Monday, July 31, 2023



Emil O Kierkegaard

What to say about Emil O Kierkegaard? Undoubtedly the world's most "incorrect" man. An initial caution: Don't confuse him with Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish "existential" philosopher. For my sins I read a book by Soren Kierkegaard in my youth and found only meaningless drivel.

Emil Kierkegaard is a very hard-working Danish statistician who subjects to exhaustive analysis any social or demographic database he can get his hands on. He mostly analyses other people's data -- usually data from very mainstream sources. And what he finds in the datasets makes Leftist hair stand on end. They hate it. What he finds is all there in the data: He just puts it on display, warts and all

I can't do any justice to the full body of his work here so I will just mention what he finds about one current huge controversy: black educational and economic under-achievement.

For a long time Leftist educational and social commentators blamed the spectacular educational under-achievement of blacks on the educational system. They were confident that if they got the teaching and the testing right, the "gap" would vanish. After decades of trying everything the human mind could devise however, nothing worked. The gap remained, unbudged

So they did eventually give up on that and recently moved onto something completely different: Critical Race Theory. According to CRT blacks are "down" because whites are racist and hold blacks down. Black failure is the fault of whites. That whites actually make great efforts to lift blacks up via various types of affirmative action is dismissed as tokenism. Whites don't really mean it, apparently

No evidence is normally put forward for CRT. It is just asserted and has become something of a religion in intellectual circles. It has GOT to be true in order to explain black failure, they seem to think. There is simply no other explanation

But there is another explanation -- one that has been known and exemplified for around a hundred years, one that has a mountain of evidence for it: The large gap in average IQ between blacks and whites. Leftists always pooh-pooh IQ tests precisely because of that gap. The tests must be faulty and not measure what they purport to measure, they say. But they overlook the fact that black failure is precise confirmation that the IQ tests are valid. What blacks achieve is precisely what one would predict from their IQ scores. The tests are in fact a spectacular predictive success. It is hard to imagine better validation for them.

And where the real heartburn originates is that IQ is highly hereditary. To put it bluntly, the implication is that blacks are BORN dumb. I have just been cast into outer darkness for saying that.

Leftists are passionately angry about the world they live in and as a result have a compulsion to change it. So telling them that something is unchangeable grates on their very bones. They cannot and will not have it. Black failure must be the fault of white racism. It cannot be the result of unalterable black genetics. The Leftist response is profoundly dogmatic and intellectually nowhere.

But there are some very bright Leftists who think they see a way out of the dilemma. They say that IQ might be hereditarily determined among both blacks and whites but the DIFFERENCE between black and white IQ might not be genetic. That is very unlikely but it is statistically possible so requires some reply. My reply is that it treats blacks and whites as different SPECIES. They are saying that black brains and white brains differ in how they work. That actually contradicts what they are trying to prove: That blacks and whites are really the same.

I think that is an adequate reply but it is a statistical reply that is really needed. And that is where Kierkegaard comes in. He has recently done a big statistical analysis using many different methods which shows that the IQ difference between blacks and whites IS mainly genetic and, as such fundamentally intractable

So what is the response Kierkegaard gets for all his statistical labours? If they mention him at all, the Left simply dismiss him as a "racist". They don't want any of his goddam facts. They KNOW the truth and Kierkegaard is wrong.

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

Biden’s White House is stabbing Israel in the back. Ending military aid will be the final twist of the knife

TED CRUZ

Tablet magazine’s recent article “End U.S. Aid to Israel” has sparked a badly needed debate over how American administrations, and especially the Biden administration, have used military assistance to coerce Israel and undermine Israeli national security. Because we rely on our Israeli allies for everything from scientific research to intelligence sharing to military cooperation, the Biden administration’s policies are also undermining the security and prosperity of Americans.

The article describes how the Biden administration has tried to distance the United States from our traditional Middle Eastern allies and boost the Iranian regime, and how the pressure they impose on Israel is both part of their campaign to create that distance and a way to keep the Israelis from objecting. As a solution, the article suggests ending American military aid to Israel.

I believe Tablet magazine is one of America’s premier papers of ideas. I deeply appreciate the outlet and its writers, including Liel Leibovitz, who recently wrote a generous profile of me for the magazine describing me as “America’s most Israeli politician,” and who is also one of the two authors of the article.

Nevertheless, Tablet got this one very wrong.

The authors of “End U.S. Aid to Israel,” Leibovitz and Jacob Siegel, are certainly not wrong that the U.S. benefits immeasurably from the aid we provide to Israel. We get back at least 10 times more than what we send. It would take us uncountable billions to recreate some of the military advances and intelligence capabilities that the Israelis provide to us. There are other capabilities we literally could not recreate, for reasons ranging from geography to institutional capacity. The military and intelligence assets that Israel develops and uses protect American lives.

They are also certainly not wrong about the Biden administration’s hostility toward Israel. President Biden and Biden officials are pathologically obsessed with undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. From the opening days of the administration, they have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. These policies are also uniting Arab countries with Iran, and driving them to shelter beneath a Chinese umbrella.

The problem with the argument made by the Tablet authors is that it still nevertheless underestimates the breadth, depth, and—most importantly—the mechanics of how the Biden administration has been undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel alliance. An enormous amount of how the Biden administration attacks Israel has nothing to do with aid or even pressure. If all military aid was immediately ended, the anti-Israel zealots in the administration wouldn’t miss a beat.

Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.

A crucial and underappreciated benefit of military assistance to Israel is that it provides a framework for American and Israeli officials to discuss our mutual interests and how to pursue them. The article’s authors rightly criticize the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a gambit by the Obama administration to constrain future Israeli actions. One of the most subtly damaging parts of the MOU—and I discussed this with Prime Minister Netanyahu directly at the time—was that it froze levels of military assistance and explicitly prohibited Israeli officials from engaging Congress on the issue. Many members of Congress tend to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel because the American people are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. The Obama officials who penned the MOU knew what they were trying to accomplish by cutting off American lawmakers from Israeli officials by freezing aid levels, and Siegel and Leibovitz understand it as well. However, eliminating aid would repeat exactly that move.

The hostility that the Biden administration has shown toward Israel makes the Obama-era policies look tame by comparison. Again: They have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. Consider 10 examples:

First, in the opening days of the administration the White House instructed the State Department to stop signaling support for the Abraham Accords. The State Department implemented those instructions by issuing guidance that prohibited even using the phrase “Abraham Accords.” None of these changes was acknowledged publicly.

Second, State Department officials issued verbal guidance that prohibited funding for joint U.S.-Israel science and technology projects in Judea and Samaria, including parts of Jerusalem. The guidance did something America has never done before: unilaterally impose territorial restrictions on U.S. scientific research aid to Israel. The projects which are being targeted are for curing cancer and easing aging. It is simply an antisemitic boycott. Decades ago, the U.S. and Israel bilaterally agreed to such limits against the backdrop of unique regional conditions, but in 2020 both sides rescinded and rejected them as discriminatory. But in June 2023 the State Department began distributing in writing their new guidance to all relevant federal agencies—effectively endorsing and implementing BDS. Tellingly, this guidance was not cleared through the State Department’s own special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, and of course administration officials did not formally notify Congress or make the policy public.

Third, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor issued a $1 million Notice of Funding Opportunity grant offer for work by nongovernmental organizations to delegitimize Israel, which likewise was not cleared by the department’s own antisemitism envoy.

Fourth, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) quietly changed the name of the bureau that handles Israel from “Israel and Palestinian Affairs” to “Israeli and Palestinian Affairs,” the idea being to level the relationships that the U.S. has with our Israeli allies and with the Palestinians.

Fifth, the Office of Palestinian Affairs gave a Bronze Age Judean relic to the Palestinian Authority as “an example of Palestinian cultural patrimony,” a literal erasure of the ancient Jewish connection to Israel.

Sixth, State Department diplomats at the United Nations rejoined, engaged, and boosted U.N. organizations that promote anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement.

It is worth pausing here and noting a couple things. None of these policies was advanced by leveraging aid to Israel, and none of it would have been hindered if aid to Israel was reduced. And all those policies were just from inside the State Department. The Biden administration’s assault on Israel, of course, has been whole of government.

Seventh, the Department of Defense and the Israeli military held the “Juniper Oak” military exercises. As with the Obama-era MOU, what could have been a way to enhance military cooperation was instead turned into a way to constrain Israel’s ability to defend itself. According to Dan Shapiro, Obama’s former ambassador to Israel who was on the Biden administration team tasked with securing a new nuclear deal with Iran, the U.S.-Israeli exercises were meant to “make it less likely that one acts independently without close coordination with the other”—in other words, designed to tie the hands of Israel’s military.

Eighth, the Department of Justice unleashed the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Israel in response to an incident in which a Palestinian American journalist was killed covering a firefight between Israeli forces and terrorists, even after other parts of the administration had concluded the death was accidental.

Ninth, the Departments of Justice and State worked together to circumvent multiple congressional sanctions targeting the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group, so they could bring to Washington, D.C., the group’s secretary general for high-level press briefings—while the administration was simultaneously shunning cabinet ministers from Israel’s democratically elected government. Top officials from across the administration publicly told reporters and testified to Congress that such engagement was advancing American national security interests, but in nonpublic notices the State Department expressly confirmed to Congress that the Palestinian Authority continues to pay for acts of terrorism against Israeli and U.S. citizens.

