Fake News

Sexual and domestic violence against males – the statistics

63968E7E-3925-446E-BEC4-DC8473E814BA.jpeg

It is perhaps unsurprising to see some women come out and blame men for their ‘silence culture’ in the aftermath of the Weinstein saga. Indeed it was some of the sisters who chose to stay silent while they collected the trappings of stardom as others suffered. If we were to believe the Me Too crusade we would think that only men commit sex crimes, right? The US National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) conducted in 2010 showed that 25 million men and 53 million men had claimed they were victims of some form of sexual violence by an intimate partner or acquaintance. Both figures are shocking to be sure but the statements in a rather one-sided piece from Heather Jo Flores in The Independent with respect to Me Too.  were of particular interest:

Men, it’s not our job to keep reminding you. Remind each other, and stop abusing. It’s as simple as that. Until men speak out against men who abuse, this will never stop. How about y’all post “I ignored it and I won’t anymore” instead? Because #hearyou doesn’t cut it. Just hearing us doesn’t cut it. Taking action, speaking out, and showing zero tolerance for abuse is the only way through. Silence enables. Be the change..So why do men need to have multiple victims come forward before anybody says a damn thing”

If Flores opened her eyes she might see that we are exactly as she claims we are not.  For much of the utter rubbish men may brag about amongst themselves (e.g.bro-culture), talking up how they conducted street justice is never one of them. Take a look at the multiple social experiments on domestic violence which show random men stepping up to defend women they have never met who look to be in trouble. That is taking action. Immediate. No looking the other way. They are hardwired to protect her. It is instinctive. In the reverse, no one defended the male being attacked in the same video. If anything males smirked, some feeling sorry for him, others joining in but not stepping in the way. Where were the girls that leapt into action to protect the defenseless male? Yes, nowhere. The pot calling the kettle black?

A study conducted by the IDF showed mixed battalions had far higher casualty rates than segregated ones because the enemy would deliberately target the women knowing the men would be men and do extraordinarily risky things in harms way to protect the women. It was not that the female soldiers were any less effective in combat. These weren’t random acts of stupidity but a sense of moral duty not found in training manuals. Indeed it is men being men.

Many of us are told from our tender years that we must never hit women. To open doors, walk behind women going up escalators in case they fall, to walk on the kerbside to prevent women from potentially being drenched by a passing car hitting a puddle. In Japan one would be amazed at the reactions of surprise if one suggests women exit the elevator before men. There is a look of “are you crazy?” Followed by a polite smile and bow. We certainly feel a strong bond to defend. Is it any wonder men are 93% of war casualties?

Flores goes on to say, “Yes, I know men get abused too. Once in a lifetime, maybe a handful of times, in extreme situations. And they get abused by men, mostly. Just like us..I write this to ask: why are we still demanding that women out themselves as survivors, again and again and again, rather than demanding that men out themselves as abusers? Violence against women is a daily reality,.”

In the 12 month period conducted in the NIPSVS survey 6.46mn women and 6.1mn men were victims of sexual violence by their partner, an acquaintance or stranger. 4.74mn women were victims of physical violence by men and 5.365mn men were victims of phyiscal violence by women. Hardly a handful of times, nor at the hands of men.

1.555mn men claimed their intimate female partner hit them with fists or a hard object vs 1.289m women claiming the reverse. 3.13mn men were slapped by their women vs 1.85mn in the reverse. Awful stats on any measure. Still it puts paid the notion that men are generally victims of other men once a blue moon. When it came to psychological intimidation around 20.5mn men were victims of it vs 16.5mn women.

The NIPSVS survey was conducted again in 2011 and revealed much the same trends.

If men must out themselves as abusers, perhaps female abusers should do likewise and male survivors should speak out just as women do.

According to a UK study,

“Male victims  (39%) are over three times as likely than women (12%) not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.

The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has increased seven fold since 2004/05. From 806 in 2004/05 to 5,641 in 2015/16…In 2015, 119,000 men reported to English and Welsh police forces stating they were a victim of domestic abuse. 22% of all victims who report to the police are male. In 2012, 73,524 men did…

Men don’t leave abusive relationships for various reasons – the top reasons being: concern about the children (89%), marriage for life (81%), love (71%), the fear of never seeing their children again (68%), a belief she will change (56%), not enough money(53%), nowhere to go (52%), embarrassment (52%), not wanting to take kids away from their mother (46%), threats that she will kill herself (28%) and fears she will kill him (24%). 

Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.

The percentage of gay or bi-sexual men (6.2%) who suffered partner abuse in 2008/09 is nearly double the number for heterosexual men (3.3%). Lesbian women (12.4%) as a percentage also suffered far more partner abuse compared to heterosexual women (4.3%).

Ms Flores then goes on to say,

Don’t forget that, for 500 years in Europe (and still in many many countries) a woman saying “no” was punishable by death, legally. Show me one example of a man being legally executed for saying no to sex, and I’ll consider changing my position.

While men may not be at risk of being executed for refusing sex, find one Anglo, Asian or European country where women can be. Answer is none. It is only in certain cultures that practice female genital mutilation among other arcane laws that would seek to do so. A sect which feminists, who have no qualms shaming Western society, often choose to turn a blind eye to. It is hardly a credible argument that connects her belief that male silence and ignorance of female abuse is somehow linked to a claim of something that happened half a millennia ago.

None of this points to pleasant reading. Sadly it is this prevalence to continually point fingers at men for not doing enough. Unfortunately it is sometimes these same feminists who are busy trying to change ‘men’ so they stop being men. That somehow we should feel ashamed for being men. That we should take responsibility for every wrong doing conducted by a small minority and be brow beaten for not being the very men you are trying to force us not to be. Ms Flores you can’t have it both ways.

