Scandal

Yet more radical leftist ideology at our publicly funded schools

331F2D22-3252-499E-9CD8-9FB3A945E0A2

Given it is the Marxist state of Victoria we should not be surprised, yet the government funded University of Melbourne allows an artistic performance that requires “paying” white customers access on the basis of signing acknowledgement of white privilege. The Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen writes,

On Saturday afternoon, about 30 people waited to enter a theatre in the centre of a big, cosmopolitan city for a matinee session of a modern dance performance. A voice in the lobby invited people of colour, brown people, indigenous people and members of the Asian dias­pora to enter the theatre. The white people were forced to stay behind, denied entry on the basis of their skin colour. The same people were then harangued for their skin colour by four young women aiming a volley of accusations at them about their white privilege….After this, the people with white skin were invited into the theatre, but only if they first signed something acknowledging agreement with a particular set of views…

…Race-based identity politics in the 21st century is toxic because it is untethered from the fine aims of the civil rights movement of the 20th century. Back then, activists fought for equal rights for people regardless of colour, creed or sexuality. Today we have returned to a dark place of defining people according to inherited characteristics such as skin colour. Isn’t that what racists do?”

Somehow the radical left believes that in today’s world of inclusivity and diversity that they push so hard for allows for a caveat emptor with respect to blatant exclusion, identity based and resent ridden ideologies. The types of teachings where students are marked down for not using appropriate gender neutral language (compelled language) rather than the quality of the content and reasoned argument (which no doubt must gel with the radical leftist professors).

The Holy Trinity of diversity (not of thought, but sexual orientation, gender or ethnicity), equity (not of opportunity but outcome) and inclusion (quotas not based on ability) will somehow level the playing field by their activism. We as taxpayers are underwriting this Marxist rubbish. We need not remind ourselves of the success of such application of said ideologies in Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela or Cambodia.

The $600mn+ taxpayer funded University of Melbourne’s motto is Postera Cescam Laude, which is Latin for “We shall grow in the esteem of future generations.” It is not clear whether the founders of the UoM had Marxist theories at the forefront of their minds in 1853. Growing the esteem of future generations was not to come by cutting down those whose passions as individuals cause them to strive for greatness. Yet the radical leftists believe esteem comes not from effort but from allocation.

Compelling the cake maker?

192634A8-A578-40DC-B48A-192EA9847047

The transcript of the Supreme Court on the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) hearing can be found here. It is 113 pages long (but double spaced). What is fascinating is the way the case is argued from both sides and the words of several judges who should just enforce the tenets of the constitution not leverage personal prejudices. CM doesn’t profess to be a lawyer but the biased language is pretty obvious, including one set of attorneys debating Colorado laws of  2018 rather than those of 2012 when the dispute first came to light.

The court session covered ground from anniversary cakes at a Michelin 2-star restaurant, mixed race or mixed religion marriages, an African American designer making a cross for the Ku Klux Klan and even the fairness of rejecting an order to bake a cake to celebrate Kristallnacht. The case also looked into the problems that might be created for a baker on a remote US military base who may not want to bake a cake for a same sex marriage because of his/her religious beliefs.

Mainstream media coverage has been pretty obvious but the transcript puts many things to light including the fact that all sides acknowledge the baker was prepared to sell a rainbow cake and almost anything else in the shop to the couple, just not the “compelled” words they wanted on it, which triggered the baker’s religious beliefs and led the Supreme Court to suggest that the baker’s 1st Amendment rights must be sustained.

Religious beliefs are a murky backwater where justification on a plethora of topics can be concocted. CM first learnt of “proper” religious fervor on a trip to Israel a decade ago. Seeing people wail as the were baptized in the River Jordan, watching them cry inconsolably as they placed pictures of family members atop the marble slab that Jesus’ body was laid on after his crucifixion, the scene of Jews of all ethnicities praying at the Western Wall or Muslims feverishly protecting entry to the Temple Mount. This is not the average punter going to a Sunday Mass or praying five times a days to Mecca. It is on another level. Some people walked bearing a cross along the exact route that Jesus did. Religion to some takes a different life form, some of it for the worse.

To think that a $500 wedding cake has cost both sides $100,000s in legal fees goes to show how serious both sides were prepared to defend their legal rights. No matter how silly some may view the outcome, the question remains whether the 14th Amendment be changed to more specifically define LGBT protections. Associate Justice Sotomayor made this point in her closing remarks, “That’s what the public anti-discrimination laws require.”

