Marxist

$34,000 in school fees buys an activist indoctrination, not an education

Newington.png

CM went to a private school in Sydney. In CM’s day, we were taught respect. To give up seats on the bus if adults got on. To open doors for others. To say thank you. You know, simple manners so devoid of the headphone-wearing, iPhone gazing secondary students today, completely oblivious to pregnant women or the elderly with walking sticks forced to stand on the bus or train.

To hear that Newington College and SCEGGS Darlinghurst are allowing kids to go on the school climate strike tomorrow is an utter farce. How is it that a school that charges up to $34,000 in fees, is prepared to allow kids (with parental permission) to strike? Where is the standard of one set of rules that all must adhere to? Where is the discipline?  At what point will such activism be acceptable to other pet grievances of brain-washed kids, undoubtedly at the behest of teachers pushing their own agendas? Why not teach kids that they can’t just get their way if they protest enough?

One can understand the school respecting and observing long-standing religious days for kids of certain faiths but all this action suggests is that there is a cabal of staff who are activists in the classroom espousing their own political agendas. The headmaster has apparently caved to a bunch of Yr 11 students because climate change must be a religion in and of itself. 

Newington’s own motto, ‘in fide scientam’ (in the faith of all knowledge), suggests the school now no longer adheres to its core values. To allow this simply says that teachers are getting away with brainwashing. Where is the balance? Wouldn’t the majority of parents hope the $34,000 to help provide their kids with a jump start instead of an idiots guide to civil disobedience? Why not dispense with the uniform or replace the blazer emblem with one from Extinction Rebellion?

So what of the stats? For national ATAR scores, Newington’s rank has slipped from 78th in 2013 to 99th in 2018. SCEGGS Darlinghurst has gone from 23rd to 25th over the same period.

Over recent years, Australia’s global education standards have been slipping – in science, maths and English. What a surprise when our academic institutions fold to trendy left-wing causes. Perhaps if they focused on “education” as opposed to “indoctrination” that the long-term prospects for these kids would rise appreciably.

Australia’s future looks grim – not so much for the planet but for the prospects of the coming generations who have been completely misled as to what is actually important and relevant out there in the real world.

Mann played the wrong Ball with his hockey stick

Who’d a thunk? It seems Dr Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann lost his long standing legal battle with climate skeptic Dr Tim Ball. Mann had sued Ball for libel but failed to submit the R2 data, codes and document to support his claim by the deadline so the court awarded the defendant court costs as well.

Just one of those things where unless you show me the data everything else is just opinion. If his hockey stick data was so robust, surely it would have sold itself and Ball would have lost the court case.

Why Gerry Harvey’s comments on diversity obsessed companies speak more about our superannuation fund managers

Harvey Norman is currently valued at over $5.1bn, which is c.4x the combined value of Myer and David Jones. Good on Gerry Harvey for getting stuck into the stupidity of diversity quota obsessed boards. He is right. Why are certain funds requesting Harvey Norman hit these soft and irrelevant targets adopted by David Jones & Myer so they can invest under their self imposed ESG guidelines? Surely any company’s performance (assuming they aren’t illegally exploiting child labour) should be all that matters to shareholders? If it works without this gender balance nonsense why fight to change a winning formula?

If anyone is ever fortunate enough to meet Gerry Harvey’s wife, Katie Page (the CEO), it isn’t hard to work out that her gender wasn’t a selection criteria. Fistfuls of competence were. She gets it and not for one fleeting second could anyone ever get the idea that she plays up to the gender card. An utterly pleasant, generous and intelligent individual.

If Gerry Harvey & Katie Page thought Harvey Norman shareholders’ best interests were served by an all female board it would done so based on skill and ability to add value. The gender wouldn’t even be a factor.

Have you noticed why Harvey Norman hasn’t followed the group think pervading all the other companies who pulled their adverts off the Alan Jones Breakfast Show? Because Harvey Norman doesn’t pretend to judge the personal political beliefs of its customers. They only wish to provide the best possible goods that meet market demand, not chase imaginary pixies in the quest to morally preen. However it perfectly describes the decision making processes inside less competent boards when they blindly follow the herd rather than independently validate scenarios based on data, relevance and common sense. We now know over 40 companies didn’t.

The only diversity required is that of thought – not gender, race, sexual preference or religion. However don’t be surprised to see locals run Harvey Norman’s overseas businesses – driven by the fact they understand local conditions better than a helicoptered expat.

Maybe it is high time these superannuation funds actually decide to do some homework on the companies they invest in. To drop this focus on nanny-state driven diversity targets and actually look at the companies themselves as “businesses”.

CM guarantees that the companies that focus on this socially constructed diversity balance nonsense will severely underperform when tough times approach. Because decisive leadership in a crisis can be found with leaders like Katie Page, not with those companies that put everything else but ability as the key selection criteria.