No Oscars for honesty. Plenty for hypocrisy

As the dirty laundry of Hollywood gets aired how many celebrities forgot that the internet has a half life of infinity and that there are trolls that will go to the ends of the earth to dig up things actors did in the past. Whether it be Jimmy Kimmel asking young girls to fondle his crotch to see if they could tell what the bulge was or Ben Affleck grabbing a handful of reporters’ breasts one thing is for sure, the public have such a low opinion of celebrities that one wonders why the Democrats want these liberal elites championing their causes. This video at election time last year spoofing the previous one done by Hollywood actors (who by the way made jokes about Mark Ruffalo ‘showing his dick’ if they registered – I mean how funny is that!?!? NOT.) was perhaps one of the best send ups which summarises why they should just stick to film making and shut up about everything else.

Listen to this Golden Globes speech by Meryl Streep and put all of her words she made about the President in the context of the then untouchable Weinstein as she said,

when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose”

We need the principled press to hold them to account..”

”I only ask that the famously well heeled foreign Hollywood press and all of us…to supporting the committee to protect journalists…to protect them going forward…we’re going to need them…and they’ll need us too…to safeguard the truth…”

Isn’t it a privilege to be an actor?…yes it is and we have to remind ourselves of the privilege and responsibility of the act of empathy

How prophetic those words are given the denial of the real culture of Hollywood. That as vulgar as the man she accused in her speech isn’t it ironic that her privileges were in part granted by safeguarding people from the truth by protecting the very journalists who turned a blind eye to the bullies so they wouldn’t be held to account. Which part is the act of empathy? Not even sympathy.

Knee-ncompoops – the only beneficiary has been BBQ lighter fluid makers

D94D2CF0-2D72-47F9-A804-0C6F55DBFC77.jpeg

Alright, I think we’ve all seen enough kneeling to last a lifetime. In fact the original message of kneeling during the national anthem pushed to the fore by Colin Kaepernick to raise awareness for ‘BLM’ has now been diluted to complete irrelevance. Now it is being done as a fashion. So the idea of raising awareness has now been switched as a protest against the President. So was BLM such small potatoes that it got switched so readily for this?  To be honest, NFL players are employees. Better paid than most but employees. If we went to our places of work and told our bosses that we’d take a knee if told we had to start at 6am to service particular clients who needed our services, we could understand if our jobs would be in jeopardy. In the same light, if our customers (fans) aren’t served they’ll go somewhere else. It is simple. The end user of any product ultimately has the last word. Recent NFL ratings and certain sponsors reflect this.

Equally the number of videos of NFL fans burning jerseys, championship pennants and other memorabilia will undoubtedly boost sales of BBQ fire starter fluid. Of course fans are infuriated. Many work exceptionally hard to be able to afford the tickets that are supposed to take them away from financial, work and other stresses.

The number of videos from people of all races, colours and socio-economic bases have also made it very clear – they view this as political garbage and that these highly paid athletes reflect the way that America provides them with the oppportunity to take home millions of dollars, earning more in a game than many fans make in a year only incenses paying fans. Where are their activities within the communities they claim they support?

Perhaps even more telling is these so called moral crusaders in many cases do not speak from very high ground. The USA Today published a list of all of the arrests and charges laid on NFL heroes – from assault, battery, DUI, rape, guns, drugs and resisting arrest. Yet here they are telling normal Americans how they need to ‘reflect’ on this ‘racial’ divide which somehow has sprung up from the woodwork.

Now when Alejandro Villaneuva, a veteran who served in Afghanistan, makes a personal choice to show his pride i his nation he is summarily pilloried by his coach and then turns around and makes a forced apology when there was no need to except under the guise of this politically correct hand-wringing. I actually felt sorry that Villaneuva had to apologize for expressing his true feelings. His apology even displayed his own surprise he was even making it.

So every time I see yet another team kneeling I look at them as the least original protestors around. Nothing but lemmings who can’t see that every single new protest just alienates those they should be embracing to sustain their lavish lifestyles. No one is saying they can’t exercise their free speech but they might find their fans far more sympathetic if they didn’t throw it in their face every game.

Still we live in a world where yelping injustices (which in many cases aren’t affecting those kneeling) begets this so called ‘division’. Whether it is POTUS’s place to slap these slice sportspeople is one thing – many say he is the key behind this disunity. I disagree – he has merely woken many of us who don’t live in America to what a divided nation he inherited. So if you look beyond the headlines and look at his actions his real aim is to ‘unite’ people – because the US can’t heal if everyone is moaning only about one’s own issues.

This video of BLM protestors being invited to speak at a Trump rally shows more about what can happen when both sides listen. More powerful than any knees. Although I wonder if liberals would ever allow Trump supporters to talk on their platform? Watch the initial resistance until one of the conveners at the rally says to the crowd to shut up and listen in the interest of ‘free speech’ – now that would not have come about from a community that is as divided as the MSM makes out. That is the essence of MAGA.

 

Take me out to (just) the ball game

DBE21564-76BA-4733-B340-0A9075502831.jpeg

Isn’t the sole reason to buy tickets to a ball game is so that you can relax and forget about stresses at work or home? It is a distraction. Family time. A way to unwind. Paying to see elite athletes do what they do best. What fans don’t pay to see is a game which is dressed in politics. Once again the President has smacked more people eager to disrespect the nation. While hardly presidential, he none-the-less made a very good point – “fire those sons of bitches” referring to those grossly overpaid players who make political gestures such as taking a knee when the national anthem is being played. When this whole ‘kneeling’ malarkey kicked off, NFL ratings have been on a slide and the 2017 start has showed a shocking 24% (FOX) and 15% (CBS) drop in the Prime 18-49 viewership stats.

