Most illnesses are a combination of symptoms. We should look at the symptoms one at a time

My heading above is a simplified version of the heading below. And I agree in principle with the propositon it expressees. And the conclusion they draw from their survey data supports that proposition.

But it doesn't! The correlations they report are abysmally low so the findings actually DISPROVE what they set out to show

And that happens all the time in medical research. I have documented it many times. What amazes me is that such crazy studies regularly get reported in top medical journals, as they did below. I am glad that I have lived to 80 so that I can continue to point such follies out -- as there is clearly an acute shorage of sanity about the matters concerned.

The sad thing is that Google has search-blocked me so that my critical comments will only ever become known to regular readers of this blog. A Google search of the subject will not disclose these comments. Criticism is essential to science but Google don't seem to care about that

UPDATE: Google appears to have lifted the search block on this blog. Things I write here will now appear in response to a searches for information on topics I have written about here. So my comments above should appear soon in searches


Polygenic Scores and Networks of Psychopathology Symptoms

Giulia G Piazza et al.

Abstract

Importance
Studies on polygenic risk for psychiatric traits commonly use a disorder-level approach to phenotyping, implicitly considering disorders as homogeneous constructs; however, symptom heterogeneity is ubiquitous, with many possible combinations of symptoms falling under the same disorder umbrella. Focusing on individual symptoms may shed light on the role of polygenic risk in psychopathology.

Objective
To determine whether polygenic scores are associated with all symptoms of psychiatric disorders or with a subset of indicators and whether polygenic scores are associated with comorbid phenotypes via specific sets of relevant symptoms.

Design, Setting, and Participants
Data from 2 population-based cohort studies were used in this cross-sectional study. Data from children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) were included in the primary analysis, and data from children in the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) were included in confirmatory analyses. Data analysis was conducted from October 2021 to January 2024. Pregnant women based in the Southwest of England due to deliver in 1991 to 1992 were recruited in ALSPAC. Twins born in 1994 to 1996 were recruited in TEDS from population-based records. Participants with available genetic data and whose mothers completed the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire when children were 11 years of age were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures
Psychopathology relevant symptoms, such as hyperactivity, prosociality, depression, anxiety, and peer and conduct problems at age 11 years. Psychological networks were constructed including individual symptoms and polygenic scores for depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), body mass index (BMI), and educational attainment in ALSPAC. Following a preregistered confirmatory analysis, network models were cross-validated in TEDS. Results Included were 5521 participants from ALSPAC (mean [SD] age, 11.8 [0.14] years; 2777 [50.3%] female) and 4625 participants from TEDS (mean [SD] age, 11.27 [0.69] years; 2460 [53.2%] female). Polygenic scores were preferentially associated with restricted subsets of core symptoms and indirectly associated with other, more distal symptoms of psychopathology (network edges ranged between r = −0.074 and r = 0.073). Psychiatric polygenic scores were associated with specific cross-disorder symptoms, and nonpsychiatric polygenic scores were associated with a variety of indicators across disorders, suggesting a potential contribution of nonpsychiatric traits to comorbidity. For example, the polygenic score for ADHD was associated with a core ADHD symptom, being easily distracted ( r = 0.07), and the polygenic score for BMI was associated with symptoms across disorders, including being bullied ( r = 0.053) and not thinking things out ( r = 0.041).

Conclusions and Relevance
Genetic associations observed at the disorder level may hide symptom-level heterogeneity. A symptom-level approach may enable a better understanding of the role of polygenic risk in shaping psychopathology and comorbidity.

June 2024 JAMA Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.1403

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

Women have been sold a lie, you can't have it all

Women can't 'have it all' despite being 'given the idea' that they can work and have their independence while raising children, Paloma Faith has declared.

The British singing sensation, 42, split from husband Leyman Lahcine after 10 years in 2022 and has been struggling to balance co-parenting their two daughters, aged seven and three, with her music career.

She told Radio Times: 'I feel a bit disgruntled about society's expectation on women, because we were given this idea that you could work and have your own money and independence while raising children.

'What we've ended up with is far too much responsibility, and I think a lot of women are burning out.'

Indeed, Paloma is not the only woman feeling this way; speaking to FEMAIL, other modern mothers have opened up about their own experiences, echoing how it's 'impossible for one woman to do everything'.

Juggling motherhood while trying to claw back onto the career ladder is a struggle and most agree that giving 100 per cent to career, family, and personal fulfilment is not doable all at once. Here, we speak to the mothers who claim women 'can't have it all'...

'We think we can have it all... the truth hit me like a runaway train'

Holly Matthews, from Coventry, is mother to Brooke, 13, and Texas, 11, and a self-development coach and founder of The Happy Me Project.

Holly said: 'We think we can have it all. When I became a mum, I truly believed that everything would stay the same, only now I'd have a baby on my hip. The truth hit me like a runaway train.

'We aren't enough, we aren't enough to do everything. No one is. This myth that we can juggle it all, or that women are 'great at multitasking' sends us into burnout (and FYI we don't choose to multitask, we are cornered into this behaviour). Truthfully, we are only ever doing one thing well at any one time.

'When I'm working on my business, I am not spending time with my kids, when I'm spending time with my kids, my business admin piles up high and when I'm doing either of these things the piles of washing and dishes pile up higher than that.

'My mental load is so high every day that socialising or time for me must be so heavily scheduled in advance, or it would never happen.

'Women can be whatever the hell they like, of course they can! Women are strong, resilient and brave but when we win in one area, another area pays the price.

'We can do our very best to juggle it all, but this eventually just erodes our sense of self and is ultimately just another form of people pleasing.'

'I don't think it's fair to have another child as life is so crazy'

Mother-of-one Laura Kay is founder of permanent makeup business Laura Kay London in Hertfordshire.

Laura said: 'Many women enter motherhood with the optimistic view that they can balance a successful career with family life, striving to 'have it all.'

'But the reality is a different picture. Juggling the demands of work and raising children can be a big challenge, leading to sacrifices in various aspects of life.

'For some women like me, this means sacrificing precious time with our families, as work commitments take over our days. There is very little room for quality time with loved ones and most certainly no time for self care days!

'I would say personally I was so career focused that I feel I don't really remember the early years of having a baby.

'I went back to work after six weeks after having a caesarean section on New Year's Day in 2017, I never had maternity leave and watched my friends have a year off with their babies but I was so career focused that I didn't even think what I was missing out on.

'Now seven years later I try and have more of a balance and I make sure I do school pick ups as I feel these are things I remember as a child.

'I also decided to only have one child as I don't think it's fair to have another child as life is so crazy and I want to now give all my energy to him and give him the best life I can.

'I've always wanted to be independent and not rely on anyone so I know I can fend for myself if I need to, I think that sets a great example to my little man.

'In my parents generation things were very different, my mum didn't work due to the cost of child care it was better for her to stay at home but things are very different now as most of my friends do work and juggle everything.

'I actually love my work and I call it my hobby. I'm so lucky to enjoy what I do, I wish I could get some of those baby years back now as time soon goes by and I can't believe how quick seven years has gone!'

'I've acknowledged that it's impossible for one woman to do everything'

Mother-of-one Rebecca Tidy, 37, is a freelance writer and researcher, from Falmouth. She has a daughter, Mabel, six.

Rebecca said: 'I worked hard for the PhD that I proudly obtained from the same Russell Group university as my dad. And afterwards, I secured my dream job as a policing lecturer.

'Nothing made me happier than the validation of publishing my research in the best academic journals. In fact, I was so dedicated to my career that I worked from my hospital bed on the night before my emergency C-section.

'Maternity leave was tough, as I was alone with a newborn. Mabel was born prematurely, leaving her with breathing difficulties until the age of two and severe allergies.

'It felt ironic that my then-fiancé was promoted to partner at his prestigious accounting firm soon after I gave birth. He was out of the house for 12 hours a day, while I got to grips with nappies and vomit.

'Though I returned to work when Mabel was aged one, I found myself taking weeks off – or working from home – as she was poorly. I was too embarrassed to admit it, but I was exhausted and unwell too. Despite my best efforts, I was failing everyone.

'The final straw came when my boss texted to ask why I missed a deadline, while I was in A and E with Mabel. I politely handed in my notice the next day with the intention of spending a year working from home as a freelance writer. However, I've not returned to my academic career since.

'It's been a financial stretch, as my income has halved. I'm often jealous of my 'mum' friends that kept their full-time careers. They're professors now, whereas I'm single parenting and doing twice-daily school runs.

'I do, however, still think that reining back my career goals was the right decision. Mabel's now a healthy, happy six-year-old with bags of confidence. We have wonderful memories together from gardening to baking cupcakes.

'Though I've been recovering from cancer, I'm feeling energetic and cheerful once again. I've acknowledged that it's impossible for one woman to do everything.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/parenting/article-13542469/Paloma-Faith-mothers-all.html

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

The constitution is NOT a "social contract" and nobody can define what "the common good" is

Two abiding myths that fall apart when you look at them

The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia hosted an online discussion recently about the new book The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution’s Original Meaning. The conversation featured the book’s author, journalist A. J. Jacobs, and NCC president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. I encourage readers to watch the entire discussion; this post will focus on only a short excerpt.

During the discussion, Mr. Jacobs said, “You have natural rights, you were born with natural rights, but those rights, once you enter into society, you made a contract, and those rights have to be balanced against the common good” (clip at 24:17).

It is unclear whether Jacobs was expressing his own viewpoint or reciting a common perspective (my guess, based on the context, is both). Regardless, Jacobs’s statement contains several enduring, dangerous myths that have been retold in classrooms so many times that they are seldom challenged despite being wrong.

