Saturday, July 31, 2004


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

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

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

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

More here

Friday, July 30, 2004


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

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

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

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

See here

Thursday, July 29, 2004


Feminism has made us fatter

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

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

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

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


Court upholds individual responsibility -- about time

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

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

Wednesday, July 28, 2004


Courtesy of the taxpayer

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

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

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

More here


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

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

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

Tuesday, July 27, 2004


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

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

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

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

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

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

More here

Monday, July 26, 2004


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here


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

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

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

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

More here

Sunday, July 25, 2004


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

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

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

More here.


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

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

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

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

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

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

More here. (Via OzConservative)

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

Saturday, July 24, 2004


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

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

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

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

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

More here


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here

Friday, July 23, 2004


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

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

More here.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here

Thursday, July 22, 2004


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here


The criminal as victim again

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

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

More here. (Via Jerry Lerman).

Wednesday, July 21, 2004


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

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

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

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

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

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

More here


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

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

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

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

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

More here

Tuesday, July 20, 2004


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

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

UK Sun 14-Jul-04


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

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

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

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

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

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

More here.


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Monday, July 19, 2004


The Australian example -- but much like the USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here


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

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

Dennis Mangan has a big post on the same subject.

Sunday, July 18, 2004

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

Book Review (Excerpts):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here


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

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

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

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

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

From Australian ABC

Saturday, July 17, 2004


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The framers of the 1964 act also were sensitive to religious freedom and wrote into the law a limited but important exemption for religious institutions. Many recently enacted state and local laws, however, contain no religious exemption. Moreover, courts have unnecessarily stretched the definition of "discrimination" to force religious groups and individuals to conform to secular social norms. For example, courts have required conservative Christian schools to retain teachers who become pregnant out of wedlock. The schools' attempts to ensure their teachers are proper religious role models have been interpreted as invidious sex discrimination.

The authors of early federal civil-rights legislation also cabined the laws' intrusions on civil liberties by limiting coverage to race, national origin, religion and, sometimes, sex. In the past two decades, however, the federal government has prohibited discrimination based on family status, age and disability in a variety of contexts. Meanwhile, state and local anti-discrimination laws go even further, covering the obese, the ugly and the body-pierced, cohabitating unmarried couples and even (in Minnesota) motorcycle gang members.

In yet another show of concern for civil liberties, Congress exempted landlords from the 1968 Fair Housing Act, if they rented four or fewer units and lived on the premises. This "Mrs. Murphy exception" is a reasonable compromise between the goals of anti-discrimination law and privacy concerns. Recently, however, the laws of several jurisdictions have been interpreted to ban discrimination in the selection of roommates....."

More here

Friday, July 16, 2004


An email from a British reader:

"This morning BBC Radio 4 at 9 am "reported" that Nic Griffin, leader of the British National Party, had been "caught on camera" saying things about Islam "which he admitted could get him imprisoned". Sounds genuinely reprehensible doesn't it?

Just a while earlier, the Today program had told the very different truth of the matter. Griffin had merely told the truth that Islam [ideology not people] is evil and vicious, and had told the media (very differently from the above) that he would be delighted to defend his words in court.

What better strategy for BNP success could there be than to give them a total monopoly on telling the truth? The fact is that Islam IS an evil and vicious "religion". It's all there in the Koran, in the thug Mohammed's proudly recorded behaviour, in the current practice of all Islamic regimes. And if Holocaust denial is unacceptable, what about Jihad denial, starting with the 80 million killed as a result of genuine Muslims trying to conquer India.

Here's just one bit of the Koran to be starting with, Surah 4-34 - "men are in charge of women .... good women are obedient .... if they disobey, admonish them and scourge them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted""


"I had returned from a sabbatical where I had been working on a book on narcissistic process in organizations. The campus minister was interested in my work and asked me to make a presentation at an institute that he was starting. The presentation, which ultimately grew into Chapter seven of my book Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay (1990), required a presentation of Freud's concept of the Oedipus complex.