09362026-88F3-4C45-87EC-1A0449117402

Now the facts are simple. 30 of the 32 NFL teams are owned by whites. The other two by Americans of Asian decent. The idea that Colin Kaepernick was fired because of racism is plain dumb. 70% of the players in the NFL are black. These players are paid huge salaries  and to all intents and purposes are employees of the club. Therefore the boss contracts players to behave in ways that not only win ballgames but respect their customers (i.e. fans) who ultimately fund their salaries. Kaepernick was on $12mn per year. Hardly skimping by because of his supposedly racist bosses. Yet in his quest to protest police brutality he decided to shove his politics into fans’ faces. While they just wish to enjoy a game he wants to sour the experience.

Ah yes, he has a right to free speech. Indeed he does. However when he is on the ‘company clock’ he is still required to follow the boss’ instructions. That is part of the contract of employer/employee. In a sense what Kaepernick was doing was dissent. If he wants to protest such matters why doesn’t he do it off the field. In fact his actions have spawned copycats in kid’s sports. What values are we teaching these kids? Instead of looking at ways to sensibly heal rifts, coaches are trying to brainwash innocent kids to doing their protests for them.

The AFL is also guilty of this political posturing over same sex marriage (SSM). The AFL has not been the poster child for best in class ethics (e.g. bosses having affairs with junior female staff) yet feel they should put “yes” on the footballs and their HQ logo. All fans want to do is watch the game and escape all the ills in society. They don’t pay to have it served up to them. It doesn’t matter if these fans support SSM it’s a question of why are corporates or sports teams campaigning on what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It is irrelevant.

The argument we often hear is that corporations should use their profiles to promote social issues. Corporations are nothing but buildings with desks, chairs some pot plants and desktop PCs. They aren’t people. Sure people work inside them but to think that “the corporation speaks for us” is nonsense. In most cases it’s a small committee forcing their sense of political will on staff about how they should behave. Sure basic standards in the office are fair but since when did political views, gender or sexual orientation become such a fertile ground for companies to push on staff. Surely the only true goal of the staff is to work as a team to produce results efficiently in the interests of their customers. Not seek to rebrand their logos and shopfronts to promote political causes.

If companies feel so strong about such issues perhaps they should chisel those principles under the other core goals respelendent in the office foyer. Yet it is different. Corporates are becoming so scared of lawsuits and reputational damage that they embark on social crusades to chalk up a track record to deny they discriminate in the workplace hence all these social targets. So while some staff see the corporate actions as virtuous many don’t realize the public point scoring element to the cheerleading

Ultimately consumers have choices. When it comes to sport people want to relax and enjoy the game, not absorb political posturing. When it comes to drinking coffee they don’t want Starbucks explaining their rationale as to why the removal of Christmas cups was done.

Here is an idea. If the NFL or AFL IR anymother business for that matter wish to push political causes offer fans/customers a choice. Half price tickets/services/goods with a political pamphlet handed out or a full priced ticket/service/good with none. That way the fan/customer can choose. I’d only suggest to put a recycling bin right by the ticket booth/register so you can see how many fans/customers  actually care what you have to say on political matters! You’ll soon realize the majority don’t care and your revenues will have halved. Best stop the politics and charge full prices.

I’ll stick with my instincts rather than fall for a Harvard study because it is from Harvard

IMG_0858.JPG

Harvard University is without question one of the top schools globally. It has an enviable reputation and having that on one’s CV is hardly a hinderance. It is a status symbol.  In a discussion over global warming an individual was trying to legitimize climate alarmism by citing a Harvard University study. Harvard by the way is ranked top 5 worldwide in Environmental Science. The study as it turns out had been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency responsible for allocating 24% of science funding that had been raked over the coals by the US Senate for gross mismanagement, fraud and waste. The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope” paper from 2011 documented some of the misappropriation of funds as follows,

An $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness”, a “$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships”, a study costing “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names”, a study costing “$50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;” a study costing”$2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends”; and “$581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist”.Ineffective management examples, cited in the report, included “ineffective contracting”, “$1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts”, “at least $3 million in excessive travel funds”, “a lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures” and “inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica”.

It is often a tactic to cite supposedly credible bodies to legitimize and seek to win an argument. However at what point do we view Harvard’s stance on climate change as balanced? On Harvard’s own climate change page it is littered with a predetermined view. It is not to doubt the intelligence of the professors and scientists within the university but intelligence and ethics do not have to be mutually inclusive especially when it comes to procuring funds.

