump nominated last January, was raised Catholic but now worships at an Episcopal church.

“Most of the US population isn’t Catholic or Jewish. Of those who are religious in the US, about 23% identify with one of these sets of beliefs, according to the Pew Research Center.”

The clear intimation is predictable for CNN. White males = bad. Not white males = good. Religious minorities = probably not that good, especially if they’re overrepresented.

SOURCE





Australian Men's rights activists have a new hero: David Leyonhjelm

This is from a Leftist source but there may be something in it. It is written from a feminist and hence unmoored from reality perspective. Evidence of that is seen in the words below: "women have gained access to a measure of equity in education and the workplace". That's just paranoia. "A measure of preference" would be more like it.

Women these days make up roughly 60% of university admissions and get extensive job preference.  "Most new Australian jobs were filled by women over the last three years ".  Women have by now got it all -- to the disadvantage of men. Reality sure beats believing in myths, doesn't it? The writer, Jason Wilson, is just clinging to old hates. 

Wilson is also a bit of a nong in his usage of "dogwhistle". Dogwhistle refers to something understood by only one side of politics.  What Lion Helmet said was as clear as crystal to anybody



Senator David Leyonhjelm threw out a dogwhistle to the men’s rights movement, and it appears to have been answered.

First, Leyonhjelm made crude comments about Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s sex life in the Senate. Then, he reiterated those comments on the Sky News program hosted by Ross Cameron and Rowan Dean. Now, Hanson-Young is promising to sue her Senate colleague for defamation.

Leyonhjelm’s explanation for his comments tapped into a long-standing concept beloved of men’s rights activists, “pick up artists”, incels, and assorted antifeminists in all corners of the “manosphere”: misandry.

 This is Australian-style sexism brought to you by a senator and Sky News

The context was a debate arising from the murder of Eurydice Dixon, where Leyonhjelm was among those who were proposing that the right solution was to arm women with mace and other personal defence technologies

Hanson-Young voted against the motion and told the Senate on 28 June that during the debate, Leyonhjelm told her to “stop shagging men”. Interestingly, he told Sky that “what I was objecting to was the misandry, the blaming of men for the actions of individual criminals”, saying she had accused all men of being rapists, a claim she denies.

When Malcolm Turnbull called on Leyonhjelm to apologise, he said that the prime minister should call out Hanson-Young’s alleged misandry, which is “equally as bad” as misogyny.

By last Wednesday, on A Voice for Men, one of the foremost blogs of the men’s rights movement, Mark Dent had written of Leyonhjelm: “I have a new hero”. One of A Voice for Men’s tagline’s is: “Humanist counter-theory in the Age of Misandry”, and its mission statement says it exists to raise boys and men “above the din of misandry”.

Dent’s article on Leyonhjelm was titled, “A man takes a stand”.

Dent praised Leyonhjelm’s abusive characterisation of Turnbull as a “soft cock” and a “pussy”, saying “these words could not be more appropriate”. And he thanked Leyonhjelm for spotting Hanson-Young’s comments as “attack on all men which it clearly was”.

He also published the email Leyonhjelm sent in response to his fan letter, wherein it was explained that: “Apologies are only appropriate when there is fault. I am not the party at fault – misandry is not something that can be excused.”

It’s a neat trick – a debate over a murder with misogyny at its core gets turned into a petulant and stubborn insistence on the victimhood of men at the hands of women. And it plays into the hands of the large, reactionary political movement built on male victimhood.

“Misandry” is a word that means a hatred for men. It arose as a neologism in the late 19th century, modelled on the word misogyny, which has more ancient roots. As Australian sociologist Michael Flood puts it, misogyny is “an ideology or belief system that has accompanied patriarchal, or male-dominated societies for thousands of years”.

“Misandry” has been employed in antifeminist discourse as an inversion, and a kind of parody of the politicised understanding of misogyny that arose in the feminist movement. Some men saw, and still see, the gains made by women as attacks on their own rights and privileges.

So as women have gained access to a measure of equity in education and the workplace, reproductive rights, no-fault divorce, and a measure of personal and sexual autonomy, some men have seen only an attack on their prerogatives as husbands, fathers, privileged employees, etc.

For some antifeminists, the concept has extraordinary explanatory power. They see it as the motivating force for a feminist movement which, they allege, exists mostly to persecute men. And they believe it to be so powerful and widespread that it can explain not only the problems that they say affect men as a gender, or social class, it is also at the root of personal tribulations of individual men struggling with romantic problems, marital breakdown, or professional failure.

A vast ecosystem of blogs, websites, forums, subreddits, and social media accounts promote this topsy-turvy vision of gender hierarchy. Misandry, and the accompanying narrative of male victimhood, are their currency.

So it was that Leyonhjelm was praised on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the MGTOW (men going their own way) subreddit, and on Braincels (which sees itself as the intellectual end of the incel movement).

In turn, Leyonhjelm responded to the controversy – entirely created by him – by inviting antifeminist Bettina Arndt to parliament to address the topic of misandry.

Many have wondered why Leyonhjelm has kept this story alive with his own media appearances, even in the face of clear legal risks.

Part of the answer may be in the way in which his citation of one of the key concepts of organised misogyny has been noticed in key forums of that subculture.

Leyonhjelm’s ostensible core ideology, libertarianism, is not popular. He was fortunate to be elected at all in 2013. He will need to fight another election soon.

But misogyny has a constituency. His fights with mainstream media interviewers resonate powerfully among a group of men who are alienated by, and bitterly opposed to, gender equality.

By speaking to them, and being boosted in their media ecosystem, Leyonhjelm might become the men’s rights candidate.

SOURCE 

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

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

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