Tenth, despite such terror financing, the State Department and specifically the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Palestinian controlled areas. Tens of millions of dollars of that funding was incorrectly entered into government databases in ways that prevented public and congressional scrutiny. Roughly $20 million sent to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was entered as going elsewhere. In one case a $5 million award to the Gaza Strip was publicly reported with the wrong amount, the wrong location, and deliberately anonymized (had it not been anonymized, it would have been clear the money was going to Gaza). None of these mistakes was made public by the administration.

This list is not comprehensive.

Again, none of these policies would be hampered by reducing military aid to our Israeli allies. Quite the opposite: Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.

Now, some people have called the Biden administration’s policy inexplicable. It’s quite explicable. The Biden administration is controlled by fringe progressives who hate Israel. Their policies are controlled by the Squad, and the Squad detests the Jewish state. As one member of the Squad recently asserted—not even bothering to hide her vicious antisemitism— “we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state.”

There is no doubt that as part of their collective antipathy toward Israel, these Biden administration officials have at times leveraged American aid to Israel to advance reckless policies undermining Israeli security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Eliminating that aid, however, would not counter those policies and would pile on risks.

The obvious, straightforward solution is to continue to provide the military assistance that our Israeli allies need to protect their security and ours—and at the same time, fight to stop the Biden administration’s reckless anti-Israel policies.

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

Public sector staff shortages in ‘hard jobs’ are sparking a wage war as taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions

At the entrance to Missouri prisons, large signs plead for help: “NOW HIRING” ... “GREAT PAY & BENEFITS."

No experience is necessary. Anyone 18 and older can apply. Long hours are guaranteed.

Though the assertion of “great pay” for prison guards would have seemed dubious in the past, a series of state pay raises prompted by widespread vacancies has finally made a difference. The Missouri Department of Corrections set a record for new applicants last month.

“After we got our raise, we started seeing people come out of the woodwork, people that hadn’t worked in a while,” said Maj. Albin Narvaez, chief of custody at the Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center, where new prisoners are housed and evaluated.

Public employers across the U.S. have faced similar struggles to fill jobs, leading to one of the largest surges in state government pay raises in 15 years. Many cities, counties and school districts also are hiking wages to try to retain and attract workers amid aggressive competition from private sector employers.

The wage war comes as governments and taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions.

In Kansas City, Missouri, a shortage of 911 operators doubled the average hold times for people calling in emergencies. In one Florida county, some schoolchildren frequently arrived late as a lack of bus drivers delayed routes. In Arkansas, abused and neglected kids remained longer in foster care because of a caseworker shortage. In various cities and states, vacancies on road crews meant cracks and potholes took longer to fix than many motorists might like.

“A lot of the jobs we’re talking about are hard jobs,” said Leslie Scott Parker, executive director of the National Association of State Personnel Executives.

Lingering vacancies “eventually affects service to the public or response times to needs,” she added.

Workforce shortages worsened across all sorts of jobs due to a wave of retirements and resignations that began during the pandemic. Many businesses, from restaurants to hospitals, responded nimbly with higher wages and incentives to attract employees. But governments by nature are slower to act, requiring pay raises to go through a legislative process that can take months to complete — and then can take months more to kick in.

Meanwhile, vacancies mounted.

In Georgia, state employee turnover hit a high of 25% in 2022. Thousands of workers left the Department of Corrections, pushing its vacancy rate to around 50%. The state began a series of pay raises. This year, all state employees and teachers got at least a $2,000 raise, with corrections officers getting $4,000 and state troopers $6,000.

The Georgia Department of Corrections used an ad agency to bolster recruitment and held an average of 125 job fairs a month. It's starting to pay off. In the first week of July, the department received 318 correctional officer applications — nearly double the weekly norm, said department Public Affairs Director Joan Heath.

Almost 1 in 4 positions — more than 2,500 jobs -- were empty in the Missouri Department of Corrections late last year, which was twice the pre-pandemic vacancy rate in 2019.

Missouri gave state workers a 7.5% pay raise in 2022. This spring, Gov. Mike Parson signed an emergency spending bill with an additional 8.7% raise, plus an extra $2 an hour for people working evening and night shifts at prisons, mental health facilities and other institutions. The vacancy rate for entry level corrections officers now is declining, and the average number of applications for all state positions is up 18% since the start of last year.

At the Fulton prison, where staff shortages have led to a standard 52-hour work week, newly hired employees can earn around $60,000 annually — an amount roughly equal to the state's median household income. The prison also is proposing to provide free child care to correctional officers willing to work nights.

If prison staffing is too low, "it can get dangerous” for both inmates and guards, Narvaez said.

Public safety concerns also have arisen in Kansas City, where a country music fan attacked before a concert last month waited four minutes for a 911 call to be answered and an hour for an ambulance to arrive. About one-quarter of 911 call center positions are vacant — “a huge factor" in the longer wait times to answer calls, said Tamara Bazzle, assistant manager of the communications unit for the Kansas City Police Department.

In Biddeford, Maine, a 15-person roster of 911 dispatchers dipped to just eight employees in July as people quit a “pressure cooker job" for less stress or better pay elsewhere, Police Chief JoAnne Fisk said. The city is now offering fully certified dispatchers $41 an hour to help plug the gaps on a part-time basis — $10 an hour more than comparable new workers normally would earn.

This month, Biddeford also launched a $2,000 bonus for city employees who refer others who get jobs. That comes a year after Biddeford adopted a four-day work week with paid lunch periods to try to make jobs more appealing, said City Manager Jim Bennett.

To attract workers, other governments have dropped college degree requirements and spiced up drab job descriptions.

Nationally, the turnover rate in state and local governments is twice the average of the previous two decades, according federal labor statistics.

Uncompetitive wages were the most common reason for leaving cited in exit interviews, according to a survey of 249 state and local government human resource managers conducted by MissionSquare Research Institute, a Washington, D.C. -based nonprofit. The hardest positions to fill included police and corrections officers, doctors, nurses, engineers and jobs requiring commercial driver's licenses.

Along Florida's east coast, the Brevard County transit system and school district have been competing for bus drivers. On days when drivers are lacking, the transit system has cut the frequency of bus stops on some routes. The school system, meanwhile, has asked some bus drivers to run a second route after dropping children off at school, often resulting in the second busload arriving late.

Since 2022, the county has twice raised bus driver wages to a current rate of $17.47 an hour. The school board recently countered with a $5 increase to a minimum $20 an hour for the upcoming school year. The goal is to hire enough drivers to regularly get kids to class on time, said school system communications director Russell Bruhn.

In Arkansas, the goal is to get foster kids into permanent homes in less than a year. But during the first three months of this year, the state met that target for just 32% of foster children — well below the national standard of over 40%. More than one-fifth of the roughly 1,400 positions in the Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services are vacant.

Many new employees leave in less than two years because of heavy caseloads and the “very difficult, emotionally tolling work,” Mischa Martin, the Department of Human Services' deputy secretary of youth and families, told lawmakers last month.

“If we had a knowledgeable, experienced workforce," she said, "they would be able to work cases in a better way to get kids home quicker.”

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

The Will to Power

Total power is not something people of strong character feel a need to possess; it is the provenance of the weak: mediocre, unfulfilled individuals of extreme arrogance, who have few moral scruples, and almost no capacity to control their actions, their emotions, their lusts, and their passions—the most dangerous human beings imaginable.

Power consumes those whose vanity and narcissism motivate them to fanciful and never-ending delusions of superiority. Within the human breast, power has its own organic life, worse than the most malignant cancer, ever-growing, never shrinking, with no medicine for its cure, constantly needing to be fed, and that only with more and more of its own kind—the insatiable monster who can never be satisfied, even at the cost of mountains of human skulls. It becomes a disease, an interminable, incurable malady that may not end even at death—it is often passed on to disciples. It is more intoxicating than alcohol or the most addictive drug known to man. Like the hopeless druggie, those craving and possessing power must constantly have their “fix,” and the drug must be increasingly more potent, more costly, and more destructive, to themselves and to others.

When conquered by the will to power, a person convinces themselves they are omnipotent, that only they possess certainty, everybody else is inferior, that they alone have the answers, that the noble ends they seek justify whatever means they deem necessary to obtain them, because, in their high-minded vain egotism, only they have the betterment of mankind in view, and that the world simply cannot survive without their guidance. Those who oppose them are opposing Truth, the Only Truth, the True Progress of Humanity, and thus are evil, and must be silenced by any means necessary. And after extinguishing countless human hopes, dreams, and lives, they sit atop the pile, congratulating themselves on the “utopia” they have built, but ever vigilant for more dragons who need slaying. That is power. That isn’t strength, that is uncontrolled human weakness to its most malevolent extreme. It is the story of human history.

Down through the ages, very few politicians have demonstrated the ability to control the will to power that lurks within the human heart. America’s Founding Fathers understood that perfectly, which is why they wrote a constitution specifically defining and thus restricting the powers national government officials could exercise over other Americans. It’s also why James Madison said we should never trust anybody who has power. The Founders didn’t establish term limits for Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents, and perhaps they should have. But they thought frequent elections would be sufficient. Such hasn’t proven to be so. Our Founders were brilliant men, but no humans are endowed with infinite wisdom.