One has to wonder that the  NSF, which dispenses 24% of all university grants (some $7bn) is best positioned to fulfill this role given its past. As the Harvard climate page reveals there does not seem to be much attention paid to the alternate view. The offshoot of that is if the NSF wants to get ‘green policy’ outcomes, best pour funds into those schools that will help give the results they’re after.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that “two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

While I do not pretend to be a climate scientist by trade or study, fraud is fraud. The supposed beacons of virtue such as NOAA, IPCC, the CRU of the UEA have all been busted for manipulation of data to fit an end cause. The lack of ethics in certain cases has been so profound that had many of these scientists been in financial services they’d have lost licenses, paid multi billion in fines and served jail time. One person commented that too few in financial services have been locked up. I replied name me one scientist busted for fraud and misuse of public funds has seen the inside of a jail cell, much less fined or barred from teaching? The answer – NONE

I don’t need to possess a degree in astrophysics or science to determine poor ethics generally mean the science papers put forward should be viewed with deep skepticism. Yet we’re constantly told that the science is settled. How so? If one has to lie and deceive in order to scare us into action, how can one say that it is legitimate work? In fact I have been at pains to mention that the scrupulous acts of a few only ends up undermining potentially credible work conducted by others. Yet climate change has become a purely political issue and there is no question that sourcing funding dollars is easiest met when supporting alarmism. After all why would people want to throw dollars at skeptics who may come out with an alternative view? Don’t debate it. Some have suggested sceptics are like pedophiles and even more extreme views have suggested jail sentences. When people think that the only way to win the argument is to jail non believers you can be absolutely sure that the data is completely flawed in that it can’t stand on its own as an argument. Hence the manipulation to try to bully the movement onwards. Some Aussie universities (state funded mind you) are refusing a climate think tank being established on their campus for possessing an alternative view. You have to worry if universities, the bedrock of free thinking, are trying to ban it. Then again if kindergarten schools are being taught they are gender fluid and cross dressing is acceptable then you know there is a more sinister movement at work.

It was no surprise that Hurricane Irma has become Trump’s fault. Alarmists drew any data possible to connect Global Warming and hurricane activity despite the IPCC claiming several years back it  has little supportive data to prove it. So expediency is put before principle. Hopefully if no one has seen the IPCC climb down perhaps we can still convince them we can save the planet. All the meantime the IATA forecasts air travel will double in terms of passenger numbers between now and 2030 and SUVs top most vehicle sales in major markets.

To add to the farcical care factor for climate change by the masses The Australian noted, “On June 30 2017, after 12 years of “advancing climate change solutions”, the Climate Institute is closing its doors in Australia, a victim of the “I’ll ride with you but won’t pay” industry. You would think that Cate Blanchett, so happy to appear in the institute’s ads, could have taken the hat around her Hollywood A-list mates, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Bono, Emma Watson and Brad Pitt, to tip in a few hundred thousand a year for the cause….But alas, the caravan has moved on and the greatest moral challenge of our time is now the Trump White House. For celebrities who fly eyebrow groomers to the Oscars, climate change is kinda yesterday. Still, to humour the faithful and to keep the dream alive, the 10th anniversary of Earth Hour was celebrated last Saturday night. You didn’t notice?”

When I was a staunch opponent of Greenspan’s reckless monetary policy in 2001 and said his actions would lead to a financial calamity in 6-7 years, many laughed at me. I bought gold at under $300. People thought I was mad as did the Bank of England. Barbs were frequent – “how could you possibly possess the intelligence of Greenspan? Back in your box!” I was told. Of course as a contrarian by nature, speaking out against pervading group think was met with a constant wave of ever increasing vitriolic criticism. Of course the simplest thing would have been to roll over and join the band wagon but I stuck to my guns. GFC was the result. In all that time, people used to shame my thinking by citing Harvard or other Ivy League studies on new paradigms. Indeed many of the brains behind the CDOs which eventually brought the financial sector to its knees were brainiacs from the Ivy League. In the end my instincts were bang on. Nothing to do with education levels.

The same arguments were hurled at me during Trump’s presidential campaign. Many people defriended me because my data kept showing to me he’d win. I am not American, I can’t vote but casting my own instincts ended up being a no brainer. Not once were credible arguments made to counter why Trump could win. People would post NY Times polls, CNN polls and so forth to legitimize the argument. Then say I was blind, stupid, bigoted, racist and the usual leftist identikit used to demonise a view. Group think is so dangerous. What it is doing is suppressing real views which show up in the polling booth.

Everywhere I read, the media wants to throw Trump to the wolves and run the lunatic, racist white nationalist card. For 9 months now. To be honest I think he will comfortably do two terms because the media has learned nothing and anything he does is vilified. Most Americans aren’t looking to him for spiritual guidance. He is vulgar and his manner is far from conventional and sometimes not very fitting of the office he serves. However he gets no credit for anything. The latest UN sanctions on North Korea are in large part because Trump has told China to get on with it. Trump said on national TV that he wants “China to sort it out and to stop delaying otherwise we’ll do it for you”. Yet the media is drumming WW3 rhetoric.

Same goes for the Paris Accord. What a stroke of genius. Let France, Germany and other nations pick up the tab for their ‘green policy’ madness and make up America’s renewable shortfall. It is kind of ironic that none of these nations ever pick on China, India or Russia which make up 50% of CO2 emissions for their lack of adherence to actually doing meaningful things to abate climate change albeit signatories to the UN accord. I argue it is like NATO in reverse. US pays a way bigger share into NATO, why not collect a refund via other nation’s virtue signalling which actually helps America First by making other nations less competitive. Brilliant.

DACA – many Americans, including 41mn on food stamps, will welcome the removal of illegal immigrants from their country who in their view are siphoning their ability to get out of poverty. DACA to them isn’t about not being compassionate but realizing that a $20 trillion deficit and loading more onto an overcrowded system isn’t helping. Once again regardless of what people think of Trump he had the fewest white voters and largest share of black and Hispanic voters than Romney or McCain. Hardly the result for a white nationalist, racist bigot. At the current rate if the Democrats run Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or any other identity politician against him in 2020 they’ll lose. The mid terms won’t be as bad as many calling. The one midterm already returned a Republican despite massive Hollywood support even ferrying voters to booths.

