Vanity

The Dunkirk diversity police

IMG_0358

The sad thing about the diversity brigade is that victimology must trump historical fact. Dunkirk was a mostly white British, French, Dutch, Polish and Belgian male affair. It just was. Historical movies tend to work better when they reflect authenticity. A story of the brave putting their lives on the line to save other braves from almost certain captivity if not worse fate. To think the entire course of WW2 may have altered were the Allies to lose 330,000 troops. The Allies were mulling a conditional surrender but the success of the rescue was a massive shot in the arm for the plucky Brits and the Allies. The High Command wasn’t mulling over how much diversity was on the shores of Dunkirk, they wanted to save as many lives as possible under harrowing circumstances. The Dunkirk movie got berated for sticking to facts rather than Hollywood’s general taking liberties with them.

So spending time bleating about a lack of diversity when 68,000 Allies troops gave their lives to protect the freedoms they enjoy today misses the mark. It is typical of the ungrateful and selfish mindlessness of those who thrive on victimhood despite most cases being a function of their own actions. Victims of change rather than agents of it.

Perhaps one could argue there were too many African-Americans in the Tuskagee Airmen but common sense would be to acknowledge they were in fact African- Americans who had the enviable record of not losing a single bomber on their watch in WW2? Such was their success, the bomber crews would insist on their escort, not knowing their background. Sadly their colour was contentious at the time. Still the movie cast the correct balance of diversity based on cold hard facts.

Surely they should celebrate the appointment of a female Dr Who after 12 consecutive male time lords. One would imagine the complaint will be that the BBC could have picked an LGBT candidate of colour instead of a heterosexual white blonde.

Some may argue that the recent Hawaii 5-0 salary row was discriminatory and defends the need for hard diversity targets. The two Korean actors who often play a relatively minor role in the show complained they were paid less than the main stars. They chose to refuse the contract. Few of us are privy to the driving economic factors which draws the audiences – presumably the main stars Steve McGarrett & Danno. If the next season of Hawaii 5-0 tanks the ‘white’ producers will be fired for poor judgement. Bill Cosby had the #1 ranked TV comedy for 5 years straight and earned $40,000 per episode, the highest paid actor in television history at the time. At one point, The Cosby Show was even ranked the most profitable television show in history.

As one who has hired Jamaicans, Kiwis, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Americans, Canadians, Brits, Thais among countless other nations including members of the LGBT community there were three thing that were relevant – ability, hunger and passion. Nothing else really mattered. It wasn’t their diversity in background. It was the diversity in thought. Perhaps the diversity brigade should learn these lessons before crying foul at every opportunity. Some claims may have legitimacy but the dig at Dunkirk’s cast has absolutely none.

Thank you Reebok

IMG_9199.JPG

Thank you Reebok. Where would we be without your lessons in telling us what is appropriate in the PC world? While many view that infamous line as one of a dinosaur (in hindsight it is a dramatic improvement over other locker room talk) I’m sure many of you have encountered women (and men) who warmly welcome comments about a new haircut, attire or shoes. Many of you haven’t seen those people march right into the HR department to lodge a formal complaint. One would imagine if Brad Pitt or George Clooney had said it then the press would spin it another way. Where was Reebok when Hillary Clinton joked about wanting to watch a replay of Lenny Kravitz’s wardrobe malfunction that exposed his Prince Albert? Surely an opportunity to protest against the brazen sexism against men.

However what is it with corporates that feel they have a need to enforce views on same-sex marriage, LGBT, sexism, climate abatement or religion? I don’t fly Qantas because it’s CEO pushes the agenda on passengers and staff, I don’t drink Starbucks because of its religious beliefs and I don’t need Unilever to preach it’s diversity. All I’m after is the product that serves the need. Not wrapped in political point scoring

In Reebok’s case the Institute for Global Labor & Human Rights made allegations in the past that the sportswear company was exploiting workers (80% female) in El Salvador. The company has denied the allegations after a thorough investigation.

In any event, should Reebok make huge profits on the back of these remarks to the French First Lady will the product planners  secretly pray for the next “gaffe” to help the brand’s performance? In a round about way Reebok is exploiting a supposed defence of women’s rights to boost its bottom line. Perhaps it should donate every cent earned from the campaign on awareness? Or maybe upping the pay of its factory workers? Then people could remark about its corporate responsibility  was “in such good shape” That would be beautiful.

Group think alive and kicking

IMG_0295.PNG

It is hard not to laugh at the headlines in media these days. Group think pervades. The headline that 19/20 nations agree by definition must mean the 1/20 (no guessing who) is dead wrong. Sort of like one kid answering the question incorrectly to a teacher and being ridiculed by the rest of the class). This is sadly the kind of mentality which carries far more risk. Consensus is bunk. Consensus is basically the euphemism for complacency. No matter how many scandals break about homogenized temp data (even from government bodies (i.e. IPCC & NOAA to name two), deliberate concocting of data which serve a purpose or confirmation that 98% of the models using this bogus data have overestimated ‘warming’. The point is that so deeply entrenched are 19 nations in group think that they are basically falling into cognitive dissonance. That is to say they only look for the confirmation bias rather than truly seek alternative theories which might hold merit.

