#hypocrites

Totalistralian Open

894870B7-6251-4D72-B74A-106DB1837BF1.jpeg

From today’s papers – “Stacy Cole and his husband Brian Hewitt have travelled from Dallas, Texas for the first Grand Slam of the year but won’t be buying tickets to Margaret Court Arena after the stadium’s namesake expressed her views on same-sex marriage.”

CM thoroughly endorses their right to choose not to watch matches in it. What CM doesn’t endorse is the motive behind the action. The Margaret Court Arena was named after her for sporting achievements. Period. Just because she possesses different values on marriage is not an excuse to go down the path of vilification which seeks to remove the name. As they said,

I hope that the Australian Open takes the fact that her name is on his Court very seriously and maybe considers having another name because it does make us feel a little uncomfortable buying tickets to go in.

As John McEnroe would say, “YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!!?” Uncomfortable? Perhaps the Australian Open can compensate them for their trauma. Had they stayed in Texas, would they have turned off the TV were any matches played on the Margaret Court Arena? Give me a break.

Stacy & Brian identify their same sex union as a traditional husband and wife sense. The 2016 Census highlighted same sex couples as 0.7% of total relationships. Those identifying as husband & wife in same sex couple relationships was less than 0.03%. So the media are giving Stacy & Brian a platform to shove a message down people who voted overwhelmingly to support SSM in a plebiscite. What purpose does it serve? Surely victory is already theirs on SSM? They can toast the fact that all of Margaret Court’s activism on the NO campaign was fruitless and now a law confirms her lost cause. Yet the left can’t let go. True victory only comes when the enemy is completely crushed, humiliated and stripped of any accolades richly deserved for the manner in which they were awarded.

What the left consistently forget is that they only push the very people they are trying to bring around to their way of thinking further away. What can’t be argued with reasoned logic must be protested with threats or acts of force.

Welcome to the tolerant left. Margaret Court should be forced to watch her name being removed from the stadium for extra effect. Maybe the International Tennis Federation should retroactively strip all of her championships and prize money indexed with inflation? Setting examples is the only way forward for totalitarians.

An end to sex segregation in sports?

C8373E04-2C06-4D1F-ABA6-6AF9E94D91DC.jpeg

The ever impartial and balanced ABC posted an article talking about how it is time to eradicate sex segregation in sports by using formulas/classification systems to ‘even it out’. Were these social experiements warranted, how was it that Michele Mouton finished runner up in the 1982 World Rally Championship against an all male field with zero free kicks? She won four races in the season. Call it raw talent. She didn’t require complex formulas and spreadsheets to give her a handicap. She won on her own merits. No system required. Isn’t that the thrill of competition?

27F96D93-8F09-45FA-A712-DF8FF402DADF.jpeg

In the Moto 3 motorcycle championship, Maria Herrera competes against an all male field. She is not a championship contender but she isn’t always last. Still she has no handicap. If she wants to race with the men then accept all the same rules of competition. You won’t find Maria moaning about being hard done by.

F1D18494-EC2C-4861-9926-CE7444820389.jpeg

Ana Carrasco, a 20-year-old from Spain, became the first woman to win a world championship motorcycle race last year. No sex segregation but grit, hunger and determination. No handicaps.

4F74EE8E-84E4-4579-886C-E591EC0A8195

Still, the driving factor (no pun intended) behind these three women has been the machines which level the playing field but the importance was they won on their own skill.

Sadly, it is an inescapable fact that men and women are different physiologically. Especially in sports which rely solely on the physicality of the athlete. Should Merlene Ottey have been pitted against Usain Bolt in the 100m? Give her a size, weight and twitch fibre handicap? However shouldn’t whites or Asians be equally justified to complain that black athletes tend to dominate track and field. Perhaps they should be given race based handicaps? Perhaps a flyweight female boxer be given a 20 point start against a flyweight male boxer? Whatever it takes. So much for betting agencies setting fair prices (although what a way to match fix by a subtle tweak to a handicap formula).

Then we switch into the transgender athletes e.g. males who identify as females. So let’s say a former 125kg All Black wants to play for a women’s rugby team. Apart from the health and safety aspects of such a move, there is no logic or fairness. Or perhaps to avoid health risks give Serena Williams a two set head start against Roger Federer? Make him play with a racket head half the size.