The irony of the Ivanka bashing was that it was an Obama era policy

Never let the facts get in the way of a narrative. Liberals were incensed over the treatment of kids on the border which led to Samantha Bee calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless c*nt” for not doing anything about it. What so many on the left have failed to grasp is that the policy mess they’re seeing was introduced by the Obama administration in 2013. Pictures of how kids were being locked in cages like animals at the border were circulating this week when they were taken in 2014.

Mainstream media reports had surfaced that federal agencies had lost 1,500 kids. 80% of illegal immigrant parents were skipping court appearances to get their kids over the last 5 years for fear they’d be deported so they moved from the addresses they provided to make it difficult to track them.

So the irony is the outrage over Ivanka’s supposed insensitivity was based on an Obama era policy. Will the left acknowledge their identity politics hero ended up funneling unaccompanied kids via human traffickers? That innocent kids were abandoned on the border to die after they were used to get into America. Even the Washington Post reported at this but alas no liberal outrage. It only matters to play the man not the ball.

Inviting or inciting violence?

クリックすると新しいウィンドウで開きます

As a father of two daughters the idea of child grooming gangs is a chilling prospect. One of my children was sexually molested on a Tokyo subway aged only 13. Nationality doesn’t matter. Religion doesn’t matter. I took time off work every morning for months trying to find the perpetrator. Had I caught him, care for what happened to me mattered not. Vigilante justice? Call it what you will. It doesn’t get more personal when your own blood, especially a child, is the innocent victim. Any parent who loves their kids would contemplate such sacrifice. When people realise that the authorities are willfully turning a blind eye to obvious crimes, law makers should not be surprised if vigilantism and chaos become the by-product. The arrest of Tommy Robinson has all of the hallmarks of the judiciary inviting the ‘hellfire‘ on themselves. CM often gets criticized for defending free speech as if it is some gross distortion of the facts. That the looming Orwellian dystopia CM describes doesn’t exist.

Whether one agrees with Tommy Robinson’s views or not, one cannot fault his passion to bring to light the problems of child rape gangs in Britain and the political correctness to hide the predominantly ‘Asian’ nature of the perpetrators. Millions (and growing) have seen his 75 minute live-stream video outside Leeds Court where he was summarily arrested for ‘suspicion of breaching the peace‘. Despite having the alleged defendants and spectators scream obscenities like “go f*ck your mother!” or “your wife is a prostitute” or “I’m here to see your mum” and others push him in front of the police, nothing happened to them. Why the sexual references? The police officers claimed they didn’t see him being physically assaulted but suggested they’d get a warning if they did witness.

Robinson did absolutely nothing violent, obscene or provocative to warrant an arrest. Disturbing the peace? The amount of people that came up to him unsolicited congratulating his work, asking to go on future marches and take selfies was apparent. The fact he has two best selling books on Amazon is testament to him being far from a lone voice. Is it any wonder the authorities want to gag him? Should those that support him be dragged in front of the courts too?

He made numerous references about being aware of his restrictions the day he was arrested last week. He spoke to nearby police to ensure and confirm he wasn’t crossing lines. He made the reference on his video that the police were likely monitoring it to try to nab him on any remote technicality. Well they did. He was aware of the risks. He may well have violated his court order on a “legal” technicality. CM isn’t a lawyer but the video didn’t appear to show disorder. He was jailed for 13 months and on top of that a media gag was placed by the court on discussing details of his trial. Should we be surprised that 1,000s marched on Downing St?

CM documented the two decades of cover ups contained in the independent inquiry into the Rotherham child grooming scandal which was along the lines of what Robinson was reporting on in Leeds. In April we wrote:

“The details of the Rotherham grooming gang scandal was tabulated in an independent inquiry looking at the problem between 1997-2013 showing the extent of the cover up. The table above shows the actions taken after 157 complaints about child grooming in Rotherham were made to the South Yorkshire Police since 2013. The Inquiry tabulates a case of a father being arrested for trying to get his daughter out of a rape den. A 12yo girl was raped in a park then doused in gasoline and threatened with being lit if she said anything about what had happened. The sad thing is that these gangs are wide spread – Rotherham, Rochdale, Newcastle, Bristol, Aylesbury, Oxford, Peterborough, Keighley, Newham, Leeds, Bradford, Telford, Sheffield and London. The report discusses how the gangs transfer the children within the ‘safe houses; in the network to keep the industry clandestine.”