Transgender in the military. I spoke to two dozen US military personnel last month to ask their opinions. The 100% response was, “we think it is inappropriate for the taxpayer to fund sexual reassignment surgery while serving including several years of rehab and ongoing drug therapy…it is taking the p*ss…we serve our country because we love it and we don’t have room to support social experiments to protect freedom!” There was no real issue of transgender per se rather a problem of providing funds in n already tightly allocated budget for such medical expenditure. Several even spoke of the stupidity of LGBT pride day in the armed forces. What has the ability to fight got to do with what goes on in the bedroom? One said “if we had a heterosexual pride day” we’d never hear the end of it.

So when you communicate with the real people you find the truth if you are prepared to listen. The beauty of social media and indeed Google (which happily acts as a Big Brother on what it considers acceptable) is that many people reach for articles they probably haven’t read properly and use them as ways to ram home an argument because they carry a brand name. Harvard is a wonderful institution but as we’ve seen it has run into questions of conflicts of interest.

I happen to think that social media is having the opposite effect on brainwashing to tell the truth. 99.9% of what I see posted has little thought to it. The more people I speak to the more they are ignoring noise. Many people share articles without putting some basis of why they post it. In many cases people are too afraid to face a doxxing or backlash. Bring it on. To me if you post things in the public domain then be prepared to invite criticism. On my site I do not censor, cut off or delete readers. They are free to come and go as they please. I only request they keep profanity to a minimum.

So in summary, the idea that we bow down to venerable institutions to seek guidance is as flawed today as it ever was. I’ll gladly stick to gut instincts because to date they have worked so far. Having said that I should put a disclaimer that was always plastered on financial services product, “Past results are no guarantee of future performance”

Why the KKK is being killed by free speech

Why is the KKK losing to free speech? Daryl Davis is why. We’ll get to him a bit later. Even before the terrible events of Charlottesville the movement to remove statues of Confederate figures has grown. A list of states looking to do so can be found here. It so happens on the same subject, a poll was taken by MilitaryTimes on whether 10 of the forts (Fort Lee, Fort Hood, Fort Benning, Fort Gordon, Fort Bragg, Fort Polk, Fort Pickett, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Rucker and Camp Beauregard) throughout the US and one naval vessel (the submarines Robert E Lee, Dixon, Jackson and Huntley have all been decommissioned. The guided missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville is still in service named after the greatest victory of General Lee) named after Confederate soldiers/battles be changed. The result from 8,000 polled so far is 71% in the No camp. Whatever the arguments for and against it would seem the majority of Americans are prepared to accept the history. One could question why the US military decided to name things after a former enemy of the United States in the first place? If you read the detailed histories of the ships named after Confederate commanders they symbolize their military skill and leadership not their defence of slavery.

Monument destruction is not new. We only need go back to the 1990s when Ukraine started to demolish the 5,500 monuments of Vladimir Lenin that were scattered around the country, except those with a WW2 significance. Basically the idea was Ukrainians wished to show their disgust at communist rule but honour those who bravely fought for their freedom. Look at how many statues of dictators in the Middle East and North Africa have been torn down since Saddam fell.

The Civil War and the emancipation of slaves is deeply etched in American history. 620,000 died in the conflict. Interestingly in an 1866 letter to fellow Confederate Gen. Thomas L. Rosser, General Robert E. Lee wrote, “As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt … would have the effect of … continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties.”

Robert E.Lee’s great grandson, Robert E.Lee V said, “We have to be able to have that conversation around the symbols of the Confederacy without all of the hatred and the violence…if they choose to take those statues down, fine. Maybe it’s appropriate to have them in museums or to put them in some sort of historical context in that regard.”

That is the point which is no doubt upsetting certain groups. They feel their ‘free speech’ (hate speech to some) is being violated. The 1st Amendment is what it is. No matter how one may feel about the views of such extremist groups, the question of legality rears its ugly head. There is no law against carrying a Nazi or KKK flag as abhorrent and offensive as the action is. It is vulgar and gets all the shock value it seeks to gain. As much as one might think such a flag bearer getting clocked on the head had what was coming to him, can we honestly say violence will sew seeds of unity?

Charlottesville City tried to revoke the Unite the Right’s permit it had issued for the rally to be held in Emancipation Park, so it could move the protestors a mile away to McIntire Park, with the claim of more open space. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Charlottesville and a federal judge ruled that the initial permit was to be honoured. To police the 500 right wing protesters expected to attend, first responders outnumbered them two to one to ensure public safety. However it seems the police were only intervening when violence broke out. Instead of making sure Anti-fa and the nationalists never saw each other, law enforcement was standing passively by, waiting for violence to erupt so that they could declare an emergency and clear the area. We don’t need to work out the rest when two armed groups that detest each other clash. What did people expect? Had Anti-fa not been there, can we assume the protest would have been vile but peaceful? It is highly possible. Once again they were legally entitled to be there regardless of what people may think about their toxic views. As soon as people try to shut down their legal rights, a whole new can of worms will be opened. The counter-protestors achieve the complete opposite of what they set out to do.

To put the shoe on the other foot. If Anti-fa, which specializes in shutting down speech it doesn’t agree with, was banned from protesting we wouldn’t hear the end of it. Even if Anti-fa had a permit to protest in Charlottesville, why on earth would any city grant two groups so diametrically opposed the opportunity to vent on the same day? That is like leaving Bambi in a cage full of hungry wolves. The outcome was obvious.