Since the first Olympics in Athens in 1896 the world has had over 100 years of sex segregated sports. No one has really complained. Drug cheating is a bigger issue to be fair. Having said that people want to see athletes break records unhindered by spreadsheet based technicalities. Usain Bolt trained for 16 years to remain at the top of his game. Would FloJo be satisfied to say she ran an adjusted 9.57s to be the world’s fastest sprinter when she only managed 10.49 in real money? Or is it worth setting her starting blocks to run 92m so as to even it out. Talk about hollow victories.

Seriously though, what is wrong with athletes training their hearts out to win glory? What is it with the left that insists on trying to even out absolutely everything. Why not allow women hammer throwers to do the men’s 100m? Surely they can derive a formula for that? Or perhaps the Jamaican 4x100m men’s relay team should complete against the Japanese women’s group synchronized swimming in their respective sports? Why not give the weight of a Djibouti gold medal 10x that of the US or China?

This thirst for loony social experiments is really going too far. The outward push for diversity continues unabated. Yet once again the hypocrisy of the left calls for ‘differences’ to be eradicated so everyone can be a winner. Equality without a level playing field. Now that is straight out of the socialist playbook.

What is more egregious than receiving $800,000?

36D56DDF-05B1-4169-B60A-248441EF019D.jpeg

The $650,000 of that sum paid to the lawyers of a transgender student, Ms. (Mr) Ashton Whitaker, who claimed discrimination against the school which prevented her from using the male bathrooms and calling her the incorrect pronoun. She also added that she suffered from anxiety, depression, migraines and other health problems related to dehydration because she had tried to avoid restroom trips by drinking less water.

Whitaker said, “The idea of using the girls restroom was humiliating and there was no way I could do it…If I were to use the gender-neutral restrooms, I would also stand out from everyone else with a big label on me that said ‘transgender.”

Doesn’t that quote sort of say it all? Whitaker wants the school to accept her as a male yet the idea of using gender neutral restrooms would label her as transgender! Indeed if she is asking the school teachers to call her male pronouns and to be allowed to use the male toilets isn’t she labeling herself in front of her class? Wouldn’t male students who saw her use their bathrooms already know it was because she was transgender?

However this court victory only opens the floodgates to more victim based ambulance chasing. For lawyers it becomes a field day. The days of “have you been injured at work?” will be replaced by “have you had your feelings hurt?” At $650k a pop that is easy money for lawyers.

Should all schools be forced to change curriculums, indoctrinate other students, parents and teachers as well as go to considerable expense to accomodate people like Whitaker? Should parents who wish their kids to study in schools that aren’t caught up in this nonsense be free to send their kids to boys or girls only education without the state determining bathroom policy? Don’t they have just as much right to demand that as a transgender student from demanding the opposite? Yet the ruling is moving toward a scenario where parents who do not accept this be labeled bigots and persecuted for holding conservative views.

Let’s think about this. For girls who ‘identify’ as boys or vice versa why must we be dictated to by law to ‘pretend’ to accept them for what they subjectively (not biologically) feel themselves to be, assuming we know in the first place? California has laws that can jail one for using the wrong pronoun. This is the slippery slope.

Perhaps the solution – if the demand is high enough –  is transgender only schools where people like Whitaker can study, be called whatever pronoun that makes them happy and pee in the bathroom of their choice. They can have their own sanctuary. Why should the students (and parents) of the school that paid the $800,000 settlement suffer from a cutback in educational tools, teachers or other facilities because of a student’s hurt feelings? $800,000 would buy a lot of ‘useful’ equipment for furthering education.

To give a great example of how weak the liberal argument is for the slippery slope of caving in to transgender in schools and general life look at this interview of Tucker Carlson and DNC senior advisor Zac Petkanas. It is frighteningly naive.

Today’s ‘civil rights’ movement is all about removing them from the majority. No one is arguing that transgender people don’t deserve equal status (they have it). It is only because they demand special treatment which once again throws into the fore the problem with institutionalising policy which creates the very opposite to what ‘diversity’ crowd proclaim they promote. Honestly what has gender, race or sexual preference have to do with ‘performance’ in the schoolyard or workplace? Yet increasingly we are asked to provide it to prospective employers who fear being persecuted if they don’t get the ‘balance’ right.

Canada’s last cold snap before snow is never seen again

DDAC6A04-F289-4B71-ABB2-ABFFA5730FAD.jpeg

Canada has had a cold snap. The coldest temperatures in 57 years. Jo Nova writes,

In freak conditions, Canadians (and many people in the US too) are getting a chance to enjoy record cold for the last time before climate change makes winters unbearably mild.”

