Journalism

Trump bashing efficacy

A7885F15-20F0-4EFA-B442-87D6A46A2163.jpeg

Rasmussen notes the obvious impact of a public growing tired of the broken record:

“Eighteen months after Election Day, many Democrats and their allies in Hollywood and the media continue to attack President Trump in an unprecedented fashion. But few voters think it will pay off for Trump’s opponents in the next election.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think there is too much Trump-bashing going on in the popular culture today. Thirty percent (30%) say there isn’t enough, while 21% feel the level of Trump-bashing is about right.”

Black Royalty in the Castle of White Privilege?

1137FA8D-F463-471E-97C4-AE6B8FC14FB7.jpeg

By the tone of this article, one would be led to believe that Meghan Markle has managed to pull a fast one on the Royal Family. That maybe her pathway to the Castle of White Privilege was in part due to the Queen buckling to her Twitter feed bullying her to accept diversity rather than the reality that Her Majesty, at the ripe old age of 92, just simply loves her grandchild. What grandparent wouldn’t be wounded by seeing her grandson walk behind his mother’s coffin in front of millions? Why does race have to enter this equation? She is a grandmother like any other. Queen Elizabeth has served her country with exceptional dignity for  longer than most of us have been alive. She worked in the war as a mechanic before taking the throne in 1952 and has visited most countries in the world to adoring fans, even today. Hardly a sign of an old woman with no grip on world affairs. You might recall, HRH was an ardent supporter of Brexit. Her Majesty is sharp. Yet take a look at this quote from Kalyn Wilson,

Markle is everything the monarchy needs in 2018, a modern woman with a foot in the real world, and one who doesn’t retreat from her life story but embraces it.

Although couldn’t one argue that Harry, the product of a broken home, a person who fought with bravery in the British Army in Afghanistan and one who has faced the long running smear that his father is not Prince Charles but James Hewitt, make for someone that embraces life after many hard knocks? What has colour got to do with it? Why didn’t Harry just head down to Brixton to find a destitute black bride like Eddie Murphy did in Queens, NY in the film Coming to America? Surely he could have helped dispel White Privilege by not only marrying a black woman but one who wasn’t wealthy to start with. How could he be so classist? How insulting Harry didn’t marry a Brit! Wilson goes on,

A hallmark of white privilege, aside from the wielding and exercising of power through political means, is the employment of exclusivity as a means of social control.

Why does the media have to turn this wedding into a circus about identity politics? Could it be that the Royal Family has acted like most whites, blacks, Asians, Muslims, Christians and Hindus who overwhelmingly tend to marry within their social groups? It is not done in all cases, purely as a fix, but most likely because of the circles people they interact with. Population density of whites in Britain 50 years ago was around 90%. It is still 80% today. So even today, one has an 8 in 10 chance of marrying someone that is white. The miracle of flight has now allowed people to travel so they could fall in love with someone from a different background. Interracial marriages are growing, yet further evidence that those who could defend white privilege choose to mix their bloodlines for none other than the love of their partner.

Although, say the Queen had deep reservations about Markle which happened to have nothing to do with her skin colour? Being royalty is about keeping standards. All of the scandals that have surfaced about Megan Markle’s roots have been deeply embarrassing. Should the Queen question the actions of Markle’s father who staged photos of himself for $100,000? Or her sister that has used Meghan’s media status to flog, The Diary of Princess Pushy’s Sister? It is a given that the Royal protocol office would have gladly given advice on the most tasteful way to promote Meghan’s childhood photos. Wouldn’t this actions by her family give the Queen a preview into the upbringing of her soon to be granddaughter-in-law? The Queen is no stranger to scandal. Her uncle married a divorced American, Wallace Simpson, and abdicated the throne to her father. Several of her children have split up. Her husband Prince Phillip has said some off-colored remarks in his time with respect to race, but does that automatically make HRH bigoted or racist? 

It would be nice for Ms Wilson to acknowledge that the Royal Prince is in love with Meghan Markle and leave it there. He undoubtedly chose her for her. She accepted. One can only hope that she doesn’t live up to any of the sensational headlines, the spiteful press or the silly actions of her family members. For if Meghan Markle ends up divorcing Prince Harry in years to come for some trivial reason, the Queen may well have been on the money with respect to her character not the colour of her skin. One can only hope for the sake of both of them they have a fairytale wedding where they live happily every after. If Markle can achieve 1/10th what the Queen has done in her decades of service we should be only too happy. Don’t worry though Meghan, it is enough that you’re “black” according to Wilson.