If one objectively reads the Paris Climate Accord the US is spot on to refuse chipping in $3bn to a pot where the three other largest polluters have openly confessed they are doing   next to nothing to combat climate change. Sure rosy press releases push the idea that they’re fully on the climate crusade bus but reality is China has no plans to actively reduce CO2 emissions til at least 2030. Do people honestly believe Premier Xi will guarantee he’ll sacrifice Chinese economic prosperity for climate abatement? President Putin? PM Modi? Will they risk putting a bullet in the brain of the economy to save the planet? Not a chance.

The French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars after 2040 is also laughable. If you want to bury relatively technology starved French automakers like PSA Peugeot-Citroen. 23 years isn’t much of a lead time in the auto industry if one is decades behind to catch up. Will the grid be able to handle the 2mn new cars France sells annually? Will anyone do the math on the toxic gunk that goes into a Li-ion battery? Will special provisions be given to emergency services which require combustion engines to power the heat exchangers that help life saving equipment function?

No. But think of it the other way. How smart is Trump to make the rest of the world do all the hard yards  at no penalty to the US? That is the art of the deal.

Poles apart

Once again how the social media feeds lit up with the supposed snubbing of President Trump by the Polish First Lady. If people took five seconds to come out of the sandpit and  objectively analyze her actions they’d see without deliberate video editing she clearly shook his hand immediately after she shook FLOTUS’s hand. It is pretty easy to work out why so many click bait media organizations are floundering. There is no intelligence or effort to be objective. Sadly one is forced to doubt almost every meme of this kind. It makes tabloids look like professorial theses by comparison. Even the Polish PM came out tweeting it was “FAKE NEWS”

Earlier in the week media were trying to claim he got lost on the way to his limousine when he alighted Air Force 1 as if to claim he was suffering from a mental disease. No doubt trying to add some credibility to the Democrats trying to seek his removal for a lack of mental faculty.

He is without doubt unconventional, often unstatesmanlike, at times shows a lack grace/eloquence and narcissistic (his round table where cabinet members professed their love for him was pretty nauseating) but reading his speech (even if composed by his speech writer – which president doesn’t?) in Warsaw, Trump spoke of what many of today’s apologist leaders refuse to. He believes in the idea that it is totally acceptable to defend your own values and culture. That people shouldn’t be pilloried for feeling patriotic. This week we’ve seen Trudeau offer a state apology and $10.5mn compo payment to a convicted terrorist.  Several months ago Canadian Bill M-103 was passed in such a way that free speech is gagged toward a specific minority. Australia tinkers at the edges of the draconian 18C and still bothers to invest in the AHRC which has shown itself to be an absolute waste of time, resources and worst of all a wrecker of the reputations of innocents. Germany arrested a good samaratin that released a video showing migrant violence toward an innocent victim on grounds of breaching privacy laws and the women of Cologne were advised to wear less revealing clothing to avoid being pestered. We could go on for ages. Is this defending culture? Thinking we gain acceptance by denying our own identity? I applaud Trump for making valid points about pride in one’s nation, something the gritty Poles know all too well.

There are many things not to like superficially about POTUS but when it comes to asking harsh questions about a fair share of funding for NATO or the UN, citing legitimate reasons for ditching the Paris Climate Accord or poking China to start dealing with its geopolitical chess piece in North Korea, he is speaking truths his predecessor would never broach. Sure he has much work to do at home but the world can’t help but notice the new sheriff in town on the global stage and boy do we need strength in this department after eight hollow years where countries like China and Russia ran amuck.

Yet when all is said and told, the mainstream media remains too busy trying to create stories/scandals with concocted outcomes by editing out the facts to create ‘ gotcha’ scoops which achieves their goals of personal hatred. Fake news? That term is getting overused. The fake part may be right but the news part isn’t.

The $50mn+ taxpayer funded selfie with Elon Musk

IMG_0284

South Australia’s Premier Jay Weatherill is looking to get a $50mn+ selfie with Elon Musk as Tesla’s battery storage packs will be selected to keep the lights on the state for c.90 seconds in the event of (the state’s frequent) blackouts. Not withstanding the blithering incompetence in adopting a power policy which will end up costing SA taxpayers a further $560mn+ to cover up the green madness which got them into this mess in the first place, Weatherill gets to turn a massive failure into a virtue by maximizing exposure with the world’s most successful rent seeker (that is a compliment) to appeal to the state’s contributions to renewable energy in full knowledge of it creating the least reliable yet most expensive electricity prices, the highest unemployment rate and slowest growth in the nation. Even companies like Coca -Cola have packed up after more than 50 years operation because of the untrustworthy grid and usury plug prices.

Of course Musk has said he’ll install in 100 days or it is free. As mentioned several months ago when the plans were on the table this will only be enforceable after his lawyers have added every contingency to ensure it is just an optical illusion of insurance. Still that won’t matter to Weatherill. He wants the pride of saying he has the world’s largest battery storage plant even though it is pointless in practice. Perhaps a bronze bust and keys to the City of Adelaide will be given to Musk for his humanitarian efforts.