As I was going through this part of the argument, a woman in the audience, who happened to be the chair of the psychology department at the time, had what can only be called a fit. Without addressing herself to anything I was saying in particular, and without any apparent attempt to control her rage, she said that Freud was a sexist and a misogynist, and went on to condemn the entire psychoanalytic enterprise, which she said was "shot through" with sexism and racism. As she talked, it became clear to me that she had little idea of what she was talking about. She said, for example, that the Oedipus complex did not apply to women, which was why Freud invented the idea of the Electra complex. She was evidently unaware of the fact that it was Jung, not Freud, who used the term "Electra complex."

Despite this woman's evident lack of grounding in what she was talking about, her voice seemed to express a feeling of absolute authority. I recall that at the time this struck me as very peculiar. But what struck me as even more peculiar was that as she engaged in this frenzied performance, the other members of the audience were not looking at her as if she were acting strangely, but were looking at me as if I had done something contemptible and despicable. I remember thinking at the time that what was going on in that room was not the way things ought to be done in the university.

I cannot say that I felt wounded by this interaction. I was more bemused than anything else. But I did have the feeling that if events like this were becoming characteristic of the university, this indicated that there was something terribly wrong in an institution that was very important to me, and I felt a degree of outrage over that".

More here


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Thursday, July 15, 2004


"The Connecticut branch of the ACLU, the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) "informed the Windsor Locks (CT) School District that it would face (legal) action if education officials chose to allow a presentation by clergy at Windsor Locks High School on homosexuality and related topics."

The high school had previously invited a gay activist organization, the Stonewall Speakers, to address students on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In order to attempt to present an alternate view, the school then invited clergy to speak to the students.

Because "the clergy was supposed to offer a view based on religious scripture," Annette Lamoreaux, a legal director of the CCLU, "reported that the clergy presentation could violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Gay Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation. . . . She added that it would have violated the rights of gay and lesbian students to equal protection . . ."

Here is another "smoking gun" illustrating the secular and leftist brainwash American children receive throughout their school life. For no defensible educational reason -- especially given the poor general education that so many Americans receive -- a public school invited gay activists to address students on behalf of same-sex marriage. But clergy defending man-woman marriage are not allowed to be invited.

The story also illustrates what ought to be considered a truism: The threat to an open society almost always comes from the Left. The most effective myth of my lifetime has been that the threat to an open society comes from the Right. In light of the fact that nearly every totalitarian regime in the 20th century was of the Left, the effectiveness of this myth is all the more remarkable. Yet, this successful attempt by the ACLU in Connecticut to stifle freedom of speech is just one more example of the totalitarian temptation that lies at the root of leftist ideals.

Finally, if civil libertarians now demand the stifling of speech on behalf of man-woman marriage, imagine what will happen if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Traditional Christians and Jews will increasingly be marginalized by the Left in the media, academia and in law -- and declared as immoral as racists".

More here.


Leftism always breeds authoritarianism

"A Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon, according to Ecumenical News International. Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a 2003 sermon."

More here.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004


The famous novelist was politically incorrect even before the Russian revolution!

"Chekhov was painfully aware of the reactionary nature of Russian society, but fortunately for his prose he was no politician. This earned him the abuse of literary liberals, who accused him of failing to take a polemical stand on public issues. Having seen more of the real Russia than most, as a doctor and because of his lowly origins, Chekhov shared none of their self-gratifying sentimentalism about the narod, the people.

He managed to get himself both criticised by the "progressives" and censored by the Tsarist regime for painting too true a picture of peasant life ("Who embezzles community, school and Church funds and spends it on drink the peasant! Who steals from his neighbours, sets their house on fire and perjures himself for a bottle of vodka? The peasant!").

But not only was Chekhov a better writer than his critics not a few of whom came from the conscience-stricken upper classes and preached faith in the peasantry while privately sympathising with revolutionary terrorism he was a better citizen too. As Bartlett deftly shows, Chekhov was a highly moral person not because he proclaimed a love for humanity, he probably loved nature more, but because he was a man of practical ethics, dispensing free medicine to the peasants near his estate, helping to set up schools and to inspect them, and treating his tyrannical father generously in his old age. And the author who had scant interest in politics endured the appalling voyage to Sakhalin the end of the world, it seemed to him, in every sense to write an account of the horrors he saw that inspired a national debate about the treatment of prisoners.