Get consent from your infants you thoughtless parents

4D0294A4-6533-426B-BBD9-70463B9ECA44.jpeg

It shouldn’t surprise us with the left’s lunatic thinking that a child knows that it is responsible for soiling it’s own diaper. Of course only our national broadcaster, the ABC, would host such people on their programmes. Is it any wonder the ABC has had a budget freeze for the next three years. It should be heavily slashed given it wastes tax payers money on such inane stupidity. No wonder it’s viewership continues to decline.

We work with parents from birth… just about how to set up a culture of  consent in their home so, “I’m going to change your nappy now. Is that okay?” Of course the baby’s not going to respond, “Yes mum, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed.” But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that they’re responsible…”

You can find the ABC’s budget malaise here.

Really?

8F6C101A-1A3F-479E-AD44-F24103E3B5B4.jpeg

Really? Does Newsweek honestly believe that 59% of Republicans don’t want a woman president in their lifetime? Could it be GOP supporters don’t want to see a woman made president solely on the basis of gender? Is that irrational?

It is highly conceivable that many Republicans would back someone like US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, if she ever runs given her strength and purpose, regardless of how appalled Democrats might be. Even worse, the Democrats would die a thousand deaths knowing her Native American/Sikh background would singlehandedly outflank almost any identity driven political candidates the DNC could field itself.  To be thrashed at its own game when the opposition party doesn’t even know the rules. The irony!

However Newsweek would not be budged going straight down the line of how poor old Hillary Clinton was the innocent victim of rampant sexism. Aren’t Republicans bigger racists than sexists?

Newsweek’s Tim Marchin wrote,

Clinton’s candidacy was, of course, a big moment for women in U.S. politics. No other woman has ever earned the nomination of one of the major parties. After her loss in the election—to a man accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct—2017 became a year that was, in many ways, defined by women leaders…Millions of people took to the streets across the world in the Women’s March shortly after Trump’s inauguration. More recently, the #MeToo movement has helped shed light on just how many women have suffered from harassment, discrimination and assault. The movement has also revealed accusations against a number of men in positions of power.”

Marchin would have been far better off  conceding that Clinton’s campaign of identity politics (Obama 2.0) was on the ballot paper. It wasn’t wanted. The electorate preferred to place a serial p*ssy grabbing silver back with an agenda that better suited their needs.

Marchin might have reflected that Clinton ran her campaign like a coronation rather than a democratic election and deplorables voted for the guy who actually made the effort to see them. He may have pondered that even having an advantage of getting the questions before hand (aka cheating) saw her lose. To have her husband randomly meet the Attorney General on an airport tarmac days before the FBI testimony. Mere coincidence and who wouldn’t talk about the grandkids? It had nothing to do with her gender. It had nothing to do with those darned white women controlled by their red-necked husbands on voting day. She was an awful candidate.

More shameless clickbait journalism which tries to shame Republicans with a gotcha question bound to have wide interpretation. Here’s an idea for the Democrats – run a better candidate.

Zucker feasted on your consent to be a sucker

Whatever the outcome of this hearing, much of the data collected was willingly offered by Facebook users. It was they who told people where they took vacation, the restaurant they ate or birthday they celebrated. It was they who adorned their avatar with a transparent French or rainbow flag as a back drop after another terrorist attack or to show support for same sex marriage. It was they who clicked the check box to agree to the “terms and conditions” immediately without reading it. Is that Zuckerberg’s fault? Questions however must be asked with respect to the ability to access microphones and cameras unbeknownst to users. How flagrantly was privacy law violated beyond that agreed by users?

For as much as Zuckerberg might look an evil violator of privacy laws (he may yet be proved to be so), if one wants real anonymity, social media is the last place to find it. It is doubtful anyone posts happy snaps on social media as a pure storage back up device. Many people crave attention and more than ever their self-actualisation stage in the ‘hierarchy of needs’ is driven by likes and shares rather than the Abraham Maslow’s original theorem of 75 years ago. The higher the ratio of “selfies” would probably be highly correlated to attention deficit disorder. Protesting the use of the data provided is a grossly naive assumption if not borderline negligent. Tucked away in the fine print of the words and conditions would surely have FB gaining their complete consent.

Ted Cruz took it to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether the social media giant ‘censors conservative’ news. He replied, “Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place.While denying that he knows the political affiliations of the 15~20,000 staff who police content he said the group does its best to remove things that are considered hateful (e.g.hate speech, terrorism), hurtful or distasteful (e.g. nudity). It was brought to Zuckerberg’s attention that black conservatives (and Trump supporters) Diamond & Silk had their page blocked with 1.2 million followers on grounds of  “being unsafe to the community”. In any event, Zuckerberg deflected many of the questions in his testimony on grounds of the size of the organization but admitted not enough was done to police itself. Power corrupts…? Absolutely…?

