Mainstream media

Overthrow the Monarchy? What would the left do without it?

52000C3D-E1D1-4EBC-ADCA-149651BC8069.jpeg

Kenan Malik of The Observer wrote of the need to ditch the monarchy. His view was that adding skin colour to the mix won’t change the overall desire to throw it in the dustbin of history. He said,

Nor can I work out why adding a few more black dukes and duchesses, or even kings and queens, should be a step forward. Equality does not mean making inherited privilege more “diverse”. It requires us to get rid of the whole shebang. Adding a splash of colour to a feudal relic is not my idea of social progress.

So typical is the envy of the left that they want to strip everything from the Royal Family and make them all commoners. Why not turn Buckingham Palace into a soup kitchen and boarding house? Put Queen Elizabeth into a waiting list for public housing. Ignore that Prince Harry and others in the Royal family have served their country in the armed forces. Harry put his life on the line in defence of his country. It is a wonder whether Malik has served his country with as much distinction. What fine men the princes have become despite the tragic loss of their mother.

However we should examine the hypocrisy of the left to overthrow the monarchy. BBC, the socialist biased state broadcaster rejected its charter and couldn’t help itself throw President Trump under the bus in terms of comparing crowd numbers at the Inauguration versus Harry & Meghan’s wedding. Three things;

1) were it not for the overwhelming popularity (18mn watched it in the UK alone and 100s millions worldwide) of the Royals then the BBC couldn’t have an opportunity to bash the President in this way;

2) for the Queen to accept a divorcee into the household to marry her grandson shows how ‘progressive’ Her Majesty is. Good luck getting the Japanese Imperial Household Agency accepting something like this. The left should praise her open mind not censure her for being an out of touch bigoted granny and;

3) the wedding was all about diversity which the left loves so much. The 14 minute self-indulgent hijack (sorry, sermon) from a black bishop to a black cellist to a black choir. The music was indeed delightful. Harry even drove away in a ‘save the environment’ electric Jaguar E-type although one could argue that an original petrol version might not have started.

Malik should study the 2015 survey by Yougov which found 68% of the British public believe the monarchy to be good for the country and 71% think it should remain in place. The total annual cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is £292m. Brand Finance Research believes the monarchy tips in around £1.8bn per annum to the UK economy. That is to say they more than pull their weight.

He shouldn’t envy the Royals but pity them. Think of what the Queen has sacrificed in the 66 years she has ruled. Sure the accommodations at Buckingham and Windsor Castles are comfortable, not to mention the numerous butlers and servants who make life easier but think of what she has had to give up in terms of privacy to serve her country. Think of the paparazzi who hounded Diana to her death over 20 years ago. The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will be increasingly scrutinized by the media. The mainstream media would die without the monarchy.

Yet Malik drones on about his real hidden agenda suggesting, “As for the belief that Meghan will break down barriers for black people and make minorities more accepted as truly British, that’s as anachronistic as the monarchy. Faced by an abusive skinhead or by a police officer about to stop and search me, my first thought has never been: “If only there was a black Windsor, then I might be accepted more.”

How in the name of all that is holy that he can talk of how poorly minorities are treated by the British police in 2018? Perhaps he should look at the shameful cover-ups over ‘Asian rape gangs’ by the police over decades to show how the complete opposite is true. Or answer why two ‘white’ fathers were arrested by the police for trying to rescue their underage daughters from rape dens? They were charged with illegal entry and disturbing the peace. Or the arrest and deportation of EU citizen Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone looking to make a speech at Speaker’s Corner and conduct an interview?

Society may be far from perfect but to run these identity narratives using the monarchy as a beacon of bigotry serves no purpose when the facts are examined. Perhaps he should take up his victimhood with London’s first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan because voters are so against minorities. No, it’s just easier to imply that white Brits are xenophobes and the monarchy embodies that same white privilege. Until we guillotine the Royals, the sharp remedy that will cure this lack of diversity awaits.

