Friday, June 30, 2023

Yes, young men are losers. They deserve sympathy, not contempt

The article below lacks some context. Men who become unattached at any age can have a difficult time of it. Finding a new partner is notoriously difficult and the net is not much help.

There is a general failure of men and women to connect in today's world and women are losers from that too. How sad is it that many women who want a baby cannot find an acceptable father for one? They often leave it perilously late to team up. Some opt to become single mothers through artificial insemination. Are they not to be pitied for missing out on much of the joy of family life?

The destruction of age-old sex roles by feminists has much to answer for. There once was a system that teamed most people up fairly early in their lives but that is no more. It is not at all clear that the destruction of that system is on balance beneficial

I have been married 4 times to some gorgeous women but even I have found the gap between relationships to be difficult to manage

“The army of unfuckable hate nerds”—Marc Maron’s term for the mass of young men who pollute the internet with their misogyny. “They play video games all day,” the comedian said on his podcast, “then they watch MMA, then they spend the evening jerking off to … porn, then they put a few hours” into attacking women online.

He’s right, of course. There are hordes of these young men (and, no doubt, of not-so-young ones). They congregate on Twitter, in comment threads, on forums and platforms like Reddit, Discord, Kiwi Farms, and 8kun, the successor to 8chan. They trade in misogyny, racism, antisemitism, and assorted other hatreds. Their words are violent and vile.

But Maron is also wrong. I mean in his response, which is that of so many: to answer hate with hate, contempt with contempt. As opposed to what? As opposed to understanding, just like we extend, at least on the left (and I am on the left), to another set of violent young men, the ones who live in inner cities. Yes, I am calling for sympathy for my brothers in the army of unfuckable hate nerds.

My brothers: I was a young man once. And since there’s now an ever-growing genre of commentary in which feminists speak, with placid condescension, like so many anthropologists (if not entomologists), on the topic of men, especially young men, I thought it might be useful to hear from someone who actually knows what it’s like to be one.

Here’s what it’s like: It sucks. Male privilege? Absolutely, in many contexts, but there are important ways in which young men are clearly underprivileged.

Women are sex objects, goes the cliché, and men are success objects. But success requires many years to achieve, if you ever achieve it at all. Young men, in that respect, are much like older women: Society has little use for them, barely deigns to notice them. I’m not talking about the advertising industry, or the entertainment industry; I’m talking about the day-to-day experience of living in the world. Young women often have a lot of social power, whereas, except for the fortunate few—the born rich, the strikingly handsome, the 6-foot-3—young men have none. Socially speaking, young men are shit, and nobody gives a shit.

Socially speaking, young men are shit, and nobody gives a shit.

Any young woman who is even moderately attractive will be courted, complimented, paid attention to, by women as well as men. Older men will buy them things. People will hang on their words even when they aren’t interesting and laugh at their jokes even when they aren’t funny. They will have entry into places—private clubs, backstage after a show—young men can only press their noses against. They will be able to advance professionally by batting their eyelashes at powerful men. Young men, meanwhile—those losers, those loners, those apes—are left to pick their psychic zits on the periphery.

There’s more. Young women can have sex whenever they want. For most young men, persuading a woman to sleep with them is like trying to crack a safe. You understand that it’s theoretically possible, but you have no idea how to do it. Which means that you’re stuck with your hard-on. Unfuckable? No one needs to tell you that. You are unfucked: unwanted, unattractive; in the most literal sense, unloved.

The mental climate of the typical young man is three parts unrelenting horniness to one part self-disgust. Young women are not the only ones who are taught to hate their bodies. So, if less intensely, are young men. Why else would they lift all those weights? What you are really working out, when you go to the gym, is your dysmorphia. Aella, the OnlyFans star and online commentator, has said that what men look for when they come to her—and her clientele is mostly young—isn’t sex per se but “sexual acceptance.” They want to be assured, in other words, that they aren’t hideous. The fact they have to pay for this says everything you need to know.

Do I sound bitter? I’m channeling my younger self. It’s all worked out for me, I have no complaints, but I am intensely aware that it could have gone a different way. Turn this dial a click to the left, turn that one a click to the right—a little less privilege, a little more emotional instability—and I could have turned into a hate nerd myself. I suspect that a lot of men sense that. What does it feel like to be a young man? It feels like you are Kafka’s cockroach, Dostoevsky’s Underground Man. It feels like you were drawn by Harvey Pekar or R. Crumb. You are an Untermensch, a particle, a stew of envies and resentments, a festering sore. You look, from below, at the happy and lovely and rich. You creep, alone, along a wall. You masturbate as if your life depended on it.

Yes, I made it out. I found success; I reached the fabled land of love. But many men do not; many recognize, and recognize quite early, that they never will. And I was young in the ’80s and ’90s. We know what’s happened since. Blue-collar wages have slumped. Men have lost the education race. Add to that the dating apps, which gamify sex and love and quantify desirability and value. Like everything else on the web, the distribution follows a power law curve, with a small fraction of alphas soaking up the lion’s share of female attention. Add further the misandry that has now become de rigueur wherever the liberal elite holds sway: the ritual (and often gleeful) man-hating, the pathologization of masculinity.

We also know how young men are responding. Some are opting out of manhood by becoming trans or nonbinary. Some are going the other way, reaching for an ersatz hypermasculinity and joining the army of unfuckable hate nerds. Their behavior is disgusting, it is inexcusable, but what do we think is going to make them stop? Telling them to comb their hair, to put down the Xbox, to get a life? Reminding them that they’re unlovable and worthless? They know that already; that is precisely the problem. Hate breeds hate. Revenge is not justice. The hate nerds are human, no less than you and me. We need to treat them like it.


How disgusting can the Left get? They Suggest Calling Women "Bonus Holes" So Not To Offend Transexuals

In recent years, the language used when discussing female anatomy has become increasingly politicized. Now, this politicization has reached a new low with the suggestion that people refer to vaginas as “bonus holes” in order to avoid offending transgender people.

This suggestion was made by Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust (based in the UK) and went viral after it was noticed and posted on Twitter.

It is important to note that this politically charged term was created in conjunction with the LGBT Foundation, a charity that campaigns for LGBT rights.

The concept of calling the vagina a “bonus hole” is an offensive one – not only does it disregard females completely by implying they are not women, but it also fails to recognize their anatomy as something unique and special.

The term itself implies that vaginas are nothing more than an accessory or bonus feature – something disposable and unimportant – which can be extremely damaging for women who already face discrimination in society due to their gender.

Unfortunately, this type of language isn’t just limited to referring to female anatomy; we have seen similar terms being used when discussing other aspects of female health care such as menstruation and childbirth.

For example, terms such as “birthing people” or “cervix owners” have been used instead of simply saying “women” or “mothers”.

These terms remove any sense of identity from females – they become nothing more than a collection of body parts rather than actual human beings with feelings and emotions.

This can be incredibly damaging for those who already feel marginalized due to their gender identity or who may be struggling with issues related to body image or self-esteem.

It is clear why using terms like these can be so problematic – they strip away any sense of personhood from women while simultaneously reinforcing stereotypes about them being less important than men or transgender individuals.

Not only does this undermine the progress made in creating an inclusive environment where everyone feels respected regardless of their gender identity but it could also lead people into believing false ideas about what constitutes acceptable language when talking about female bodies which could have serious consequences for how we view gender roles within society as a whole.

Using ridiculous terms like ‘bonus hole’ should not even enter into consideration when having conversations about female bodies or healthcare practices – let alone become commonplace enough that charities suggest its use.


France erupts in violence after police shoot dead a Muslim teenager

Much of Paris was a battleground on Tuesday evening as scores of youths rioted following the fatal shooting of a teenager by police. The 17-year-old, Naël (some reports spell his name as Nahel), was stopped by police at approximately 8.30 on Tuesday morning because of his erratic driving. According to reports, Naël had previous convictions for failing to stop at a checkpoint and driving without a licence. As two officers questioned the teenager through the window, the vehicle sped off and shots were fired. One hit Naël in the chest and he died at the scene.