Myth #1: The U.S. Constitution is a contract between the People and the State.

The Constitution is not a contract. It does not contain, and never has, the elements of a contract. According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School,

A contract is an agreement between parties, creating mutual obligations that are enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.

The People have never entered into a contract with the State. This was emphasized by Independent Institute senior fellow Robert Higgs in his essay titled “Consent of the Governed, Revisited”:

[I]n regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts.

No one in their right mind would voluntarily consent to a document that binds them to a group indefinitely that can “legally” take their income, wealth, and liberty at any time based on an institutional majority vote. American philosopher Lysander Spooner pointed out in 1867, “To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.”

A randomly selected individual in the United States has greater certainty of service delivery at a specified price by their wireless provider because of a contract than they do with their federal, state, or local government based on any constitution or charter. For example, many people may be surprised to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have a general constitutional duty to protect someone from harm. Tragically, parents in Uvalde, Texas, among others, have learned this the hard way. Ordinary citizens would be better served by private security agencies operating under contracts that specify the terms (duties) of protection than they are currently served by government law enforcement agencies operating under local or state authority.

The U.S. Constitution is not a contract. It has never received the consent of the governed, and based on how governments treat their subjects, few people would voluntarily consent to its terms if given the opportunity.

Myth #2: The “common good” exists and it can be discerned.

Despite having been slain more than 70 years ago, the notion of the “common good” is a myth that lives on like a zombie. In a 1951 monograph titled Social Choice and Individual Values, Nobel laureate economist Kenneth J. Arrow demonstrated that it is generally impossible to determine the “common good.” The Arrow (impossibility) theorem, as it became known, assumes several noncontroversial conditions, for example, that each individual has complete and transitive preferences regarding the outcomes under consideration in a collective-choice context, such as voting.

According to MIT researcher S. M. Amadae, Arrow’s theorem proves that it is impossible to construct “any mathematical procedure [i.e., a social choice rule] for amalgamating individual preferences that results in a collectively rational preference ordering of all the possible outcomes.” The implications of Arrow’s theorem are profound. As Amadae explained, “The theorem rejects the notion of a collective democratic will, whether derived through civic deliberation or construed by experts who paternalistically apply knowledge of what is best for a population.”

Individual rights, preferences, and interests do exist, and those often motivate individuals to align into groups or factions. However, there is no “common good,” “general welfare,” or “the public.” Those are aggregation fallacies.

Returning to A. J. Jacobs’s statement above, since there is no common good, it is nonsensical to say that “balancing” natural rights achieves outcomes closer to the common good.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/06/13/myths-about-the-u-s-constitution-and-individual-rights-that-erode-civil-society/?omhide=true&trk=title

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

Why Are So Many Food and Beverage Products Being Recalled?

A Newsweek investigation finds that at least 350 food and beverage products are under recalls mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. A short list of these products includes cookies, shellfish, cucumbers, frozen pizzas, frozen fruits, pasta, salad kits, smoked salmon, hummus, shrimp, lemonade, granola bars, cantaloupes, and ice cream.

It’s a long, extensive, and confusing list. Some products have been under recall since 2018, meaning the FDA has taken six years to find the issue, reinspect the goods, and confirm newer production meets its standards.

Others remained on the list well after their producers addressed any sanitation concerns. Newsweek also reports, “Items like enoki mushrooms stayed live on the FDA website for more than a year… when the outbreak was declared over last year.”

It’s also unclear if some items were linked to hospitalization or other illnesses before being recalled. Newsweek’s list includes 31 meat, dairy, and egg products. These are partially regulated by the Food and Safety Inspection Service, a subagency of the US Department of Agriculture. Despite being recalled by the FDA, the FSIS does not report any illnesses or other noteworthy issues associated with these products.

Perhaps most concerning, some of these recalls have been disastrous recently. As part of this list, the FDA recalled four infant formula producers, some of whom received official warning letters. The catastrophic infant formula shortage of 2022 began with one recall. Due to a single FDA-mandated recall, there is an ongoing national shortage of hypoallergenic infant formula.

There are many reasons that products can be contaminated—and should be recalled or safety issues. But clearly, that’s only part of this story. Much of the problem boils down to incentives.

Whether it’s regulating apples, formula, cancer drugs, or birth control, the FDA’s incentives as a regulatory bureaucracy are to minimize the risk of harmful goods reaching customers. Consequently, it lengthens, increases, and intensifies scrutiny over the goods it regulates—even to an excessive level. That’s a big reason the FDA’s recall list is long enough that the agency itself can’t keep current or accurate.

Fortunately, with few exceptions, foodborne illnesses across the United States have decreased since 2009—largely thanks to health and agricultural technology improvements. We have fewer reasons to be concerned about whether our food and beverages are safe to consume. On the flip side, we have more reasons to be skeptical about the regulators deciding this for us.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/06/13/why-are-so-many-food-and-beverage-products-being-recalled/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

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

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

Are there enough fighting aged men? Senate Armed Service proposes drafting women in National Defense Authorization Act

Women are needed at home to produce the children who will replace the fallen but there are always a lot of women who have a vocation to serve in the armed forces instead. They voluntarily want in to the armed services so it is reasonaable enough to accept their service if they meet the physical standards. But forcing them to get shot at is evil

One of my ex-wives served in the army for nine years. She served in the transport corps and told me that lots of women are keen on driving the army's big trucks and are actually safer drivers. She also told me me that most army women are queer. So in camp she actually had to fight off sexual approaches from both the men and the women. She is however 5'11" tall and a former reprentative athlete so defended herself effectively. I can testify that she was VERY heterosexual. I have some very happy memories of our times together

She was also good-looking. See our wedding photo below. She had it all




The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 22 to 3 on a bipartisan basis in favor of the current year National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision for requiring women to sign up for the national draft via the Selective Service.

Why? The bill’s executive summary does not provide any stated reason, but ostensibly, the reasons given for doing so in past years’ proposals have merely centered around issues of equity and sexual discrimination and whether it’s fair if only men are drafted, or that women would be excluded from the draft.

But another issue might have to do with the population of fighting aged men 18-to-24, currently 15.1 million, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, accounting for about 4.5 percent of the total U.S. population of 335.2 million as of 2023 per U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

That’s not much better than the 14 million seen in 1980, when the male population aged 18-to-24 as a percent of the population peaked at 6.19 percent, back when the population was just 230 million.

Meaning, although the U.S. population has increased by 115 million since 1980, the population of fighting aged men has only increased by 1.1 million, as the number of 18-to-24-year-old men as a percent of the population declined from 6.19 percent to 4.5 percent.

When compared to potential adversary nations such as China, where conflict in Taiwan or the Koreas or Japan could break out any day, the potential size of U.S. fighting forces of able-bodied, young men is considerably dwarfed.

In China, there are about 102.3 million 18-to-23-year-olds, of which about 51 percent are male. And that’s with the one-child policy in effect there since 1980. That means there are about 52.2 million fighting aged men in China, compared to just 15.1 million in the U.S.

In the U.S., without any laws requiring less than two babies per woman, the FDA’s 1960 approval of birth control has nonetheless resulted in less than population replacement birth rates as more and more women have entered the labor force, attended college and opted either to not get married or not have children at all, with the numbers still plummeting, from 3.65 babies per woman in 1960 to 1.61 babies per woman in 2023.

If the U.S. had maintained more robust birth rates, the population might be more than 520 million today, and the number of fighting aged men would be considerably larger, more like 23 million. That’s still less than China, but it also underscores that the current prolonged demographic deficit of fewer marriages and fewer challenge may in fact pose a real and present danger to national security not easily offset even with immigration.

Either way, in a hypothetical conventional war of attrition where the draft was employed by both the U.S. and China, China would have a considerable advantage in terms of wearing down personnel, since theoretically it could withstand more than triple the losses U.S. forces could.

Such a conflict might seem unlikely with the U.S. nuclear deterrent, on one hand, but on the other, mutually assured destruction might make a conventional war more likely if neither side was willing to go nuclear for fear of retaliation and national or global destruction. In any event, such a conflict might start out conventionally but ultimately come down to the use of nuclear weapons if it looked like one side or the other was losing.

That said, even if such a war was unlikely, the presence of nuclear weapons might not be enough to deter such a conflict from beginning. If U.S. armed forces were to employ a draft of both men and women, the pool of potential recruits would jump from 15.1 million to 30 million, with 14.9 million females aged 18-to-24 as of 2023.

That’s still 20 million less than simply the number of men China could potentially deploy if necessary, and still more than 70 million less than the number of men and women China could deploy.

According to the CIA World Factboook, China has already similarly decided to put women into the military via conscription: “18-22 years of age for men for selective compulsory military service, with a 2-year service obligation; women 18-19 years of age who are high school graduates and meet requirements for specific military jobs are subject to conscription.”

All talk of equity aside, that appears to be a far more compelling rationale for expanding the draft in the U.S. and other Western countries, even if it is unstated. The fact is, in traditional wars of attrition, larger nations tend to prevail over smaller nations and in a war against China, the personnel deficit would pose a considerable challenge.

That means even enlisting women would likely not be enough to match simply the number of potential fighting forces China could muster for a conventional war, and would require the U.S. to team up with other countries via alliances if China were to ever become a global threat akin to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union after World War II.

