#ethics

AOC, best remember that victory loves preparation

Poor old AOC sought to hammer former ICE Director Thomas Homan but he pointed out facts and made her look rather wanting…she is really becoming a liability for the Dems.

If she doesn’t like the laws she is in a great place to change them.

Celebrating like champions?

Image may contain: 4 people, people standing and text

Good to see the World Cup victory hasn’t gone to their heads.

Equal pay! Equal pay!

No longer is pride in representing a nation the core of a major sporting event. It is all about activism and grievance. The oppression obsession. The crowd joined in shaming the FIFA boss and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) based off little or no true understanding of the facts at the women’s World Cup Final. The stadium would have made Kim Jong-un blush at the symbiotic coordination. It felt eerily similar to the crowd scene from 1984. It is unfortunately so telling of today’s society. Never have they had it so good, but act is if they’ve never had it so bad.

However isn’t the point of playing for one’s country about the “pride” in representing it? If Rapinoe hates Trump, that is one thing and her personal choice. She is not alone. Should her personal pet grievances outweigh the 330m other Americans she represents? Why not ask for the flag to be removed from her strip?

If she wants to kneel during the national anthem she is nothing more than a hypocrite who seeks to rub it in the face of those who have pride in their country. She is a conditional citizen. Much like those Hollywood celebrities who claimed they’d leave the country if Trump won. He did and they’re still all there.

If Rapinoe wants to truly protest, she should refuse to play. She should sit out and watch America flail and then witness the USSF panic as sponsors dry up and have them run to her. Yet the trappings are such that her principles take a back seat to the expediency of the luxuries afforded by her talent.

She can rant all she wants outside the field. Free speech. CM is all for that. She has a profile to do that. Yet when representing the country, why not respect her fellow citizens rather than throw the toys out of the pram using profanity against a democratically elected president? What she doesn’t realise is her wokeness is exactly the type of thing that will produce the same result in the 2020 election. People are sick and tired of the constant political correctness dragged into places it needn’t be. She is only going to retard the growth in the sport if she continues turning a beautiful game into a platform of white noise.

Rapinoe may tell the media that “we’re over it” with respect to equal pay. However has she considered that if she stopped being such a brat that even more sponsors might beat a path to her door? If she displayed the types of values that represent those of the sponsors and broader society rather than lower the level to the man she repudiates she might surprise herself? Set the standard, Megan! Don’t lower yourself to it. Is having a high number of LGBT players truly the secret sauce of the US team as you claim?

What if men identifying as women demand a place in the side? Physically they’ll dominate the women players as they are already doing in so many areas of sport. Don’t they deserve an equal opportunity? If they trial and outplay all the biological women, will you begrudge them? Or accept that “Science is science. Trans rule“? The Democratic Party has enshrined trans players in women’s sports as policy. Be careful what you wish for.

For the record, CM has always stated equal pay in sports is a farcical quest. It has never been equal. Nor should it be, because the talent pool would never be able to be developed in a way that is self sustaining for the audiences to watch it. Cristiano Ronaldo gets $100m per year because he is “that good”. He sells more strips each year than his fellow teammates. He scores lots of goals. He gets endorsements because he is so talented. Corporations see a return in the investment. Ronaldo has 78 million Twitter followers vs his Real Madrid captain, Sergio Ramos who has a pitiful 16m. Rapinoe has 725,000. Should she get paid the same as Ronaldo? US men’s soccer team player Landon Donovan has 1.3m followers. Does the USSF see that the box office is sadly still skewed to the men’s game?

If we truly want ‘equal pay‘, shouldn’t we demand that each player plays for exactly the same amount of time and limit the physical distance they run? After all it would be unfair for one player to do less or more work than another. If the goalie had to be included in the physical exercise equality argument then field players could only have a two minute stint at best. 10 players would need to be replaced every two minutes of the 90 played meaning a 450 player side. With GPS tracking, the rules of the game can be changed so that can be accommodated in theory.

We know that such a game would be boring to watch and cause audiences to abandon such spectacles because professionals sports require no participation medals. We cheer the player that has the extra stamina, skill and guile to win matches and pay to watch that privilege. Not watch a game where talent is castrated.

For starters, Rapinoe should address the inequality within women’s soccer, before targeting the broader gender pay gap. No doubt she gets paid a lot more than some of her lesser known teammates. No one discusses that factoid. Crowds consumed by propaganda based group think champion the causes of people who already earn probably way more than they’ll ever do. Were the crowd chants aimed at the Dutch women too? Or just the Americans who were the ones fighting this pay dispute.