Riot police were drafted in and at least 20 arrests were made; among the buildings burned were a primary school and a leisure centre

Initially, the police suggested they had opened fire in legitimate defence; in other words the officers feared for their lives. But shortly after that statement, footage of the shooting – taken by a local resident – circulated on social media. It appeared to contradict the official line, showing the two policemen at the side of the car and in no danger of being run over.

The officer who fired the fatal shot has been arrested and an investigation has been launched into ‘possible intentional killing by a person holding a position of public authority’. A separate inquiry is being conducted into the actions of the driver.

The chief of the Paris police, Laurent Nunez, admitted that the actions of the policeman ‘raises questions’ and Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin acknowledged in parliament the footage of the incident was ‘extremely shocking’. Darmanin also urged people to respect the ‘presumption of innocence of the police’ and also the grief of the family.

Anger was the overriding emotion of Naël’s family on Tuesday evening. ‘My grandson is dead, they killed my grandson,’ his grandmother told journalists ‘I’m against the government. They’ve killed my grandson…I’ll never forgive them for this in my life, never.’

Rioting broke out in Nanterre in the early evening and continued into the night. Riot police were drafted in and at least 20 arrests were made; among the buildings burned were a primary school and a leisure centre. Home-made rockets were fired at police and cars and scooters were torched.

There was unrest in other Parisian suburbs, including Mantes-la-Jolie, to the west of the capital, where the town hall was firebombed. People also took to the streets in anger in Colmar, Bordeaux and Marseille.

President Macron is currently on a three-day visit to Marseille, a city that has been the scene of a brutal drugs war this year, and his fear will be that the disorder spreads and intensifies as it did in 2005.

The catalyst then was the deaths of teenagers Zyed Benna and Bouna Traore, electrocuted after they entered an electrical sub-station in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, allegedly to evade police. Rioting broke out on the evening of the tragedy and, in the course of trying to contain the trouble, a police tear gas grenade hit a mosque. Within a couple of days France was engulfed by mob violence and president Jacques Chirac was forced to declare a state of emergency, imposing a curfew in some cities and restrictions on people’s movement.

The left has reacted with fury to the death of Naël. ‘Yes, refusing to obey the law is against the law, but death is not one of the penalties laid down in the Penal Code’, tweeted Manuel Bompard, an MP in La France Insoumise. The Green MP Sandrine Rousseau said that ‘a refusal to comply cannot be a death sentence.’

Jean-Luc Melenchon, the veteran figurehead of the French left, has a long-running animus against the police and last year accused them of killing indiscriminately. In response to the latest incident he declared: ‘No police officer has the right to kill except in self-defence… this police force, uncontrolled by the authorities, discredits the authority of the State. It must be completely overhauled.’

Last year 13 people were killed by police after refusing to stop for traffic controls and five officers face charges in relations to the deaths. The police say it is a result of an increasingly violent society but their critics, like Melenchon, believe that they are out of control.

It’s alleged that one of the policemen can be heard telling Naël that he’s ‘going to get a bullet in the head’ shortly before shots were fired. That is one of the claims that will be investigated in the coming days and weeks; in the meantime an anxious France must wait and see if last night’s rioting was a one off or the start of something more serious.


Conservative Strategist Behind Supreme Court’s College Affirmative Action Case Has Already Settled on a New Objective

The man behind Thursday’s Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action in higher education admissions is nowhere near finished. Next on his target list: rules from the state of California and the Securities and Exchange Commission requiring diversity quotas for corporate boards.

Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist whose Students for Fair Admissions nonprofit was plaintiff in both cases before the court, has been waging a one-man crusade against racial preferences for more than 30 years. He’s lost some cases along the way and won others, but Thursday’s victory was by far the most consequential.

“The opinion issued today by the United States Supreme Court marks the beginning of the restoration of the colorblind legal covenant that binds together our multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation,” Mr. Blum said in a statement after the decision was announced. “The polarizing, stigmatizing and unfair jurisprudence that allowed colleges and universities to use a student’s race and ethnicity as a factor to admit or reject them has been overruled. These discriminatory admission practices undermined the integrity of our country’s civil rights laws.”

Mr. Blum has been personally involved in six cases that have come before the Supreme Court, three of which involved race-based admissions at universities. Two previous efforts challenging them at the University of Texas were unsuccessful. The two Students cases decided Thursday mark his first major victory on the topic.

While not a lawyer himself, the former stockbroker has connected plaintiffs who feel they have been discriminated against with legal teams funded by conservative donors to bring cases solely for the purpose of setting legal precedents. For his efforts, Mr. Blum has been assailed as a racist by left-wing ideologues and as a patriot by conservatives.

Before Thursday, his biggest case was a challenge to the widespread practice of gerrymandering congressional districts to favor one race over another known as Shelby County v. Holder. In it, Mr. Blum helped an Alabama county sue the federal government over a requirement in the 1965 Voting Rights Act that any changes to voting procedures by the states be pre-approved by the Department of Justice to ensure that they don’t suppress the votes of minority voters.

After hearing arguments in the case and by a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down the relevant section of the Voting Rights Act — Section 5 — by invalidating the formula used to determine which states must obtain the so-called pre-clearance required by the Act.

Mr. Blum’s next target is recent moves by state governments and federal regulators that require companies to use racial quotas when appointing people to their boards of directors. Under the aegis of the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, Mr. Blum is suing the SEC over a rule requiring companies listed on the Nasdaq to have at least one female board member and one who self-identifies as Black, Latino, Asian, Native American, or Alaska Native, two or more races or ethnicities, or as LGBT. The case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit.

“It is not only investors who will suffer if Nasdaq’s virtue signaling rule is allowed to take effect,” the group says. “AFFBR has members who, because of their race, sex, and sexual orientation are forced to compete on an uneven playing field because of Nasdaq’s quota requirements.”

Also in his crosshairs is a similar rule passed by California in 2020 requiring companies based in that state to have a minimum number of directors from what the state considers “underrepresented groups.” A federal court ruled earlier this year, in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Weber, that the rule violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the same clause cited by the Supreme Court in Thursday’s higher education decision.

The 71-year-old Mr. Blum seems disinclined to slow down his efforts against racial discrimination. In press interviews, he has said his quest is motivated by a desire to uphold the tenets of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he believes explicitly forbid treating Americans differently because of their race. The spirit of the law, he says, seems to have been lost in the intervening years.

“I would like to see jurisprudence issued in which racial classifications are considered off-limits, except under the most extraordinary circumstances,” he told the Financial Times in a recent interview. “Police seeking to infiltrate a race-based drug gang could hire someone of the same background, but that’s about it.”


"I exposed war crimes among Australia's Special Forces in Afghanistan"

The report below by a female sociologist is one in a long line that judges wartime behavior by peace time standards. As such, it is typically unjust. It is particularly egregious however in judging the highest risk military situations by civilian standards.

I am a former Army psychologist so perhaps have a keener awareness of the issues than some. I have no field experience. All I know is what I could learn from talking to people here in Australia. But one thing I have learned loud and clear is that military experience greatly reshapes attitudes.

One of the reasons miitary veterans often refuse to talk about their wartime experiences is that they know how their wartime actions were guided by different standards than civilian ones. The heat of battle alters attitudes and attitudes alter behaviour.

And nowhere is all the more so than in special operations. Such assignments are super high-risk and big pressure and survival instincts are at their highest there. The stress is great and anybody acting under stress is likely to make different decision from peacetime ones. And that is acknowledged throughout the military. And it is that acknowledgement that leads to "coverups". People who try to apply armchair standards to wartime behaviour are seen as missing the point and are therefore sidelined as much as possible. It is exactly such sidelining that the lady below experienced.

It would so wonderful if war could be waged like a game of chess but that is never going to happen. To use a common cliche, war is hell and there are many demons in hell. Democratic societies do their best to exclude or expel the demons but that will only ever be a campaign with limited success.