Given the global scale and the likely, eventual resort to nuclear weapons, such a conflict would certainly be undesirable, but if it did occur, assuming it did not immediately go nuclear, who has the most fighting men and women might be more important than the Senate currently dares to admit. All talk of equity aside, in wars numbers matter.

https://dailytorch.com/2024/06/are-there-enough-fighting-aged-men-senate-armed-service-proposes-drafting-women-in-national-defense-authorization-act/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=917aff65-ca1c-4a94-99a7-b404f7fa48ab

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

No time to fiddle as Hezbollah burns northern Israel

Northern Israel is on fire. Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist proxy in Lebanon, launched more than 300 rockets and drones across the border between June 12 and June 13.

The attacks came in response to Israel’s killing of Taleb Abdullah — a commander south of the Litani River — on June 11. Israel and Hezbollah exchanged fire over the weekend. Israel Defence Forces Spokesman Daniel Hagari said on Sunday that “Hezbollah’s increasing aggression is bringing us to the brink of what could be a wider escalation, one that could have devastating consequences for Lebanon and the entire region.”

The war, launched by Iran-supported militias on Oct. 7, has long exceeded the single front in Gaza. Yemen’s Houthis have closed the Red Sea to international shipping and, along with Iraqi Shiite militias, regularly launch drones and missiles at Israel. The attacks aren’t directed only at the Jewish state: More than 170 attacks took place on U.S. and allied forces in Syria and Iraq between October and February.

Yet the prospect of open warfare between Israel and Hezbollah dwarfs these developments. The Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv-based think tank, estimates that the group has around 200,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided munitions capable of hitting targets in Israel within a few yards’ radius. Hezbollah also has missiles such as the Fateh-110 and M-600 systems, which could hit Israel’s central cities. The group boasts a ground force of somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 fighters.

War between Israel and Hezbollah could lead to a wider regional conflagration. Iran has control of a contiguous corridor from the Iraq-Iran border, through southern Syria and into Lebanon. Iranian client fighters could easily make their way along this line to an Israel-Hezbollah combat zone. Its forces could likewise launch missiles and ordnance from Iraqi and Syrian soil.

Neither side appears to want immediate confrontation, but that doesn’t mean it won’t come. Senior Hezbollah official Naim Qassem recently described Hezbollah’s current level of engagement as representing a “complete” but not “all out” intervention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly prevented the swift response to Hezbollah’s Oct. 8 attacks that Defense Minister Yoav Gallant favoured.

The status quo is disruptive. Some 60,000 Israelis have left their homes, from Rosh Hanikra to Kiryat Shmona. The country’s north has effectively been shut down for the past eight months. Hezbollah’s rockets and drones have hit the cities of Acre, Tiberias and Nahariya.

Such a departure is unprecedented. More than a century ago Jews’ determination to hold the remote settlement of Tel Hai against a Shiite Arab militia gave birth to a central national myth. The eight Jews killed in the fighting at Tel Hai on March 1, 1920, entered the Israeli pantheon as a symbol of determination to hold the ground, no matter the cost.

Kiryat Shemonah, the “Town of the Eight” in Hebrew, is named after them. Today the border communities are empty. Hezbollah is using antitank missiles to destroy the neat red-roofed houses of Metula.

Israel maintains the tactical advantage. Hezbollah has reported the deaths of nearly 350 fighters in recent fighting. Israel has lost 10 soldiers and 15 civilians near the border area. Yet despite this disparity, Hezbollah’s losses aren’t significant enough to deter it from further attacks.

Israel thus faces a dilemma. The present state of affairs is untenable, unless Jerusalem wishes to concede a de facto security zone of control to Hezbollah on Israel’s side of the border. If the fire is spreading south, the natural response is to spread it north. Increased air attacks up to Beirut, possibly accompanied by a ground incursion, would be among the list of options. The 36th Armored Division, which played a prominent role in the invasion of Gaza, is training close to the border.

Yet such an incursion would need to consider what would happen after Hezbollah’s forces were pushed north of the Litani. Would it merely be a punitive hit-and-run raid? If so, is it worth the losses that would come from it, given the likelihood that Hezbollah would return to the border once the fighting concluded? If not, what is Israel’s preferred arrangement on the Lebanese side of the border after the fighting?

Israel’s leadership is considering these questions, and it doesn’t have time to waste. An agreement to end the Gaza war might have led to a messy de facto ceasefire in the north. But the fighting likely won’t end anytime soon. With more than 60,000 displaced Israelis, and daily missile attacks in the north, Israel must answer soon.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/no-time-to-fiddle-as-hezbollah-burns-northern-israel/news-story/9d9e90a14474f7f4d6aecda92b0a9bf6

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

Appeals Court Deals Blow to Racial Discrimination by Big Money Corporate Interests

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thrown a wrench into the blatantly discriminatory practices of big-money corporate interests.

In American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, over a bizarre dissent by a third judge, Judges Kevin Newsom and Robert Luck upheld an injunction against a venture capital fund with tens of millions of dollars in assets that gives money only to businesses owned by black women. Nobody else is eligible even to apply.

The plaintiff, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, sued on behalf of three of its members—business owners who aren’t black women and, therefore, aren’t allowed to compete in Fearless Fund Management’s funding process.

Fearless Fund was apparently fearless about violating anti-discrimination laws.

The threshold question was whether the American Alliance for Equal Rights had standing to sue on behalf of its members. Each member provided an affidavit showing he was “able and ready” to participate in Fearless Fund’s competition, meet all prerequisites but the racial one, and have concrete plans to use the funds they would get to build up their businesses if they weren’t racially excluded.

That is all that’s required to establish standing, according to Newsom and Luck, and they are correct—these business owners have an obvious claim since they are explicitly excluded from applying for the $20,000 in venture capital offered by Fearless Fund in its grant contest.

Yes, Fearless Fund discriminates against members of the Alliance for Equal Rights because of their race, but that isn’t enough to establish standing, according to Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee. In her dissent, Rosenbaum accused the alliance of “flopping”—that is, faking an injury the way soccer players do by flopping on the field—“to manipulate the referee into inappropriately exercising his power to award a penalty kick in the box.”

That’s a strange position to take in the 21st century. According to Rosenbaum’s illogic, members of the NAACP who, during the Jim Crow era, avoided hotels, restaurants, and buses where they knew they’d be turned away would be “flopping” because they didn’t go in and actually get turned away.

This retrograde view of civil rights ignores that, as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it recently, “discrimination is harm.” It would also force victims of discrimination into humiliating and even potentially dangerous situations before letting them seek justice.

It’s curious, isn’t it, how efforts to defend the race discrimination that is now trendy and politically correct in academia, the media, and the corporate world so often end up tolerating the race discrimination that was trendy in the past? The only difference between today and the 1960s is which race is being discriminated against and which is benefiting.

But Newsom and Luck took a principled view and reminded Rosenbaum, their fellow judge, that

we’re talking about real-live, flesh-and-blood individuals who were excluded from the opportunity to compete in Fearless’s contest solely on account of the color of their skin. Respectfully, victims of race discrimination—whether white, black, or brown—are not ‘floppers.’

They face very real race discrimination, and that discrimination, Newsom and Luck recognized, is forbidden by federal law.

The lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which, as the judges pointed out in their June 3 ruling, prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts. In fact, the entry form for applicants specifically said it was a “contract.” But Fearless Fund “conspicuously” changed that to take out the contract language after the lawsuit was filed in an obvious attempt to avoid the legal consequences of violating federal law.

In defense of its discrimination, Fearless Fund argued, in essence, that it was allowed to discriminate “so long as there are prospective funders out there who aren’t discriminating.” Newsom and Luck dismissed that argument as “anathema to the principles that underlie all antidiscrimination provisions.”

There is no doubt that the Southern racists of a long-gone era would have loved that argument. By Fearless Fund’s logic, so long as some hotels, restaurants, and buses served black people, they would be free to discriminate against black Americans.

We know that was wrong then. And it is still wrong today, as is discriminating against anyone on the basis of race.

In a last-ditch attempt to defend its discrimination, Fearless Fund argued that it had a free-speech right to engage in racial discrimination. But Newsom and Luck dismantled that argument too. There is a “critical distinction between advocating race discrimination and practicing it,” they said.

And again, an example from the past proves the point. If a restaurateur banned black people from his restaurant, he would certainly be making a statement, but while the First Amendment would protect his right to say racist things, it would not protect his act of discriminatory exclusion.

So, too, today.

Of course, the trendy race discrimination that Fearless Fund practiced has its defenders. A quick internet search will reveal angry pundits saying that the decision is racist, that it “fails black women,” that it represents “a sick victory,” and that it amounts to “using historic civil rights laws to attack black people.”

But take their arguments out of the thick cloud of rhetoric that pervades our era and apply them to the discrimination of the last one, and you will find what Rosenbaum missed—that to defend discrimination today is to excuse discrimination yesterday. There were angry pundits then, too, who no doubt argued that the ending of segregation and discrimination against blacks was a “sick victory” and an “attack on white people.”

The wiser path is to rise above our era and find the principles that transcend all of them, as Newsom and Luck did. Racial discrimination is always wrong—there is never any justification for it. And it is about time that the corporate world of American business recognized that, just as American universities have been forced to do.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/17/appeals-court-deals-blow-to-racial-discrimination-by-big-money-corporate-interests/

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

Pope Francis bans traditional Mass at Melbourne’s St Patrick’s

This is a disgraceful fiat by a "progressive" Pope. The Tridentine mass is one of the few growth areas for the church, as well as being comforting to older Catholics

In a move that has shocked and upset hundreds of Catholics in Melbourne, the Vatican has banned the traditional Latin Mass from the city’s St Patrick’s Cathedral.

The final traditional Mass will be offered on Wednesday, June 19, at 5.30pm. By essentially ordering traditional Catholics to get out of their own cathedral, the ban is stirring up tensions and divisions.