Trump bashing efficacy

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

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

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

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

Black Royalty in the Castle of White Privilege?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salma Hayek’s curves are an unfair advantage in a world striving for equality

AD890919-E50C-4DE9-B314-01CB8D791635.jpeg

She has a point, but not why you think. It’s a bit confusing though. Did Salma talk to Benedict? Do the Hollywood set want women to get pay rises or men to get pay cuts? Will the sisterhood be annoyed that she’s undone Cumberbatch’s gesture to bump them higher? Or should actors be paid a flat unionized rate by the hour, including a one hour lunch break? Equal pay for equal work, right?

The laughable aspect is that Hollywood actors/actresses know full well that track record at the box office acts as a swing factor for pay determination. Kate Winslet was little known before Titanic but immediately after the phone didn’t stop ringing for her to star in new roles. The pay most certainly jumped significantly as she was well within her rights to command top dollar.

Let’s not forget that the movie star agents (mostly male) get paid on commission so it is absolutely in their best interests to get the best deals for female and male stars. In an industry dominated by sycophants it is highly doubtful they’re low balling to spite those striving for gender equality. Or should directors just cast women and save on production costs?

Yet it points back to the real world. Did you bust a gut to finish top of your 1st class honours degree in law to settle for the same pay as someone who didn’t? Surely you did so to get an advantage in life. Do Olympians train for 4 years in the hope of finishing outside the medals? Or should we dispense with medals entirely? Imagine how many records won’t get broken because there is no incentive to see the fastest, strongest or fittest. More and more schools have this “everyone’s a winner at St Barnabus’” mentality on sports days because the fat kid needs reassurance that he is just as worthy of winning a 100m dash as the 50lb stick insect is in the shot put. Differences are a part of life and we should embrace them rather than push to guarantee everyone gets the same outcome regardless of individual effort.

Isn’t the point of buying a nicer house in a nicer suburb all about an individual desire to achieve? Or will you be happy for the state to allot you a Soviet style 2 bedroom apartment in a crappy neighborhood?

No, let’s just listen to champagne socialists go out of their way conducting self promotion activities. Although in hindsight Salma Hayek may have a point on cutting back on male actor salaries as the total revenue performance of the US box office has dwindled back to 1993 levels.  Just like music has gone the way of Spotify, making a date in the diary to see a movie doesn’t cut it anymore. Video on demand is increasingly what matters.

But Salma, please, please, please! If you get roles that pay you more than your male costars based on your talents then all power to you. You won’t hear a peep here. In fact congratulations for being able to maximize the appeal of such genres to audiences that will shell out for them. Maybe you should beat up on the script writers more often for not writing stories that play up to the male dominating sultry voluptuous vixens you play so well! Be careful though, you may get complaints from the less well endowed actresses for having an unfair advantage but surely you’ve never used those differences or your beauty to get ahead in your career?

Saving the planet one flight at a time. 2% of passengers offset carbon emissions meaning 98% don’t care

D84EE645-B3D1-4B2C-8F1D-8C507ECA5450.jpeg

Apart from the 100% certainty of me being screened for explosives at Sydney Airport (yet again today), the  one other certainty of life is that the growth in air travel suggests that more and more people are happy to save the planet, provided that someone else offsets on their behalf. CM has long argued this position. Our consumption patterns dictate the “true” state of care of the environment. It hasn’t stopped SUV sales dead in their tracks and last year the IATA forecast that the number of airline passengers is set to DOUBLE by 2030.  Could it be that taking a holiday outweighs saving Johnny Polarbear (whose numbers are growing by the way)? Is it conceivable that many of those that are climate alarmists don’t practice what they preach? Well if the UNIPCC COP summits are anything to go by, 50,000 of these pilgrims fly half way around the world every year to kneel at the altar of the climate alarmists pagans.

Virtue signaling airline Qantas has had a long history of emissions offset programs. Now you can choose how to waste your money.