"Hypermasculinity" has got nothing to do with the problem. All that is at work is the attitudinal response to the military situation. In social psychologist's jargon, what we see are "the demand characteristics of the situation".+

It is rather regrettable that the sociologist lady below abandoned that obvious social explanation in favour of a pseudo-psychological one.

As the most frontline of SAS fighters, all that applies particularly to Ben Roberts Smith. He tried to explain his actions under the highest stress by civilian standards but inevitably failed.

It wasn’t long ago that I had been a successful business owner with a string of government contracts.

For me, it all began on Australia Day 2016. That was the day I submitted a report to army chief General Angus Campbell that would trigger the biggest inquiry into war crimes in Australia’s history. It would also be the day that David Morrison, chief of Army from 2011 to 2015, would be awarded Australian of the Year. Chair of the committee that chose the winner was Special Forces soldier Ben Roberts-Smith.

The first time I heard mention of war crimes among Australian Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan was in 2014, in a small, partially furnished office in an Army barracks. I’m a sociologist and I had been contracted by the army to undertake a number of research projects. I was speaking with an army chaplain about domestic violence prevalence. The conversation went well beyond the initial topic. It was the first time I heard of the “serious misconduct” that was occurring within SAS patrols in Afghanistan. The chaplain described returning from deployment “a broken man”, having tried and failed to have his concerns taken seriously.

It wasn’t until late 2015, in one of the first interviews I did for a project in Special Operations Command, which oversees special forces units, that the chaplain’s story came back to me. That project began as an examination of Special Operations capability. It ended in a report on war crimes that led to the Brereton Report and news stories that resulted in Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith unsuccessfully suing this masthead for defamation.

The Federal Court last month found Roberts-Smith was a liar and murderer who engaged in war crimes. At the time of my initial report, I had no idea what that report would eventually cost me, personally and professionally.

For I now realise that what I was coming up against was more than the horrific acts of a few rogue soldiers. It was the cult of brand “SAS”; the cult of the male warrior. In this cult, unsanctioned violence is justified, encouraged and celebrated.

It seemed my report on the SAS had triggered a threat to some Australian men’s masculinity. I’d dared question their heroes. These loud voices would hound me for years. The attacks on me to be bashed, killed, tortured, and my livelihood destroyed came via Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, email, text and phone call. Mostly the backlash came from those not in the military, but some were ex-military and younger white male soldiers – all of whom appear to idolise the SAS as a stronghold of hypermasculinity.

When the war crimes allegations emerged, then-defence minister Peter Dutton said he had made it “very clear” to Defence that I should not be awarded further contracts. That he did not want the military to be “distracted by things that have happened in the past”. My credibility was questioned repeatedly by Jacqui Lambie and reiterated in the Murdoch press.

It became politically inconvenient for me to keep speaking about the SAS issues. In 2021, I had written an essay about how misconduct becomes entrenched in organisations and how it spreads, and I used the SAS as a primary example. The Australian Government Solicitor unsuccessfully tried to stop my essay being published.

In a letter I received from the government solicitor’s office shortly after publication, I was told my conduct and public statements had “harmed the Commonwealth”. The result was that my ongoing work with the government was “terminated for convenience”.

The implications for me, my family, my business, and my staff were profound. The message had been sent to the department loud and clear that I was now a liability and a risk. No work would follow. Work in the pipeline was stopped indefinitely. I’d told the truth, so they cut me out.

After that my business collapsed and my mental health declined amid the endless stream of misogynistic threats through social media. Work from other organisations was not forthcoming. I gather this was because most businesses hire consultants to tell them what they want to hear, not uncover what is really at the heart of their problems.

I once heard Special Forces described as the “weeping sore” of the Army that no one was prepared to tend to. But there is a cost to organisations that leave issues to fester. It teaches others in the organisation that bad behaviour is acceptable, that those who engage in it will be protected, that to dismiss it is the norm. Such attitudes seep through an organisation and rot it. When the day finally comes that these problems must be addressed, the damage is far greater for all involved.

But the greatest takeaway from my experience is a personal one. That despite the cost, I would do it all again. I am grateful for the trust placed in me by soldiers and officers who gave accounts of egregious acts of violence and cover-ups. I have never taken it for granted and I have felt an unwavering duty of care to them.




Thursday, June 29, 2023

The allure of surgically enlarged breasts

Below is an example of it. I am not at all immune from finding larger breasts attractive. I like a D cup presence as much as any man. But the amazing thing is that enlarged breasts are still acclaimed when blind Freddy can tell they are not natural. Normal breasts are NOT hemispherical

I did once have a girlfriend who went from B to DD and I did like it at first but it ceased to excite me after a while. Focusing on the breasts tended to distract from focusing on the person and feelings about our relationship. The balance was all wrong. My girlfriend these days naturally takes a 12C bra, which I find entirely satisfactory

image from

Ekin-Su Culculoglu turned up the heat in a distressed denim mini-skirt and low-cut dusky pink crop top in east London on Friday.

The Love Island star, 28, flaunted her perfect curves as she attended loungewear brand Blakely's store opening in Stratford's Westfields shopping centre.

Ekin-Su ensured all eyes were on her as her ample cleavage and toned stomach were on full display in the summery ensemble.

The TV personality also made sure to flaunt her endless legs in the super short skirt.

She added inches to her frame with a pair of cream heeled shin-high boots.

Ekin-Su finished off the outfit with a black leather Louis Vuitton handbag.


Norway Has a Message for Democrats Pushing a Wealth Tax

With a higher wealth tax hitting, Norway’s rich are abandoning the Land of the Midnight Sun for countries that allow them to keep more of what they earn, a warning to the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, as she drums up support for her Ultra-Millionaire’s Tax.

“A small tax on the great fortunes of more than $50 million,” Ms. Warren says, “can bring in nearly $4 trillion to rebuild America’s middle class.” The operative word is “can,” as human beings are dynamic and react to factors such as a higher cost of living.

Norway is learning this lesson the hard way. It is one of the few nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that taxes not just income but net wealth. Its Labor Party increased the bite that the government takes out of nest eggs. Now the golden geese are roosting elsewhere.

The third-largest newspaper in Norway, Dagens Naeringsliv, found that more than 30 Norwegian multimillionaires and billionaires pulled up stakes last year, more than in the previous thirteen years combined.

“Even more super-rich individuals are expected to leave this year because of the increase in wealth tax in November,” reports the Guardian’s wealth correspondent, Rupert Neate, “costing the government tens of millions in lost tax receipts.”

Norway’s fourth-richest person and its highest taxed last year, Kjell Inge Røkke, relocated to Lugano, Switzerland, taking his $1.9 billion fortune with him. The move will allow him to keep $16.3 million each year and change the calculus of Oslo’s government.

Mr. Røkke’s open letter explaining his flight to the Alps from the fjords illustrated the fact that people and capital are more mobile than ever. While the city across the Italian border “is neither the cheapest nor has the lowest taxes,” he said, it has “a central location in Europe” and “for those close to the company and to me, I am just a click away.”

Like Ms. Warren’s “small tax,” the Norwegian increase sounds tiny, a 0.1 percent hike on the old top state bracket of 0.3 percent, which is combined with the 0.7 percent municipal tax rate for a maximum bill equaling 1.1 percent of an earner’s net worth.

The municipal wealth tax rate applies to single taxpayers with assets of $158,000 and $316,000 for married couples and the state rate — with the new, higher bracket — to net worths of $1.8 million and $7.4 million for single and married citizens respectively, the figures converted from Norwegian Kroner.

Those aren’t the “great fortunes” Ms. Warren and others describe when pitching their tax hikes, yet those citizens and others making even less are now left to pick up the slack for earners who fled. A projected increase in tax receipts on paper is now projected to bring in about 40 percent less in practice.

“The recent wealth tax increase in Norway was expected to bring an additional $146M in yearly tax revenue,” a management advisor and author, Luca Dellanna, tweeted. “Instead, an estimated $54B-worth of ultra-rich left the country, leading to a lost $594M in yearly wealth tax revenue, a net decrease of $448M.”