The gory details are all in the report. CM encourages people to read the contents to be aware of how terribly young kids have been groomed, threatened and undoubtedly psychologically damaged for life. Many have tried to commit suicide. It is a travesty. Even if you hate what Tommy Robinson stands for, at the very least open your eyes to the industrial level of this crime. Take this example:

Child F (2006) was a victim of serious sexual abuse when she was a young child. She was groomed for sexual exploitation by a 27-year-old male when she was 13. She was subjected to repeated rapes and sexual assaults by different perpetrators, none of whom were brought to justiceShe repeatedly threatened to kill herself and numerous instances of serious self-harm were recorded in the case file, including serious overdoses and trying to throw herself in front of cars...doctors were seriously concerned about her because of the number and seriousness of hospital admissions over such a short time, many associated with serious drug misuse and self-harm.”

This is what the Inquiry had to say about the Police:

We deal with the response of South Yorkshire Police at some length throughout this report. While there was close liaison between the Police, Risky Business and children’s social care from the early days of the Risky Business project, there were very many historic cases where the operational response of the Police fell far short of what could be expected. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. The Police had excellent procedures from 1998, but in practice these appear to have been widely disregarded….We were contacted by someone who worked at the Rotherham interchange in the early 2000s. He described how the Police refused to intervene when young girls who were thought to be victims of CSE (child sexual exploitation) were being beaten up and abused by perpetrators. According to him, the attitude of the Police at that time seemed to be that they were all ‘undesirables’ and the young women were not worthy of police protection.

The Council was no better:

In 2004-2005, a series of presentations on CSE were first made to councillors and then other relevant groups and agencies, led by the external manager of Risky Business, from Youth Services. The presentations were unambiguous about the nature and extent of the problem…In 2006, a Conservative councillor requested a meeting with the Council Leader at which he expressed his concerns about CSE. This had come to his attention via constituents. He told the Inquiry that the Council Leader advised him the matters were being dealt with by the Police and requested that he did not raise them publicly…

Interviews with senior members revealed that none could recall the issue ever being discussed in the Labour (Party) Group until 2012Given the seriousness of the subject, the evidence available, and the reputational damage to the Council, it is extraordinary that the Labour Group, which dominated the Council, failed to discuss CSE until then. Some senior members acknowledged that that was a mistake. Asked if they should have done things differently, they thought that as an administration they should have tackled the issues ‘head on’, including any concerns about ethnic issues.”

In any event, when Robinson was arrested there was no other media present covering what should be viewed as a highly contentious, topical and heinous crime against human rights. Anyone with a heartbeat should be repulsed by the systematic rape of 11 year olds. 12yo girls shouldn’t have their tongues nailed to tables nor raped by 30 men in one day nor have 6 pregnancies in 4 years. It would be fair to say that the majority of Brits (much less the world) would be appalled by what has been going on. Yet media blackouts are deemed a preferable response by the judiciary. The people who have been covering it up should be convicted  as accessories, not those trying to expose such a shameful episode. Look how well that worked for Angela Merkel after the Cologne New Year’s Eve assaults were eventually exposed several years back.

No-one in their right minds wants to invite vigilantism but the seemingly farcical arrest of Robinson would seem to be inviting it rather than his videos inciting it. It is clear people in Britain are fast realizing that freedoms are being removed. Reprehensible legislation is being introduced to silence the truth. Whether once can say with certainty that this is 1984, it would seem things are pointing toward it. Politically motivated violence in Germany is surging post legislation designed to gag the populace.

Robinson is no saint. He has a checkered past which he freely admits to in his book, Enemy of the State. Yet his arrest has caused outrage around the world. If the authorities thought banging him up would limit the damage they’ve made a grave mistake. Anything that is pulled or deleted finds a way of resurfacing and ballooning the awareness. Conversely some people have posted pictures of him having been assaulted and bashed in prison (this has not happened since this arrest) as a way to incite more anger. If his followers want to save him, misreporting facts, trying to scale the gates at 10 Downing St or threatening the judge that convicted him won’t help the cause. They can’t swing public opinion with the two wrongs argument.