ACLU Virginia Executive Director Claire Guthrie Gastañaga said, “The situation that occurred was preventable, and our lawsuit challenging the City to act constitutionally did not cause it. … All we did was ask the City to live up to the requirements of the Constitution. That it failed to do so is on the City, not us.”

In reality the protest is over clumps of granite, concrete and bronze. Some see the history of white nationalists, who protest at their demolition, as reason enough to prevent their rights. It is true some of the groups they are part of have committed terrible acts in the century following the end of the Civil War. Some argue it hasn’t ended. Now we are now witnessing the tit-for-tat stupidity of wanting to pull down MLK Jr statues or remove the name plaque from George Washington’s statue! What next? Should the Lincoln Memorial be dynamited? Of course not.

The problem is people aren’t listening. The accusation is that all white nationalists are racists and bigoted. I happen to be white and proud of my country. Does that make me a white nationalist? Is patriotism a bad thing? Does that make me a Nazi? In Australia the number of groups out to shame those who are white is growing. The City of Yarra Council (CoYC) voted this week to ditch Australia Day because they view it as the day the British invaded Aboriginal lands. Despite many Aboriginal leaders expressing the view that Australia Day should be one of inclusiveness, unity and looking forward, the CoYC pushes division by rigging a poll by using activists to get the result to justify their socialist hand-ringing. They want to shame people who had no control over events of 230 years ago. Instead of dealing with rubbish collection and ensuring public restrooms are kept clean, the CoYC thinks it speaks for the majority when it doesn’t. It promotes a grievance culture that only looks backward.

Take African American Daryl Davis who has converted over 200 people to leave the KKK by allowing them to express their views. He says, “People say, “Daryl, how can you have this stuff (KKK memorabilia)? Why don’t you burn it?” I say as shameful as it is you don’t burn our history regardless of the good, the bad and the ugly. And the Ku Klux Klan is as American as baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet.” Davis goes on to say with respect to free speech, “Give that person a platform. Let these people air their views and people will reciprocate…I never set out to convert anybody…they all converted themselves.”

There in lies the beauty of free speech. If one allows people to peacefully protest within the limits of the law and give them an unfettered ability to express themselves, no matter how crackpot their beliefs, they have no way to complain that they’ve been victimized. Unite the Right had a pretty lame turnout – 500 people. Their actions, were they able to practice them under the banner of freedoms provided by the constitution, would have done little to enamour them to the wider audience they want to reach. They looked ridiculous.

The flip side breeds resentment and makes it worse in the long run. Anti-fa’s actions to gag people and treat them with contempt pushes the problem underground making it harder to control. Worse than that these wounds fester in a manner which tends to lead to knee jerk actions as the pressure inside causes raw emotion to override common sense. That is what we got in Charlottesville.

Countless arguments have been made wanting to ban white nationalists from protesting. If people dislike the laws that protect these extremists then they should campaign to ‘amend’ the 1st Amendment to curtail that activity. However they should be prepared to have their own freedoms crimped as well. Laws should never be unjust.

We also hear the term Nazi bandied around like confetti. Were all Kriegsmarine sailors, Wehrmacht soldiers and Luftwaffe pilots hardened Nazis? It raises a true story of a highly decorated Messerschmitt Bf-109 pilot, Franz Stigler, who escorted a stricken US B-17F bomber (on its maiden mission) piloted by Charlie Brown back over the Channel so the injured air crew might survive. Stigler not only risked being shot down himself but potentially faced court martial and execution for aiding and abetting the enemy. The two men shared a great friendship over 18 years after reuniting in 1990. It is a truly heartwarming story. It’s proof to the rest of us that something great done now can change our lives much, much later. Daryl Davis is a modern day Franz Stigler who proves common sense can prevail in testing times.

.

The growing dangers of the Sanctimonious Society

IMG_0820.JPG

Welcome to the sanctimonious society. Social media has taken this to new levels. Given the superficiality of much of today’s internet posts, memes and rants, what it has done is destroy the need for serious debate over contentious issues. Before discussing the likes of Twitter or Facebook censoring certain bloggers, the discourse is self-evident. How often do you read a credible rebuttal to a topical post? Hardly ever is the answer. Usually the criticism is laced with sanctimony, expletives and ridicule. The aim of trolling is none other than to shut down debate and make fun of the person who makes the statement. The intensity of cyber-bullying is chronic. In some respects it is none too surprising we are dealing with words like snowflake, trigger warnings and safe spaces these days.

Take cyber bullying stats from the Association of Psychological Science in the US. In 2015 more than 16,000 young people were absent from school daily because of bullying. 83% of young people say cyber bullying has a negative impact on their self-esteem. 30% of young people have gone on to self-harm as a result of cyberbullying. 10% of young people have attempted to commit suicide as a result of cyberbullying. People who have been bullied are at greatest risk for health problems in adulthood, over six times more likely to be diagnosed with a serious illness, smoke regularly, or develop a psychiatric disorder compared to those not involved in bullying. In the US alone, suicides per 100,000 head of population since 2000 are up 38% according to WHO.

However the WiFi world is quickly escalating unreasoned stupidity in the real world. The internet is awash with so much ill-considered social media activity that if one chooses to breathe for 10 minutes the story will likely have changed 180 degrees from the initial knee jerk. Take the terrible events of Charlottesville this week. The driver that plowed into the crowd was initially reported as a white supremacist before other media reported he was Antifa. Regardless of his affiliation his actions were repugnant. Anyone with common decency can see that. Trying to justify the legitimacy of masked Antifa (many who were carrying baseball bats) staging a ‘peaceful’ protest was somehow morally superior to alt-right torch bearers or vice versa is almost like trying to say watering your lawn with gasoline is less harmful than diesel to kill off weeds.