Norway’s pursuit of class warfare over common sense recalls many similar examples, the most infamous being the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private planes, and scores of other items, part of the 1990 budget deal championed by Massachusetts’ Democratic senator, Edward Kennedy.

Congress estimated that $31 million would gush into the Treasury. The actual sum was half that, not to mention losses when boatbuilders were forced to fire thousands and file for bankruptcy as customers shopped — and paid taxes — elsewhere, turning America from a net exporter of yachts into a net importer.

In 2003, the Democratic congressman from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy, sought to rescue the industry from his father’s legacy with a subsidy he called “exactly the opposite of a luxury tax,” but damage done by government is not so easily undone by it.

Democrats like Ms. Warren often cite Scandinavian countries as roadmaps for America’s path to a socialist utopia. On the wealth tax, Norway is flashing a stoplight, warning that you can only tax golden geese so much before they fly away, taking their golden eggs with them.


'F*** them': Bill Maher denounces the liberal media for routinely attacking RFK Jr., whom 80% of Democratic voters want to see debate Biden

Bill Maher raged against the Democratic establishment and its allies in the liberal media Sunday for ongoing efforts to assassinate the character of presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom President Joe Biden is unwilling to debate.

"I want to take issue with the media because it incenses me how they write about you," Maher told Kennedy on the Sunday episode of his "Club Random Podcast."

The comedian zeroed in on a recent New York Times article entitled "Robert Kennedy Jr., With Musk, Pushes Right-Wing Ideas and Misinformation," stressing it had been presented as news contra opinion despite amounting to a hodgepodge of subjective claims and skewed characterizations.

"Right away, I'm pissed off because 'misinformation'? ... How about you're the newspaper, just tell me what he said and I'll decide what's misinformation," said Maher. "This arrogance of 'We know what the misinformation is about science.'"

"Whose misinformation? Because I seem to remember washing the mail for three days for about six months before they said, 'Oh, we got that wrong,'" said Maher, alluding to junk science peddled by the Times at the outset of the pandemic.

Maher then quoted a portion of the following from the Times piece: "Mr. Kennedy, 69, is a longtime amplifier and propagator of baseless theories, beginning nearly two decades ago with his skepticism about the result of the 2004 presidential election as well as common childhood vaccines. His audience for such misinformation ballooned during the coronavirus pandemic."

"This f***ing pisses me off," repeated the comedian.

After casting doubt on various assertions made in the article, Maher explained that it had been worth it, taking a closer look at the hit piece, because "they deserve richly to be mocked for that attitude. I just do not like the attitude," adding, "F*** them."

Certain that RFK Jr. will continue being misrepresented in the media, especially because the presidential candidate's views are relatively complex and not always easily reduced to sound bites, Maher stressed the need for Kennedy to publicly clarify his views for the benefit of prospective voters — possibly in a debate.

"Who do you think I'm going to debate?" Kennedy asked Maher.

"Well, if you're in the Democratic primary, you're going to debate Joe Biden," answered Maher.

The seasoned lawyer did not appear convinced, responding, "You think Joe Biden will ever debate me?"

A defeated Maher said, "Yeah, that's a good point."

Kennedy challenged Biden to a debate in April, writing, "I have known and liked Joe Biden for many years, but we differ profoundly on fundamental issues such as corporate influence in government, censorship, civil liberties, poverty, corruption, and war policy, among others. I look forward to engaging him in debates and town hall meetings, in a primary election that is honest, civil, and transparent. I invite him into a new era of respectful dialog in these times of division."

Kennedy told CNN's Michael Smerconish in late April that, "When you have so many Americans who are concerned about election integrity, we should be doing everything we can in our party to show that, you know, this is not rigged, rigged system. That it is actually democracy … people can run and that they can get to debate and that the public is gonna be able to see them, and they’re doing kind of the opposite."

A spokesman for the Kennedy campaign said, "Of course, there should be debates in a democratic system as a way to help voters choose the candidate that best represents their views. ... Debates can also help voters evaluate a candidate’s character."

A USA Today/Suffolk University poll revealed earlier this month that eight in 10 Democratic primary voters want to see a series of Democratic debates during the 2024 campaign, including 72% of Biden supporters.

Notwithstanding Biden's sense that "we can't take democracy for granted any longer," the president, netting a majoritively negative approval rating, is not interested in debating the issues per the wishes of the demos, and the Democratic National Committee will not sponsor any debates.

David Paleologos, director of Suffolk's Political Research Center, indicated that the "decision not to debate is ignoring the 82% of women, 84% of union households, 86% of independents, and 90% of young voters who are not only planning to vote in their state's Democratic primary or caucus next year but also would like to see a series of Democratic primary debates."

It appears that Biden allies, aware that the president's speechwriters and staff already have their hands full "embracing" his mental deterioration, are not overly keen on exposing the octogenarian to unscripted conversation and greater scrutiny.

Jim Kessler, a Democratic operative and executive vice president of policy at the think tank Third Way, told The Hill Biden should not debate Kennedy and Marianne Williamson.

"They are both gadflies who have done nothing to earn the right to debate a sitting president in an otherwise uncontested primary," said Kessler. "You have to earn your way to the debate stage."

Charlotte Clymer, a Democratic strategist supporting Biden, said, "Yes, I think presidential debates between qualified people, made in good faith, are only beneficial for democracy. A net good. ... But President Biden’s current opponents are neither qualified nor running in good faith," adding "RFK Jr. is a f***ing clown, full stop."

The Hill indicated that Democrats especially do not want dissenting opinions on COVID-19 vaccines, the Russia-Ukraine war, or other pressing topics elevated.

Nina Turner, former elected official from Ohio and co-chair on Sen. Bernie Sanders' most recent failed presidential campaign, told The Hill, "Biden risks being exposed for his administration not doing much to change the material conditions of everyday people in this country. ... He would be forced to answer to the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party."

Numerous liberal journalists and pundits have also recently argued on Biden's behalf against the free exchange of ideas on the national stage.

Esquire magazine's Charles Pierce begged earlier this month, "For the love of god, please stop trying to make this happen."

Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times insinuated that the best way for Biden to win an argument with Kennedy is to avoid the argument altogether.

"You can come armed with all the facts in the world, but when you’re dealing with a conspiracist, there's no real way to 'win' an argument," wrote Manjoo.

Manjoo went on to commend vaccine-promoter Peter Hotez for similarly cowering when presented with the opportunity to defend his position — a refusal that amounted to Hotez's denial of $2.6 million to the charity of his own choosing.


President Biden’s Inflation Malarkey

President Biden took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to defend his economic record. He claims that “as supply chains continue to unsnarl, company profit margins fall from historically high levels, and rents continue to moderate, inflation should decline further, creating more breathing room for working families.” There’s an implicit theory of inflation here—but not a good one.

The President believes in cost-push inflation: Rising prices resulting from transportation and shipping difficulties, as well as greedy corporations and landlords, cause the dollar to depreciate. He’s got it exactly backwards. Dollar depreciation is why prices are rising. The Fed’s monetary policy, aided and abetted by the President’s and Congress’s massive deficits, are the real cause. It’s old-fashioned, aggregate demand-driven inflation. By greenlighting excessive spending, which the Fed felt compelled to underwrite, the President is complicit in it.

Let’s tackle the three parts of the President’s explanation. Supply chain problems seem a likely cause of inflation. After all, as bottlenecks develop, prices rise. But what goes up must come down. COVID-induced bottlenecks have largely passed, and the relevant prices have accordingly fallen. Yet consumer prices overall have not fallen. The theory predicts deflation, when instead we’re experiencing disinflation. Strike one.