His distaste for the luxuries of life on the French Riviera ("There is something hanging in the air which you feel offends your sense of decency, that vulgarises nature, the sound of the sea, the moon," he wrote about Monte Carlo) and homesickness when in the West showed that, unlike Turgenev, he was no cosmopolitan. Neither, though, was he a slavophile, like Dostoyevsky, who believed in Russia's spiritual superiority.

Instead he was constantly dismayed by Russia's backwardness. "Everywhere you see evidence of how well the English look after those who work for them," he wrote after visiting Hong Kong following his stay in Sakhalin. "Perhaps the English do exploit the Chinese, the Sepoys and the Hindus, but on the other hand they give them roads, running water, museums, Christianity. You [Russians] also exploit people, but what do you give them in return?" This time it was Soviet censors who expunged this passage from his published letters."

More here

Tuesday, July 13, 2004


"While traveling home from work I approached a rag-tag station wagon from the fast lane and, while passing, noticed the bumper sticker in the rear window. The sticker read, and I quote, "FIGHT PATRIOTISM." I was shocked and aghast at this statement and was not surprised when the driver of the car was (no stereotyping whatsoever) the classic dejected looking local teen in tie-dye. Her dreadlocked hair barely covered by the "rastafarian" headdress pulled low over her hollow eyes. ....

It was shortly thereafter, on Memorial Day 2004, a day set aside to remember and honor those who have died in the service of our country, that the large 3'x 5'American flag which adorned my truck for the holiday was burned in my own front yard and my truck vandalized and burned as well.

Apparently I have no right to be patriotic or fly my flag in this town. Apparently the mere vision of it so enrages some of my fellow students that they must risk incarceration and monetary fines by attacking our national symbol in a heavily populated and patrolled area. And what would so possess a member of my own generation, a generation that has had a life of ease and prosperity handed them by the sacrifice of others, to place a sticker attacking patriotism itself on her vehicle for the world to see? ...

So what could be the reason for my burnt flag, and stickers and sentiments like "FIGHT PATRIOTISM?" I have found that it stems, simply, from a hatred of the very principles America stands for and has stood upon for 228 years.

Hailing back to the casting off of American traditions, responsibilities and morals that took place during the 1960's and 70's, the birth of the radical liberal movement, today's disgruntled youths hate and fear all that has made this country great: belief and faith in God, a love for family and country, respect for human life, hard work, and liberty....

The liberal movement attempts to eat away at these patriotic ingredients. How else can you explain the murder of millions of unborn Americans, or the radical feminist idea that women are better off without men, tearing away at the family structure. And how do you explain the push for rampant government handouts, social and welfare programs, or the removal of everything remotely relating to the God of the Bible in our schools? And then there's the treatment of our troops. Baby killers, murderers, thugs; just a few of the names John Kerry and his crowd use for the valiant men and women who currently serve our country and have in the past."

More here

Monday, July 12, 2004


"I am always astonished at liberals who either deny the existence of PC or else downplay its perniciousness. If people can take offense at 'niggardly,' what's to stop them from taking umbrage at 'denigrate' and cognates? Or 'whitewash' for that matter? There is seemingly no end to this lunacy of the Left. A while back a Left Coast loon thought that 'Schwarzenegger' is racist because it translates as 'Black Nigger.' Nonsense. First, the German word for negro is Neger, not Negger. Second, 'Schwarzenegger' is to be parsed as Schwarzen-egger not as Schwarze-negger. Egger, as Dr. H. J. Hodges informs me, is an early form of Acker, whence the English acre. So if you must translate Arnold's surname, it would be something like Blackacre.....

Of course, presenting a rational argument against a PC-head is like trying to rationally persuade a pathology to subside. What the PC-head really needs is therapy rather than refutation. If we can't get them into therapy, we can at least oppose them. And oppose them we must if we value clear thinking and common sense.

Don't get me wrong: I am strongly opposed to the denigration of cripples. And I have nothing against the handicapped. I've got a handicap myself: I hear out of only one ear. This monaurality is a disability, not a special ability. (I once had a girl friend who thought I was 'lucky' because I could put my good ear down on a pillow and block most sounds.) To be disabled is not to be 'differently abled.' People who speak in this idiotic way are people who are willing to forsake contact with reality into order to pander to fools who are 'sensitive' about things they have no right to be sensitive about. An absence is not a special sort of presence. If I met nobody while hiking, it does not follow that I met somebody named Nobody. If I belong to no political party, it does not follow that I belong to the No-party party...."