On Wednesday evening Mass, which has been a regular feature of cathedral worship for 13 years, drew a crowd of more than 150, mainly young people, including city workers not aligned with traditional parishes.

Veronica Sidhu, who attended the Mass, said it was solemn, uplifting and sad because worshippers knew it was coming it an end, as well as devotional, with “heavenly’’ choir singing.

“There was a mix of people – city workers and tradies _ including a dad who went to Communion with one toddler on his shoulders and was holding another by the hand,’’ she said. “Has Pope Francis or Archbishop Comensoli ever attended a Mass like it?’’

Ms Sidhu said that after years of contributing energy and resources to the church in Melbourne she felt “appalled’’ to be excluded from her own Cathedral.

The priest who said that Mass, Father Shawn Murphy, 34, who was ordained a year ago, told The Australian: “The Cathedral is the mother church of the Archdiocese and like a mother should be welcoming to all her children.’’

Father Murphy, the Assistant priest of the St John Henry Newman old rite parish in Caulfield North in Melbourne where he leads the young adults’ group, said members of the group were distressed, shocked and disbelieving about the decision.

“What is so tragic is that unlike previous oppressions of the Mass and the faithful, in England under the Tudors, during the French Revolution and in prison camps of the Soviet Union and China, this oppression is coming from within the church,’’ Fr Murphy said.

It was a blow against Christian and Western cultural heritage and causing confusion, especially among the young, he said. St Patrick’s Cathedral had been built for the traditional Mass in the late 19th century, he said.

The ban was imposed by Archbishop Peter Comensoli, who had no choice, following a direction from the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship.

It is the next step in a campaign by Pope Francis to crush the traditional rite, which evolved through the early centuries of the church and was largely unchanged for about 1500 years until the mid-1960s. It was phased out following the second Vatican Council, replaced by the more prosaic novus ordo (New Mass), usually said in the vernacular.

The traditional Mass was given fresh impetus by Saint John Paul II in the 1980s and by Pope Benedict in 2007, who affirmed the right of all priests to say Mass using the traditional rite (now known as the “extraordinary form”), without the permission of bishops. Benedict’s letter also clarified the fact that the Traditional rite was never abrogated.

While those changes were initially expected to accommodate older Catholics who remember the pre-1969 Latin Mass, the growth in attendance stunned church leaders as young families and 20-something and 30-somethings discovered the Old Mass and stayed. Along with Pentecostalism, it is one of the main growth areas of Christianity around the world, with new societies of priests established in the US and Europe to train priests in the Old Rite.

Francis overturned his predecessors’ initiatives three years ago, in a document ironically entitled Traditionis Custodes (Custodians of Tradition), which crushed centuries of tradition.

Cardinal George Pell, an adherent of the New Mass, who respected the principle of choice and inclusivity for Catholics who preferred the Old Mass, predicted that Traditionis Custodes “would not outlive the current pontificate’’.

In June 1992, an auxiliary bishop in Melbourne, the then Bishop Pell celebrated the first Solemn Pontifical Mass (an extraordinary form High Mass said by a bishop) in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, or in any Australian cathedral, since 1969.

Ms Sidhu said the latest decision from the Vatican was divisive, denied Catholics choice, and had an element of coercion – trying to force worshippers to attend the New Mass against their will.

Traditionis Custodes stipulates that the traditional Mass is “not to take place any longer’’ in normal parishes. But bishops around Australia, including Archbishop Comensoli, have used their authority and discretion in implementing it, with a view to the pastoral needs of growing numbers of worshippers, especially the young and converts, who were drawn to the transcendence and gravitas of the Old Rite.

The Wednesday evening Cathedral Mass survived, until Archbishop Comensoli sought further guidance from the Vatican.

In a letter to Archbishop Comensoli, Archbishop Vittorio Viola, Secretary of the Dicastery for Worship, said it was not “appropriate for the antecedent liturgy to be celebrated in the place that should serve as an example for the liturgical life of the entire diocese’’.

Father Glen Tattersall, Parish Priest of Newman parish in Caulfield in Melbourne, said the weekly traditional Latin Mass began at St Patrick’s in 2011, granted in response to a petition by Catholic laity. “I had the privilege of celebrating the majority of those Masses over the following years,’’ Fr Tattersall said. “There was a pause during Covid, but we returned after the lockdowns.

“This Mass was loved by many. It was fitting that the rite of Mass for which the Cathedral was built was returned to it, and had an honoured place in the life of the Archdiocese of Melbourne.

“It was also a particular demonstration of the communion of Catholics attached to this form of the Mass, with the Archbishop of Melbourne. The Mass was celebrated peacefully up to now with the blessing of the former and current Archbishops.

“I can personally attest to the many graces, including those of conversion, that have been granted through this Mass. It has borne only good fruit. But now, we learn that the Holy See has directed that the Mass be discontinued – causing widespread sadness and distress.

“In fact, the historical form of Mass is a constituent part of tradition and cannot be lawfully suppressed or forbidden. But in this Pontificate neither orthodox doctrine nor the law of the Church counts for anything.

“Everything is about power, and those in power in Rome insist that this Mass must stop. Archbishop Comensoli has been treated by the Holy See not as a Successor of the Apostles – which he is as Archbishop – but as the flunky of a remote and heartless bureaucracy. It seems that Pope Francis has suppressed Vatican II as well as the old Mass!’’

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/pope-francis-bans-traditional-mass-at-melbournes-st-patricks/news-story/af2d609bfea7fadcc4aea5e202d745a2

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

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

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

Farage for Westminster

The Farage factor is inbound and on board for the July 4 UK General Election in what is fast becoming a metaphorical D-Day.

The political difference between now and 80 years ago?

This isn’t a Battle for Britain, it’s a fight to save what’s left of Britain.

By entering the race, Nigel Farage’s former Brexit Party has put what he calls the social democrat uniparty – made up of the Conservative-lite Tories and Marxian-Woke UK Labour – on notice.

His chief political aim is modest.

Prompted by political realism, Farage isn’t overestimating his chances, or underestimating those of his opponents.

With conservative infighting and relentless inaction, he believes the election is done and dusted.

UK Labour will win government, Nigel predicted, adding all that’s left to find out is what kind of majority UK voters will hand them.

Alongside widespread concerns about uninvited Islamification, and un-vetted mass immigration, Nigel Farage said his decision to step up was influenced by supporters.

In an intimate update on X, Farage explained his reasons, saying, he realised the reluctance to lead Reform UK into the carnage was letting millions of supporters down.

‘How could I. In fact, how dare I, let down these millions of people who helped me gain the biggest constitutional win for centuries by getting the UK out of the EU.’

He added, ‘I changed my mind. I’m going to do it.’

Crediting Tony Mack for stepping aside – Mack will take on a role as campaign manager – Farage said, first, ‘I’m going to stand, and I’m going to stand in Clacton.’

Second, ‘I’m coming back as the leader of Reform UK, not just for this election, for the next 5 years, up until the 2029 General election.’

Farage said he believes the election is ‘done already’, stating, Labour will win and there’ll be no real opposition, because the Tories will be too busy fighting each other.

‘They will not form a coherent opposition to a Labour government led by socialist, Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, that is going to be at best incompetent, perhaps even worse than that,’ Farage argued.

‘They’re going to nationalise energy production, to turn us all Green; well, I think, goodness only knows what that’s going to cost everybody.’

Determined to make Reform UK a tour de force with serious political punch, he said,

‘For Democracy to function there needs to be a proper coherent opposition voice, and that is the short-term aim of Reform UK.’

The aim is to ‘get a bridgehead into that Parliament to provide the voice of opposition’.

Farage then welcomed any conservatives on the ‘right side of the argument’ to join Reform UK.

‘We’re not here as wreckers. We’re here as builders.’

As Caldron Pool reported in January, Farage’s decision to enter the fight is neither a backflip, nor is it an act of desperation.

Although cagey, Farage has never completely ruled out another Westminster re-run.

He also polled well in Clacton earlier this year, suggesting he could win the Essex seat.

Notably, the Brexit pioneer’s bombshell announcement triggered the usual left-wing double standard on extremism and political violence.

In what could have been anything from acid to anthrax, Labour supporter, and OnlyFans ‘model’ Victoria Thomas-Bowen, allegedly lunged at Farage, throwing her milkshake over him, as he left a pub on the campaign trail.

Responding, popular public thinker, Konstantin Kisin, said the acceptance of left-wing political violence is ‘largely a product of the fact that left-wing extremism is never actually described as extremism’.

‘What is considered extreme is pointing out that there is a problem with any of this.’

‘Destroying your country’s history and culture is not considered extreme, but defending it is,’ he concluded.

Tommy Robinson, another ‘Stand up to Racism’ target, rightly criticised the left’s intimidation tactics, saying, ‘Whatever you think of Farage, he shouldn’t have to live like this.’

Woke-Marxian extremism is another reason for Farage’s fight to save what remains of Britain.

He was infamously debanked in 2023 for political reasons. He was berated, threatened, and accused of spreading misinformation when he called that out.

To this is said, ‘If they can do it to me, they can do it to you.’

Reform UK isn’t just the party of BREXIT, it’s also the first anti-lockdown party. In April 2020, an initially supportive Farage baulked at Covid rules saying, ‘I will not be put under house arrest by police and politicians, or anybody else.’