Next, the President blames corporate profits. Supposedly profit-hungry corporations are using their market power to hike prices. This “greedflation” hypothesis is very popular. It’s also astonishingly easy to disprove. Basic economic theory tells us that if firms are profit-maximizers, they can’t pass on the full value of cost markups to consumers. In fact, as costs rise, the markup falls. This is devastating for greedflation partisans because it uses the assumption of greed (profit maximization) to show the postulated conclusion (inflation) cannot follow. The most you can get is a one-time price increase, one that is smaller than the increase in business costs—and with reduced profit margins, besides. Strike two.

What about rents? Rent is a major part of consumer spending, and it’s certainly going up. But from 2020 to 2022, it’s only rarely risen faster than inflation (and even then, only if you parse the data in a certain way). If a particular component of consumer spending were behind surging prices, you’d expect that component to be larger than average, pulling inflation up. Not so in this case. Furthermore, there’s a conceptual confusion here. Inflation can cause rents to rise, but supply and demand in housing markets can, too. What we’re seeing is likely microeconomic forces in a particular segment of the economy, rather than a general macroeconomic trend. Strike three.

President Biden misses the obvious cause: massive monetary stimulus by the Fed during the COVID years. From January 2020 to 2022, the monetary base and M2 money supply rose 59 percent and 38 percent, respectively. The federal government also ran massive deficits over those years. COVID spending in excess of revenues was $6 trillion; $3.3 trillion of the resulting government bonds ended up on the Fed’s balance sheet. That means the central bank monetized more than half the deficit.

President Biden famously scoffed that “Milton Friedman isn’t running the show anymore.” The President can gripe about the great monetarist and Nobel laureate all he likes, but he can’t escape the implications of Friedman’s argument. Since inflation is a monetary phenomenon, the government’s excessive money-fueled spending is to blame.




Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Women are more likely to survive a heart attack if they are accompanied to the hospital by a man

One for the feminists. At the risk of enraging feminists, I might point out that a woman with a man by her might actually be healthier and thus require less attention. Why would a woman with a man in her life be healthier? I am afraid good looks and good health are correlated. Work it out from there. Life isn't fair

It is a sad thing to admit – and no doubt what we’re about to say will be a shock to many – but as cardiologists with decades of experience, our advice to women is this: if you think you’re having a heart attack, take a man with you to the hospital. It may just save your life.

Research shows that women’s symptoms are often not taken seriously by emergency medics, but if there’s a man around to advocate the patient is less likely to be dismissed.

Even in our brilliant NHS, which has some of the most cutting-edge treatment available in the world, evidence shows women are much more likely to die from heart problems than men. We are 50 per cent more likely to be wrongly diagnosed – which can be fatal – and less likely to be treated promptly.

Women are 34 per cent less likely than men to get an angiogram – a type of X-ray used to diagnose a heart attack – within 72 hours of their symptoms starting. We’re also three per cent less likely to receive timely procedures using drugs or stents to restore blood flow. In fact, the British Heart Foundation (BHF) calculates that 8,243 women’s lives were lost in England and Wales between 2002 and 2013 because they didn’t receive the same standard of care as men.

The outcomes for women having heart operations – such as valve replacements and transplants – are also worse, largely because the procedures were developed for, and trialled on, men. Even after being discharged from hospital after successful treatment, women are less likely to be given the drugs recommended to prevent further heart attacks.


MEGHAN MCCAIN: Mr. President - when will you realize that your nepo-baby scumbag son doesn't deserve to be an honored guest at the People's White House? You're spitting in the faces of Americans who pay taxes and earn an honest living

I couldn't have put it better myself

America's disgraced First Son was once again thrust into the center of White House festivities on Thursday night, dressed in a flashy tuxedo and hobnobbing with the most powerful people in the world at a state dinner in honor of India's prime minister.

In attendance were celebrities, powerful politicians, global leaders and – most pertinently – Attorney General Merrick Garland, who leads the Justice Department that just handed Hunter no more than a pathetic slap on the wrist for tax and gun crimes.

That's right, buried amid tragic news about the Titanic Five, it emerged that – following an arduous five-year investigation – the President's only surviving son cut a deal with prosecutors.

If he pleads guilty to two misdemeanors for 'failure to pay taxes,' as well as, lying on a firearm transaction record, he'll likely avoid jail time.

This is a man who appears to have concealed millions in income through tax dodging.

Who proudly brandished a gun on camera, as he snorted and smoked all manner of drugs alongside a coterie of prostitutes.

Whose lover - his dead brother Beau's widow – dumped his weapon in a grocery store trash can across from a school in 2018, only for the Secret Service to swoop in and seemingly launch a cover-up.

Top legal experts have since slammed the sweetheart deal as an aberration of justice.

So, you'll forgive me for saying it how it is: we're dealing with an elitist scumbag, the ultimate product of nepotism.

Yet according to our president, Hunter's a good boy worthy of representing the United States.

Enough! Hunter doesn't deserve the privilege.

Of course, I know what's going to be said: Hunter is an addict, and his father is protecting him as any parent would.

'I'm very proud of my son,' Joe repeatedly mumbles like a broken record. Would he please shut up with that nonsense! No one buys it.

What makes me truly sick to my stomach is that his father – our President and the leader of the free world – doesn't express one ounce of shame for his son's behavior.

This 53-year-old man won't even apparently allow his own daughter, Navy Roberts, the right to take his last name, for God's sake.

President Biden and the First Lady refuse to even acknowledge the four-year-old child, the offspring of a relationship - that Hunter claims he can't remember - with a former Washington DC exotic dancer.

This week, Hunter won a fight in court to slash his monthly child support payments to Navy's mother. The cruelty from the First Family is hard to fathom.

We have also now learned that Hunter was allegedly tossed out of a LA-based sex club, where members pay as much as $75,000 to join. 'Hunter was a member of SNCTM and I cancelled his membership after 1 party because he's a scumbag,' wrote the orgy club's founder in a since deleted post.

But, for Hunter – it's always bygones. Until this time.

We now have very good reason to believe Hunter's latest follies involve something far worse.

On Thursday, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee released new testimony from whistleblower Gary Shapley, a 14-year veteran of IRS and another anonymous agency source. It is potentially damning.

Shapley was tapped to oversee Hunter's IRS probe. He previously alleged that the Justice Department's Tax Division and the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office 'provided preferential treatment' toward Hunter and intentionally 'slow-walked' the investigation, which took a whopping 5 years to complete.

The first question is: why so long?

According to Shapley, the snail's pace allowed the statute of limitations on several potential charges to expire, purportedly allowing Hunter to skate on his failure to pay $400,000 in taxes on income from 2014 and 2015.

Now, Shapley's newly-released testimony alleges government investigators were blocked from pursuing a search warrant of Joe Biden's guest house, where Hunter once lived, and they were obstructed from pursuing leads that led to Hunter's adult children.

The allegations go on and on, but maybe the most shocking evidence, if true, is a WhatsApp message that Shapley says the government obtained showing Hunter seeming telling a powerful Chinese businessman and Communist Party official to pay up, or else he'll tell daddy.

'I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,' Hunter Biden reportedly wrote to Henry Zhao.

'I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.'

As of Friday, Hunter's lawyer wasn't denying the message's authenticity.

'Any verifiable words or actions of my client in the midst of a horrible addiction are solely his own and have no connection to anyone in his family,' attorney Christopher Clark said in a statement on Friday.

Here we go again. Nothing Hunter did or said during his addiction can be taken seriously, according to his defenders.

Yes, they can.

Joe has long claimed that he wasn't aware of Hunter's overseas dealings. He has said that he was oblivious to the fact that Hunter was raking in millions from a shady Ukrainian energy firm, called Burisma.

But now, the Biden administration appears to be hedging on that. 'As we have said many times before, the President was not in business with his son,' the White House said Friday.

Notice the subtle switch here?

No longer are they claiming that President Biden was unaware of Hunter's behavior. Now they're saying that father and son weren't 'in business' together.

At what point should any of this give the American media pause? At what point will they refuse to accept President Biden's claim that he's simply 'proud' of his son?

Keep in mind, Hunter is still trading on his family name.

He's selling artwork to anonymous buyers for hundreds of thousands of dollars. And we all know the only reason that he can command those prices is because his dad is president.