Temperatures observed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport bottomed out at -22 C [-7.7F] this morning. The previous record for this date was set in 1960, when it hit -18.9 C. [-2F]”

New York is likely to have the coldest New Year’s since 1960.

Where are the scientific models that predicted this? All of the billions and trillions we must spend to prevent a catastrophe based on these models that are 98% wrong?

World government – why it would never work and why you shouldn’t want it to

F241490E-8417-42F5-9352-CDFD70A3FC95.jpeg

World government. Some criticise the US move to hobble the UN via funding cuts as justification for it. Some argue that international laws cramp the style of just about every government under the sun so those with power go out of their way to prevent it. The same people argue that the UN should be democratized and nation states should submit to international law and independent institutions set up to enforce it.

Presumably within this Marxist manifesto there should be no borders and total freedom of movement. However within this socialist dogma not one has put forward how it might work economically which is probably the best signal that it would fail to be a sustainable form of government. We’ve had multiple attempts at socialism and in every case it has failed. Oh how the left championed Chavez as a model of successful socialism. How quiet they are now. Still it doesn’t prevent them extolling the virtues of ‘equality’ even if some pigs are more equal than others.

Still suppose we entertain the prospect of a world government. We have to start somewhere. Regardless of whether we like it or not, a world government would need to address economic status to sign up willing participants. The US economy is 24% of world GDP with less than 5% of the world’s population. In order for the US to agree to join a world government they would rightly demand that they get 24% of the seats in a world parliament? Why would they join at 5%? What is the incentive? Virtue? Australia has a disproportionately large raw materials base relative to the population. Should the Aussies have just one vote if it ends up benefitting others more than itself?

We have a living working example of how fusing completely different economic systems doesn’t work, even when the population speaks the same language – German reunification. From Der SPIEGEL,

Today, the eastern German economy is still in a sorry state, and there are no indications that the situation will change. An estimated €1.3 trillion ($1.6 trillion) have flowed from the former West Germany to the former East Germany over the last 20 years. But what has that money achieved? Historic neighborhoods have been restored, new autobahns built and the telephone network brought up to date, but most of the money was spent on social benefits such as welfare payments. The anticipated economic upswing failed to materialize…Most of eastern Germany has turned into an economically depressed region that lags behind the west in all respects:

The per capita economic output in the east is only at 71 percent of the western level, with a disproportionately high share of economic output attributable to the public sector. The economic output generated by the private economy is only at 66 percent of the western level.

To close the gap, the eastern German economy would have to grow more rapidly than in western Germany, but precisely the opposite is the case. Germany’s leading economic research institutes expect the economy in eastern Germany to grow by 1.1 percent this year, compared with 1.5 percent in the west.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the population of eastern Germany has declined by almost 2 million people, a trend that is continuing unabated.

The proportion of household income derived from welfare payments is 20 percent higher in the east than in the west.

Of Germany’s 100 largest industrial companies and 100 largest service providers, not one has its headquarters in eastern Germany.

The lesson is clear. When given a choice, the citizens of the former socialist state stampeded to the capitalist state because they knew ‘opportunities’ were far more abundant and desirable. The power of the free market. What better indication of a repudiation of socialism than those that have actually lived under it. Many ‘socialists’ today (who ironically have never experienced it) are envious. Indeed former PM Baroness Margaret Thatcher put it best, “the Labour Party would prefer the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich” Instead of enterprise and looking for ways to get ahead, many sit back and complain why it isn’t handed to them on a platter.

So in the case of world government without borders, it would make complete sense for people from say Africa or the Middle East to move to NY, London or Berlin. As they left their homes in the millions, sheer logistical issues would come into play – housing, food, healthcare and sanitation. The only way to ration scarce resources would be to let the free market decide it. World government wouldn’t allow it. Shouldn’t a Congolese family have a claim to live in a penthouse on 5th Avenue or Mayfair in the interests of equality? Maybe the owners of the 5th Avenue apartment should have the property repossessed to promote equality. Surely a noble gesture for the other 99%.