Which brings the whole argument surrounding ‘free speech’ and social media sites exercising subjective political bias. It was only several years back that openly gay shock-jock Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for causing ‘offence’ to a Ghostbusters actress. Yet what is offence? Where is the line drawn? What offends one might not offend another. However the censor would seemingly be able to use his or her subjective opinions, values and biases which makes it pretty clear what the outcome will be. President Trump learned that when a disgruntled Twitter employee temporarily suspended his account. Do not be surprised when we’re simply told to “get with the times” and accept the party line. Resistance is futile. It is the simplest way to shut down sensible debate.

Anyone active on social media is well aware of the risks of being targeted, trolled or attacked for expressing differing views. However do users require, much less want to submit to the machinations of the thought police? Shouldn’t they be free to choose what they view or pages they subscribe to? Indeed hate speech (not to be confused with difference of opinion) has no place but the majority of users are likely to be able to make that assessment without it having been arbitrarily made for them.

Then again, surely as a publicly listed corporation Facebook can decide what it wants to do with its site and let participants in the free market (who use it for no charge) decide for themselves that the obvious bias forces them to seek social media platforms elsewhere. Twitter share price was badly thumped for its blocking of certain groups and its share price is around 1/3rd the peak. It’s overall followers have fluctuated in the 316-330mn range since Q4 2016. The market works. It is taking Facebook’s shareprice to task on the grounds it will suffer for treating its users as mugs. Perhaps a look at activity post the hearings will show just how many mugs are still as active as before despite the threats to abandon the evil Zuck. The share price will respond accordingly.

It begs the question as to why a more conservative outfit hasn’t decided to make a Facebook equivalent which does not censor outside of clear violations of hate speech. Surely offering a replicated platform that didn’t censor free speech would be a massive winner. Users would also sign up to a simple (and SHORT) legal agreement that there is a risk of being offended and to commit to accepting it. Where clear violations of hate speech (e.g. threats of murder, terrorism etc.) are found such things can be reported to the authorities (with terms and conditions EXPLICITLY warning of such repucussions for violating easy to understand rules). Then again maybe Zuckerberg is right. Silicon Valley is indeed an extremely left-leaning [alt-left?] place! So this is why conservatives are behind the 8-ball on a free speech social media platform.

The sad reality is that social media is policed by the left and authorities seem keen to exploit the powers that provides. The examples are too many. Controversial conservatives have been blocked, banned and restricted for the most spurious of reasons. Diamond & Silk are hardly a danger to society. It is almost comical to think that.  Yet aren’t the subscription rates/followers of particular sites indicative of the ‘moods’ of people? Could it be that black, conservative and Trump supporter must be mutually exclusive terms in the eyes of the left’s identikit forcing the Facebook apparatchiks to enforce a subjective shutdown? If a public explanation was provided it would probably just say, “trust our objectivity’. Whaaaat?

At some stage if enough people feel they are being played around with they will choose of their own volition to leave and seek their social media thrills on other platforms. Or will they? It maybe too late. Blatant exploitation of social media by governments looks like an obvious trend. If we are only too willing to give up our data and cede any visibility of the inner circle’s terms of use of it we are on a slippery slope of our own making. Think about how your mobile device allows you to be tracked whenever and however. It can turn your camera or microphone on. It can triangulate your whereabouts anywhere across the world. What you’ve read, listened to and watched. Where are the privacy laws surrounding this? Is your local rep fighting in your corner? Probably not.

Could private conversations with a lawyer (client-attorney privilege) be bugged and used as evidence? Don’t laugh. As an aerospace analyst many moons ago, teams of specialists with anti-bugging devices trawled through the suites of the aircraft manufacturers’ chalets to ensure the opposition didn’t get wind of negotiations with airlines they were both competing to win large orders from. Illegal in the extreme but seemingly exercised by all parties. It was an unwritten rule.

However social media censorship hides deeper problems. It is also increasingly a tool to shut down debate and people like London Mayor Sadiq Khan has met with social media execs to collude on cracking down on ‘hate speech’. Surely policing spurious claims of hate speech is a lesser issue to the immediate threat faced by a capitol which saw its murder rate surpass that of New York. Not so. This is the dangerous turn in social media. Not whether our data is used for targeted advertising for cheap flights but used to pillory, interrogate and shut down innocents. After all social media has a half-life of infinity.