More here


Making criminals out of average home gardeners.

"A new British animal welfare law that will offer slugs and snails the same protection as cats and dogs has been condemned as absurd.

Legislation to be announced this week will give courts the power to impose fines of up to £20,000 ($A51,600) and 12 months' jail on people found guilty of mistreating animals. Anyone under 16 will be banned from owning a pet. Gardeners could be fined for killing worms, slugs and snails if scientific evidence proves they have suffered pain and distress. Ministers say the law is needed to protect animals from abuse. But horticulturalists said the plan was excessive and rejected the idea that they could be guilty of cruelty. "Hundreds of slugs and snails are being slaughtered in gardens up and down the country," one gardener said."

Sunday, July 11, 2004


The so-called "Culture bound syndrome" enables ANYTHING to be excused if others do it

"The cbs of "amok" has been known for many centuries in the Malaysian culture (Knecht, 1999). The syndrome has been defined as an episode of dissociation (Suryani & Jensen, 1993) and is often characterized by "a sudden rampage, usually including homicide, ending in exhaustion and amnesia" (Hatta, 1996). Typically seen as a Malaysian cbs, "amok" has been further documented in India, New Guinea, North America and Britain (Kon, 1994). Hawaii has been seen as the melting pot of the pacific with many cultures merging and yet remaining distinct. The legal defense of "amok" was utilized for a Filipino-American that had killed five people and injured three others. Orlando Ganal Sr. (Honolulu Advertiser, 1991) was enraged by his wife's reported relationship with another man, shot and killed his wife's parents and wounded his own wife and son. Ganal continued to firebomb the home of the other man's brother, Michael Touchette, killing Michael, Michael's two children and badly burning his wife, Wendy Touchette. Ganal was seen as a mild mannered man, until the stress grew and he finally "ran amok." "

How come 99% of Malays DON'T "run amok"? Pretty odd that they don't if it is supposed to be "in their culture"!

More here. (Via Marc Miyake)

Marc Miyake also has a rather sickening report about some sad white woman who has written a book called "Family by Choice" which sees black families as ideal. Since most black families have no father present most of the time, the poor woman is obviously out of her mind.

Saturday, July 10, 2004


"And that, in a nutshell, is Neil Boyd's complaint with the new generation of radical feminists. They blame men for everything. It all began when Boyd was appointed chairman of the harassment tribunal at Simon Fraser University. He seemed like the perfect choice. A professor of criminology, a lawyer and a one-time parole officer, Boyd was also a committed feminist. Or so he thought. But he soon found himself embroiled in a case in which a female student had lied about being raped. It got worse. An innocent man was fired without due process; the university refused to back down when he was exonerated, and the women's studies department rallied around the supposed victim. Boyd started to wonder: What had happened to the feminism of his youth?

Big Sister is a book that is looking for a fight. It is controversial, deliberately so, and its self-proclaimed mission is not to trash feminism but to rescue it from those who have hijacked it. "My opposition," Boyd explains, "is to a poisonous strain of feminism, a concoction of regressive policies only masquerading as belonging to a vanguard of progressive thought or action. The people behind these policies oppose free expression and due process and favour solving complex problems through an inflexible imposition of punishment by the state."

They are, he writes elsewhere, "a cadre of radical extremists who are spouting bogus science and silencing their critics with a combination of illogical mantras and vicious tirades." Even worse, in their prudery and intolerance, they have made common cause with "the evangelicals who want paintings and sculptures of naked women or men removed from the workplace and from all forms of advertising."

Boyd gives four examples where radical feminists have gone too far: They are intolerant of all pornography; they have defined sexual harassment in ways that are too vague and that ultimately infantilize women; they are apt to define any male sexual advance as rape; and they exaggerate the extent to which women are the victims of domestic violence"

More here.