The bigger concern down the line will be that these CSR/ESG and equality obsessed fund managers will have parked so much money in the wrong names that the retirements of millions of Aussies will be severely crimped by this muck. Let there be no mistake – super holders will not thank these woke investors for chasing irrelevant internal constructs over viable businesses when reality dawns that they have much less than they anticipated for retirement. Maybe that is what CM should have said to the ATO when he set up his SMSF.

Macron talking utter bolloques on the Amazon fires

Jo Nova has done a cracking piece which undermines the hysteria surrounding the Amazon fires and how perfectly it fits in with the G7 summit angle on globalism. She tears shreds off Macron’s ludicrous claims and even more ridiculous antics at the G7. When the world needs to be focused on avoiding recession, these politicians are fixated on petty point-scoring issues where CO2 reduction will rapidly take care of itself if the world economy tanks. The peons will care not one jot about the climate once faced with economic hardship which is likely to be even worse than the Global Financial Crisis.

Jo Nova wrote,

“Global Fire Data shows this year is unequivocally a low fire season in the Amazon. But social media tears and outrage is running at 1000% driven by old photos and fake facts of the Amazon producing “20% of our planet’s oxygen”.

And the media experts reported the house was on fire in the lungs of the world or something to that effect. They didn’t check the data, didn’t ask hard questions.

Based on hyperbolic twitter pics French leader Macron is threatening to cancel a foreign trade deal. The hype serves the purpose of attacking the right-wing Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro in the lead up to a G7 summit this week…

Who’s feeding the twitter flames?

@EmmanuelMacron

The photo he used? It’s a stock photo from Loren McIntyre, a photographer who died in 2003.

Amazon Fires, Global Fire Count, 2019, graph

“US space agency NASA, meanwhile, has said that overall fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average compared to the past 15 years.”

Remember when it comes to climate change, NASA are the definitive last word, but when it comes to Amazon fires, they’re just a casual addendum. “No comment”.

Jonathon Watts at The Guardian carefully words the panic. It’s almost as if he is aware of what is going on but not happy to make it too clear. With headlines like these, anyone would think the readers of The Guardian are 14-year-old girls.

Does this happen every year?

Yes, but some areas have suffered far more than usual. In the worst-affected Brazilian state of Amazonas, the peak day this month was 700% higher than the average for the same date over the past 15 years. In other states, the amount of ash and other particulates in August has hit the highest level since 2010.

Is the entire forest ablaze?

No. Satellite monitoring experts say the images of an entire forest ablaze are exaggerated. A great deal of misinformation has been spread by social media, including the use of striking images from previous years’ burning seasons.”

 

Open letter to the Hon. Cate Faehrmann MLC

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann MLC,

The public wishes at all times for politicians to represent them. However, a member of parliament should refrain from full-blown activism. No one questions reasoned conviction. There is a difference.

However, is it right for you to openly support rallying protestors to potentially disrupt law enforcement in the neighbouring state of Queensland over Adani? To then claim Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk’s government was out of line to “silence climate and anti-Adani activists” who were disrupting a public that overwhelmingly voted in favour of Adani going ahead. Perhaps you might reflect on what some may view as a double standard of silencing those that criticize you for failing to prosecute arguments on your own social media pages?

Do you represent the people of NSW or Queensland? Because if it is the latter you should be running for office there. We have no business meddling in their politics as much as they have no say in how ours is run. That’s how democracy should behave.

In what should have been an important speech you made about women’s rights on abortion, you had to drag it into irrelevant mudslinging surrounding the gender pay gap (illegal), identity politics (feminism) and treating domestic violence as a one-way street.

According to a UK study on domestic violence,

“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 sevenfold 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 from partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.

Let’s be clear – domestic violence is abhorrent on every level, but it is disingenuous to suggest it is a one-way street because it is simply not. Thank God for those toxic males who took out a knife-wielding perpetrator in Sydney’s CBD recently. You may note that Gillette has now flipped its ‘woke’ advertising campaign to champion what it recently censured to the cost of US$8bn in destroyed market value.

You even took the liberty in your speech to have another swipe at Alan Jones AO in what one can only deduce in the hope he loses his job. You went as far as highlighting ‘male’ and ‘female’ in bold font when referring to him. To what aim?

Unfortunately for you, his career is a matter for his employers, not for a NSW MLC with an axe to grind. He broke no laws. If this speech was truly about abortion, why the need to attack a radio presenter for holding different beliefs to you? He admitted he crossed a line and apologized for it sincerely and publicly, including a letter to PM Ardern who gracefully taunted him back with a sledge over the likely outcome in the Bledisloe Cup. Touché. Two adults who made peace between the only parties concerned.