But their fear of power is not only evident in historical events that took place before and during their lifetime, but are equally evident since they died, especially in the last 100 years. Consider those who had power in the 20th century and how they finally relinquished it. Vladimir Lenin died as the head of Russia. So did Joseph Stalin. Adolf Hitler died in power. As did Mao Zedong, two North Korean Kims, and a host of other megalomaniacs. That is the intoxicating nature of power. Once obtained, only death conquers the craving. These are weak people who cannot control themselves so they must control others.

American politicians aren’t immune to this yearning, this will to power. They are somewhat restrained by our Constitution. Somewhat, but not enough, and many would love to abolish it entirely. Joe Biden is 80 years old. What is he doing still in Washington, D.C.? He has been there for 50 years. Why doesn’t he go home? The reason is simple. He is a very inferior man who covets power, whose power-disease has convinced him that he knows better how to run your life than you do, and, because he has the power, he is going to do everything he can to make you submit to the mythical utopia that delusions his mind. 80 years old, and he wants another four years of power. He is the last person in the country who should have it.

Well, maybe demented Diane Feinstein is his equal. Grassley. McConnell. Pelosi. How many other septua- and octogenarians exist in Washington who have plagued the nation for most of their adult lives? On both sides of the aisle, not just Democrats. They aren’t serving the people, they are inflating themselves in their own eyes. And destroying the country in the process. They want one thing—glory in their vision of themselves. They are no wiser than most Americans, they are only more conceited. Look at the mess they have created in Washington and around the country. Could any other group of people have done any worse?

Americans have given power to inadequate incompetents of mediocre ability, non-existent wisdom because of their ungodly character, but who ache to preserve it--for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this column. It’s a disease, a cancer inside them, ever-growing, never, never satiated, always thinking their Utopia is just around the corner, one vote away, and “I must be here to cast that vote.” But their Utopia never arrives, and it never will. Only the dunghill grows deeper.

Term limits might be a partial answer, but electing better people, humble people, people who truly understand the dangers of power, people who mind their own business except for national necessities—that would be a superior solution. But those kinds of people are not the busybodies who salivate to control others. The sort of people needed are those whose character would largely forbid them from accepting the job.

So, we get Joe Biden for 50 years. And look at the results.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Emil O Kierkegaard

What to say about Emil O Kierkegaard? Undoubtedly the world's most "incorrect" man. An initial caution: Don't confuse him with Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish "existential" philosopher. For my sins I read a book by Soren Kierkegaard in my youth and found only meaningless drivel.

Emil Kierkegaard is a very hard-working Danish statistician who subjects to exhaustive analysis any social or demographic database he can get his hands on. He mostly analyses other people's data -- usually data from very mainstream sources. And what he finds in the datasets makes Leftist hair stand on end. They hate it. What he finds is all there in the data: He just puts it on display, warts and all

I can't do any justice to the full body of his work here so I will just mention what he finds about one current huge controversy: black educational and economic under-achievement.

For a long time Leftist educational and social commentators blamed the spectacular educational under-achievement of blacks on the educational system. They were confident that if they got the teaching and the testing right, the "gap" would vanish. After decades of trying everything the human mind could devise however, nothing worked. The gap remained, unbudged

So they did eventually give up on that and recently moved onto something completely different: Critical Race Theory. According to CRT blacks are "down" because whites are racist and hold blacks down. Black failure is the fault of whites. That whites actually make great efforts to lift blacks up via various types of affirmative action is dismissed as tokenism. Whites don't really mean it, apparently

No evidence is normally put forward for CRT. It is just asserted and has become something of a religion in intellectual circles. It has GOT to be true in order to explain black failure, they seem to think. There is simply no other explanation

But there is another explanation -- one that has been known and exemplified for around a hundred years, one that has a mountain of evidence for it: The large gap in average IQ between blacks and whites. Leftists always pooh-pooh IQ tests precisely because of that gap. The tests must be faulty and not measure what they purport to measure, they say. But they overlook the fact that black failure is precise confirmation that the IQ tests are valid. What blacks achieve is precisely what one would predict from their IQ scores. The tests are in fact a spectacular predictive success. It is hard to imagine better validation for them.

And where the real heartburn originates is that IQ is highly hereditary. To put it bluntly, the implication is that blacks are BORN dumb. I have just been cast into outer darkness for saying that.

Leftists are passionately angry about the world they live in and as a result have a compulsion to change it. So telling them that something is unchangeable grates on their very bones. They cannot and will not have it. Black failure must be the fault of white racism. It cannot be the result of unalterable black genetics. The Leftist response is profoundly dogmatic and intellectually nowhere.

But there are some very bright Leftists who think they see a way out of the dilemma. They say that IQ might be hereditarily determined among both blacks and whites but the DIFFERENCE between black and white IQ might not be genetic. That is very unlikely but it is statistically possible so requires some reply. My reply is that it treats blacks and whites as different SPECIES. They are saying that black brains and white brains differ in how they work. That actually contradicts what they are trying to prove: That blacks and whites are really the same.

I think that is an adequate reply but it is a statistical reply that is really needed. And that is where Kierkegaard comes in. He has recently done a big statistical analysis using many different methods which shows that the IQ difference between blacks and whites IS mainly genetic and, as such fundamentally intractable

So what is the response Kierkegaard gets for all his statistical labours? If they mention him at all, the Left simply dismiss him as a "racist". They don't want any of his goddam facts. They KNOW the truth and Kierkegaard is wrong.

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

Biden’s White House is stabbing Israel in the back. Ending military aid will be the final twist of the knife

TED CRUZ

Tablet magazine’s recent article “End U.S. Aid to Israel” has sparked a badly needed debate over how American administrations, and especially the Biden administration, have used military assistance to coerce Israel and undermine Israeli national security. Because we rely on our Israeli allies for everything from scientific research to intelligence sharing to military cooperation, the Biden administration’s policies are also undermining the security and prosperity of Americans.

The article describes how the Biden administration has tried to distance the United States from our traditional Middle Eastern allies and boost the Iranian regime, and how the pressure they impose on Israel is both part of their campaign to create that distance and a way to keep the Israelis from objecting. As a solution, the article suggests ending American military aid to Israel.

I believe Tablet magazine is one of America’s premier papers of ideas. I deeply appreciate the outlet and its writers, including Liel Leibovitz, who recently wrote a generous profile of me for the magazine describing me as “America’s most Israeli politician,” and who is also one of the two authors of the article.

Nevertheless, Tablet got this one very wrong.

The authors of “End U.S. Aid to Israel,” Leibovitz and Jacob Siegel, are certainly not wrong that the U.S. benefits immeasurably from the aid we provide to Israel. We get back at least 10 times more than what we send. It would take us uncountable billions to recreate some of the military advances and intelligence capabilities that the Israelis provide to us. There are other capabilities we literally could not recreate, for reasons ranging from geography to institutional capacity. The military and intelligence assets that Israel develops and uses protect American lives.

They are also certainly not wrong about the Biden administration’s hostility toward Israel. President Biden and Biden officials are pathologically obsessed with undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. From the opening days of the administration, they have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. These policies are also uniting Arab countries with Iran, and driving them to shelter beneath a Chinese umbrella.

The problem with the argument made by the Tablet authors is that it still nevertheless underestimates the breadth, depth, and—most importantly—the mechanics of how the Biden administration has been undermining Israel’s security and the U.S.-Israel alliance. An enormous amount of how the Biden administration attacks Israel has nothing to do with aid or even pressure. If all military aid was immediately ended, the anti-Israel zealots in the administration wouldn’t miss a beat.

Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.

A crucial and underappreciated benefit of military assistance to Israel is that it provides a framework for American and Israeli officials to discuss our mutual interests and how to pursue them. The article’s authors rightly criticize the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a gambit by the Obama administration to constrain future Israeli actions. One of the most subtly damaging parts of the MOU—and I discussed this with Prime Minister Netanyahu directly at the time—was that it froze levels of military assistance and explicitly prohibited Israeli officials from engaging Congress on the issue. Many members of Congress tend to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel because the American people are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. The Obama officials who penned the MOU knew what they were trying to accomplish by cutting off American lawmakers from Israeli officials by freezing aid levels, and Siegel and Leibovitz understand it as well. However, eliminating aid would repeat exactly that move.

The hostility that the Biden administration has shown toward Israel makes the Obama-era policies look tame by comparison. Again: They have pursued a campaign against Israel that is granular, whole-of-government, and often conducted in secret. Consider 10 examples:

First, in the opening days of the administration the White House instructed the State Department to stop signaling support for the Abraham Accords. The State Department implemented those instructions by issuing guidance that prohibited even using the phrase “Abraham Accords.” None of these changes was acknowledged publicly.