Friday, July 09, 2004


Australian psychologist Frank Furedi says that the campaign against smacking is based on the poisonous notion that children need to be saved from their parents. Some excerpts:

"It is a sign of the times that most British commentators take the view that the amendment to the Children Bill passed by the House of Lords is a 'fudge' or a 'sensible compromise'. This so-called compromise criminalises parents who punish their children with anything more than a light tap. Parents are threatened with prosecution and a jail sentence if a smack leads to grazes or scratches. The reason why many regard this new power to police family life as a compromise is because parents are no longer trusted to punish their children. The campaign against smacking is driven by a wider agenda that seeks to undercut the right of parents to discipline their children. The assumption is that in most cases such parental punishment is likely to have a harmful effect. The principal objective of the campaign against smacking is to save children from their parents.

Anti-smacking campaigners are often motivated by animosity to all forms of tough parenting. Their opposition to physical punishment is linked to a wider hostility to what they perceive as authoritarian parenting styles. The implicit objective of their campaign is to restrain the exercise of parental authority.

One argument used to undermine parental authority is the claim that children should not be treated differently to adults. ... What the campaigners are really saying is that we should renounce any attempt to impose parental will on children and instead negotiate with them as if they were reasoning adults. In the real world, parents have to do many things to their children that they would not dream of doing to another adult. From the moment of birth, mothers and fathers continually impose their will on their babies. Parents who would never instruct an adult to go to bed have no problem demanding that their child should go to sleep on the dot at seven o'clock. Parents who check that their child's bottom is clean are unlikely to do the same to people their own age.

Opponents of smacking claim that scientific research conclusively demonstrates that smacking has long-term negative effects on the behaviour of children. They appeal to research to justify their indictment of 'violence against children'.... There may be good moral arguments for opposing the smacking of children, but they are not to be found in the realm of scientific research. Despite numerous studies, nobody has succeeded in establishing a causal relationship between smacking and negative outcomes for children. That is why the anti-smacking crusade is always searching for 'research' to corroborate its prejudice. American opponents of smacking are often disarmingly open about the need to pursue research that will prove their point and convince parents to abandon smacking. At a 1996 meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Irwin Hyman proposed a campaign of what he called 'advocacy research', using bits of research as propaganda to change public policy...

But make no mistake, the anti-parent crusade will not stop with the partial banning of smacking. They have already pledged to continue campaigning for a total ban. Tomorrow they might demand that parents should be criminalised for using the withdrawal of affection as a form of punishment."

Give the do-gooders an inch and they will take a mile. It feeds their ego to agitate so they will never stop or be satisfied

Thursday, July 08, 2004


The latest PC looniness seems to be this: "At The Cullinan Education Center, there are no learning disabilities, only "learning differences." The same site then goes on to describe at length what a big disability one of those "differences" (dyslexia) is. Anybody who has known a dyslectic will be aware that it very handicapping -- far more than being a mere "difference".

And according to this site, even autism is a mere "difference" too. Some difference! Autism is VERY disabling and distressing.


The British communications regulator is as Orwellian as it sounds

"Central to all of these assumptions is a contemptuous view of the public's ability to think, argue and act for itself. It is assumed by regulators that true and desirable opinion cannot win public acceptance, unless they intervene to guarantee that it is heard; that untrue and undesirable opinion threatens to win public acceptance, unless they intervene to guarantee that it is not heard; and that the public is incapable of refuting hurtful or misinformed media content without their help. Public debate, independent of any involvement by the regulator, is mistrusted - if it is recognised at all.

This contempt is illustrated by the fifth of Ofcom's duties, 'applying adequate protection for audiences against offensive or harmful material'. In what sense are words, images and sounds 'harmful', beyond the fact that they happen to cause offence? And whether or not something offends is an entirely subjective question, which cannot legitimately be decided upon by the 13 members of Ofcom's content board .

Anything that expresses strong opinions is bound to offend at least some people - which is hardly a reason for regulating it. This does not mean that all offensive content has value, but rather that all offensive content has to establish its value in the court of public opinion, for which Ofcom is not a legitimate representative, supplement or substitute. There are, of course, types of content associated with tangible harm, most notably child pornography. But in these instances, the activity depicted is already criminal, and not sufficient justification for new forms of content regulation.

Discussing Ofcom's 'duty to promote media literacy', Tessa Jowell, the UK secretary of state for culture, media and sport, recently argued that 'we need to make sure people are equipped to protect themselves and their families from material which they would find harmful or distasteful'. But the fact that just about every communications device has an 'off' switch means that people are, in fact, 'equipped to protect themselves'. Furthermore, it is the job of editors to be responsible for the content that they publish, not the job of Ofcom to take on the editor's role.