Since when is it your business, or anyone else’s, to barrack for his dismissal? If you support free speech then you should support it even when those views clash with your own, including Alan Jones. People can make their own minds up about him. He has been put on notice by his employer. It has been sickening to witness those utterly spineless advertisers hiding behind self-censorship post the Ardern event.

If we looked at the ratio of men Jones has pilloried on his radio program over the years it would far outweigh any misogynistic narratives you secretly must wish to be true. It would be safe to assume you are not a regular 2GB listener in the mornings. Perhaps you might ask Peta Credlin if she believes he is the misogynist you charge him to be to cohost a Sky news program with her? For your speech on abortion could be equally interpreted as misandry, given the one-sided stance it took.

Yet on the subject of abortion, it might help to delve into all of the facts.

It is an absolute necessity to ensure safe hospital/clinic-based abortions are made available where it is warranted and necessary. It should never be seen as a way to sacrifice those on the altar of convenience, especially where some cultures choose to do so on the basis of gender, usually at the expense of females. So much for feminism.

Do you think this is only a traumatic thing for women? Is it possible that some fathers of the fetus can suffer considerable anguish with regards to termination? Should they wish to raise by themselves, should they be denied that right, no matter how small the probability of such a scenario?

1,000 women may die from unsafe abortions in The Philippines. It is terrible. Your speech made reference to the WHO and the five million women hospitalised from abortion-related complications. 47,000 die. Another awful statistic.

Perhaps you might look at the even more ghastly stats on abortion.

c.700,000 fetuses are terminated in America each year. Down from 1.4 million in 1990. Hardly stats to cheer about. Of course, the arguments for a woman’s right to choose will always be thrown at pro-lifers. Yet allowing termination until birth in places like New York, a city that lit up monuments in celebration of being able to terminate right up to the point of delivery rightly raises concerns about infanticide.

Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, some 56 million abortions occur annually. Every. Single. Year. To think that WWII saw 50 million deaths in 6 years of conflict with the widespread use of lethal weapons. So abortions kill at a far higher rate than global conflict. What a sobering thought.

Now even the religious “far-right”, as you call them, can distinguish between medical need and the irresponsibility of couples to engage in sexual activity. RU-486 was supposed to be the miracle cure that ended abortion for good but the numbers remain so high. It is tragic. We should all reflect on how to improve the choice set made available.

You claim that a mother might not be positioned to give the best start in life to a child. Is that the only out? What might the fetus say? Unfortunately, the fetus doesn’t get any rights and this is what some “far-right” people question. You might argue it is just a clump of pre-formed cells. What if that tissue turned into the next Einstein or Mother Teresa? You would actually find more pro-life advocates support alternatives to abortion, including far more robust adoption facilities to give the unborn the right to life. At the moment the current rushed debate in NSW Parliament is purely binary.

With respect to Planned Parenthood (PP), only 3% of its patients are abortion-related in number. Most of it is related to pap smears, health checks, birth control and other consultations. Yet in its latest annual filing, every single division saw a decline in business activity except abortion and guess what? Total revenues rose appreciably. Which essentially means that abortion is the highest margin service offered by PP.

Which begs the question, why is there a pressing need to rush abortion legislation in NSW? People are free to travel to Queensland or Victoria to have it conducted as much as someone in Alabama can travel to New York to have a procedure.

That is not a valid reason to prevent an update to abortion legislation in NSW but it has been so ill-considered and done under unnecessary pressure without balanced and reasonable debate or due process. It deserves nothing less, even if it includes dragging those from the stone-age kicking and screaming. No wonder the Premier has had to back down. It was poorly executed from the start.

You’ll find the “far-right” less of a menace by allowing reasoned legislation based on common sense and civil discourse.

As far as forcing doctors to conduct abortions against their conscience, that is something that has no place in any legislation. There will undoubtedly be enough medical practitioners who do not carry guilt in conducting abortions yet the state has no place forcing the will on those who don’t. Surely the marketplace in our digital world can quickly separate those who will and won’t terminate fetuses purely based on gender selection.

If you truly wish to advance the cause of women’s rights, engage all sides of the debate. Your opinions are as valid as those on the other side of the coin. They should be weighed by the market of free speech.

The power of listening to all perspectives is what is needed more than ever in politics. Instead of defending your own, defend those of others. If your arguments are compelling then they will stand on their own merit.

Yours sincerely,

M. Newman

Climate change – as should be taught to school kids

Image result for climate strike school

Thank you SMcK.

“Attention, students. Because so many of you missed Friday’s classes, what with your little climate party and all, today I’m assigning extra work.

Let’s begin with mathematics. 558,400,000 is a really big number. Can anyone here tell me what it might represent? No?