CM is also on record for saying that female tennis players should be paid more than men for the higher audiences they attract. The reality is outside of the World Cup, women’s soccer does not attract the revenues of the men’s game (partly due to men’s game having decades more time to develop). That will take time. It is hard to find willing sponsors to even it up if the return on that endorsement is lower. Sponsors aren’t just rich benefactors.

In closing, shame on the crowds for dragging an international event into a twisted spectacle. What they don’t realise is that such actions will only work against them. Fans want to escape the stresses of daily life, not pay high ticket prices to have it directly served up. Maybe the #USWNT needs to look at what has happened to the NFL after political correctness engulfed it.

Megan, a bigger truism is that, “Economics is economics. The market rules!”

NSW Chair pleads for a truce

Could it be that those who are fed up with political correctness have proved their pockets are way deeper than Rugby Australia (RA) ever imagined? For the Rugby NSW Chair Roger Davis to pipe up that, “the game is paying too high a price for RA to be proved right in this matter” speaks volumes. Sounds like fear that RA might lose.

The ACL suspended the Folau fund raising as it went over $2m in two days. Now he can comfortably fund an excellent team of silks to prosecute the case against RA. Plenty more ammunition behind that one imagines too. RA is outgunned unless Qantas intends to deploy shareholder capital?!?

Once again, this has moved way beyond Folau’s contractual dispute. People are fed up with the lecturing from the left. Regardless of whether one agrees with what he said or not or the GoFundMe stunt, the people have spoken with their wallets. They don’t want to have corporates tell them how or what to say or behavioral awareness officers at the games marshaling their stress outlets.

Rugby Australia’s problems started way before Folau’s tweets. The attendance and performance of the Wallabies stems from the incompetence at the top. The numbers are abysmal. The identity politics obsessed board which keeps a coach despite the worst track record in the team’s history. Australia will be lucky to make the play offs.

As David rightly said, It’s not about rights or wrongs now, it’s about pragmatics. I don’t think rugby should be defining freedom of religion rights or freedom of expression rights. I don’t think it’s our job,

Exactly. Which is why $2m was lined up to let RA know it should drop all of the gender and identity political garbage period and focus on who pays the bills – the fans.

Go Fund Me’s double standards

RAICES.png

Well, well, well. How come it took so many days for GoFundMe to come to this conclusion? What ridiculous double standards the site has. It was bullied pure and simple and folded to activist pressure to appear as if it was a clerical oversight. Why not sack the gatekeepers at GoFundMe who should have flagged this up the chain but didn’t until they felt backed into a corner by apparatchiks?

So easy to fob it off using “GoFundMe’s terms of service say it can take down funds that are “for the legal defence of alleged crimes associated with hate, violence, harassment, bullying, discrimination, terrorism or intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity or serious disabilities or diseases. It was something it should have immediately caught but didn’t.

GoFundMe’s Country Manager Nicola Britton said the site doesn’t support Folau’s anti-gay views but presumably she supports funds that say hell awaits adulterers, fornicators, liars, drunks, thieves, atheists and idolators.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Folau’s religious beliefs or not, thousands of people still volunteered $750,000 to defend his rights to free speech. Will GoFundMe doxx all of those people who felt his cause was worthy enough to donate to? If he provides his bank account details for deposits, will his bank suspend his personal account?

Many people think it is outrageous that Folau doesn’t sell his properties and self-fund. Yet who are they to determine the voluntary nature of people who helped him raise $750k? They were not forced to. Do those who donated tell the faux outrage mob how to spend their money? No.

The irony is that GoFundMe is more than happy to run campaigns of $3m (GBP1.6m) to attack Folau for his supposed intolerance. Is that the sort of double standard the company operates under? CM is sure that GoFundMe will say it was an accident.

It wasn’t that long ago that GoFundMe happily allowed people to raise funds to pay for ladders assisting illegal immigrants to thwart national border protection laws. So when it comes to breaking federal US laws, then raising funds is OK under GoFundMe guidelines? One presumes that GoFundMe enforces its own arbitrary set of rules against its own pet causes.

Don’t forget that GoFundMe happily allowed $80,000 to be raised for Egg Boi who attacked Fraser Anning. Once again, regardless of Anning’s views, funds were raised for the legal defence of a teenager who committed violence, harassed, expressed hate and showed intolerance of another’s view, no matter how abhorrent the former Senator’s words might have been. Doesn’t that violate the same terms and conditions? Or is that OK because GoFundMe dislikes our politicians?