Growing numbers of the British population are getting fed up and if more of this type of politically correct hand-wringing continues the problem is likely to get out of control. The government and judiciary may think limiting the actions of those deemed to ‘incite’ division by jailing them will quell further unrest. However they should beware the public reckoning they ‘invite’. Will cooler heads prevail? At this juncture, it would appear not.

We say again, while it is debatable as to whether Tommy Robinson was in violation of his court order on a legal technicality, the bigger issue is the thousands of children that have been permanently damaged by the deranged acts of sick people. No matter what their background, colour, race or religion they should be given the maximum penalty for raping children if found guilty. They may not have taken lives, but they have stolen the sanctity of it. To that end, Robinson should be congratulated for bringing it to light, not censured. It is not just Tommy that deserves the right of free speech but the voice given to those poor children silenced for decades while those who were supposed to protect them turned a blind eye. Perhaps even SJWs will find it in their hearts to see the virtue of Robinson’s actions to stand up for those that couldn’t defend themselves. His only weapon is free speech. If some want to call his actions ‘hate speech‘ then they only prove how little they truly care for real victims.

US Healthcare bankruptcies surge 270% in 2018 vs 2017

5FB0C080-29A2-4181-95A6-453888F9114D.jpeg

6 months ago we wrote of the growing crisis of hospitals declaring bankruptcy in America. While The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is often lauded by some as noble legislation, according to bankruptcy lawyers, Polsinelli, the changes made to reimbursements that used to help cover hospitals who treated uninsured patients that were pulled under ACA have sent many hospitals to the bankruptcy A&E ward. Polsinelli wrote this month,

The Health Care Services Distress Research Index was 455.00 for the first quarter of 2018. This is an increase over 173 points from last quarter’s record high, approximately 62 percent. The index has experienced record or near-record highs in seven of the last eight quarters. Compared with the same period one year ago, the index has increased over 333 points, approximately 270 percent, and compared with the benchmark period of fourth quarter of 2010, it is up approximately 355 percent.”

HCBR

Polsinelli also wrote in 1Q 2017 that,

“Unlike the public markets, the Polsinelli/TrBK Distress Indices include both public and private companies, creating a broader economic view and one which may show developing trends on Main Street before they appear on Wall Street….Health care distress is high and it seems to be getting worse…

…The business of health care is unlike other industries, such as manufacturing, real estate, or retail. Health care faces all the traditional business challenges, such as competition, the impact of technology on services, and increasing wages. But more, the health care industry is needing to adapt to increasing regulations, changes in reimbursement rates from government or private payors, and a shift from traditional fee-for-service to value-based models that impact profitability…There is unprecedented pressure of major systemic changes to the existing health care system, particularly the implementation of the Affordable Care Act over the last several years and the current status of the program, which is alternately being repealed, repealed and replaced, phased out, or simply defunded…The (Obama) administration’s recent decision to terminate cost sharing reduction payments will also directly impact the health care market. Insurance companies may continue to provide insurance at a higher premium or decide to exit the markets. Eliminating these payments and the resulting premium increases may increase the cost to the government through premium subsidies.”

In short many Americans saw a doubling of premiums (an average increase of 113%) under Obamacare inside of 4 years causing many to forgo the insurance. The reimbursements under the old system (which helped compensate hospitals administering emergency treatment for the uninsured) that were stopped on the proviso people would take up ACA plans backfired. Not enough people signed up and more hospitals running on a days cashflow have been forced to close because the reimbursements designed to protect them against uninsured patients disappeared. When Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, testified to Congress he candidly said,

The Affordable Healthcare bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes…If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies, OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage … call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever … that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass … I wish … we could make it transparent, but I’d rather have the law than not.”

Makes one wonder what the status of the medical equipment suppliers who lease equipment to these hospitals does with the machines they repossess.

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.

#SpareMe & #ThankYou

DEC1A621-096A-41D3-910B-5CDC944DDF1C.jpeg

They say pictures speak a thousand words. One wonders whether there are a thousand threads in these pictures at the Cannes Film Festival. For all of the sanctimony we hear from celebrities about how important the #MeToo movement is, what better opportunity to let down the side than to minimize cloth to skin ratios. These ladies know they are walking billboards, overtly flaunting their assets to gain attention in the hope they are short listed on the next blockbuster given the likelihood of widespread media coverage. Why else would they wear the equivalent of postage stamps held together by dental floss? Who can blame them? Where are the male actors strutting in sequin g-strings? Hardly fair that only women get to show off the flesh!