Farage furthered the Left’s hatred by joining the groundswell of discerning voters who rejected the West’s ‘ridiculous,’ walk hand-in-hand with the CCP down lockdown lover’s lane.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/farage-factor-anchors-reforms-fight-to-save-britain/

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

Parents, Not Lax Regulation, To Blame for Tweens' Excessive Screen Time

Instead of calling on the federal government to regulate tween and teen use of social media, perhaps we should look a little closer to home. A new study suggests parental policies and habits around screens are a significant predictor of problematic use among adolescents.

One major finding: Kids getting too much "screen time" are more likely to have parents who get too much screen time.

"One of the biggest predictors of adolescents' screen use is their parents' screen use," pediatrician and lead study author Jason Nagata told The Washington Post.

'Associations Between Media Parenting Practices and Early Adolescent Screen Use'

This was a massive study looking at the screen habits of more than 10,000 kids ages 12 and 13. Published in the journal Pediatric Research, the study—"Associations between media parenting practices and early adolescent screen use"—looked at how often parents used cellphones or other screens around their kids and family policies surrounding technology, such as whether screens were often employed during meal times (35.6 percent said yes), whether kids had access to screens in their bedrooms (46.2 percent said yes), and whether parents monitored and/or limited screen time during the week (67.4 percent and 76.2 percent said yes).

Researchers also examined how often the children of these parents engaged in tech-based activities (including using social media, playing video games, and being on a cell phone generally) and how this affected various aspects of their lives.

The researchers found that "parent screen use, family mealtime screen use, and bedroom screen use were associated with greater adolescent screen time and problematic social media, video game, and mobile phone use."

In addition, "parental use of screens to control behavior (e.g., as a reward or punishment) was associated with higher screen time and greater problematic video game use."

On the flip side, "parental monitoring of screens was associated with lower screen time and less problematic social media and mobile phone use," and "parental limit setting of screens was associated with lower screen time and less problematic social media, video game, and mobile phone use."

Challenging Conventional Wisdom

The findings challenge several prominent ideas in the teens and tech space, including the idea that parents are powerless to influence their children's screen-time habits. That alleged parental powerlessness is often offered as a reason for regulating digital spaces by setting age minimums for joining social media sites and banning "addictive" features like algorithmic feeds and endless scrolling.

Likewise, the study challenges the idea that tween and teen peers are the main influence on their screen habits, suggesting that parental habits as well as family policies around screens can have a significant—maybe more significant—effect.

There are various ways in which this influence could work.

Perhaps ample screen time by parents has an instructive influence, normalizing the idea that it's OK to be on one's phone or computer all the time. Perhaps parents who use screens a lot are just more permissive of kids' screen use. Perhaps excessive childhood screen time is spawned as a response to a lack of attention or guardrails from parents who are enmeshed in their own screens.

In any event, the findings "were consistent with various prior studies, which have suggested that greater parental screen time use is associated with greater screen time in younger children and more frequent co-use of screens with children," note the researchers.

A Missing Link in the Mental Health Puzzle?
The new findings could also represent a missing piece of the puzzle when it comes to technology and youth mental health.

There are a lot of folks intent on blaming social media—or screens more broadly—for a rise in teen mental health issues. Megan Moreno, co-director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health, told the Post that the message about social media and mental health has spread "almost to the edge of moral panic" despite the fact that the evidence "hasn't been there."

Part of the trouble with these "tech makes teens sad/anxious/etc." narratives is that they tend to ignore other explanations for rises in self-reported symptoms, self-harm activities, or mental illness diagnoses. The other big issue is that they look at links between symptoms and screen usage and simply assume the direction of causality, positing that too much screen time causes social, psychiatric, or behavioral problems when it's possible that existing problems lead some kids to turn to screens as an escape.

If kids who spend too much time on screens also have parents who spend too much time on screens, that could suggest other mechanisms for the mental health and screen time association.

Parents who find themselves susceptible to addiction-like behavior with screens may possess some genetic traits that their offspring share, predisposing both to problematic tech use.

Ample parental screen time could mean a parent has a heavy workload that leaves too little time for their kids, and this lack of parental investment could lead to both mental or behavioral problems and a lot of screen time.

Or perhaps too much parental phone use signifies a sort of parenting style that spawns various negative issues with children.

Any or all of the above scenarios seems plausible and posits a link between screen time and mental health issues that goes beyond the simplistic idea that using social media or smartphones directly triggers depression and anxiety.

https://reason.com/2024/06/17/parents-not-lax-regulation-to-blame-for-tweens-excessive-screen-time/#:~:text=A%20new%20study%20suggests%20parental,get%20too%20much%20screen%20time .

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

Nashville Shooter’s Manifesto Released Despite FBI Resistance

A Leftist transgender!

The 2023 Nashville Covenant School murders understandably received massive news coverage when they occurred. The fight over obtaining the murderer’s diary also received news attention. But when “nearly four dozen pages” of the murderer’s diary were finally released earlier this month, the mainstream media completely ignored it.

It turns out that behind the scenes, the FBI had fought hard against the diary’s release. Some Covenant School parents also opposed releasing the diary because it would force families to re-live the nightmare. The Tennessee Star’s parent company, Star News Digital Media, successfully filed two lawsuits to obtain the diary.

Five days after the release of the diary, with the exception of the New York Post, which is a national news outlet, the news coverage was limited to seven other conservative outlets such as The Daily Wire and Newsbusters.

The school murderer was transgender, and her diary reveals a suicidal left-winger who hated whites. The FBI expressed concern that the release of the diary from a transgender person could lead the public “to dismiss the attacker as mentally ill,” which would “further permeate the false narrative that the majority of attackers are mentally ill.” It worried that the diary could “potentially inflam[e] the public.”

The FBI worried that releasing the diary could have “unintended consequences for the segment of the population more vulnerable or open to conspiracy theories, which will undoubtedly abound.” Self-professed “experts,” the FBI fears, will “proffer their perspectives” in the press.

But there is a lot of important information in the diary. As is very typical of mass public shooters, the murderer was suicidal: “A terrible feeling to know I am nothing of the gender I was born of. I am the most unhappy boy alive. I wish to be dead.” She was also on the anti-anxiety drug Buspirone, whose potential side effects include “abnormal dreams, outbursts of anger, tremors, and physical weakness.”

The FBI worries that the diary will help create a link in people’s minds between mass murderers and mental illness, but suicidal people presumably have some mental health problems. Nor should the link be particularly surprising given that the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that 51% of mass public shooters in the last 25 years were actually seeing mental health care professionals before their attacks. That is 2.5 times the rate in the general public.

The FBI acknowledged that Americans want to “understand what led to such tragic events.” But the FBI argued these statements “seldom provide the answers” and the diaries and manifestos were “often misleading.” Yet the national media appears completely uninterested in why these murderers pick the targets they do and how their motivation to get media coverage is important in understanding how to stop these attacks.

The diary showed that the murderer had picked the Covenant School because it was a soft, unprotected target. Even if the national media ignored these comments, Metro Nashville Police Chief John Drake, who had access to the diary, said on the day of the attack, “There was another location that was mentioned, but because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security, they decided not to.” A couple of days later, Nashville Council member Robert Swope stated that the murderer “looked at” two other Nashville public schools before deciding “the security was too great to do what she wanted to do.”

While the FBI worries that many of “the offenders themselves do not fully grasp or comprehend” what they are writing, there is a logic to attacking facilities assumed to be gun-free zones, like the Covenant School, and trying to maximize the amount of media coverage that they receive. The FBI may not want to acknowledge this, and the media may not want to cover these points, but we see it consistently in these attacks.

The mass murderer wanted to get attention for the difficulties facing transgender individuals. She compared trans individuals to other groups in a way that indicates she clearly believed that transgender people didn’t have the same rights: “Disabled have rights, civil races have rights, LGBTQ have rights, gun owners have rights.” But referring to the life of transgender people, she declared: “ … with no rights, anyone’s country is a s—– dictatorship.”

The news media and the FBI under the Biden administration are attempting to control the information available to Americans about a mentally troubled woman who identified as a man. The Biden administration is free to argue against linking transgender issues to mental illness or mass murder, but censoring the information is not the right approach.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/17/nashville-shooters-manifesto-released-despite-fbi-resistance/

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

Texas Doctor Faces Prison for Whistleblowing on Secret Child Gender Procedures

The Department of Justice is targeting a Texas whistleblower who exposed Texas Children’s Hospital secretly performing attempted gender-transition procedures on children.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas announced Monday that it had indicted 34-year-old Eithan Haim for “obtaining protected individual health information for patients that were not under his care and without authorization.”

If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 maximum possible fine.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Texas Children’s had publicly said in March 2022 that it would no longer perform attempted gender-transition procedures on kids. In May 2023, Haim provided journalist Christopher Rufo with documents showing that Texas Children’s was “lying to the public about the existence of its transgender-medicine program,” as Haim later revealed in an explosive January 2024 piece.

“I worked at the hospital as a surgery resident, and I knew that these interventions didn’t stop,” Haim wrote. “Three days after the announcement, a surgeon implanted a hormone device in a healthy 11-year-old girl for gender dysphoria. Over the next year, the frequency of these procedures increased, and potentially hundreds more children received hormone interventions for gender dysphoria.”

“Meantime, the director of a program that supposedly no longer existed was given the opportunity to speak at the hospital’s most prestigious lecture series in January 2023,” he continued. “I knew that it was my moral responsibility to expose what was happening to these children.”

Haim told The Free Press that before he gave Rufo any of the documents, he made sure that the patient’s names and identifying information were redacted (to protect himself from violating HIPAA and to protect the patients’ privacy).

The very next day after Rufo published Haim’s (then anonymous) May 2023 expose, the Texas Legislature banned these experimental gender-transition attempts for minors.