ABD69469-A9BB-43F3-AF97-1AE3E4C07D34.jpeg

So to offset my flight to Haneda, CM is calculated to pay $11.21 AUD. I can put it to ‘local action’ (fund activism?), ‘developing communities’ or ‘global renewables’. In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasts,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

Perhaps more embarrassing is that The Guardian noted in Jan 2018 that,

Qantas [was the] worst airline operating across Pacific for CO2 emissions

Kind of a massive load of hot air when you do the maths!

Who’d have guessed?

A2881330-F6C5-4A8C-BCE1-D9077590AB09.jpeg

In what world do people think wailing works as a way to win over people in an election? Strategy and policy matter. Rasmussen Reports writes,

In fact, just 15% of Likely U.S. Voters believe focusing on the president’s possible impeachment is a better campaign strategy for Democratic congressional candidates than focusing on policy areas where they disagree with Trump. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 70% think focusing on policy differences is a better political strategy. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-one percent (41%) now believe the president will be reelected in 2020, up from 34% in late December. Twenty-six percent (26%) still think Trump will be defeated by the Democratic nominee, but 31% felt that way four months ago.

Twenty-five percent (25%) say the president will be impeached before serving his first full-term in office. That compares to 29% in the previous survey.

A sizable majority of Democrats agrees that policy differences, not impeachment, is the better political strategy, although a plurality of voters in the opposing party still says the Republican president won’t finish his first term in office.”

The marketplace for free speech weighs Wolf & Trump

0DDA3817-B905-4CEE-8389-D32655BBE425.jpeg

Poor old Michelle Wolf. You know, the young lady whose fingernails-down-a-chalkboard voice made off-coloured jokes surrounding abortion, Trump’s bedroom prowess, his daughter being as useful as an empty box of tampons and even portrayed WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a fat softball playing lesbian Uncle Tom for white women. Adam Sandler has just shredded her $4mn contract to star in Little Niki via Twitter. While CM is always against boycotts, compelled speech and virtue signaling, we’re struggling to work out whether Sandler terminated it on the basis of tasteless content or awful delivery? A combination perhaps?

Wolf tweeted back that she was fine with that because she was to play a role in the reboot of Bride of Chucky. Unfortunately that film role has also been cancelled, costing her another $410,000.

Freedom of speech is a funny thing. Wolf has every right to express what she chooses but should not complain if her backers (including her liberal mates) retreat because she picked the wrong audience to showcase them. Humour is always about fine lines. Sadly for Wolf she couldn’t even memorize her humour, having the read her jokes (?) out. The best comics don’t need scripts and can shred people off the cuff. That’s what makes them funny.

Yes, many have equated Wolf’s remarks to Trump’s greatest hits saying it’s unfair to pick on her. As a reminder Trump said,

grabbed her by the p*ssy”,

“I moved  on her like a bitch”,

“African countries are sh*tholes”

or

Michelle Wolf was over the top

Yet the market for free speech weighed his and her offensiveness. American voters had every opportunity to make sure he didn’t enter the White House on the basis of his vulgar remarks about women made over a decade ago. (Un)fortunately for them, his election to blow up the establishment was deemed more relevant to Americans than locker-room talk made in private over a hot mic.

Presumably, Wolf, much like Kathy Griffin (of bloodied severed Trump head fame), offer absolutely nothing outside their careers. They’re most unlikely to be able to force two nations to take up peace negotiations or shirt front dictactors. So when they stake their risky actions on going ‘viral’ to boost their careers and it blows up in their faces, the sole responsibility is theirs. No sympathy. In fact if it wasn’t for Trump they’d be virtual nobodies.

So is the marketplace for free speech unfair? Think of the price of people, stocks, bonds or anything else you can think of  varies depending on the market weighted bid/offer of the underlying assets. Sadly for Wolf and Griffin, the bids dried up almost immediately. For Trump, market expectations have long since been priced.