By all means, these ladies who graze on lentils and alfalfa while completing grueling gym sessions 6 hours a day, have every right to dress as they please given they work so hard cultivating those figures. Isn’t objectification the intention? Appreciating beauty is certainly not a crime and it does not border on harassment. Should red-blooded males be shamed for seeing protruding nipples and exposed cleavage fall into their peripheral vision? Can we honestly say hand on heart that some in the Hollywood set didn’t/don’t willingly trade flesh for a $5mn role? It is not to condone the behavior rather to say that if in the end a budding actor/actress is willing to ‘pay in kind’ to nail a big role that is still consensual. Jokes about Weinstein’s sexual antics were made for years at award ceremonies before he was finally outed. If he is convicted of sexual assault/harassment then may the full extent of the law deal with the crime. However #SpareMe the sanctimony about how none of them knew. Staying on the lucrative gravy train and buying more global property was more way addictive than doing the right thing by standing up for the true victims.

It is surprising that the feminists haven’t been up in arms about Cannes. They managed to take down the F-1 grid girls effectively enough. Isn’t it ironic that the people most upset by the ban were the grid girls themselves. They liked what they did, got paid handsomely to flaunt figures they no doubt work so hard to maintain and welcomed the attention. Now they are out of a job! Yet it’s is we who must get in step with the times. Perhaps the F-1 teams could have been asked to pay a grid-girl tax and donate the funds to promote charitable causes that the girls themselves felt passionately about. It will be interesting to see whether the MotoGP franchise owners, Dorna, go the same route as F-1 which will be pretty hypocritical given the web pages dedicated to the brolley dollies at each round.

Maybe the bigger laugh was the Israeli 2018 Eurovision song winner, Netti Barzilai. She said that in the auditioning process that she overheard whispers about whether they could field someone prettier or skinnier. So sex appeal was preferable to ability? When was the last time we truly heard a properly decent song that didn’t have some singer surrounded by scantily clad women twerking?

Still the virtue signaling continues. Cate Blanchett was on the stairs at Cannes demanding equal pay, when she herself is one of the higher paid actresses in town. Her mate Benedict Cumberbatch is refusing to star in movies unless there is equal pay.  Such actions are nothing but self-indulgent attempts to create free publicity. Say he is offered $25mn for a role and his never seen before female sidekick is not granted the same? Will he protest, divide his own pot or star anyway? One wonders.

Here is an idea for celebrities. CM thinks that Hollywood should be run by a government agency which will ensure equality in all outcomes. Movie roles will be distributed evenly. Each movie will have exactly the same budget. It will have equal numbers of men, women, LGBT, races, religious representation and sexual orientation regardless of how factually incorrect a true story may seem. Movie directors will have no say in who is cast for each part. Box office revenues will be evenly distributed at the end of each calendar year to ensure that flops will get subsidized by the hits. The actors who star in blockbusters will receive exactly the same outcome as those whose films end up almost immediately on Netflix.

All actors and actresses will be required to work exactly the same hours, have the same contract terms and be required to attend the awards ceremony in exactly the same garb. No makeup will be permissible, no eyebrow stylists flown around the world at last minute and no speech longer than 10 seconds. As there is to be equality at all costs, there will no longer be gender based awards at the Oscars. Or alternatively Best Actor – male, female and the 63 other gender categories. “The winner of the Best Actor in the hermaphrodite category is….”

So Benedict and Cate, will you join a union which levels the playing field and calls for equality or do you still prefer that your acting skills determine how the free market sets your prices? If you choose the former, just don’t speak to Jack Nicholson. He is still collecting royalties from Batman. Just what I thought.

These are the Oscar stats. A 40% decline over 5 years. Is this a sign of a format that is no longer sustainable? Is the disintermediation/disruption caused by video on demand such that making a ‘date’ to go to the cinema is no longer a priority? Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south. The strategy seems to throw more at audiences and hope it sticks. Are the movies the industry rates itself on actually reflected in the box office? Out of touch with the audience? It would seem so. 9 films in the last 13 have failed to breach $75mn. So instead of Hollywood being so preoccupied with espousing politics, perhaps it should look to the audience it ‘preaches’ to and starts ‘reaching’ them instead otherwise many of them will be staring at massive pay cuts. Or will that mean it is every man and woman for themselves again!?