A month later, two federal agents came to Haim’s home to speak with him. They told him that he was a “potential target” of an investigation into federal criminal violations related to medical records.

“It was clear to me that this was a political investigation; I refused to submit to an interview without an attorney,” he wrote in City Journal.

After this, Haim went public with his story.

“To these agents, the prosecutor, and their political handlers, I was a criminal because I had told the truth,” he wrote. “It didn’t matter that we exposed the fact that the largest children’s hospital in the world was lying to the public about the existence of a program in which children were manipulated, mutilated, and even sterilized. It didn’t matter that the practice that they were lying about had now become illegal. It didn’t matter that I had committed no crime.”

“None of this mattered, I believe, because I had exposed a truth that threatened their ideology,” Haim added. “This was the reason for their frightening show of force. The intent was to intimidate me. If I agreed to stay silent, though, I would be legitimizing their lies and sacrificing the truth. Instead, I decided to fight back.”

Haim is now set to make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Yvonne Y. Ho in Houston, Texas.

“The four-count indictment alleges Haim obtained personal information including patient names, treatment codes and the attending physician from Texas Children’s Hospital’s (TCH) electronic system without authorization,” says the U.S. Attorney’s Office release. “He allegedly obtained this information under false pretenses and with intent to cause malicious harm to TCH.”

Texas Children’s did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal.

Haim joined “The Daily Signal Podcast” in March to share his story.

“What’s going to happen now is we’re going to do everything we can, [with] every fiber of my being, to hold them accountable,” Haim told The Daily Signal at the time. “We’re never going to stop until we succeed. So they thought they were going to intimidate me. They thought I was going to bend the knee to their evil ideology, like most doctors would have done. But as they were coming to find out, they had knocked on the wrong door.”

Haim is one of a number of Americans who have faced DOJ charges related to hot-button culture war issues. Armed FBI agents arrested Mark Houck, a Catholic father of seven and pro-life activist, in front of his children over an incident outside an abortion clinic that had been dismissed by local authorities.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/17/texas-doctor-faces-prison-for-whistleblowing-on-secret-child-gender-procedures/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

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

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

What is 'tolyamory'?

A good new word. I obviously won't go into details but I have been involved in a version of this in the past -- with no hard feelings involved

You might have heard of polyamory, the practice of more than one romantic partner, but we bet not many of you have heard of tolyamory.

This new term, recently coined in the US, might not be as uncommon as you think.

Tolyamory is not discussed or agreed upon by both parties, whereas polyamory is. If you haven’t already guessed what it could be, here’s what you need to know.

What is tolyamory?

The term tolyamory was created by podcaster and sex and relationship columnist Dan Savage. It's a portmanteau that combines the terms "tolerate" and "polyamory" and describes a relationship dynamic where one or both parties tolerate or put up with the other's extramarital or sexual encounters.

In contrast to other consensual non-monogamy practices like polyamory, this one isn't something the couple have formally discussed and agreed upon.

The word was introduced in a January episode on Savage’s podcast, where he described it as “someone willing to turn a blind eye to a lap dance or a brief affair after years of marriage”.

He added: “They’re able to focus on all the ways their spouse demonstrates their commitment and shows their love. And all of those other ways compensate or make the cheating that might be happening tolerable. These people aren’t fools or dupes.

“They’re not to be pitied - they know what they signed up for and long ago made peace with what they got. They’re willing to put up with it - a certain amount of it - reconciled to it, willing to tolerate it. They are, in a word, tolyamorous.”

Although we don’t know how prevalent it is at the moment, it is becoming quite common, according to relationship researchers.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/what-tolyamory-infidelity-relationships-cheating-b1163403.html

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

Shocking moment black woman slaps random white child in the face before facing instant karma

More of the racial antagonism that Leftists foster

This is the shocking moment a woman randomly attacks a child before a bystander stepped in to deliver instant retribution.

Surveillance footage shows a mother casually walking with her daughter on a sidewalk in Brazil as the assailant approaches them from the opposite direction.

The woman suddenly extends her arm and smacks the girl in the face as they pass each other in broad daylight.

The mother prepares to retaliate when her frightened daughter pulls her back just as the wild woman took another swing at them but this time missing.

However, a man who witnessed the attack, did not hold back and bolted toward the woman, kicking her in the mid-section.

The woman immediately falls to the ground and the man tries to kick her three more times, but only connects once.

She then admonishes the man and appears ready to fight him, too, when a female bystander intervenes.

Other onlookers can be seen checking on the well-being of the mother and her daughter.

Social media users sided with the man's decision for coming to the aid of the defenseless mother and child.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13527337/moment-woman-slaps-stranger-daughter-karma.html

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

James Carville Concedes There's One Voter Bloc Dems Are Absolutely Going to Lose

Democratic Party strategist James Carville ruffled many a feminist feather when he said that the messaging for liberals had become too female-oriented. It was preachy, whiny women telling everyone else how to live their lives. He was criticized by hordes of liberal commentators, many of whom will never come close to the political achievements Carville has amassed. Whether you love or hate him, Carville knows how to win elections. We should be happy Democrats aren’t listening to him—he could turn things around for his party with his ‘don’t be a snob’ attitude.

On Donny Deutsch’s podcast, Carville expounded on how most people want to live their lives. Working Americans like to drink and watch football games. Some might even participate in recreational drug use. Who cares—we have these shrill women telling us not to eat meat, not to watch sports, and to be carbon copies of the insufferable masses who shop at Whole Foods. One voter bloc Carville seems resigned to losing is Hispanic males.

“We’re going to f**king lose them,” he exclaimed.

And it’s not just Hispanic men; it’s a male problem across the board.

But the overall problem Carville highlights for liberals is that people are sick of the “cosmopolitan condescension” from the Left, which Carville notes gives Donald Trump a massive appeal to voters. The Left couldn’t care less, being more preoccupied with whether they’re on the right side of this arc of history. That’s a privileged position; most of us have to go to work.

No one likes a snob. Democrats are the embodiment of that arrogance because they’re a regional, coastal, and urban-based party. They’re the people who kill the mood with debates about issues that don’t impact most of the country, like pronouns. They’re the ones who decide who can speak in a discussion based on education level. How often have you heard people say, ‘I have a degree,’ as if that’s a valid point in a debate? Most degrees are worthless.

These people also have a very dark affinity for radical Islamic terrorism and antisemitism. So, if you see a Democrat, they probably hate Jewish people. How that hasn’t become a topic—a neo-Jewish diaspora from the Democratic Party—remains a mystery.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/06/14/james-carville-concedes-theres-one-voter-bloc-dems-are-absolutely-going-to-lose-n2640463

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

Inside the push to scrap NSW’s ‘no body, no parole’ laws

This is a stupid and evil law that could well keep innocent people in prison. Finding the body is important in securng a conviction but after that is of sentimental importance only. A discretionary 10% cut in the parole period after a conviction would be a much better way of encouraging disclosure

On September 20, 2022, just weeks after Chris Dawson was convicted of murdering his wife Lynette following a trial that gripped the country, then-NSW premier Dominic Perrottet announced a tightening of the state’s parole laws.

Convicted killers who “wilfully and deliberately” refused to reveal the whereabouts of their victims’ remains would be ineligible for release on parole, Perrottet said. The changes, referred to as “Lyn’s law”, were rushed through parliament and passed on October 13.

Dawson’s appeal against his conviction for the 1982 killing of Lynette Joy Simms was dismissed last week by NSW’s top criminal appeal court. He was sentenced in December 2022 to a maximum of 24 years in prison with a non-parole period of 18 years.

A year was added to his non-parole period last year, after he was convicted of unlawful sexual activity with a then-pupil in 1980.

Dawson is first eligible for release in August 2041, aged 93, but Lyn’s law will keep him behind bars until he is 98, unless he co-operates with authorities about the location of her remains.

Lynette’s family and the couple’s elder daughter have pleaded with Dawson to allow them to “bring her home”, and the “no body, no parole” laws are backed by advocates for victims of crime.

But the changes may have no practical application to Dawson at all.

NSW Supreme Court Ian Harrison acknowledged in his sentencing decision that Dawson, now 75, would “not live to reach the end of his non-parole period” or would be “seriously disabled well before then even if he does”.

It is the potential application of the laws to other prisoners that has raised alarm bells.

Folbigg, Chamberlain-Creighton unite

This month, the women at the centre of two of Australia’s biggest miscarriages of justice, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton and Kathleen Folbigg, joined a coalition of high-profile lawyers fighting for the “no body, no parole” laws to be overturned.

In an open letter, organised by the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative (BOHII) at RMIT University and delivered to Attorney-General Michael Daley, more than 100 signatories including Folbigg and Chamberlain-Creighton called for the laws to be scrapped due to their “disastrous” consequences for wrongfully convicted prisoners.

Lawyer Rhanee Rego, who acted for Folbigg in the inquiry that led last year to her acquittal over the deaths of her four young children after 20 years in prison, said the laws “should be repealed”.

“Wrongfully convicted people cannot help locate a body if they have not committed the crime,” Rego said.

“Importantly, the same legislation enacted in 2017 in Queensland is not having the desired effect. The legislation does not appear to increase the instances of offenders assisting to locate bodies.”

In the first case to test the new laws, Keli Lane, who was convicted in 2010 of the murder of her infant daughter, Tegan, was denied parole last month after serving her minimum sentence of 13 years and 5 months.

Tegan’s body has never been found and Lane maintains she gave the baby to her daughter’s father, who has never come forward. BOHII has called for an urgent review of her case. The 49-year-old is set to remain behind bars until her 18-year sentence expires in December 2028.