Second, State Department officials issued verbal guidance that prohibited funding for joint U.S.-Israel science and technology projects in Judea and Samaria, including parts of Jerusalem. The guidance did something America has never done before: unilaterally impose territorial restrictions on U.S. scientific research aid to Israel. The projects which are being targeted are for curing cancer and easing aging. It is simply an antisemitic boycott. Decades ago, the U.S. and Israel bilaterally agreed to such limits against the backdrop of unique regional conditions, but in 2020 both sides rescinded and rejected them as discriminatory. But in June 2023 the State Department began distributing in writing their new guidance to all relevant federal agencies—effectively endorsing and implementing BDS. Tellingly, this guidance was not cleared through the State Department’s own special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, and of course administration officials did not formally notify Congress or make the policy public.

Third, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor issued a $1 million Notice of Funding Opportunity grant offer for work by nongovernmental organizations to delegitimize Israel, which likewise was not cleared by the department’s own antisemitism envoy.

Fourth, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) quietly changed the name of the bureau that handles Israel from “Israel and Palestinian Affairs” to “Israeli and Palestinian Affairs,” the idea being to level the relationships that the U.S. has with our Israeli allies and with the Palestinians.

Fifth, the Office of Palestinian Affairs gave a Bronze Age Judean relic to the Palestinian Authority as “an example of Palestinian cultural patrimony,” a literal erasure of the ancient Jewish connection to Israel.

Sixth, State Department diplomats at the United Nations rejoined, engaged, and boosted U.N. organizations that promote anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement.

It is worth pausing here and noting a couple things. None of these policies was advanced by leveraging aid to Israel, and none of it would have been hindered if aid to Israel was reduced. And all those policies were just from inside the State Department. The Biden administration’s assault on Israel, of course, has been whole of government.

Seventh, the Department of Defense and the Israeli military held the “Juniper Oak” military exercises. As with the Obama-era MOU, what could have been a way to enhance military cooperation was instead turned into a way to constrain Israel’s ability to defend itself. According to Dan Shapiro, Obama’s former ambassador to Israel who was on the Biden administration team tasked with securing a new nuclear deal with Iran, the U.S.-Israeli exercises were meant to “make it less likely that one acts independently without close coordination with the other”—in other words, designed to tie the hands of Israel’s military.

Eighth, the Department of Justice unleashed the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Israel in response to an incident in which a Palestinian American journalist was killed covering a firefight between Israeli forces and terrorists, even after other parts of the administration had concluded the death was accidental.

Ninth, the Departments of Justice and State worked together to circumvent multiple congressional sanctions targeting the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group, so they could bring to Washington, D.C., the group’s secretary general for high-level press briefings—while the administration was simultaneously shunning cabinet ministers from Israel’s democratically elected government. Top officials from across the administration publicly told reporters and testified to Congress that such engagement was advancing American national security interests, but in nonpublic notices the State Department expressly confirmed to Congress that the Palestinian Authority continues to pay for acts of terrorism against Israeli and U.S. citizens.

Tenth, despite such terror financing, the State Department and specifically the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Palestinian controlled areas. Tens of millions of dollars of that funding was incorrectly entered into government databases in ways that prevented public and congressional scrutiny. Roughly $20 million sent to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was entered as going elsewhere. In one case a $5 million award to the Gaza Strip was publicly reported with the wrong amount, the wrong location, and deliberately anonymized (had it not been anonymized, it would have been clear the money was going to Gaza). None of these mistakes was made public by the administration.

This list is not comprehensive.

Again, none of these policies would be hampered by reducing military aid to our Israeli allies. Quite the opposite: Eliminating aid would provide momentum to the deeply reckless policies already being pursued by the Biden administration, which have acutely endangered American and Israeli national security.

Now, some people have called the Biden administration’s policy inexplicable. It’s quite explicable. The Biden administration is controlled by fringe progressives who hate Israel. Their policies are controlled by the Squad, and the Squad detests the Jewish state. As one member of the Squad recently asserted—not even bothering to hide her vicious antisemitism— “we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state.”

There is no doubt that as part of their collective antipathy toward Israel, these Biden administration officials have at times leveraged American aid to Israel to advance reckless policies undermining Israeli security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Eliminating that aid, however, would not counter those policies and would pile on risks.

The obvious, straightforward solution is to continue to provide the military assistance that our Israeli allies need to protect their security and ours—and at the same time, fight to stop the Biden administration’s reckless anti-Israel policies.

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

Public sector staff shortages in ‘hard jobs’ are sparking a wage war as taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions

At the entrance to Missouri prisons, large signs plead for help: “NOW HIRING” ... “GREAT PAY & BENEFITS."

No experience is necessary. Anyone 18 and older can apply. Long hours are guaranteed.

Though the assertion of “great pay” for prison guards would have seemed dubious in the past, a series of state pay raises prompted by widespread vacancies has finally made a difference. The Missouri Department of Corrections set a record for new applicants last month.

“After we got our raise, we started seeing people come out of the woodwork, people that hadn’t worked in a while,” said Maj. Albin Narvaez, chief of custody at the Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center, where new prisoners are housed and evaluated.

Public employers across the U.S. have faced similar struggles to fill jobs, leading to one of the largest surges in state government pay raises in 15 years. Many cities, counties and school districts also are hiking wages to try to retain and attract workers amid aggressive competition from private sector employers.

The wage war comes as governments and taxpayers feel the consequences of empty positions.

In Kansas City, Missouri, a shortage of 911 operators doubled the average hold times for people calling in emergencies. In one Florida county, some schoolchildren frequently arrived late as a lack of bus drivers delayed routes. In Arkansas, abused and neglected kids remained longer in foster care because of a caseworker shortage. In various cities and states, vacancies on road crews meant cracks and potholes took longer to fix than many motorists might like.

“A lot of the jobs we’re talking about are hard jobs,” said Leslie Scott Parker, executive director of the National Association of State Personnel Executives.

Lingering vacancies “eventually affects service to the public or response times to needs,” she added.

Workforce shortages worsened across all sorts of jobs due to a wave of retirements and resignations that began during the pandemic. Many businesses, from restaurants to hospitals, responded nimbly with higher wages and incentives to attract employees. But governments by nature are slower to act, requiring pay raises to go through a legislative process that can take months to complete — and then can take months more to kick in.

Meanwhile, vacancies mounted.

In Georgia, state employee turnover hit a high of 25% in 2022. Thousands of workers left the Department of Corrections, pushing its vacancy rate to around 50%. The state began a series of pay raises. This year, all state employees and teachers got at least a $2,000 raise, with corrections officers getting $4,000 and state troopers $6,000.

The Georgia Department of Corrections used an ad agency to bolster recruitment and held an average of 125 job fairs a month. It's starting to pay off. In the first week of July, the department received 318 correctional officer applications — nearly double the weekly norm, said department Public Affairs Director Joan Heath.

Almost 1 in 4 positions — more than 2,500 jobs -- were empty in the Missouri Department of Corrections late last year, which was twice the pre-pandemic vacancy rate in 2019.

Missouri gave state workers a 7.5% pay raise in 2022. This spring, Gov. Mike Parson signed an emergency spending bill with an additional 8.7% raise, plus an extra $2 an hour for people working evening and night shifts at prisons, mental health facilities and other institutions. The vacancy rate for entry level corrections officers now is declining, and the average number of applications for all state positions is up 18% since the start of last year.

At the Fulton prison, where staff shortages have led to a standard 52-hour work week, newly hired employees can earn around $60,000 annually — an amount roughly equal to the state's median household income. The prison also is proposing to provide free child care to correctional officers willing to work nights.

If prison staffing is too low, "it can get dangerous” for both inmates and guards, Narvaez said.

Public safety concerns also have arisen in Kansas City, where a country music fan attacked before a concert last month waited four minutes for a 911 call to be answered and an hour for an ambulance to arrive. About one-quarter of 911 call center positions are vacant — “a huge factor" in the longer wait times to answer calls, said Tamara Bazzle, assistant manager of the communications unit for the Kansas City Police Department.

In Biddeford, Maine, a 15-person roster of 911 dispatchers dipped to just eight employees in July as people quit a “pressure cooker job" for less stress or better pay elsewhere, Police Chief JoAnne Fisk said. The city is now offering fully certified dispatchers $41 an hour to help plug the gaps on a part-time basis — $10 an hour more than comparable new workers normally would earn.

This month, Biddeford also launched a $2,000 bonus for city employees who refer others who get jobs. That comes a year after Biddeford adopted a four-day work week with paid lunch periods to try to make jobs more appealing, said City Manager Jim Bennett.

To attract workers, other governments have dropped college degree requirements and spiced up drab job descriptions.

Nationally, the turnover rate in state and local governments is twice the average of the previous two decades, according federal labor statistics.

Uncompetitive wages were the most common reason for leaving cited in exit interviews, according to a survey of 249 state and local government human resource managers conducted by MissionSquare Research Institute, a Washington, D.C. -based nonprofit. The hardest positions to fill included police and corrections officers, doctors, nurses, engineers and jobs requiring commercial driver's licenses.

Along Florida's east coast, the Brevard County transit system and school district have been competing for bus drivers. On days when drivers are lacking, the transit system has cut the frequency of bus stops on some routes. The school system, meanwhile, has asked some bus drivers to run a second route after dropping children off at school, often resulting in the second busload arriving late.

Since 2022, the county has twice raised bus driver wages to a current rate of $17.47 an hour. The school board recently countered with a $5 increase to a minimum $20 an hour for the upcoming school year. The goal is to hire enough drivers to regularly get kids to class on time, said school system communications director Russell Bruhn.