While the tragedies of the lost lives and depraved acts of violence from both sides is impossible to ignore, the (social and mainstream) media was awash with one sided views. There was no debate and balanced reasoning was next to non existent. One could argue the media has always been biased and to some extent that is true however in the social media world clickbait means revenue and the more sensational and less accurate the reporting the higher the likely ‘hits’ which only exacerbates the problem. We only need to look at CNN’s admission that the ‘Russiagate’ story has been a fabrication for ratings. Integrity be damned. Sadly that is becoming almost an all too common thread of today’s society. Selfish, narcissistic and insensitive bullying.

The other problem nowadays is that almost everyone carries a video camera. It is as if many think they are behind the safety of their own computer screens, oblivious to what is going on. Only a few months ago, an armed SWAT team boarded a Malaysian Airlines flight to suppress a crazed passenger. Despite the screams to get down, multiple people could be seen standing as tall as possible trying to improve the angle of the altercation on their iPhones. There is a sick surrealism to it. Yet if we take this clickbait of someone’s footage at Charlottesville, disseminated to an audience already prejudiced, it only adds to the hysteria. The instant it hits the mobs’ feed it can lead to incorrect assumptions to what is actually going on, even worse hampering emergency services efficacy in controlling the situation. Yet, 10 minutes later, the unedited version of the same scene or one shot from a different angle can completely undermine that biased view. It might show how the violence really escalated rather than the deliberately cut version showing the evil of the unhinged. If we managed to get all of the collective footage from 1,000s of smartphones and objectively analyzed it all it wouldn’t be surprising to see both sides fueling the violence in different areas. Yet because it fits the picture of the ‘divided’ country narrative no attempts are made to seek balance which only fires up the misinformation.

Did Trump take too long to condemn the KKK, Neo-Nazi and White Supremacists? Perhaps. Was he waiting for a full debrief on what went on? Perhaps. Are all 63 million odd Trump voters that don’t openly condemn these acts of violence guilty of being white-supremacists by association? No. Are all Democrats responsible for what Antifa does? No. Internet trolls seem less intent on getting tacit admissions of guilt from their enemy. Think of the campaign which has identified some of the torch bearers leading several to get fired by their employers. Where was the campaign to identify the baseball bat wielding Antifa thugs? Was it because they were masked? Some might cynically claim they don’t have jobs to be fired from. However this idea that only one side is guilty serves no purpose and risks further division.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Both extremes are so caught up in their own views there is little scope for reasoning much less any desire to consider the alternative argument. This idea that Trump is all of a sudden responsible for unleashing this division is preposterous. Hate doesn’t surface in 6 months. It brews over longer periods of time. If anything Trump is a catalyst to it. His caustic manner is tipping an apple cart of decades of political correctness and walking on eggshells legislation that has sought in many cases to promote victimhood. The President’s actions now threaten many of these altruistic views and socialist ideals. They are upset. This isn’t to debate the rights and wrongs of policy set by previous administrations, rather seek to identify why this scourge is happening. It doesn’t justify any forms of violence but it highlights how tightly sprung things are. Just think of why a p*$$y grabbing vulgarian was able to defy all the odds in the election? Could it be that the underbelly of division has existed in America for so long? It finally reached breaking point and delivered him to the White House? The idea he has created this division is a complete falsehood. One might argue his tweets are stirring this hornet’s nest but the sad fact of the matter is that the problems have been brewing way before his inauguration. Ask yourself why hasn’t the mainstream media worked out the best way to cripple Trump is to ignore him? 18 months on since he won the GOP ticket they have not stopped hyperventilating which gives him more airtime than he deserves and ultimately makes them look foolish.

This bullying behaviour is only likely to get worse. The ever worsening cesspit of social media will only exacerbate the problem. Behind a keyboard, people feel they can afford to be 10 feet tall but seldom do they realize their actions could carry (un)intended negative reactions.

More laws are being created to clamp down on what is called ‘hate speech’ or discriminatory language. However we are witnessing more countries shut down free speech and innocent people are having their lives destroyed for expressing points of view that are completely acceptable and not even the slightest bit racist or bigoted (Australians will know the secret trial held by the AHRC of several QUT students expressing a fact). Seeking prescriptive measures to shut people up will invite exactly the sort of behaviour it seeks to prevent. One can call former EDL leader Tommy Robinson a bigot but he has two best selling books in the UK. Could it be there are more people in the UK that share his views than politicians are willing to admit because political correctness is easier for them to dodge discussing pertinent issues? Whether Tommy is right or wrong in his analysis is beside the point. He obviously represents a larger mindshare of the community. Shutting them up forces the movement underground. Do we ban his book? It doesn’t seek to address the problem which in his case is Islam. In some cases he has a point. The exposure of predominantly Bangladeshi/Pakistani rape gangs who have groomed 100s of innocent women across 18 British cities is an issue. Listening to Newcastle City Mayor Nick Forbes, one of the places impacted by this depravity, spent an entire interview dodging the question of these grooming gangs not wanting to discuss the M word. All it does is alienate more people against an optically biased system.