Far from deregulating the communications sector, Ofcom is fast becoming a one-stop shop for politicians and lobby groups who want to use it to impose their particular agendas upon the media. Making requests to Ofcom is a fast-track alternative to legislation, and has the advantage of seeming less heavy-handed than the law - even though the only real difference is that new laws at least have to be debated in Parliament before they can be introduced and enforced".

Wednesday, July 07, 2004


The real cause of expanding waistlines is lack of exercise. Blaming junk food is a leftist scapegoat. Rather than banning advertisements maybe children need to be encouraged to walk to school.

"Freake and those at Bluearth take a decidedly different view to obesity than the knee-jerk response that puts this blight at the foot of junk food, serving sizes and snacking. There is little sympathy for Mark Latham's bid to ban fast-food advertising on prime-time television. In fact, Bluearth cites research showing that the calorie intake of children has barely moved in 20 years. What has changed is the level of physical activity. Remote controls, two-car families, the proliferation of visual entertainment, the focus of schools on academic achievement and all the time-saving devices we use have created a more sedentary world where there is less burning of calories. In an 85-page report analysing the latest research on obesity and related diseases, entitled Physical Activity, Health and the Quality of Life, Telford cites evidence that children's annual physical activity has fallen 650 kilocalories in the past 50 years. This equates to walking to and from school for 20 minutes and physically active playing after school for 30 minutes or more. It's a similar story for adults."


They just hate people enjoying themselves in their own way:

Food cops cooking the truth:

"Food cops never miss a chance to blame the so-called 'obesity epidemic' on an illusory 'toxic food environment.' Never letting the facts get in the way of their pursuit of 'fat taxes' and other restrictive policies, nutritional nags like Marion Nestle and Kelly Brownell continuously insist that our diets are worse than ever before.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture paints a far different picture of our changing eating habits. According to their data, from 1970 to 2000 some of the per capita shifts include:

Fresh fruit consumption increased 30 percent;
Fresh vegetable consumption went up 35 percent;
Dark-green leafy vegetable consumption increased 378 percent (with consumption of escarole, romaine and leaf lettuces increasing 1300 percent);
Broccoli consumption went up 365 percent;
Fish and shellfish consumption increased 22 percent;
Consumption of beans, peas, and lentils rose 23 percent;
Skim milk consumption rose 150 percent; and
Direct use of lard decreased 47 percent.
The Department of Agriculture also noted:
Nationwide, the market for fruits and vegetables has expanded in recent years, with many consumers benefiting from an ever-widening array of fruit and vegetable choices in their local supermarkets. Supermarket produce departments typically carry more than 400 produce items today, up from 250 in the late 1980s and 150 a decade earlier.
Despite evidence of nutritional improvements, CSPI director Michael Jacobson laments the centuries-long trend toward better variety and taste in our food. "Records of English manors in the 1600s reveal that the peasantry feasted on perhaps a pound of bread, a spud, and a couple of carrots per day," he asserts. And that, to Jacobson, is "basically a wonderfully healthy diet." No wonder Jacobson "is proud about finding something wrong with practically everything" we eat now -- he'd rather we eat like serfs than enjoy surf and turf.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004 is playing up again.


Professors and others can preach Communism but you are not allowed to say that they are. I guess it as bad as saying that blind people are blind. So if blind people are visually handicapped, are Leftist professors conservatism-handicapped? I rather like the sound of that

From a former Berkeley radical: "Red baiting" is a strange term, because it is one of those labels which has almost approached ad hominem status itself, yet there's no clear definition of what it is. Certainly, falsely stating that someone is a Communist as a smear tactic is deplorable.... Yet, as typified by the case of Betty Friedan, "red baiting" is said to apply regardless of whether an individual proves to be a Communist or not. If an accusation is wrong, it's "red baiting," and OK, I can handle that. Being tarred with the brush of Stalin is a pretty gruesome accusation. By why is it "red baiting" (and morally opprobrious) to point out that someone is a Communist if it's true? And why is it that ex-Communists who have changed their minds and now hate Communism don't consider questions about their past to be red baiting?... I'll say this though: when I was involved in Berkeley politics, being called a "Red baiter" was a more dangerous charge than the accusation of being a Communist." (post of July 2nd.)