What about filling the world parliament? How do we look to address balance? The Indians and Chinese represent 35% of the global population. Should they not occupy 35% of the seats? Is there a global vote? As an Australian do I get a say on the Chinese candidates? Do they mine? Assuming we had global votes, language barriers would be a problem. How would an English speaker be able to work out the depth in abilities of a Chinese candidate from Harbin who only speaks Mandarin? Even if we could translate his every word, what hope would we have of delving deep into his or her history or the subtleties of cultural ‘meanings’ hidden within language to be able to cast a ballot on as fully informed a basis as possible?

Or should we cut the pie of global government candidates based on religious grounds? Muslims represent 24% of the population. Should all countries submit to having 24% of the laws made by a global government Sharia compliant? Christians represent 31% of the globe. Should they have the right to enforce the world to take Christmas as a public holiday? If the international parliament votes to repeal Ramadan should it stand? Afterall that is the result of a properly functioning global democracy!

Some in favour of the UN being the ‘social democracy’ that binds us honestly believe that it would not fall foul of greed, corruption or poor governance. Do we seriously wish to put power in the hands of the UN as our global government if one of its groups thought the murderous dictator Robert Mugabe was a worthy ambassador for WHO? Do we think the UN to date has shown exemplary governance and ethics to provide a comfort level for we minions to hand over our regulatory frameworks? Take the former UNIPCC chair who directed UN procured funds toward his own ‘scientific research body’. Conflicts of interest anyone? The UN argues it is independent but how could it be if it is so self serving? To think there was a strong suggestion that the UN deploy blue helmets in Chicago to help quell gun violence. The question one should ask is why wasn’t such action taken when Obama was president? So much for a guarantee of independence if the UN so blatantly takes sides because they want to retaliate against Trump.

We already have a preview of world government policy looks like. Many Western governments are already pandering to political correctness in ways which are causing growing backlash among constituents.

Some on the left believe that nationalism is a “backward, regressive, half-baked ideology which is used by ruling elites to control their populations” Wasn’t the open minded Labour heartland in the Midlands one that leaned to Brexit? Wasn’t it in France where Marine Le Pen’s Front National doubled the number of voters ever seen for her party? Was it not Hungary that voted 99.4% in favour of a referendum to reject forced migration quotas? The surge in the AfD in Germany to 14%. The huge landslide in Austria where the young PM has given his immigration portfolio to the FPO? The surge in the eurosceptic 5 Star Movement in Italy…the list goes on. Even Switzerland handed back its free pass to join the EU (which is about as close as one gets to a world government) because it puts sovereignty and the wish to preserve culture and customs ahead of ‘socialist’ ideals. Isn’t that patriotism rather than nationalism? Lukas Reimann of the Swiss People’s Party, said:

It is hardly surprising that the EU looks like an ever less attractive club to join. What, after all, is the appeal of joining a club into which the entire world can apparently move?”

So what would a world government do to combat nationalism? Regulate against it! Restrict freedom of speech. Incarcerate those that protest against what they perceive as injustice. Of course it would be easy to simplify these people as racists or bigots for not conforming. The price of progressivism is to muzzle dissent. Identity politics and the victimhood it breeds are so pervasive that it creates the exact division it seeks to stop. For  those pushing for world government make no mistake that the elites among the commissars will still be more equal than others.

What is wrong with celebrating differences?  Isn’t visiting a foreign country to immerse oneself in a different culture half the fun of an overseas vacation? Learning about how civilization developed over millennia. Experiencing foreign cuisine, learning a foreign language or respecting local customs (e.g. wearing long sleeves and pants into a Buddhist temple) are not things to be frowned upon. They are exactly the reason why all of the tribes of the world can’t be homogenized into the one box. Yet the world government wouldn’t tolerate such thinking.

A vote for Palestine or a vote against America? Double standards hidden in other votes

DC5C729A-B770-4D4E-932B-0D7507601300.png

Why is anyone surprised by the UNGA vote on the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?  At the UN General Assembly emergency meeting on Thursday to “null & void” the move – 128 votes in favour and nine against, while 35 countries abstained. While it can’t be vetoed it is not legally binding in any way. If one was to break down the vote of the permanent members then without question most of those issued from Russia or China are to stick it to the Americans more than support/reject the cause itself and vice versa . When Turkey’s foreign minister starts talking of not selling out democratic rights of others perhaps he should look to his own boss and question the dictatorship, the lack of freedom of press or an independent judiciary that exists in his own country?