In Arkansas, the goal is to get foster kids into permanent homes in less than a year. But during the first three months of this year, the state met that target for just 32% of foster children — well below the national standard of over 40%. More than one-fifth of the roughly 1,400 positions in the Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services are vacant.

Many new employees leave in less than two years because of heavy caseloads and the “very difficult, emotionally tolling work,” Mischa Martin, the Department of Human Services' deputy secretary of youth and families, told lawmakers last month.

“If we had a knowledgeable, experienced workforce," she said, "they would be able to work cases in a better way to get kids home quicker.”

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

The Will to Power

Total power is not something people of strong character feel a need to possess; it is the provenance of the weak: mediocre, unfulfilled individuals of extreme arrogance, who have few moral scruples, and almost no capacity to control their actions, their emotions, their lusts, and their passions—the most dangerous human beings imaginable.

Power consumes those whose vanity and narcissism motivate them to fanciful and never-ending delusions of superiority. Within the human breast, power has its own organic life, worse than the most malignant cancer, ever-growing, never shrinking, with no medicine for its cure, constantly needing to be fed, and that only with more and more of its own kind—the insatiable monster who can never be satisfied, even at the cost of mountains of human skulls. It becomes a disease, an interminable, incurable malady that may not end even at death—it is often passed on to disciples. It is more intoxicating than alcohol or the most addictive drug known to man. Like the hopeless druggie, those craving and possessing power must constantly have their “fix,” and the drug must be increasingly more potent, more costly, and more destructive, to themselves and to others.

When conquered by the will to power, a person convinces themselves they are omnipotent, that only they possess certainty, everybody else is inferior, that they alone have the answers, that the noble ends they seek justify whatever means they deem necessary to obtain them, because, in their high-minded vain egotism, only they have the betterment of mankind in view, and that the world simply cannot survive without their guidance. Those who oppose them are opposing Truth, the Only Truth, the True Progress of Humanity, and thus are evil, and must be silenced by any means necessary. And after extinguishing countless human hopes, dreams, and lives, they sit atop the pile, congratulating themselves on the “utopia” they have built, but ever vigilant for more dragons who need slaying. That is power. That isn’t strength, that is uncontrolled human weakness to its most malevolent extreme. It is the story of human history.

Down through the ages, very few politicians have demonstrated the ability to control the will to power that lurks within the human heart. America’s Founding Fathers understood that perfectly, which is why they wrote a constitution specifically defining and thus restricting the powers national government officials could exercise over other Americans. It’s also why James Madison said we should never trust anybody who has power. The Founders didn’t establish term limits for Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents, and perhaps they should have. But they thought frequent elections would be sufficient. Such hasn’t proven to be so. Our Founders were brilliant men, but no humans are endowed with infinite wisdom.

But their fear of power is not only evident in historical events that took place before and during their lifetime, but are equally evident since they died, especially in the last 100 years. Consider those who had power in the 20th century and how they finally relinquished it. Vladimir Lenin died as the head of Russia. So did Joseph Stalin. Adolf Hitler died in power. As did Mao Zedong, two North Korean Kims, and a host of other megalomaniacs. That is the intoxicating nature of power. Once obtained, only death conquers the craving. These are weak people who cannot control themselves so they must control others.

American politicians aren’t immune to this yearning, this will to power. They are somewhat restrained by our Constitution. Somewhat, but not enough, and many would love to abolish it entirely. Joe Biden is 80 years old. What is he doing still in Washington, D.C.? He has been there for 50 years. Why doesn’t he go home? The reason is simple. He is a very inferior man who covets power, whose power-disease has convinced him that he knows better how to run your life than you do, and, because he has the power, he is going to do everything he can to make you submit to the mythical utopia that delusions his mind. 80 years old, and he wants another four years of power. He is the last person in the country who should have it.

Well, maybe demented Diane Feinstein is his equal. Grassley. McConnell. Pelosi. How many other septua- and octogenarians exist in Washington who have plagued the nation for most of their adult lives? On both sides of the aisle, not just Democrats. They aren’t serving the people, they are inflating themselves in their own eyes. And destroying the country in the process. They want one thing—glory in their vision of themselves. They are no wiser than most Americans, they are only more conceited. Look at the mess they have created in Washington and around the country. Could any other group of people have done any worse?

Americans have given power to inadequate incompetents of mediocre ability, non-existent wisdom because of their ungodly character, but who ache to preserve it--for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this column. It’s a disease, a cancer inside them, ever-growing, never, never satiated, always thinking their Utopia is just around the corner, one vote away, and “I must be here to cast that vote.” But their Utopia never arrives, and it never will. Only the dunghill grows deeper.

Term limits might be a partial answer, but electing better people, humble people, people who truly understand the dangers of power, people who mind their own business except for national necessities—that would be a superior solution. But those kinds of people are not the busybodies who salivate to control others. The sort of people needed are those whose character would largely forbid them from accepting the job.

So, we get Joe Biden for 50 years. And look at the results.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Sunday, July 30, 2023



Men have a problem – and it won’t be solved by either Andrew Tate or Caitlin Moran

Talking about "men" in general is typical feminist brainlessness. Men are all different and the differences between them are great. Are a professional footballer and a celibate priest the same?

I can think of nothing that is true of all men. These days some "men" do not even have penises. According to the screed below, men "make endless jokes about their balls". I have NEVER made such a joke. And do I have a "fondness for super-skinny jeans "? I have nothing like that in my wardrobe. The generalizations below are just stupid and entirely counterfactual. Nothing is to be learned from them.

And even if she confines her universe of discussion to men's relationships with women it does not help. One example of how reality is more complex than any feminist allows: I regularly open car doors for women but I have long been tolerant of my girlfriend going out with other men. What generalization covers that? There is none. I am an individual, not an "example" of anything. My attitudes are mine, not anybody else's

So do I have problems? Sure do. I sometimes fall in love with wildly "inappropriate" women. That is not common so what does it tell you about "men"? Nothing at all. Despite my XY chromosomes, I don't exist in the sad little world of feminist stereotypes



Caitlin Moran has some questions for men. Why do they only go to the doctor if their wife or girlfriend makes them? Why do they never discuss their penises with each other – but make endless jokes about their balls? Is their fondness for super-skinny jeans leading to an epidemic of bad mental health? Are they allowed to be sad?

Published earlier this month, Moran’s What About Men? sees one of the nation’s most prolific feminist writers turn her attention to the problems facing men and masculinity. Marketed as a deep dive into the modern man, the book interrogates a range of issues, from mental health to sexuality. It’s a noble pursuit. And yet, it’s one that has been ruthlessly torn apart. Critics have labelled it everything from “patronising” to full of “flagrant stereotypes”. One reviewer described it as “rhetorical essentialism that lucratively pigeonholes men and women even at the risk of misconstruing both”.

But in 2023, a time when misogyny is rife online and the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are upheld as stalwarts of masculinity, Moran’s questions are the kind we need to be asking more than ever. Why is it, then, nobody wants to answer them?

Moran has since responded to the backlash in an article in The Times, claiming that she’s been confronted by two different kinds of critics: “The first were all like, ‘How dare you suggest men have problems with communicating their emotions? That is an incredibly old-fashioned and patronising generalisation’,” Moran writes. “And the other half were like, ‘How dare you suggest that men should communicate their emotions? We’re not biologically designed to be emotional – you’re just trying to turn us into women.’”

Even this response, though, came under fire, with further critics arguing that Moran seemed to misunderstand why so many people were troubled by the book. That, rather, What About Men? flouted individualism to instead present men as one universal body with shared belief systems and behavioural traits, all of which seemed wildly outdated. And that the implication of her book was that men are in trouble and Moran is here to fix them.

According to gender studies academics, there are several issues with this thesis. The first is that men might not really be in trouble at all, at least not in the way Moran suggests. “Historians have found people worrying about [the] ‘crisis of masculinity’ throughout history,” says Dr Ben Griffin, associate professor in modern British History at Girton College, University of Cambridge. “But if a crisis is perpetual, it’s not really a crisis – it’s just the way of things.”

The real problem, he claims, is that masculinity cannot be discussed in such singular terms. “If we asked a football fan, a vicar, and a banker to define ‘manliness’, we would probably get three very different answers,” he says. “When people talk about a ‘crisis of masculinity’, they are usually complaining that their preferred variety of masculinity seems to be losing prestige or influence relative to other forms of masculinity.” Today, we have ideas of masculinity coming from all angles, whether it’s in sociology, pop culture, advertising, charities, TikTok, government campaigns, or around a table in the pub. “Amid this cacophony of competing voices, it is harder than ever for any one form of masculinity to establish itself as culturally dominant,” says Dr Griffin. “To some people, that looks like a crisis.”

A lot of men hear phrases like ‘toxic masculinity’ and they simply withdraw. Or worse, it serves to confirm their sense of victimhood, so they chase insalubrious gurus who provide cheap hope and unhealthy ideology

That’s not to say, though, that there aren’t issues that need solving. In her book, Moran cites a range of shocking statistics, among them that boys are more likely than girls to be medicated at school for disruptive behaviour, less likely to go on to further education, and more likely to become addicted to alcohol, drugs or pornography. Men also make up the vast majority of the homeless and prison populations. And on top of all that, the leading cause of death for men under 50 is suicide.