Get this from an Australian State government Department:

Communicating positively - A guide to appropriate Aboriginal terminology


The purpose of this guide is to provide NSW Health staff with background information and guidance on appropriate word usage when working with Aboriginal people and communities, and when developing policy and programs to improve health outcomes for Aboriginal people. The use of accurate and non-offensive language is an essential component of aboriginal cultural respect and communication training. In developing this guide, the Aboriginal Health Branch (AHB) has worked closely with Aboriginal staff within the NSW Department of Health and Area Managers of Aboriginal Health (AMAHs) within Area Health Services (AHSs), as well as the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of NSW (AH&MRC), the peak body representing Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) in NSW.

And you then get a link to download the whole guide -- a huge PDF of 36 pages! I have been talking to Australian blacks all my life without the aid of such a guide and got on well enough with them.

Monday, July 05, 2004


It's a real wonder that the Brits have not sued him for "hate speech".

"It was a true clash of cultures. Stephen Nock, a gay man from London, assumed it would be a matter of routine to book a double room at a remote Scottish guest house for himself and his long-term partner. But Tom Forrest, owner of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the Scottish Highlands, where a sometimes stern Presbyterian spirit remains strong, had other ideas. He would be happy to rent the couple a room with twin beds at the guest house in the village of Kinlochewe, "but we will not condone your perversion" with a double bed, he wrote in an e-mail, the Times newspaper said Wednesday.

Angry at the response, Nock replied by suggesting that Forrest was bigoted. "Bigot? No. Respect for other guests," came the reply. "Homophobic? No, I have no hatred or fear of poofs, etc -- I just do not approve of unnatural acts being performed in my home."

Nock in return asked the Scottish tourism board to remove the guesthouse from a list of recommended accommodation on its website, saying that the prejudice had "depressed" him, the report said. The tourism board asked the guest house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down, saying he ran a "respectable" establishment. "I have had bent people coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes," Forrest was quoted as saying".

From Sterling Times


The new director of the National Museum of Australia will overhaul two contentious galleries... Since opening in 2001, the museum has been a battleground in Australia's "culture wars". It is tackling charges of political bias by showcasing the arguments: next year the museum will hang panels explaining how curators and historians come up with one representation or another.

Revealing a new strategic plan, to be implemented over the next three years depending on funding, Mr Morton said the museum would take immediate action on some issues, including the story of Captain Cook. The review said Cook was "pejoratively and unfairly" covered in displays insinuating European arrival was "a disaster for the continent".

"It's not our intention to hero-worship a line of dead white males ... but on any estimation, Cook is one of the great world figures of the 18th century," Mr Morton said of the new direction. The Cook displays are in the Horizons gallery, which will be renamed the "Australian journeys" gallery, showcasing explorers, travellers and migration. It will range from convicts and migrants to Australians who have left to make "history all over the world", including Gallipoli, London, Bali and Antarctica.

Another contentious gallery, Nation, will be renamed Creating a Country, "to represent the development of Australia and its economic, social and political conditions". After Mr Barnett's submission that the museum should include waterfront reformer Chris Corrigan and mining giant Hugh Morgan, the review suggested this gallery include stories of national development, communications, transport, science, technology, sport, arts, cities and towns. The museum's response is to include displays ranging from the Anzacs to the Flying Doctor Service, solar-powered satellite phones and mechanical wheat harvesters.

More here

Sunday, July 04, 2004


You cannot insult the patriotism of Democrat leaders. They don't have any. They are parasites on their own country. A member of the California State Assembly reports:

"In each of the 4 years that I have been a member of the state Assembly, we have had many "celebrations" on the Assembly floor. These "celebrations" are orchestrated by the Democrats who control the House and often involve singing and dancing. Every one of my 4 years have seen substantial celebrations of Cinco de Mayo (Commemorates the Mexican victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla), St. Patrick's Day (for the patron Saint of Ireland) and Chinese New Year's Day, among others. But never once have we celebrated America's Independence Day, the 4th of July.