But there's Hunter - slapping backs at the White House, sitting a few tables away from the attorney general, jetting off to Ireland on an official trip with pops, and showing up at numerous White House events.

A White House state dinner is not a family BBQ - it is a reflection of our nation. And Thursday night's image screamed: in America, as long as you're rich and powerful, anything goes.


Politicized Science Can Be Dangerous to Your Health

The Lancet was once a leading British medical journal. It was sober and medically exacting. It was so respected that it was often cited to settle controversial issues in the field of medicine.

Today, it is a shell of its former self, shot through with leftist political ideology. A recent editorial called out the UK Home Secretary for her “appalling and shocking“ comments.

Was it about a drop in research funding or disputed medical opinions or something else of direct relevance to medicine? No, the Secretary opined that new migrants to the UK possessed “values which are at odds with our country“ and brought “heightened levels of criminality“.

Some might dispute such statements and some not, but how is this discussion pertinent for a medical journal? Richard Horton, the editor, went on to call for “war“ on the other side of the ideological divide.

Horton and The Lancet are hardly alone in degrading medicine by politicizing it. Science and scientists are in reputational decline because, well, they deserve to be.

Physicians were once respected for their integrity. They could be stodgy and paternalistic sometimes, but they couldn’t be influenced or bought.

Now the medical doctors have morphed from being dedicated stewards of their patients’ health to “medical providers”, as government payers describe them. Most owe their professional loyalty to a hospital-based system that operates pretty much like any other business, with the bottom line always in view.

Meanwhile, on issues ranging from Covid to climate science to transgenderism we are urged to follow “the Science” as if Science were the collective pronouncements of the big shots rather than a process for rolling back the limits of knowledge. “The Science” is often determined by hacks who are especially successful at scoring research grants because they supply the answers our grant making elites want to hear.

Politicized science can lead to some bizarre and harmful conclusions. There is now a movement against randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because they didn’t produce the approved answer to the question of whether face masks prevent infection.

Scientific American stated “decades of engineering and occupational science” show they worked. So there. No silly trials needed to confirm what everyone knows anyway.

But RCTs are the only way to determine whether a premise is factual. They are the basis of the scientific method, which lifted us out of millennia of ignorance and produced the marvels of modern medicine. Exposing well regarded but ineffective practices are precisely why they are needed.

While real scientists encourage debate and discovery, pseudoscientists silence those who dissent from the status quo. For example, scientific journals demanded the retraction of research producing evidence that transgenderism can be a social contagion.

Dr. Lisa Littman of Brown University coined the term “rapid onset gender dysphoria“ after her research revealed that although sufferers from the malady are customarily entered into transitioning protocols including hormones and surgery, they often present for treatment in clusters of young women who together discovered their supposedly mistaken gender identity. Dr. Littman’s research was retracted by Brown soon after it was published, due to the outrage of the medical mob.

Yet other researchers like Abigail Shrier and institutions like the UK’s Tavistockstock Center noted the same phenomenon. Springer Nature, a journal noted for its scientific soundness, was set to publish a review of 1655 possible cases of rapid onset gender dysphoria but reversed course, deciding to retract it due to the suspiciously flimsy objection that “written informed consent” was possibly lacking in the study. Intellectual tyranny defeated open debate again.

We need a respected, honest scientific community more than ever. We need them to make more scientific advances, to train future scientists and to protect us from the befouling influence of politics on science. The antics of Dr. Fauci and others, bending the truth to seek political favor, did lasting damage to the reputation of the scientific community.

Climate science too has been hopelessly compromised by politics and the biased grant-making process. One of the results is an epidemic of existential depression among young Americans who believe their lives will end in devastation because of excessive carbon emissions (still wrong, no matter how many times it’s been predicted). It’s a shame.


Giorgia Meloni Torches UN's LGBT Agenda, Instead Introduces Policy That Christians Will Celebrate

As the globalist LGBT agenda continues its aggressive campaign to gradually erode religious liberty in the West, Christians might finally have found a champion in one European leader.

That leader is Italy’s conservative Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who, according to Breitbart, recently torched the United Nations for advancing aggressive LGBT causes.

Earlier this week, Victor Madrigal-Borloz addressed the UN Human Rights Council saying that in situations where religious freedom conflicts with LGBT rights, then religious liberty must yield, saying that religious beliefs that come into conflict with the LGBT agenda are “beyond the scope of the right freedom of religion or belief.”

(Madrigal-Borloz is the UN’s “independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity.”)

In essence, the United Nations is saying that the LGBT agenda is more important than the freedom of Christians to practice their religion, a very disturbing statement by any measure..

Fortunately for Christians, Giorgia Meloni is having none of it, and has called out the UN for this blatant threat to religious liberty.

“Religious freedom is not a second-class right,” she said. “It is not a freedom that comes after others or can even be set aside for the benefit of new, so-called freedoms or rights.”

Meloni reiterated: “Religious liberty is a natural right and precedes every juridical formulation because it is written in the heart of man.”

Since her election victory in September of 2022, Giorgia Meloni has become a firebrand for international conservatism and a symbol of hope for many as they try to beat back the leftist globalist agenda.

Meloni made conservative values a cornerstone of her election campaign, and since then she has made good on her promises, showing herself to be someone who is truly willing to fight for Christian values.

One of her main priorities is to stand firm against the LGBT agenda. Perhaps the biggest way she has done this, according to Politico, is by pushing back against the use of surrogacy, or “renting the womb” for same-sex couples to have children.

Meanwhile, instead of going along with the UN’s anti-Christian agenda, Meloni is taking the exact opposite approach by showing a genuine concern for Christians around the world who are persecuted for their faith.

During the same speech in which she decried the UN, she also pledged that the Italian government would give more than ten million Euros in support of persecuted Christians around the world.

In short, Christians not only in the West but around the world finally have a major political leader who is fighting for them.

While other Western nations ignore the plight of persecuted Christians and engage in sinister acts on behalf of the LGBT lobby that threaten religious freedom, Meloni is taking steps to uphold the rights of Christians in Italy.

Meloni almost seems to be trying to turn Italy into Europe’s version of Florida. Like Gov. Ron DeSantis, she has taken real steps to stop the march of the woke agenda and keep the Italian people free.

The West needs more leaders like Meloni, who are willing to stand up for Christian values in the face of attacks from the LGBT movement.

This may be yet another sign that the tide in the culture war is finally shifting.




Monday, June 26, 2023

The rise of autism

Diagnoses of autism have "exploded" in recent years. Why? There is a lot of doubt that there is a real underlying increase in cases of autism. Most psychologists would account for the rise as an effect of expanded diagnostic criteria. And that in turn is an aspect of what is often called the "medicalization" of deviant behaviour. That is the explanation that I incline towards. I am aware that there are some claims of a role for diet and pollution but I see no clear evidence of that

A friend of mine who is a most experienced practicing psychologist has however offered me a rather novel explanation -- an explanation that is both sociological and draws strongly on history. History is the only laboratory of sociology so it is undoubtedly the place to look for sociological explanations.

The starting point of the explanation is that the very first diagnosis of autism was by Kanner in 1943. Did he invent it? Why was it unknown before his work? Clearly, it must have existed all along but why did it come to attention as a recognized syndrome so recently?