One hopes Folau moves to another fundraising site and doubles his target. GoFundMe has only shown exactly why free speech is at stake. CM doesn’t think much of his tweet but the reality is that 99.8% of people rolled their eyes and moved on. Rugby Australia (RA) also flicked the chicken switch and appears to have acted in haste and ran the risk of constructive dismissal. RA practices the very discrimination it claims it does not.

In any event, GoFundMe’s hypocrisy is there for all to see. If we want to express outrage that people didn’t fund better causes, look no further than the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES). The viral photo-shopped Time magazine picture of a little girl crying at a defiant Trump was used with great effect by RAICES to raise $20mn via Facebook crowdfunding!

Even after it was revealed that the child – stolen from her father – was never separated from the mother (who left her other 3 kids behind) and paid a smuggler to get to the border, RAICES still shamelessly uses the picture to boost its funding target to $25mn. Sanctimony at its finest.

Identity Politics rejected by those who would seemingly benefit

Quillette columnist Coleman Hughes testified in front of a House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on the subject of a bill proposing to conduct a commission into slavery reparations. Hughes’ testimony was not what activists wanted to hear so he was heckled by them.

He argued that such a path would further divide the nation. Such is the scourge of identity politics and the victim mentality.

He was booed when he said, “Black people don’t need another apology. We need safer neighborhoods and better schools. We need a less punitive criminal justice system. We need affordable health care. And none of these things can be achieved through reparations for slavery.”

He went on to describe that reparations were not only divisive, but an “insult to many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors, and we would turn the relationship between black Americans and white Americans from a coalition into a transaction

Reparations by definition are only given to victims, so the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you’ve made 1/3 of black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent, and black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner...

The question is not what America owes me by virtue of my ancestry, the question is what all Americans owe each other by virtue of being citizens of the same nation…And the obligation of citizenship is not transactional. It’s not contingent on ancestry. It never expires, and it can’t be paid off. For all these reasons, bill HR 40 is a moral and political mistake.”

Isn’t it ironic how out of touch the political class is when the very people they hope will give them the answer they want to hear do the exact opposite.

Peak climate change hysteria reached?

We must be near the top of climate change hysteria. A new report released by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, titled, ‘Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach‘ points to climate Armageddon, which reads like an aggregation of every junk prediction ever made rolled into one.

The report suggests in its 2050 scenario,

While sea levels have risen 0.5 metres by 2050, the increase may be 2–3 metres by 2100, and it is understood from historical analogues that seas may eventually rise by more than 25 metres. 35% of the global land area and 55% of the global population are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability.

Most regions in the world see a significant drop in food production and increasing numbers of extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and storms. Food production is inadequate to feed the global population and food prices skyrocket, as a consequence of a one-fifth decline in crop yields, a decline in the nutrition content of food crops, a catastrophic decline in insect populations, desertification, monsoon failure and chronic water shortages, and conditions too hot for human habitation in significant food-growing regions. The lower reaches of the agriculturally-important river deltas such as the Mekong, Ganges and Nile are inundated, and significant sectors of some of the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — are abandoned. Some small islands become uninhabitable. 10% of Bangladesh is inundated, displacing 15 million people.

Even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated and In high-end scenarios, the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end.

If that is not pathetic enough the forward, written by a retired admiral, cues the violins,

David Spratt and Ian Dunlop have laid bare the unvarnished truth about the desperate situation humans, and our planet, are in, painting a disturbing picture of the real possibility that human life on earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way…

…Stronger signals still are coming from increasing civil disobedience, for example over the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal deposits and deepwater oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight, with the suicidal increase in carbon emissions they imply. And the outrage of schoolchildren over their parent’s irresponsibility in refusing to act on climate change.

Note Spratt & Dunlop do not believe the 2050 scenario is “far from an extreme scenario.

The sad thing is that global crop yields have never been better, the IPCC has had to backtrack to admit little or no confidence that storms, floods or any other catastrophe are out of the realms of normality. Perhaps the most telling quote in the report is,

and climate scientists admitting to depression as they consider the “inevitable” nature of a doomsday future and turn towards thinking more about family and relocation to “safer” places, rather than working on more research.

Perhaps that depression comes from the fact that nearly all the models have been shown to be duds. So many predictions have shown the complete opposite.

CM still believes that climate scientists need to have an independent regulator that ensures that any malfeasance or fraud by the science community results in heavy fines and jail terms. Whistleblower protections should be put in place. Provide a 6-mth amnesty for scientists to admit any wrongdoing. After that, they are on the hook. Then watch all those prophecies get scaled back to paint a  2050 picture of absolute wonder.