Other concerns have also emerged of late. Since the pandemic, there has been a notable rise in penile enlargement surgeries, for example, a trend that highlights society’s obsession with defining masculinity in sexual terms by placing social currency on penis size. “A different kind of ‘crisis’ talk occurs when men find themselves incapable of performing their preferred variety of masculinity,” explains Dr Griffin. For some, this might be aligned with sexual prowess and performance. Any sense of a shortcoming could then lead someone to feel as if it’s not possible to do the things that make you a “real man”. But then another question emerges: what does?

It’s this lack of identity that seems to be at the heart of some of the biggest problems facing men today. “We don’t know how we are meant to be anymore,” says Max Dickins, comedian and author of Billy No-Mates: How I Realised Men Have a Friendship Problem. “What Moran’s book represents is a stylish exemplar of a discourse that has become stuck. The think pieces [and] the books all tend to have the same form: ‘Here are men’s problems!’ ‘The reason for said problems is that men are stuck in a box of toxic masculine norms!’ If only men could behave more like… women!’”

Of course, the fact any book is prompting further interrogation into these issues is largely a good thing. But perhaps something has to change about the tone of that interrogation if we’re ever going to make progress. “We need a shift that encourages men to get involved in the conversation, or at least, stops casually insulting them,” says Dickins. “A lot of men hear phrases like ‘toxic masculinity’ and they simply withdraw. Or worse, it serves to confirm their sense of victimhood, so they chase insalubrious gurus who provide cheap hope and unhealthy ideology.”

In her response piece, Moran speculates that one of the reasons why her book prompted such a backlash is because it was written by a woman. “It was the first question on [the] first night of the tour that resolved my confusion over the backlash,” she writes. “‘You joke that you wish a man had written this book,’ said a man in the audience. ‘But how could he? Can you imagine a man saying, ‘What about men? Pay us attention! It’s our turn now!’ We’d be torn to bits. It had to be a woman who said it first.’”

It’s a fair point, one that highlights how far we have to go in order to achieve meaningful change. After all, no one’s denying that Moran’s book isn’t at least attempting to do something important. But perhaps the response illustrates just how complex an attempt it is given how charged conversations around gender can be; whatever you say, and whoever says it, there’ll inevitably be a group of people armed to attack or discredit your argument.

That being said, Moran’s book went straight to Number One on the Sunday Times bestseller list. Evidently, and despite people’s protests, there is clearly an audience for her perspective. And progress is being made, even if it might not feel like that. Would a book like this even have been published five years ago? And if it had, would anyone have wanted to actually read it? Would Moran fill out rooms of people on a nationwide book tour, all of whom had paid to listen to what she has to say about men?

The truth is that there are always going to be certain belief systems holding people back, no matter how hard Moran or anyone else tries. That’s just the nature of conversations around masculinity. “In general, it’s a good thing for people to recognise that there is no one way of being a man,” says Dr Griffin. “It might also be useful to acknowledge that the same man performs many different masculinities in the course of a day. The individual who is a devoted family man caring for a dying parent might be a ruthless businessman in the office and a clown in the pub.”

The important thing that’s often missing from these conversations, both online and off, is nuance. Accepting that one person’s definition of being a man is different from another’s, and that no two men perform masculinity in the same way, is key to becoming a more progressive and inclusive society that can benefit all genders. But getting there could take some time.

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

What the Oppenheimer movie does not tell you

Why was this film even made?

Here is a rather simple story. The US government grasps that, with a huge concentration of brilliant minds and vast sums of money, it may be able to make a weapon more destructive than any in history.

The possibility is not a secret. Scientists in several major powers, including Britain, had been examining this since 1939. British experts have already made major advances but the country lacks the money to carry them through. A large team of British scientists go to the US to help in what they think (wrongly) will be a joint Anglo-American project.

Hollywood, typically, makes little of the British contribution or of the later freezing out of Britain, which led to the 1945 Labour government restarting the UK's own independent nuclear weapons programme. A brilliant, brutal bureaucrat, General Leslie Groves, has proved he can work wonders by building the Pentagon in no time. He is picked to build the bomb, and chooses Oppenheimer as his scientific chief, a Left-wing eccentric with a messy sex life and a tragic marriage (his wife is an ex-Communist who drinks too much), who reads the Hindu scriptures for relaxation.

He is not your ordinary suburban person. He has Communist friends but he is good at nuclear physics and managing scientists. Oppenheimer duly delivers the bomb, too late to be used on the Nazis but in time to be dropped on Japan.

Bang. Hurrah. The war ends. Sorry about all the innocent people who got burned to death but that's war and they shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor. The end.

Except that it isn't the end.

All kinds of worrying things are buried in the story. At one point, in 1942, one of Oppenheimer's Communist friends suggests that Oppenheimer gets in touch with the Soviet Union about the bomb project through a British scientist (and Soviet asset). Oppenheimer realises the suggestion is treasonous and refuses it. But he does not report the contact for eight months. When he does, he tries to cover up his friend's role for four months.

All this matters because soon after the German defeat, it becomes clear Stalin has penetrated the bomb project, and has known for ages about it.

And the US, having been Stalin's close ally until 1945, violently switches to being Moscow's bitterest enemy.

Suddenly, now that the Soviet Union is the enemy, all those Communist dalliances in the 1930s start to matter. Just because the stupid, gristle-brained Senator Joe McCarthy says so, doesn't mean the American establishment hasn't been infiltrated by pro-Soviet Communists. Subsequent intelligence disclosures confirm that it was. Oppenheimer, later in life, ceases to be indispensable to the US nuclear bomb programme. Plenty of others can handle it. He has also become politically awkward as he clearly suffers from remorse over the uses made of his discoveries.

But why is so much of the film devoted to an attack on an obscure US politician, Lewis Strauss, who took part in the campaign to remove Oppenheimer's security clearance.

Hollywood was badly scorched by crude witch-hunts during the McCarthy years and has never really seen straight over such issues since.

The danger was not imaginary, or purely the result of American hysteria. The truth is that there were Communists, and fellow-travellers, in the US and in Britain, and that quite a few became agents of Stalin. Many probably got away with it.

In unhysterical Britain, the nuclear scientist Alan Nunn May, an actual Communist, was jailed for ten years for giving secrets to the Soviets. The German refugee Klaus Fuchs, who also gave British nuclear secrets to Stalin, was jailed for 14 years and went to live in Communist East Germany when released.

All of this has been known for years. But a film made in 2023 needs to get past these ancient 1950s Hollywood resentments. Here are several huge issues barely touched on.

The scientists knew they were building a weapon of mass destruction but excused themselves because Hitler might build one, too. We now know that Hitler never got near building a bomb.

The whole moral driving force of the project was a fantasy.

In the summer of 1945, British intelligence assembled a group of captured German scientists at a picturesque old house in Godmanchester, near Huntingdon. The house was bugged from basement to attic. The Germans were astonished at news of the bomb and plainly had never got within miles of making one. This has been public knowledge since 1992.

Even more devastating is modern historical research about Japan.

It is clear that Japan's surrender was not forced by the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Japan's fanatical leadership cared little about civilian deaths (they had not blinked when a firebomb raid in March 1945 killed 100,000 in Tokyo itself). By the time the bomb was ready, there were few Japanese cities of any size left standing.

The scholar Tsuyoshi Hasegawa concluded from Japanese and Soviet records that Japan's surrender was mainly caused by Stalin's decision to enter the war. The military leadership feared he would invade Japan from the north and seize large parts of the country.

It has long suited Japan and the US to pretend that the two A-bombs ended the war. Japan can pose as a victim nation. The US, which is embarrassed about being the only country to use the bomb in war, can soothe consciences by saying the action saved tens of thousands of Allied troops from death. But the worrying truth is known to academics and diplomats. So the second great justification for the use of the bomb in 1945 melts away.

President Truman's airy dismissal of Oppenheimer as a 'crybaby' for doubting the morality of using the bomb now looks callous and self-serving. Truman was a nobody promoted to power by the crooked Tom Pendergast machine in Kansas City, Missouri. For sure, he was no great intellect.

Oppenheimer, by contrast, was a powerful thinker. A great film could have been made out of this huge story. But this wasn't it.

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

FDA Commissioner: No One 'Envisioned' the Consequences of New Sesame Seed Labeling Rule

One of the better recent examples of how government officials do a poor job of anticipating the consequences of their actions occurred after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated warning labels for products containing sesame seeds.

The unexpected result: Suddenly everything seems to contain sesame.

In case you missed it at the time, here's what happened: In an attempt to aid those with allergies to sesame seeds, the FDA added the ingredient to a longstanding list of items—including eggs, milk, and shellfish—whose presence must be noted on the packaging of food products and at restaurants. In response, food producers started adding sesame to products that previously contained none.