My psychologist friend has come up with an explanation. He says he was recently reading a book about etiquette in the Victorian era and was amazed by the minuteness of the rules that governed social interactions at that time. The whole idea of social etiquette has become rather passe these days but the aim of the rules was to make social interactions easy and pleasant for all parties. It was not some authoritarian invention. It was a set of arrangements that had arisen through trial and error over time that most people were comfortable with. There was such a clear consensus about the rules that you could write books setting out the rules for those who needed to learn them. So the rules did have something of a straitjacket character

And that was GOOD for autistic people, or at least the less disabled element of the autism spectrum. Autistics did not have to feel their way towards socially acceptable behaviour. It was all very clearly laid down for them by society. The rules were made to ease social interactions and they had that effect for anybody who followed them So the social expectations of the day DRAGOONED autistics into adaptive behaviour They did not have work it all out themselves

That explanation will not of course cover the extremely withdrawn forms of autism but for the more articulate parts of the spectrum it makes considerable sense. It is only the breakdown of social mores resulting from two ghastly world wars that deprived social behaviour of much of its guidelines. The old order was destroyed and not replaced. And once Kanner had described juvenile autism, people began to see degrees of it elsewhere. And that is where we are today

This is not of course a glorification of Victorian society. Charles Dickens has convinced us all that Victorian society was thoroughly wrongheaded. It is simply an argument that Victorian rules had some benefit for some people, not all of whom were high and mighty -- people with poor social competence generally

This is not of course a theory about the origins and causes of autism but merely a theory about its visibility. So what are the causes of autism?

I remember when I was doing a seminar in abnormal psychology as part of my Masters degree in psychology in the department of psychology at the university of Sydney in 1968, Kanner was much mentioned, but the discussion centred around whether autism was a psychosis. I have never thought that

The long-running theory of autism traced the condition to "refrigerator mothers". I forget who first proposed that theory but I would shoot him if I could. To blame poor distressed mothers for the dysfunction of their child was extremely cruel and unforgivable to my mind. Fortunately that theory fitted so few actual cases that it was perforce eventually abandoned.

That led to an exploration of physical causes instead. I was a party to those debates and found one explanation persuasive: That autism was caused caused by excessive stimulus sensitivity which was in turn caused by an overdeveloped cerebral cortex. I still subscribe to that theory and believe that it is now the mainstream one. There is no complete consensus in any area of science, however, climate science excepted, of course.

As a small amusing note in confirmation of that theory, I have observed informally that autistic people tend to wear large size hats! And when I met my present girlfriend via a dating site she said that the thing she most liked about my photo was my high forehead. She is very bright, has an intense interest in psychology and believes herself to be a high functioning autistic -- a diagnosis with which I concur.

I have had many papers published in the academic journals on abnormal psychology topics but none on autism. My interest in it was however sparked by a recent realization that I too am a high functioning autistic. And that has benefited my social life. You can see from the early photo with my sister below below what my forehead has been like from the beginning. Plenty of room for a large cerebral cortex.

I have however had 4 marriages and three ladies still call on me regularly even though I am in my 80th year so I think that promotes the view that at least some autistics can have an interesting life


Biden Admin Admits LGBT Lifestyle Produces Worse Mental Health, Addiction

Americans who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual are far more likely to suffer from major depression and abuse illegal drugs, and are up to six times as likely to attempt suicide, according to a new report from the Biden administration.

Although the report admits it cannot “explain the reasons” for these differences, it opens by blaming LGBT “invisibility and erasure”—a leap critics say is “just bad science” that obscures the real causes for these Americans’ mental distress.

Adults who have sex with members of the same sex, or both sexes, experience a dramatically lower quality of life across numerous measures, the Biden administration reveals.

Women who have sex with members of both sexes (bisexuals) were six times as likely to have attempted suicide within the last year as women who identify as straight, and three times as likely to abuse opioid drugs. Bisexual men were three times as likely to have had a serious mental illness in the last year, according to the survey from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

“A higher prevalence of substance use and mental health issues has been well-documented among people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (also referred to as sexual minorities) than among those who identify as heterosexual or straight,” notes the report, which focuses on American adults’ behaviors during the 2021-2022 year.

Drug Abuse, Suicide, Depression

The Biden administration’s survey documents the high rates at which “sexual minorities” suffer from the intertwined pathologies of drug abuse and negative mental health outcomes.

Drug abuse rates, spanning from methamphetamines to tobacco, were multiple orders higher among gay- or bisexual-identified people than heterosexuals. Those who identify as bisexual, of either sex, had the highest levels of illegal drug use.

Half of all bisexual men and women (49.5% and 49.7%, respectively) had used illicit drugs, as well as 42% of women who identify as lesbians and 41% of men who have sex with men, or MSM—double the rates of heterosexual men and women (27% and 20%, respectively).

Those living the LGBT lifestyle had a strong propensity to abuse the hardest narcotics. Lesbians were twice as likely, and bisexual women more than three times as likely, to use “cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, and methamphetamine,” or to abuse prescription drugs (19.4% of bisexual women compared to 13.8% of lesbians, and 6.7% of straight women). Lesbians were 253% more likely to use cocaine than straight women.

Bisexual women were 360% more likely to misuse opioids than were straight women over the last year. Gay- or lesbian-identified adults were twice as likely to abuse hallucinogenic drugs than heterosexuals.

The trend continues to legal drugs, as well. “Sexual minority females” were twice as likely to smoke tobacco or “have been heavy drinkers in the past month,” according to the report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is titled “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Behavioral Health: Results from the 2021 and 2022 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health.”

Similar numbers held true for males—although men have higher levels of substance abuse in general.

“Gay males were about twice as likely as bisexual males and about 15 times as likely as straight males to have used inhalants in the past year,” the mental health agency reports. All men abused alcohol at the same rate.

Serious Mental Illness

Mental health also proved radically poorer among those who identify as LGBT. Although women admit to higher levels of mental health challenges than men, LGBT-identified individuals of both sexes suffered significantly elevated levels of serious mental illness, major depressive episodes, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts.


The 'Girl Scouts have lost their way,' asserts faith-based alternative for young women

The Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA), founded in 1912, has been in the spotlight this week — but not for its popular cookie sales.

An online form circulating on social media this week related to sleepaway camp reportedly asked parents of girls to specify if their kids go by masculine pronouns — and if they'd prefer "gender inclusive" sleeping arrangements for their children while the young ones are at camp.

The form, reportedly sent by a parent to the widely followed Twitter account End Wokeness, asked parents or caregivers to provide "basic camper information" regarding preferred pronouns, including "she/her," "they/them," "he/him" and "other."

A group that considers itself a faith-based alternative to the Girls Scouts spoke out on the topic.

Patti Garibay, founder and national executive director of American Heritage Girls, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday afternoon, "Straying so far from the vision of its foundress, GSUSA has once again entangled itself in the ever-shifting winds of today's culture."

Added Garibay, "As Alexander Hamilton once said, 'Those who stand for nothing fall for everything.'"

Garibay said, "Is today's GSUSA the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts — or something in between?"

She added that "so many alumnae have grieved that Girl Scouts have lost their way as they witness a true loss of a national treasure."

Garibay said she started American Heritage Girls "for this very reason."

The organization ((GSUSA) voted in 1993 to make the word "God" optional in its oath.

Garibay spent over a decade with the Girl Scouts in different parts of the United States. She then left the organization and formed American Heritage Girls in 1995, she said.

She felt she had to leave the Girl Scouts after the organization voted in 1993 to make the word "God" optional in its oath.

"This wasn't something that I came upon lightly, as in, 'Let's just start an alternative to the Girl Scouts because I'm not liking what's going on there,'" she told Fox News Digital previously.

Garibay founded American Heritage Girls as a Christian alternative to the Girl Scouts.

It "inspires girls to pursue a deeper walk with Christ and focuses on Christian values and family involvement."

Today, AHG is the largest faith-based scouting organization in the world, with over 60,000 members, according to Garibay's organization.

The group says it "inspires girls to pursue a deeper walk with Christ and focuses on Christian values and family involvement."

It also helps young girls and parents deal with social and cultural issues through a platform called "Raising Godly Girls."

The group shares on its website, "When a girl’s identity and her worldview lens are rooted in faith, the gospel message doesn’t stay neatly tucked in her Bible only to be taken off the shelf each Sunday … it impacts every part of her life!"

A biblical worldview, it continues, "shapes the way she understands herself, her purpose in the world, and how she can influence an unholy world for Christ using the God-given gifts bestowed upon her at the moment of her creation."

Garibay is author of the book, "Why Curse the Darkness When You Can Light a Candle?" She and her husband have four married children and nine grandchildren.