People can stick it to Trump all they want, but a decision was made in mid 1990’s by US Congress, with a clause that had to be signed every 6 months by whomever was President to delay invocation of this act. Between 1998 and 2017, there have been 37 presidential waivers, with the last one expiring a week ago. Trump has just put the ball into motion. After all Presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama have all explicitly said on record that “Jerusalem has and always will be the capital of Israel” The irony of chastising the current president for doing what others said speaks of the hypocrisy of bashing a politician for fulfilling a promise. If only the global political class could catch this disease?!?

While it is hardly a surprise to see Trump’s reaction ‘to take names’ the flip side is that he should allow each UN member state to vote how they wish – period. He would be better off not pointing out the obvious. Indeed if “he doesn’t care” he should just act silently. The message will ring louder. All this posturing only seeks to make him look like a spoilt kid taking his toys home (then again one wonders if that is half the reason he does it. UN votes are meaningless to begin with and seldom have they ever achieved anything worthy.

The UN needs to be defunded in order to reform. It has promised many times to streamline yet it continues to expand into irrelevant quangos. The bloated tax free salaries, retirement packages and living allowances are obscene. Is there any wonder that the UN needs more funding, given 80% of the budget is swallowed up on remuneration alone? No wonder they don’t want progress.

While the truth may be that the US ‘pays’ a lot which ends up in the pockets of many countries, the US will likely go ahead and build the embassy in Jerusalem regardless. Political capital is often ‘bought’. It doesn’t make it right although one who gives to charity hopes that the money ends up supporting favorable causes. Indeed Nikki Haley when criticized for “bullying tactics” responded, “So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don’t expect those we’ve helped to target us…The free money train doesn’t go on forever.

Virtue has and never will be rewarded in politics. To make the point made by the UN’s very own website, some nations lose their right to vote because “according to Charter Article 19, cannot vote because the amount of their arrears equals or exceeds the amount of contributions due from them for the preceding two full years.” So in short if you don’t pay your dues, you lose voting rights. So the UN is basically a ‘club’. Don’t pay your dues, don’t get a vote. Simple. By the same token, some clubs give special treatment for members that pay more. Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze etc.

Here is a telling part of the hypocrisy. Look at the efforts made by these unelected UN representatives when exploring the number of abstentions on certain issues such as “Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly“ So claiming victory and gloating about the embarrassment caused to the US, why  were there 77 abstentions in 2017, 73 abstentions in 2016, 75 in 2015, 79 in 2014, 75 in 203 and 72 in 2012? Notice a pattern? Surely if the evil Israelis don’t rightly deserve to call Jerusalem the capitol and are constantly attacked by the UNHRC for human rights abuses against the Palestinians, why are so many nations abstaining when it comes to investigating these crimes? Surely such evidence would justify the actions of rejecting Israel.

Claiming yesterday as a triumph for the world, the UN is still exposed for what it is. Few bother to look at how nations truly feel when exploring one derivative deeper. The lack of international will is telling. Then again when we only need look at the track record – WHO appointing Robert Mugabe as an ambassador, the proposal to  send in the blue helmets to quell crime in Chicago and the multiple scandals, the complete lack of governance and accountability with respect to the IPCC.

So until all those that vote to punish Israel don’t stick to the script on every vote then the truth is indeed told. Virtue signal on the surface and hide behind abstentions where it matters to ‘keep the funds coming’. Sorry, what was this about principles?

Madoff wasn’t so long ago

89DCC612-C930-4241-97C5-13C9C2D0535E.jpeg

It was just over 9 years ago that Bernie Madoff pleaded guilty to a Ponzi scheme that cost investors over $65bn. While many happily point fingers at greedy banksters we tend to forget that despite Harry Markopolos, handing the SEC (the US regulator) the details of the case in 1999 on a platter it failed to act. His testimony points directly to the kind of problem that exists with government regulators – no track record in the fields they legislate. In the 9 years prior to Madoff pleading guilty, Markopolos caught him at the $6bn stage. The SEC after multiple investigations turned nothing even with a treasure map provided by Markopolos that someone with markets experience would have discovered in 30 minutes. Throw on all the other scandals (ratings agencies etc) that the SEC failed to capture and it cost taxpayers $700bn.

Willful negligence? I gave a speech at the Japanese financial regulator (FSA) on fraud and insider trading  at the time of the Kobe Steel data scandal. When presented with comparable data with other exchanges the blind eye is no less scandalous. So before hanging the financiers out to dry perhaps people ought to question the regulators whose incompetence and inaction is at fault. If you give a child a box of matches unsupervised then don’t be surprised if the whole house burns down.