One can debate till the cows come home about whether the M word is the main factor but if it is not openly debated, it is not hard to see why some will grow prejudiced. It is hardly desirable. It doesn’t mean the thinking is right rather a growing number of people feel ignored. It doesn’t automatically make them racists or bigots. Some feel politicians are hiding from speaking openly of jihadi attacks on home soil, dismissing them as lone wolf attacks or the community’s fault for forcing them to commit such atrocious acts. If indeed the left leaning media is so assured of bigotry by Anglo Saxon Brits why not show the other side of the debate and broadcast hours of footage showing Muslim clerics speaking out against these attacks, everyday Muslims integrating with their non-Muslim communities and how they are actively working with authorities to weed the radicals that are demonizing their faith? No, it’s easier to point fingers at bigoted Brits who see no comfort offered by their elected leaders in what they see happening to their community. Once again bullying people for expressing what they perceive as legitimate concerns doesn’t solve the problem.

To put the shoe on the other foot, Robinson posted a video link of the start of an Oldham (a borough of Manchester) Council meeting. It showed the majority of Anglo-Saxon councillors with their heads bowed as the elected Muslim Mayor requested his imam to say prayers. Of course it easy to see why some might draw conclusions to the decline of centuries of British culture however looking deeper into the matter yielded interesting findings. Voter turnout at the last election in the 25% Muslim borough was around 30%. It was a fairly held election. Democracy. Whether local politics is too petty for some, if the residents of Oldham are so incensed by the idea of an imam saying prayers in Arabic and English after following the Serjeant at Arms carrying a mace bearing a Christian cross it is hard to have sympathy. If one is truly in fear of the cultural upheaval, why not use their democracy to change it? Expressing outrage at something that is controllable seems ridiculous.

Australia is in the midst of bullying as well. Same sex marriage (SSM) is on the table. A postal plebiscite is set to occur. Many argue that parliamentarians should vote on it and get it over with. Indeed there are far more pressing economic issues to deal with. Yet the Turnbull government lacks any moral authority and is beholden to so many internal factions to be able to pass so called marriage equality.

Still regardless of one’s views on SSM, the bullying is in full effect. Musician Nick Minchin created one of his hallmark curse-ladened parodies of a Peter Allen song called, “I still call Australia homophobic”. Sadly he is part of the problem, not the solution. One doesn’t have to be homophobic to be against SSM. Yet Minchin thinks it is ok to call these people ‘bigoted c*nts’. Such words have all the same traits of ridiculing Trump or Brexit voters in the lead up to the vote. It has the opposite impact at the polling booth.

A Tasmanian archbishop is being hauled before a tribunal for expressing his anti-SSM views on the grounds of spreading hate. Are his views old fashioned or just part of millennia of religion? A hotel was forced to cancel a lawful gathering of anti-SSM campaigners through intimidation. Is this the sort of behaviour (albeit at the fringe) that unites a nation on a subject?

Some argue it is a waste of $122mn to hold a SSM plebiscite for a government in a $750bn hole. Maybe it is but to many out there, they want a democratic vote to take place. Some feel lobby groups that ignore their concerns (however backward, ancient or stiff) on issues they hold dearly are the exact reason why a vote should be held. It doesn’t matter to them whether a Catholic country like Ireland passed gay marriage, these people don’t want to be brow beaten, attacked or pilloried for expressing an alternative view. I am quite certain that should ‘Yes’ get up in the plebiscite people will have had their say. Shouting down the views of others is wrong. Let their voices be heard and allow the marketplace for free speech settle the differences. Sadly this is not the case. Any polling done by Get Up which shows an emphatic victory should be discounted. Indeed if they are so sure of a ‘Yes’ outcome then they should be over the moon to let democracy back its findings. Secretly they think otherwise. What they view as a waste of money won’t be to others.

Some people fear (again we’re not debating the rights and wrongs of it) that should lobby group bullying win the fight for SSM by an act of parliament then what comes next? We only need to look at the Safe Schools Programme in Victoria which is nothing more than a way to enforce gender indoctrination under the guise of anti-bullying. Cross dressing/role playing, whichever bathrooms and other ‘progressive’ programs are not necessary for 6 year olds. Boys playing with Tonka trucks and Matchbox cars or girls playing with Barbie dolls is not something that requires the school system to enforce boys and girls to reverse toy box selections. When I was a baby my mother recalled I had a love for cars. Even from my pram I knew more car names than English words. I’m sure she wasn’t wheeling me around the Warringah Mall car park trying to force me to do male things. By the same token my daughters weren’t chained to the Bratz corner of Toys’R’us in order to force them to be girls. Seeing her mother apply makeup was something she wanted to do.

What this all boils down to is society’s growing intolerance for free and open debate. We do not lack the ability to talk but we’re incapable of listening. That alternative views must be mocked or banned. There are some with such inability to accept alternative views who suggest prison sentences for climate skepticism. Are the arguments for climate change so weak that alarmists believe the only way to force the end game is to legally ban freedom of opinion?

One imagines that if we put an Antifa and a KKK supporter in the same room unbeknownst to them both and asked a standard questions on a variety of topics they probably would agree on more than they would if within their representative groups. These experiments have been conducted before where complete strangers meet and by the end when identities are revealed there is an awakening. It isn’t forced but occurs naturally through cordial conversation.

I make no apology for my conservative views. One friend is an unabashed socialist. We debate intensely on a variety of issues we have polar views on. I recently wrote to him privately to thank him for broadening my understanding of his views. While I might disagree with him I certainly respect his right to debate his points, which he often does insightfully. Some points are indeed valid and on certain issues we see eye to eye. Others less so. However we listen.

Sadly sanctimony is becoming ever more firmly entrenched into our culture and it can have nothing but bad outcomes. Perhaps to end with a Jewish proverb – “slander slays three people: the spoken by, the spoken to and the spoken of”