Judge in Lane case speaks out

Anthony Whealy, KC, a former judge of the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, presided over Lane’s jury trial and is a signatory to the open letter.

“The general proposition is this: hard cases make bad law, and [these laws] … stemmed essentially from the Chris Dawson trial,” Whealy said.

“One can understand that that was a traumatic trial, and it was certainly so for [Lynette Simms’ family], very much so, and so the government rushes to make a law without thinking of the consequences.”

Whealy noted that “it was always possible under the existing law for the parole body to take into account the fact that somebody was refusing to cooperate indicating where a victim’s body might be found”.

‘The impact of that [parole] door slamming shut, the emotional, psychological damage that would do to someone, [is profound].’

“The fact that they can’t tell you where the body is should be merely a discretionary factor and not a mandatory exclusion from parole,” he said. “We should go back to what the law was originally.”

Judges imposing murder sentences “will have very carefully given a sentence which embodies the principal period during which someone must be in jail and the period where it’s reasonable for them to be released on parole”, Whealy said.

“That would have taken into account the fact that they were refusing to admit that they were guilty … and had [not] demonstrated any remorse.”

During his second reading speech, the then-corrections minister Geoff Lee said the “no body, no parole” bill “recognises the pain and ongoing suffering experienced by victims’ families and friends who have not only lost a loved one but are unable to locate their remains and put them to rest”.

But Whealy said that in Lane’s case “the person whose grief and distress would need to be recognised was Keli Lane herself”, in the absence of Tegan’s biological father, and it was “absolutely ludicrous to say that this law should be applied to her”.

Professor Michele Ruyters, director of the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative, said: “If the purpose of the legislation is to provide closure to victims’ families, and if that’s not possible because the families are not lobbying for this outcome, or there is no family, as in Keli’s case, then the only purpose of these laws is to punish.”

“That’s not the job of the [State] Parole Board,” Ruyters said.

In Lane’s case, she had been taking steps preparatory to release and then “all of a sudden that door is shut and then she’s back into the mainstream prison”, Ruyters said.

“From a human rights aspect, the impact of that door slamming shut, the emotional, psychological damage that would do to someone, [is profound].”

The government response

A NSW government spokesperson did not respond directly to the open letter but said the laws require an offender to “cooperate to locate the remains of the victim, not that the victim’s remains are actually found.”

“If the offender cooperates satisfactorily, they could be granted parole. If the offender does not cooperate, they will not be granted parole.”

Parole “rewards good behaviour”, the spokesperson said, and the laws were designed to “incentivise offenders to disclose the location of a victim’s remains, to provide closure to the victim’s family.”

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/inside-the-push-to-scrap-nsw-s-no-body-no-parole-laws-20240613-p5jlg0.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

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

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

Is fake meat bad for you?

This is a funny one. Food freaks are suspicious of highly processed food, but overlook that fake meat is a highly processed food. There has been quite an upsurge in sales of fake meat in the last couple of years so it seems that lots of people think they are doing themslves some good by avoiding the dreaded red meat. So some journalists are having fun with that. They are condemning fake meat as unhealthy.

Real vegetarians won't be bothered. They mostly live on lightly processed legumes -- nutmeat and the like -- as a protein source. Fake meat would be a low priority for them

I have never had any time for fake meat. I had a very nice piece of thinly sliced Scotch fillet steak for dinner last night washed down by a good Australian Shiraz. The wine:

So it is all a non-issue to me. I have always eaten whatever I fancy and at age 80, living with no pain or discomfort, I think I have had the last laugh. But it is nice to see a piece of research intelligently dissected below. I don't agree with all her conclusions but for someone writing in a mainstream source she does pretty well. She is a clever Greek girl, judging by her name

By EVANGELINE MANTZIORIS

We're hearing a lot about ultra-processed foods and the health effects of eating too many. And we know plant-based foods are popular for health or other reasons.

So it's not surprising new research out this week including the health effects of ultra-processed, plant-based foods is going to attract global attention.

And the headlines can be scary if that research and the publicity surrounding it suggests eating these foods increases your risk of heart disease, stroke or dying early.

Here's how some media outlets interpreted the research. The Daily Mail ran with:

Vegan fake meats are linked to increase in heart deaths, study suggests: Experts say plant-based diets can boost health – but NOT if they are ultra-processed

The New York Post's headline was:

Vegan fake meats linked to heart disease, early death: study

But when we look at the study itself, it seems the media coverage has focused on a tiny aspect of the research, and is misleading.

So does eating supermarket plant-based burgers and other plant-based, ultra-processed foods really put you at greater risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death?

Here's what prompted the research and what the study actually found.

Remind me, what are ultra-processed foods?

Ultra-processed foods undergo processing and reformulation with additives to enhance flavour, shelf-life and appeal. These include everything from packet macaroni cheese and pork sausages, to supermarket pastries and plant-based mince.

There is now strong and extensive evidence showing ultra-processed foods are linked with an increased risk of many physical and mental chronic health conditions.

Although researchers question which foods should be counted as ultra-processed, or if all of them are linked to poorer health, the consensus is that, generally, we should be eating less of them.

We also know plant-based diets are popular. These are linked with a reduced risk of chronic health conditions such as heart disease and stroke, cancer and diabetes. And supermarkets are stocking more plant-based, ultra-processed food options.

How about the new study?

The study looked for any health differences between eating plant-based, ultra-processed foods compared to eating non-plant based, ultra-processed foods. The researchers focused on the risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease and stroke) and deaths from it.

Plant-based, ultra-processed foods in this study included mass-produced packaged bread, pastries, buns, cakes, biscuits, cereals and meat alternatives (fake meats). Ultra-processed foods that were not plant-based included milk-based drinks and desserts, sausages, nuggets and other reconstituted meat products.

The researchers used data from the UK Biobank. This is a large biomedical database that contains de-identified genetic, lifestyle (diet and exercise) and health information and biological samples from half a million UK participants. This databank allows researchers to determine links between this data and a wide range of diseases, including heart disease and stroke.

They used data from nearly 127,000 people who provided details of their diet between 2009 and 2012. The researchers linked this to their hospital records and death records. On average, the researchers followed each participant's diet and health for nine years.

What did the study find?

With every 10% increase of total energy from plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods there was an associated 5% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or stroke) and a 12% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

But for every 10% increase in plant-sourced, non-ultra-processed foods consumed there was an associated 7% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 13% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

The researchers found no evidence for an association between all plant-sourced foods (whether or not they were ultra-processed) and either an increased or decreased risk of cardiovascular disease or dying from it.

This was an observational study, where people recalled their diet using questionnaires. When coupled with other data, this can only tell us if someone's diet is associated with a particular risk of a health outcome. So we cannot say that, in this case, the ultra-processed foods caused the heart disease and deaths from it.

Why has media coverage focused on fake meats?

Much of the media coverage has focused on the apparent health risks associated with eating fake meats, such as sausages, burgers, nuggets and even steaks.

These are considered ultra-processed foods. They are made by deconstructing whole plant foods such as pea, soy, wheat protein, nuts and mushrooms, and extracting the protein. They are then reformulated with additives to make the products look, taste and feel like traditional red and white meats.

However this was only one type of plant-based, ultra-processed food analysed in this study. This only accounted for an average 0.2% of the dietary energy intake of all the participants.

Compare this to bread, pastries, buns, cakes and biscuits, which are other types of plant-based, ultra-processed foods. These accounted for 20.7% of total energy intake in the study.

It's hard to say why the media focused on fake meat. But there is one clue in the media release issued to promote the research.

Although the media release did not mention the words "fake meat", an image of plant-based burgers, sausages and meat balls or rissoles featured prominently.

The introduction of the study itself also mentions plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods, such as sausages, nuggets and burgers.

So it's no wonder people can be confused.

Does this mean fake meats are fine?

Not necessarily. This study analyzed the total intake of plant-based, ultra-processed foods, which included fake meats, albeit a very small proportion of people's diets.

From this study alone we cannot tell if there would be a different outcome if someone ate large amounts of fake meats.

In fact, a recent review of fake meats found there was not enough evidence to determine their impact on health.

We also need more recent data to reflect current eating patterns of fake meats. This study used dietary data collected from 2009 to 2012, and fake meats have become more popular since.

What if I really like fake meat?

We have known for a while that ultra-processed foods can harm our health. This study tells us that regardless if an ultra-processed food is plant-based or not, it may still be harmful.

We know fake meat can contain large amounts of saturated fats (from coconut or palm oil), salt and sugar.

So like other ultra-processed foods, they should be eaten infrequently. The Australian Dietary Guidelines currently recommends people should only consume foods like this sometimes and in small amounts.

Are some fake meats healthier than others?

Check the labels and nutrition information panels. Look for those lowest in fat and salt. Burgers and sausages that are a "pressed cake" of minced ingredients such as nuts, beans and vegetables will be preferable to reformulated products that look identical to meat.

You can also eat whole plant-based protein foods such as legumes. These include beans, lentils, chickpeas and soy beans. As well as being high in protein and fibre, they also provide essential nutrients such as iron and zinc. Using spices and mushrooms alongside these in your recipes can replicate some of the umami taste associated with meat.

https://www.salon.com/2024/06/13/are-plant-based-burgers-really-for-your-heart-heres-whats-behind-the-scary-headlines_partner/

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

Mikhaila Peterson slams 'evil' fat positive movement

Peterson Academy CEO and podcast host Mikhaila Peterson has hit out at people for making “morbid obesity a positive thing”.

It comes after controversy erupted over social media following the crowning of plus-sized model Sara Milliken as Miss Alabama 2024.