The food producers were simply doing what made economic sense. The FDA's fines for not disclosing the inclusion of sesame are steep, and it's much cheaper to add a few seeds to everything than to face potential penalties for accidental mixing. "Rather than worry about how to prevent potential cross-contamination in products that don't contain sesame, some restaurants and food makers—including Olive Garden, Chick-fil-A, and Wendy's—are simply adding sesame to their products. That way they can list it as an ingredient and not worry about being faulted for accidental contamination," Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote last year.

The result? Fewer sesame seed–free products are now available for people who are allergic.

But the cherry on top of this sundae of government failure—or perhaps the sesame seed atop the FDA's bun of bureaucratic bungling—was provided this week by none other than the agency's own chief.

"Some manufacturers are intentionally adding sesame to products that previously did not contain sesame and are labeling the products to indicate its presence," acknowledged FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf in a statement. Califf went on to say that the FDA's goal, of course, was to help individuals with sesame allergies "feel more confident" about their choices.

"I don't think anyone envisioned there being a decrease in the availability of products that are safe choices for sesame-allergic consumers," he concluded.

Yes, no one could have possibly envisioned this outcome—except, perhaps, for the many food processing facilities that immediately responded to the FDA's new rules by doing exactly this.

What Califf means, of course, is that no one within the FDA considered this possibility. That's a telling statement. It indicates that the FDA likely didn't do a good job of investigating how the businesses affected by its rules would respond to the placement of sesame on the federal allergens list. It also suggests that the FDA's staff lacked the ability to see beyond the good intentions—helping allergy sufferers—of the policy to interrogate how such a rule might be implemented in the real world.

There is a recurring idea that advancements in technology and data processing can allow governments to solve the so-called knowledge problem—Friedrich A. Hayek's observation that central planning will always fail because government officials cannot aggregate all the necessary information to make better decisions than the decentralized ones made by individuals acting via markets.

But Califf's remarks show just how difficult solving that problem is. The FDA has virtually unlimited access to public health data and can easily acquire whatever information it might need to make any decision. And yet no one at the agency was able to predict how a regulation of a tiny seed would have huge unintended consequences.

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

Michigan Bill Making ‘Misgendering’ a Hate Crime Is Unconstitutional

Last month, the Michigan House passed HB 4474—legislation that would expand the state’s existing Ethnic Intimidation Act beyond current protections for religion, ethnicity, and race to categories including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

HB 4474 would make it a felony hate crime offense to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened” with words—deliberately “misgendering” someone, for example—subject to a potential penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The Left has been pushing its “words are violence” premise for some time. But Michigan’s willingness to go the extra mile and criminalize gender-related speech has summoned a ghoul from some dystopian fever dream.

HB 4474 is unconstitutional, and I’m not the only lawyer who thinks so. To argue otherwise ignores two of the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly minted rulings on what speech the First Amendment protects—and what it doesn’t.

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs conveying messages on same-sex marriage with which she disagrees.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, recited a long line of precedents establishing that the First Amendment not only protects an individual’s right to speak her mind but prohibits the government from compelling her to “speak its own preferred messages.”

Yet that’s precisely what Michigan proposes to do. Its preferred messages require affirmation of another’s gender identity on pain of criminal penalty—even if the speaker believes that sex is binary and immutable and that there are only two genders.

In Counterman v. Colorado, the court examined the interplay between the First Amendment and criminal conduct—specifically, making “true threats” that are unprotected speech. The court held that for Colorado to prosecute someone for making a “true threat” of violence, it must prove a defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan noted that even though a true threat “lie[s] outside the bounds of the First Amendment’s protection,” prosecution of true threats poses “the prospect of chilling non-threatening expression, given the ordinary citizen’s predictable tendency to steer wide of the unlawful zone.”

By requiring a showing that a defendant recklessly disregarded a substantial risk that his words could be perceived as threatening, a speaker would be prevented from—as Kagan wrote—“swallow[ing] words that are in fact not true threats.”

That means a prosecution under Michigan’s hate crime law would require proof that the speaker knew his or her speech on gender identity or expression was likely to be perceived as threatening but acted with that knowledge by issuing the threat anyway. The speaker would therefore be acting “recklessly.”

Yes, as the gender juggernaut sprints ever forward, it’s certainly likely that “transgender” individuals could perceive misgendering as “threatening.” They are, after all, the fraternity of the perpetually offended. However, to qualify as a prosecutable “true threat,” the speech must convey a threat to commit an act of violence—speech that is hurtful or offensive does not qualify and is protected speech under the First Amendment, regardless of whether the majority of Michiganders agree or not.

Further complicating Michigan’s intention to silence dissent is the fact that at least one federal appellate court has held that gender identity is a “hotly contested issue,” one on which reasonable people can and do disagree.

Indeed, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Meriwether v. Hartop that “the premise that gender identity is an idea ‘embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.’”

Despite Democratic characterizations that HB 4474 is “commonsense hate crime legislation,” the expansion of hate crime laws to speech concerning an individual’s subjective self-identification is anything but common. It compels alignment with the state’s preferred orthodoxy, something the Supreme Court has routinely struck down. What’s more, it points the way toward even bolder government efforts to censor unpopular or politically inexpedient speech.

Whether concerning hate crimes, stalking, or public accommodations, no law, as Gorsuch wrote in 303 Creative, “is immune from the demands of the Constitution.” A law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (such as Colorado’s public accommodations law) or establishes criminal penalties for speech based on gender identity or expression (like HB 4474) must still conform to the First Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech.

The government may not prohibit expression merely because it might prove offensive to some or run contrary to its stated policy objectives. Disagreement is not discrimination, and while Michigan’s House Democrats appear to have forgotten this, their Senate colleagues would do well to remember it.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Friday, July 28, 2023


Regulatory group for psychologists ordered Jordan Peterson to undergo 're-education' after he expressed his opinions online. He's taken it to court, and the result might prove seismic.

Beyond his work as a cultural commentator, a professor, and a bestselling author, Dr. Jordan Peterson has also made a name for himself as an accomplished clinical psychologist.

Following complaints — not by clients but by strangers — about some of Peterson's publicly-stated views unrelated to the practice of psychology, the Canadian governing body for psychologists in his home province of Ontario ordered him late last year to submit to mandatory media training at his own expense.

Rather than submit to the procrustean re-education scheme, Peterson, who no longer has a clinical practice but intends to maintain his clinical license, elected to take the College of Psychologists of Ontario to court, stressing that its order runs afoul of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court now appears set to reveal its decision in the case, which could prove greatly consequential.

According to Jonah Arnold of the Association of Aggrieved Regulated Professionals of Ontario, a non-profit advocacy group that represents health care workers and other professionals who have experienced mistreatment by their regulators, "the outcome of this case may affect the fundamental rights of about 400,000 professionals from all 29 regulated health professions in Ontario. It could even affect other professionals including teachers, accountants, and lawyers."

What's the background?

Peterson was previously in good standing with the CPO and had no public record of any complaints, reported the Toronto Star.

Then he expressed personal opinions online that evidently did not resonate with everybody.

Peterson retweeted a comment made by the leader of Canada's official opposition party, Pierre Poilievre, concerning the unnecessary severity of COVID lockdowns.

He criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trudeau's former chief of staff, Gerald Butts, who resigned amidst the liberal leader's damning SNC Lavalin scandal.

Peterson also took Ottawa city councilor Catherine McKenney to task over her use of "they/them" pronouns and suggested the doctor who removed actress Elliot Page's breasts was a "criminal physician."

It appears these and other remarks were too much for some people to handle.

Individuals whom Peterson indicated were neither clients nor familiar with his clients complained to the CPO.

According to Canadian state media, the CPO then launched an investigation into Peterson.

The CPO's inquiries, complaints, and reports committee determined in November 2022 that the doctor's comments were "degrading, demeaning and unprofessional," adding that his conduct "poses moderate risks to the public," and runs the risk of "undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the college's ability to regulate the profession in the public interest."

Peterson claimed that he was further accused of tweeting his opinion "'disrespectfully,' ... in a 'horrific' manner that spread 'misinformation'; that was 'threatening' and 'harassing'; that was 'embarrassing to the profession,'" adding that he was also accused of being "sexist, transphobic, incapable of the requisite body positivity in relationship to morbid obesity and, unforgivably of all, a climate change denialist."

Peterson told Canadian state media that the committee had proven itself unable to demonstrate any harms to the targets of his tweets.

Nevertheless, the committee concluded that he must complete a "specified continuing education or remedial program" at his own expense or face an allegation of professional misconduct, which would result in the termination of his license to practice psychology.

Peterson takes the college to court

Peterson wrote in a Jan. 4 National Post article that in agreeing to the CPO committee's re-education order, he would have to admit that he has been unprofessional in his conduct and to have that noted publicly.

"I’m not complying. I’m not submitting to re-education. I am not admitting that my viewpoints — many of which have, by the way, been entirely justified by the facts that have emerged since the complaints were levied — were either wrong or unprofessional," he stated.

"I have done nothing to compromise those in my care; quite the contrary — I have served all my clients and the millions of people I am communicating with to the best of my ability and in good faith, and that’s that."

Peterson told the Toronto Sun that he determined "the best way to challenge [the college's order] would be in the courts on constitutional grounds. ... I don't trust the process at the College and no one should."

The psychologist filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a review of the ruling by the committee.