Take the controversial figure Tommy Robinson in England. The UK authorities and media wish us to believe he is an unhinged far right wing bigoted racist thug. Yet despite all of the times he has been jailed (for mostly trumped up charges), silenced and muzzled for publicising what he sees as a major problem in his community (i.e. radical Islam), the growth in followers continues to rise on his Facebook page (706,000). Maybe the authorities should keep tabs on them? Arrest them on suspicion of potentially causing hate crimes. Surely they are cut from the same cloth as Tommy? Afterall it is better to arrest a comedian for teaching a dog to do a Nazi salute to annoy his partner as it is less controversial to the state than tackling real issues. Perhaps authorities should pay attention to why Robinson’s following is so large? It is irrelevant whether one finds his viewpoints offensive or not, a majority of over half a million clearly don’t. He is no saint and would be the first to admit it. Still the authorities are trying everything to shut him down. Social media is being used as a watchdog.

Robinson has two best selling books –  ‘Enemy of the State’ and ‘Mohammad’s Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam’. Is that not evidence that there are more people than the authorities would care to admit to that actually concur with his assessment? Maybe some want to read it out of curiosity? However when many of those same people see an undercover scoop done by the left leaning publicly funded Channel 4 on the inner workings of one of England’s most conservative mosques, praised by politicians as they true face of a peaceful religion. Even though the mosque had promised to clamp down on radical imams, the documentary revealed that despite assurances to government authorities, teachers still encourage students to believe that the only remedy for gays and apostates is to be killed. So maybe Robinson’s followers aren’t as fringe or minor in number as we would be made to believe? With the widespread outing of child grooming gangs across the UK, maybe Brits have had enough of the political hand wringing over politically correct discourse. The more the movement is pushed underground the harder it will be to stop vigilantism. We’ve already seen signs of it emerging. Think of the Guardian Angels in NY during the crime waves in the 1979.

What the Zuckerberg testimony brings to the surface is yet another example made clear to the public of the two tier dispensing of free speech. What worries the public more is that justice seems to be operating under the exact same framework. What the Channel 4 programme exposed with respect to blatant hate speech is incontrovertible. Yet will authorities arrest, charge and jail them as they would a Tommy Robinson? Not a chance. To encourage the murder of people that aren’t part of an ideology can’t be viewed as anything other than a willful threat.  Will the judiciary demand that scholars have their pages scrubbed from social media?

The shoes are on the wrong foot. Earlier this year, Austrian conservative Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were arrested on arrival in the UK, detained and deported. Sellner for wanting to deliver a speech at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park (later delivered by Robinson) and Pettibone for wanting to interview Tommy Robinson (which he later conducted in Vienna). Neither look in the least bit dangerous. In this case, social media backfired on the state. In both cases, the public once again saw the double standards and the pervasive political posturing to beat the ‘controllable’ element into submission. Just as it is easier for the police to fine speeding motorists than actively pursue solid leads on catching grooming gangs the public rightly grows increasingly livid. Social media is being used more widely as a policing tool, with negative connotations. It isn’t just being used to foil terror plots but stomp on the rights of the average citizen.

Still there is some sympathy for Zuckerberg in that many people volunteered their information. If it was used in ways that violated ethical and more importantly legal rights it only goes to prove that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To that end, can we really expect lawmakers to cramp their own style when Zuckerberg has only highlighted how powerful the information he possesses can be used to sucker us more than they already do. That is the real crime we are seemingly becoming powerless to stop. Talk about the real Big Brother!

Trump’s approval hits 50%

165F3F30-54C5-4F7D-A7FD-97F119B10A64.jpeg

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds President Trump has cracked the 50% approval rating among likely voters, putting him ahead of where Barack Obama was at this point in his presidency. On the same day in Obama’s administration – April 2, 2010 – Rasmussen found 46% approved of the 44th president’s performance. Suggests that people are more interested in their daily personal issues than the media’s obsession in trying to find out whether Trump humped a porn star over a decade ago.

The fact is that Trump is polling well ahead of the most recent approval ratings for Macron, Trudeau, Merkel, Theresa May, Turnbull, Shinzo Abe or Pena Nieto. When Obama was in Japan last week he spoke of wantiong to create “a million young Barack Obamas” to take on the baton of “human progress”. No thanks.

Apparently this is newsworthy

F968EC37-2569-4F38-98DC-26CDC3D5C409.jpeg

Apparently the mainstream media think this is newsworthy. A 70yo man who happens to be president has bald patches. Who knew? Guess that means that one should take their other media commentary about affairs of the nation – foreign and domestic – far more seriously with Pulitzer Prize winning journalism like this. One would be forgiven for thinking America had never had a balding POTUS – Gerald Ford, LBJ, Richard Nixon to name three. Yawn. How insensitive and offensive such an article is to the hirsute!