So, this year, Republican Assemblyman Jay LaSuer of San Diego arranged for Vietnam war hero Admiral Jeremiah Denton to come to California to be a part of a 4th of July ceremony. As you may know, Admiral Denton was a Navy pilot in Vietnam who was shot down and spent 8 years in a Vietnamese prison. In 1966 while in prison, he was interviewed by North Vietnamese television in Hanoi after torture to get him to "respond properly." During this interview, he blinked his eyes in Morse code to spell out the word "torture." He was asked about his support for the war in Vietnam to which he replied "I don't know what is happening now in Vietnam, because the only news sources I have are Vietnamese. But whatever the position of my government is, I believe in it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live." Four of his 8 years in prison were spent in solitary confinement. He later wrote the book When Hell was in Session, chronicling his experience in Vietnam.....

The Democratic leadership refused to allow him on the Assembly floor and there will be no 4th of July celebration. A memo from the Democratic speaker's office said "problems have arisen both with regards to the spirit, content and participation of various individuals with regard to the ceremony." Apparently, they said that he did not believe in the "separation of church and state" and they didn't like the policies he supported as a United States Senator and therefore they would not allow him to be on the Assembly floor or to speak.

Upon hearing about this, Governor Schwarzenegger offered his meeting room last Monday for a ceremony with Admiral Denton. The room was overflowing with people. Only one elected Democrat was in attendance.....

The Assembly did meet on that day. And we did have a ceremony that lasted nearly 20 minutes. That ceremony was to celebrate the career of a reporter from the L.A. Times on the occasion of his retirement. Democrats universally praised him as being "balanced." He was allowed to speak for about 10 minutes. Admiral Denton was no longer in the building.....

Democrats are always railing about intolerance and discrimination. But yet in practice, it is they who engage in regular state-sanctioned discrimination and who are intolerant of the presentation of other views. Maybe they are worried that people will listen."

More here.

Saturday, July 03, 2004


"Bill Cosby went off on another tirade against the black community Thursday, telling a room full of activists that black children are running around not knowing how to read or write and 'going nowhere.' He also had harsh words for struggling black men, telling them: 'Stop beating up your women because you can't find a job.'

Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them. He shot back Thursday, saying his detractors were trying in vain to hide the black community's 'dirty laundry: Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n------ as they're walking up and down the street,' Cosby said during an appearance at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fund's annual conference."

More here


Australia's Treasurer not PC enough

"Leaders of Melbourne's Muslim community attacked Federal Treasurer Peter Costello over comments he made at a Christian thanksgiving service in Melbourne on May 29. Islamic Council of Victoria president Yasser Soliman described Mr Costello's remarks on Victoria's first religious hatred case as "a gross misrepresentation". Mr Costello had addressed a National Day of Thanksgiving Commemoration at Scots' Church, attended by representatives of most Christian denominations.

Even beforehand, he had been criticised by the Islamic Council for accepting the invitation to speak. The council suggested that by addressing the gathering, Costello could be giving legitimacy to parties that it was suing under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The council had complained that the Christian Catch the Fire Ministries had vilified Islam at a seminar in March 2002.

In his speech at Scots' Church, Mr Costello said about this case: "It is not my intention to influence those proceedings. But nor will I be deterred from attending a service of Christian Thanksgiving. Since the issue has been raised I will state my view. I do not think that we should resolve differences about religious views in our community with lawsuits between the different religions. Nor do I think that the object of religious harmony will be promoted by organising witnesses to go along to the meetings of other religions to collect evidence for the purpose of later litigation."

Waleed Aly, a Melbourne lawyer on the executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria, also attacked Mr Costello's speech. He said that, although freedom of speech was "immeasurably important", it had to be "continually balanced against other social objectives".

By contrast, Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, defended Mr Costello's remarks. Mr Butler said that he had changed his mind on the vilification laws which, he now feared, "have served only to undermine the very religious freedoms they intended to protect". He asked: "Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?"

Two Christian clerics - Rev Dr John Dupuche, chairman of the Catholic Interfaith Committee in the Archdiocese of Melbourne, and Professor Gary Bouma of Monash University, who is also an Anglican priest and vice-chairman of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, Australia - attacked Mr Costello's speech and defended Victoria's vilification laws. The Melbourne Age in its editorial of June 3 claimed that Mr Costello's speech implicitly disparaged those who did not share his faith".