“I think that making morbid obesity a positive thing is evil, to tell you the truth,” Ms Peterson said.

“There have been many studies, like Oxford I think has a study done on a hundred thousand people who died linking obesity to a ten-year earlier death, which is similar to lifelong smoking.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/other/mikhaila-peterson-slams-evil-fat-positive-movement/ar-BB1nT26b

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

Southern Baptists Vote on Women Pastors Rule, Reject Use of IVF

The Bible is very clear about a traditional role for women but obviouly says nothing about IVF, so I think this is rather an over-reach by the SBC

Representatives of the largest Protestant body in the United States narrowly rejected a proposal to ban churches with woman pastors.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 2023 had provisionally passed an amendment to their constitution that would have required member congregations to appoint only men to pastoral leadership positions or face expulsion. The measure required a second vote to become effective. That vote failed on June 12. Although 61 percent of some 10,000 delegates, referred to as messengers, voted in favor of the change, a two-thirds majority was needed.

The outcome of the vote may have little practical effect on this denomination, which has long opposed placing women in pastoral leadership.

Its doctrinal statement continues to assert that the pastoral role is for men only, and the denomination already has the ability to expel congregations who differ from this teaching.

The convention later approved a measure that opposes the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF), calling it “dehumanizing” and asking “the government to restrain” the practice.

The SBC statement of faith holds, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

The document cites several Bible passages in support of this view, including the apostle Paul’s statement that he does not allow women to serve in positions of authority over men in the church.

While some denominations view that as an absolute prohibition on the ordination of women, others, including Evangelical denominations such as the Church of the Nazarene, interpret it as guidance given to specific congregations relevant to their cultural setting.

Some SBC churches have appointed women as associate pastors under the direction of a male senior pastor.

The proposed constitutional amendment would have limited “friendly cooperation” with the SBC to a church that “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”

Mike Law, the author of the proposed amendment and pastor of Virginia’s Arlington Baptist Church, argued that the measure was not meant to discourage women from serving in churches.

“This amendment is not about women in ministry,” Mr. Law said. “It’s specifically about women in the pastoral office.”

Noting that some 1,800 women hold pastoral roles in the SBC, Mr. Law cited Bible verses that appear to limit that role to men.

He said, “Our culture may see this prohibition as harsh, but our God is all wise and wrote this word for the flourishing of both men and women.”

Objections, Implications

Some opponents of the constitutional change were not necessarily in favor of allowing women to be pastors but objected to adding the ban to the denomination’s constitution.
Churches ordaining women have been expelled from the SBC in the past.

Last year the convention refused to reinstate Saddleback Church, an Orange County, California, megachurch listed by Lifeway Research as the seventh largest congregation in the country, because of its use of women pastors and its belief that they may hold high-level leadership positions.

On June 11, the convention voted to expel a Virginia congregation that employed a woman as an associate pastor and maintained that women could serve as senior pastors.

Other opponents argued that the amendment would disproportionately affect black congregations in the SBC because they are more likely to have women serving in pastoral roles.

SBC congregations operate independently, so the denomination cannot prevent a church from having a woman as pastor.

But it can disassociate with congregations that do not comply with SBC doctrine.

The practice of IVF, a laboratory procedure used to assist women who have difficulty conceiving a child, has been the focus of greater attention since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos qualify as children under state law.

The Alabama court ruling has implications for both IVF and abortion since it recognizes an embryo as a human life.

Conservative politicians including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), a Southern Baptist, support IVF. Sens. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have cosponsored legislation to protect the procedure.

The SBC, though still formidable, has seen a steady decline in membership for the past 17 years.

After reaching a high of 16.3 million members in 2005, membership fell below 13 million by 2023, according to Lifeway Research.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/southern-baptists-vote-on-women-pastors-and-in-vitro-fertilization-5667588?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=top-news-top-stories-1

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

Australia's narcissist government

When narcissists get something wrong they aways blame other people, never themselves. Leftists have many narcissist traits. See:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/narcissist-accountability.html

and

http://jonjayray.com/leftism3.html

So the events described below are vivid evidence of how narcissistic Leftists can be


Everyone knows the story of the boy stealing apples in the orchard. When confronted by the farmer, he simply holds the apples behind his back and declares, ‘Who? Me?’

Our current prime minister fits the description of that boy very well. But his colleagues are doing an impressive impersonation as well. As Chris Kenny would say, their theme song should be ‘Not Responsible’. The rule of thumb is never cop anything on the chin; rather blame someone or something else, preferably the previous Coalition government.

You really have to laugh. In the last election campaign, Albo made much of the fact that the buck would stop with him when in government. ‘If I become prime minister, I’ll accept responsibility each and every day, not always seek to blame others.’ Yeah, right.

It’s been a wild ride. I’m tempted to award a prize for the best alternative to the dog ate my homework. ‘I’ve been travelling in the car’ is a strong contender. This was the excuse pathetically given by the Prime Minister for not commenting on the arrival of an illegal vessel to our shores. I guess because he doesn’t have a mobile phone or a phalanx of minders keeping him up to date.

And then there was this clanger: ‘This is not my proposal, but the Australian people’s proposal’, thereby diverting blame for the thumping No vote he received in the Voice referendum.

To confirm that he is still in top ‘boy in the orchard’ form, Albo recently declared that, ‘I don’t comment on court proceedings overseas to which Australia is not a party.’ This was in reference to the absurd proposal of the dubious International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, for war crimes.

Barely drawing breath, Albanese then started banging on about the overseas court proceedings involving Julian Assange. I guess he never actually promised to be consistent but that should surely be a sine qua non for any head of government.

Given that the leader sets the tone for the rest of the team, it’s hardly surprising that other team members would follow his lead in blaming anyone or anything other than themselves. Heaven forbid that they should actually take responsibility for their own actions.

How many times have we heard Home Affairs Minister, Clare O’Neil, blame the ten years of neglect by the Coalition government for her inept handling of her portfolio? (B1 also frequently uses the ten years of neglect line.) Gosh, she even had to commission an ‘independent’ review or two to criticise the handling of aspects of the migration program by the Coalition government, so we would be convinced. Of course, she had no idea what those reviews would conclude, no idea at all.

Her offsider, the hapless Andrew Giles, has developed one skill during his time in the outer ministry – attempting to throw his department under the bus for the multiple errors that he’s made. You know the sort of thing: the department didn’t tell me; the department failed to keep me informed; the department misled me.

As for the howler about drones tracking the movements of released asylum seekers, if he had thought this through, he would have quickly realised that it was an absurd proposition. But it probably sounded like solid precautionary action by one of the weakest ministers in living memory. That’ll show them a thing or two, he doubtless thought.

The fact that drones were not being used for this purpose was surely an acute embarrassment, even for a man of the left whose real aim in entering parliament was to usher in a gentle and compassionate treatment for asylum seekers, even ones who had committed heinous crimes. (Not their fault, you must understand.)

But here’s the thing: throwing your department under the bus carries real risks. The bureaucrats will always know more than the minister and they don’t appreciate their hard work – pause here for laughter – being disparaged. There are plenty of examples littering the annals of political history where the careers of ministers have been ruined by revengeful Sir Humphreys.

Giles is also wont to blame Peter Dutton for his current problems. Dutton as home affairs minister simply didn’t cancel enough visas, evidently, even though he cancelled many hundreds of them.

One example of Dutton’s strength in this portfolio was his refusal to allow the father of celebrated Richmond footballer, Dusty Martin, to enter the country from New Zealand. Mr Martin had a criminal record as long as the Nile and Dutts would simply not be moved to allow him to enter the country, even to watch his son play a Grand Final.

And even ScoMo, who was as weak as water on most issues when he was prime minister, was not having a bar of the New Zealand government’s plea to keep Kiwi criminals in Australia if they had a strong association with our country. It was only when Albo came to office and the compliant Giles, who is a strong factional mate of the PM, sloppily drafted Ministerial Direction 99 to appease fellow lefty-luvvie, Jacinda Ardern.

And then we come to Billy Boy, Bill Shorten, Minister for the NDIS. He has been around the corridors of Parliament House for some time and so he knows all the excuses. The recent information about the massive rorting of the NDIS and the infiltration of criminal groups has led Shorten to blame this entirely on the Coalition.

Well, he’s only had the job for two years. Who could expect him to have achieved anything substantial in that short time? (Speccie readers, perhaps.) The fact that Shorten emotionally rejected the Coalition’s sensible suggestions to stop some of the rot within the NDIS – independent assessment, benchmarking plans – is quietly forgotten.

Then comes the news that Services Australia engaged the services of a speechwriter for the minister costing the taxpayer a cool $620,000 for a two-year contract. Given that newspapers pay one dollar per word (or less or nothing at all), this sum was simply outrageous. We were also informed that all those zingers – yep, most of us missed them – in the minister’s speeches were his own work. Obviously, zingers would have been extra.

But Billy Boy was not taking any responsibility for this outrage. It was Services Australia’s fault. He didn’t have anything do with negotiating the contract and he was unaware of the sum of money involved. Who? Me?

It’s a very long time since a minister resigned in response to an acknowledged mistake. Ian McLachlan, who is an old-school gentleman, resigned in 1998 as defence minister when he inappropriately received some information.

To be sure, there have been ministers sacked or demoted since that time, but the idea of a senior member of the government falling on their sword because of a serious error now looks like a remote possibility. The most incompetent ministers will now grab any lifesavers floating by in order to retain the perks of office – and these days, these perks are substantial. Another case of following the money.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/ive-been-travelling-in-the-car/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

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

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