Well, that’s the amount in tonnes of carbon dioxide that Australia emitted last year.

I’ll just pause here for a minute until Samantha stops crying. By the way, Samantha, your sign at the climate rally needed a possessive apostrophe and “planet” was spelt incorrectly, so I’m putting you back in remedial English again.

Where were we? Oh, yes. 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Let’s see how we can reduce that number. Ban coal mining? That’ll knock off a big chunk.

Ban petrol-powered vehicles? Good call. That’s another slab of emissions gone.

Does the class believe we should ban all mining? You do. Interesting. For your homework tonight, I want you all to design batteries that contain no nickel or cadmium.
Good luck getting to school in electric cars without those.

And there’ll be no more steel wind turbines once the iron ore mines are closed. It’s just the price we’ll have to pay, I suppose.

Even with all those bans, however, Australia will still be churning out carbon dioxide by the magical solar-powered truckload. Cuts need to go much further.

More people means more human activity which means more carbon dioxide, so let’s permanently ban immigration. Is the class agreed?

Hmmm. You’re not quite so enthusiastic about that one. Come on, students. Sacrifices must be made.

Speaking of which, how many of you have grandparents? Not any more you don’t.
And Samantha is crying again. Can someone please take her to the school safe space and let her “process some emotions”, or whatever the hell it is you kids do in there? Thank you.

Sing along with Kim Carnes: “All the world knows of her charms/She’s got/Stop Adani arms”

Who agrees we need to simplify our lives in order to reduce emissions? Returning to earlier times, when emissions were much lower, might help save our earth.

So goodbye to air travel, the internet and your cell phones. People got by without them in the past and they’ll survive without them in our sustainable future.

Still, those emissions will be way too high. Just for fun, let’s ban Australia and see what happens.

All factories, houses, streets, farms – gone. All people gone. Every atom of human presence on this land mass, completely erased.

At that point we’ll have finally cut our emissions to nothing. We’ve subtracted an annual 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Congratulations, children. By eliminating Australia, you’ve just reduced the world’s yearly generation of carbon dioxide from 37,100,000,000 tonnes to just … 36,541,600,000 tonnes.

Still, every tiny reduction helps, right? Maybe not. Let’s have a quick geography lesson. Tyler, please point out China on this map. No; that’s Luxembourg. China is a bit bigger. Try over here. There you go.

Here’s the thing about China. How long will it take for China to produce the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that we’ve slashed by vanishing Australia? One year? Two years? Five years?

Not quite. Start the carbon dioxide clock on China right now, and that one enormous nation will have matched our annual output in 20 days, for China adds a whole Australia to the global emissions total in that time.

For that matter, China will have added another 1,190,953 tonnes by the end of this one-hour class.

Even a tiny increase in China’s output puts Australia in the shade. Various experts last year estimated that China was on course for a five per cent carbon dioxide boost.
This would mean an extra 521,637,550 tonnes – or basically what Australia generates. Our total is the same as China’s gentle upswing.

So maybe your protest was in the wrong country. Here’s another assignment: write letters to the Chinese government demanding it stops dragging people out of poverty.
Make sure you include your full name and address, because the Chinese government is kind of big on keeping records. Send a photograph of yourself standing in front of your parents’ house.

You might repeat this process in India. In fact, rather than going to Europe for your next big family holiday, prevail upon your parents to visit India instead. The tiny village of Salaidih would be the perfect place to tell slum-dwelling residents they shouldn’t have electricity.

They’ll probably thank you for it. Or they should, if they aren’t stupid climate deniers. Indian paupers must avoid making the same tragic affluence mistakes as us, so we must keep their carbon footprints as tiny as possible.

Can you imagine how terrible is would be for the earth if all of India’s one billion-plus population owned cars and air-conditioners? It really doesn’t bear thinking about.
One further assignment: tonight, locate a clean, green alternative source for $66 billion in exports. That’s how much was raised last year by the Australian coal industry.
Working it out won’t be too much of a challenge, I’m sure. After all, you know science and stuff. About half of your signs on Friday claimed you know more about all these things than does the Prime Minister.

Show him how advanced your brains are by devising a brand-new multi-billion export bonanza.

Hey, look who’s back! Feeling better, Samantha? That’s nice. Feelings are the most important thing of all.”

Universal pulls ads of movie where liberal elites hunt deplorables

Universal Pictures has pulled ads of movie, ‘The Hunt‘ – where liberal elites hunt deplorables for sport – in the wake of the recent shootings.

A liberal character in the movie can be heard asking, “Did anyone see what our ratf***er-in-chief just did?” No guessing who he was referring to.

Another responds, “At least the hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.

Apparently it’s satire. Hollywood is always a great reference point for hypocrisy.