His notice of application for judicial review stated that the committee's decision as well as certain bylaws and policies of the CPO infringed upon his freedom of expression rights. It also highlighted how his impugned statements "do not relate to the 'practice of psychology.'"

A panel of three Superior Court judges is expected to reveal its decision in the case any day now.

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

New Residents Flooding Into Florida Bring Billions With Them

People moving to Florida have brought with them almost $40 billion in net annual income, according to a report by the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

In the organization’s 2023 Florida Business and Economic Mid-Year Report, chamber president Mark Wilson wrote that this year, “Florida is reflecting another year of population growth, wealth migration, more jobs, and a flourishing economy.”

The chamber’s goal is to make Florida a “Top 10 Global Economy” by 2030, Mr. Wilson wrote.

If the state were an independent country, its economy would be ranked 16th globally, figures from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) show.

As the state’s population grows, so does its wealth, thanks to the income of newcomers moving from other states.

More than half of the $39.2 billion income influx from 2020 to 2021 came from residents moving in from just five states.

The states that lost the most annual net income to Florida with those relocations were New York by $9.8 billion; Illinois by $3.9 billion; New Jersey by $3.8 billion; California by $3.5 billion; and Pennsylvania by $1.9 billion.

The figures are based on the latest available data from the IRS, a chamber spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in an email.

4x Bigger than Texas
Florida’s net migration revenue, at $39.2 billion, was four times that of the second-ranking state, Texas, which gained $10.9 billion over the same period.

“I think we’ve had more wealth move into Florida in the last three years than has ever moved into a single state over a similar period of time in all of American history,” Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, told members of the American Legislative Exchange Council at their annual meeting in Orlando on July 26.

Much of the money has flowed to South Florida. Miami-Dade County gained $7.4 billion in net annual income and Palm Beach gained $7.2 billion.

The next three highest gains were in Southwest Florida: Collier County gained $4.9 billion, Lee County gained $2.4 billion, and Sarasota County gained $2.3 billion of net annual income.

A popular retirement destination, Florida is seeing its demographics change. Those 80 and older now number 5 percent of the population.

The chamber projects they will make up 8 percent by 2035 and 10 percent by 2050.

The group made up of residents 65-79 is expected to remain about the same. Younger age groups are expected to drop by a percentage point or two, chamber analysts predict.

Hispanics, now making up about 27 percent of the Florida population, will reach 32 percent by 2050, analysts predict.

As he runs for president, Mr. DeSantis likes to talk about residents of blue states—like those bringing the Top 5 amounts of wealth— as “voting with their feet.” They’ve made Florida the No. 1 state where people have relocated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I would point out, though, that the people are leaving those woke states and they’re migrating to states like Florida who are doing it differently,” Mr. DeSantis, a Republican, said in an interview with actor, activist, and podcaster Russell Brand on July 21.

Mr. DeSantis touts Florida’s pro-business and anti-regulatory climate as part of the reason it’s drawing so many new residents. He also points to the state’s radical departure from the federal government’s public-health policies in response to the pandemic.

And he believes the state’s cultural stance against wokeness is another reason individuals and businesses have pulled up stakes elsewhere and planted roots in Florida

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

Criminalize Misgendering? Yes, Say Millennials

In a poll conducted by Newsweek, respondents were asked about their thoughts on preferred pronouns and “misgendering.” The prompt stated, “Referring to someone by the wrong gender pronoun (he/him, she/her) should be a criminal offense.”

First of all, we won’t use scare quotes every time, but in the Left’s lexicon, “misgendering” means using pronouns corresponding to biology regardless of a person’s chosen “identity.”

One may assume that Gen Z would be the generation most ardent to support this. Surprisingly, it is the Millennials who are calling for the criminalization of misgendering. According to the poll, 44% of respondents aged 25-34 (Millennials) said they agreed that misgendering should be illegal. Only 31% disagreed. Millennials were the worst, but Gen X wasn’t far behind them. While the 35- to 44-year-old cohort includes some Millennials, 38% of that group think misgendering should be a criminal offense, with only 35% disagreeing.

Interestingly enough, Gen Zers (age 18-24) seem to have the most common sense. Thirty-three percent agree with criminalizing misgendering, and 48% oppose.

This seems like a far-fetched idea, but people have been thrown in jail for using the wrong pronouns. PJ Media lists several examples in Europe and Canada where people have been arrested or investigated as criminals. Townhall cites an Irish school teacher who lost his job for refusing to use a student’s declared pronouns.

If the Newsweek poll is to be believed, then who’s to say that the U.S. won’t start making misgendering illegal? Except we already are trying. In California, students were suspended for using a teacher’s “incorrect” pronouns. In Michigan, House Bill 4474 passed. This legislation would make it a felony to intimidate someone and misgender them. It is classified as a hate crime.

Preferred pronouns are perhaps the most confusing and egotistical part of the transgenderism canon. People who claim they are the opposite gender believe a delusion and aren’t satisfied unless you affirm their delusion. The next step is always force for this ideology.

People resist this ideology because it is a lie. A man cannot become a woman or a woman a man. A singular person is not a they/them, zhe/zher, or whatever other linguistic concoction they make up. Preferred pronouns are based on a lie, foisted on the public, and can be changed on a whim.

Preferred pronouns are also pretty egotistical because the user forces people to adhere to a personal whim, the results being that people are confused or exhausted trying to remember and insert the correct preferred pronouns for people.

Who’s to say a person can’t get legally charged if they “misgender” someone simply because the object of their misgendering had changed their pronouns half a dozen times? “Misgendering” might be considered a hate crime, but unlike race, age, biological sex, or physical/mental ability, gender expression and preferred pronouns aren’t immutable characteristics.

Why are so many younger and middle-age adults on the censorship and cancellation bandwagon? Some have speculated that these generations are simply the product of Boomer Hippie parenting, which is fair. It is far more likely that these people have bought into this ideology because they have children who are living the ideology. Our Nate Jackson recently wrote about such parents, who would rather go down with the transgenderism ship than admit they permanently damaged their kids.

Millennials have also been strenuously taught to respect everyone — even if that means lying to them, apparently. Hopefully this generation will wake up to the dangers of going down this road. Transgenderism isn’t the next civil rights movement. It is an ideology that preys on the vulnerable and should be refuted at every opportunity.

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

Tyrannical banks in Australia too

The heads of two major British banks lost their jobs over their Fascist attempt to "debank" Nigel Farage. One hopes that Australian bankers will take a lesson from that.

I recently went through an elaborate auhentication process that the Commonwealth Bank required of me. Like anying over the net, it was difficult but I eventually got an approval mark. So I may be in the clear.

But I am going to keep a fair bit of cash on hand from now on. I do mostly pay by cash these days. Tyrannical bank behaviour has become another good reason to stick with cash. Nobody has ever rejected one of my $50 notes


Many Australians are unaware that they can be denied access to their money if they break rules buried in the fine print of opening an account.

The Commonwealth Bank states a customer may not use their banking services if they engage in conduct 'that in our opinion' is 'offensive, harassing or threatening to any person' or 'promotes or encourages physical or mental harm of any person'.

Professional poker player and author Crispin Rovere, who is in dispute with Westpac after they froze his account, highlighted the Commonwealth Bank's terms and conditions in a tweet last week.

A Commonwealth Bank spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia the terms were to prevent 'to address the issue of financial abuse in the context of domestic and family violence'.

'In 2020, we updated our Acceptable Use Policy to address technology-facilitated abuse and to provide a safer banking experience for customers,' the spokesperson said.

'Any customer found to be using NetBank or the CommBank app to engage in unlawful, defamatory, harassing or threatening conduct, promoting or encouraging physical or mental harm or violence against any person may have their transactions refused or access to digital banking services suspended or discontinued'.

But some Aussies said the rules were too vague.

'Since when are banks the arbiters of moral and legal conduct? Especially the Commonwealth Bank? Do they even remember The Royal Commission findings????' one said.

'Setting themselves up to freeze people's bank accounts for wrong speak,' another added.

Others said the rules were justified.

'Classic example is abusive ex's harassing their ex-partners with 1c transfers that include threats in the description. In support services you see this all the time as a modus operandi. In the normal world, most don't even know it happens.'

In July, Mr Rovere slammed Westpac as 'totalitarian', claiming the bank froze his accounts after he made a 'modest' cash deposit following a poker win.

The bank demanded to know where Crispin Rovere's funds came from, which were 'way, way under' $10,000 and refused to unblock his account until he told them.

Last Wednesday the Commonwealth Bank came under fire after it announced it had opened a cashless 'specialist branches', where customers would no longer able to access their money over-the-counter a trend also happening with NAB branches.

'The specialist centre branches focus more on business customers and loan products and are located nearby to traditional branches,' a spokesperson said.

'We continue to maintain Australia's largest branch network for customers.'

However, the news did draw favourable responses on social media.

'Bank branches without money? WTF! That's like having a petrol station with no fuel! Do they expect people to call into the branch just to say hi and have a chat,' one said.

Another joked: 'A bank without cash, that makes real sense.'

'I suggest everyone to change their bank where this is happening,' a third said.

Mr Rovere told Daily Mail Australia he only realised there was a problem when he tried to make a card payment at a hotel he was staying in, but the bank rejected it.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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