American Heritage Girls has troops in all 50 states, as well as independent "Trailblazers" in 15 countries. Troops can be found across a variety of Christian denominations.


As Corporate America Veers Left, the GOP Can Become the Party of Small Businesses

A recent Wall Street Journal lead story reported that “Republicans and big business broke up.” The amount of corporate donations to Republicans was cut sharply in the last election cycle to a lower amount than in nearly a decade.

The United States Chamber of Commerce has backed many Democrats running for Congress in close and competitive races, which puts the GOP slim majority in jeopardy.

The writing is on the wall: Corporate America is increasingly aligning itself with liberal Democrats, not Republicans.

Some of this shift in corporate allegiances is due to some bad decisions by Republicans. The GOP has shortsightedly pursued a “break up Big Tech” campaign, and the party’s slide toward tariffs and away from free trade, one of the pillars of prosperity, is worrisome to any free marketeer. We should have free trade with countries, unless they are like Communist China, threats to American security.

The real question is whether the GOP should want or even need support from the corporate boardrooms, which are increasingly going “woke.” Maybe it is time for a divorce.

Big business is increasingly siding with big government. Democrats are passing out Biden Bucks, and corporate America lusts for free federal money. Like field mice, they gobble up the morsels the Democrats spill out of their pockets.

Corporate welfare spending at Washington is at an all-time high, with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars pipelined into the coffers of the Climate Change Industrial Complex, semiconductor companies, and other Beltway Bandit industries.

Principled free-market Republicans should take a strong stand against runaway government spending and debt, against 19th-century antitrust laws enforced by super-regulators such as Chairwoman Lina Khan of the the Federal Trade Commission, against corporate welfare programs that cultivate big business dependency on the government, and against the self-serving Wall Street doctrine of “too big to fail.”

If corporate America is against that agenda, then don’t let the door hit your fanny on the way out of the party.

An alliance between big business and big government, after all, is simply a form of what used to be called “fascism.”

What is the alternative for the GOP? It’s obvious. Republicans must be the party of the 80 million small-business men and women who employ more than 60 percent of our employees.

The head of the indispensable Job Creators Network, Alfredo Ortiz, notes that “most small businesses don’t have PACs and lobbyists and fancy K Street Washington offices. They just want to be left alone.”

He’s right. My father ran a successful small business for 40 years outside of Chicago. He worked long hours and was gone often when I was growing up. I don’t think he ever visited Washington, D.C. He had disdain for politics and most politicians.

That’s a fairly universal attitude of employers. And who can blame them given the torrent of nosy regulations by Washington lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians who know nothing about running a business or making a profit?

If big business wants to bolt and make peace with the party that hates enterprise, entrepreneurship, and profit, that’s a sad commentary on the state of affairs in corporate America, not the GOP.

President Coolidge once said that “90 percent of people who come to Washington want something they shouldn’t have.” Too often these days, our Fortune 500 companies want your and my money, and that’s something they shouldn’t have.




Thursday, June 22, 2023

Toon day today


Disgusting New Zealand racism

The NZ government is Leftist. The Left have never been able to let go of racial discrimination. Ever since Karl Marx, they have had a fascination for it. They condemn racism but they are the chief practitioners of it

In the name of equity, surgeons in Auckland, New Zealand, have been told to consider the ethnicity of their patients when trying to prioritise care, namely to specifically prioritise patients from Maori and Pacific Islander backgrounds, placing them ahead of those with European or Asian ancestry.

The policy, which is part of Health New Zealand’s ‘Equity Adjustor Score,’ aims to use several factors to determine the priority of patients waiting for surgeries, including if they live in isolated communities or how long they have been waiting for a procedure.

However, the rules also factor in the ethnicity of the patient, with a report from the New Zealand Herald newspaper explaining that surgeons have reacted particularly negatively to the new guidelines, with one even going as far as to say they were disgusted.

The surgeons, all of whom spoke anonymously to the newspaper, stated that patient priority should come down to how urgent the treatment was or how long they had been waiting, with one surgeon saying, “It’s ethically challenging to treat anyone based on race, it’s their medical condition that must establish the urgency of the treatment.”

Ayesha Verrall, New Zealand’s Health Minister, defended using ethnicity to prioritise health care saying, “The reformed health system seeks to address inequities for Māori and Pacific people who historically have a lower life expectancy and poor health outcomes.”

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins also defended the guidelines saying, “Those who are arguing we should do nothing need to explain why they think we should expect those on low incomes, in rural areas and Māori and Pacific to wait longer.”

“I’ve seen concerns that have been raised about the mechanism that they are using to do that, and I’ve asked the minister of health to look at that to make sure that there is a reassurance that we are not replacing one form of discrimination with another,” he added.

David Seymour, leader of the right-wing ACT party, accused the government of “promoting racial discrimination” saying “prejudice and discrimination” were becoming official government policy in New Zealand.

New Zealand is by no means the only country to factor in ethnic backgrounds for health care as the premise is seemingly common in several English-speaking countries, such as the UK, where the National Health Service (NHS) states that it also factors in ethnicity as part of a clinical prioritisation programme.

In Canada, Indigenous Canadians were prioritised for the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 and others urged the government to prioritise minority groups, known as “racialized” in Canada, claiming that “systemic racism” was one reason why black Canadians had high rates of hospitalisation in areas like Toronto during the pandemic.

In 2021, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published an article that claimed there is “systemic anti-black racism” in the Canadian healthcare industry and called for the industry “to dismantle systemic racism in its structures and institutions.”

Recommendations for change include training health care providers in anti-racism, anti-oppression and decolonialization, as well as routinely collecting race-based data in partnership with racialized communities. Finally, the Black Medical Student Association of Canada provides recommendations for medical schools to address anti-Black racism in medical education and admissions, and outlines the need for medical reform to be guided by critical race theory.

While Canada does not prioritise surgeries based on ethnicity, the country does prioritise them based on COVID-19 vaccination status.

In 2018, Alberta resident Annette Lewis learned that she had a terminal illness that would require an organ transplant but was refused the transplant last year because of her refusal to take the COVID-19 jab.

A court of appeal in Alberta later ruled that unvaccinated people like Ms. Lewis were ineligible for transplants stating, “Being vaccinated against COVID-19 is a necessary component of proper medical care for individuals, including Ms. Lewis, who are seeking an (organ) transplant.”

Earlier this year, Ms. Lewis attempted to take her case to the Canadian Supreme Court but the Canadian top court simply refused to hear her.

A similar case was seen in Australia, in which a woman was refused a heart transplant because she did not take the vaccine, as she feared that the established side effects of myocarditis could be too risky for her.


A woman and horse were killed and another man injured after a semi truck rear-ended an Amish buggy in Wisconsin, according to WISC.

This is shameful

image from

Two Amish siblings traveled along a state highway until they were hit from behind by a 39-year-old man from Oklahoma. The pair were ejected from the open-top buggy, with one passenger, a 30-year-old man, taken to a hospital. The buggy was destroyed and the semi truck reportedly sustained moderate damage, but the driver was not injured.

"I wouldn't say they're are uncommon, unfortunately," said Lafayette County Sheriff Reg Gill of buggy accidents. "Our dispatch center was called about a semi versus buggy crash that occurred out on State Highway 81," he continued.

"We do have a very large Amish community here in Lafayette County, and we do from time to time see these crashes," the sheriff added.

The sheriff explained that the siblings were believed to be returning from an Amish get-together where the elders and youth have separate parties.

The roads "see buggy traffic almost any time of day," Gill explained. "This particular evening there was a gathering up towards Platteville, Wisconsin, and these young people were traveling back home at that time. They have gatherings for the younger people and gathering for the elders and families, which usually ends sooner, and then these particular ones go a little later."

Wisconsin law states the buggies are required to have two red rear lights, two yellow or amber strobe lights, and "slow-moving vehicle" emblems on the vehicles' rear. The sheriff said the buggy did indeed have the LED lights but that the investigation was still ongoing. ?