Still one has to hand it to Musk. His ability to get governments to turn over cash subsidies on EVs and unproven technologies shows his guile as a salesman extraordinaire. I’m green with envy, literally!

Is there any dignity at CNN?

IMG_0278.JPG

Is CNN channeling the Gestapo? Threatening to release the name of an individual who made fun of the network’s own self inflicted stupidity. While it seems ratings haven’t suffered so badly post the Russiagate saga, surely the “we reserve the right to publish his identity” is an unbridled threat. How does taking down a video that has gone viral and been shared eliminate the problem? All that trying to ban soemthing does is exacerbate the problem.

One has to wonder whether the person that posted the video lampooning the network is “truly remorseful” or whether he was intimidated under a spotlight, pumped full of sodium Pentothal while staring at CNN’s legal goons in tight leather gloves. Talk about drawing bad attention to itself.

Perhaps if CNN really wanted to avoid such ridicule, it might decide to focus on quality journalism not stir up a hornet’s nest of lies for ratings. Doesn’t the satisfaction of winning from hard work and dedication trump free riding? Like drug cheats in sport perhaps if one lies to oneself enough they are every bit the winner as those legitimate athletes.

There can be no sympathy for a network that gets pilloried for engaging in what amounts to doxxing individuals. The Trump video in its initial form has been around for ages yet no complaints were had because everyone knows WWF is stage cast. The majority of those that saw the CNN spoof version would see it for what it is – ridicule.

For CNN to turn it into a “inciting violence against journalists” is plain nonsense. Should Trump have sent it on Twitter? No. Was it presidential? No. Was CNN in the wrong for inventing stories to try to remove him? Yes. Are journalists’ lives in danger from the President when they line up at a White House press conference? No.

As the ancient Chinese proverb states, “before setting out on revenge, first dig two graves.”

57% want him to stay

IMG_0264.JPG

How much value do we put in polls nowadays? A left leaning paper like The Guardian likely asked the question in the refectory of a university campus between sociology and philosophy lectures. Having said that the latest news on a Tony Abbott challenge to PM Malcolm Turnbull is spooking the media. Best crank up the “everyone hates you” and “”why don’t you just quit” rhetoric to try to pressure ministers and liberal back benchers to keep Turnbull there. Still the Guardian doesn’t report 57% want him to stay  43% want him to quit!

It is hard not to be amused (but appalled) at the recent gaffes. From Christopher Pyne’s cheap shot address saying the conservative left is in charge and gay marriage (this piece isn’t arguing the rights and wrongs) was going to happen quicker than everyone thinks (i.e. An election promise would be happily broken) to Turnbull saying he’d quit politics if ousted as leader. Turnbull was really trying to give Abbott a hint to return to a life outside politics at the same time threatening his flunkies to tow the line because a by-election in his seat would see the Libs lose the one seat majority they have. Treasurer Scott Morrison talks as if the public has no idea how cordial and united the party is under Turnbull when everyone knows better.

The main problem with the “Turnbull Coalition” (evidence enough it’s all about him) is that it is Labor Party lite. His backers could in reality serve in either party such is their ideological similarity. Turnbull could have joined the Labor Party but his Point Piper mansion and Goldman Sachs links make him unpalatable to the working class battler.

So now true conservatives have no real choice but to abandon a Coalition ship that no longer sails in their direction. Instead of minimalist government and laissez-faire policies of a true conservative party, the Turnbull Coalition wants more government and higher deficits. While a feral Senate makes passing austerity bills tough, Turnbull champions his achievements (what little there are) with no thought to the extra billions required to buy off  his elites.

Tony Abbott is a man who is sick of seeing the party he’s dedicated decades to be hijacked by the left. He wants the party to go back to its core principles. Would he win the next election as leader? Probably not but he’d save many more seats than Turnbull who boasts he’ll win the 2019 election. Sadly the damage done to the Libs is monumental. The party is divided and voters are sick of it.

A PM Bill Shorten is almost a guarantee, not so much because he is a popular choice to Turnbull (he isn’t) but the fact the Libs stench is too foul. Even at the local level, support (i.e. membership) for the Liberal Party is collapsing. Take Senator Cory Bernardi who split from the Libs to set up the Australian Conservatives – “In South Australia, we already have one half the number of members in the Liberal Party, which is pretty good after a month, and about two-thirds of what the Labor Party has, and that’s just in this state. So we are building from a very strong position.

What we do know is that Turnbull has turned out exactly as thought. He is the complete opposite of what he told us he would be when the coup took place and somehow polls don’t matter for him when they were the key reason to shoot Abbott. Abbott on the other hand cares for his party as much as he’s accused of being a wrecker he wants to provide a real alternative to Labor as the mass defections to One Nation and Australian Conservatives demonstrate. If I had to put money on a winner there will be none. On a who loses less basis, Tony Abbott has principle on his side and sadly Turnbull’s lack of judgement will see him put almost every foot wrong.

What people forget is that politicians are supposed to serve their constituents not themselves. Sadly Turnbull’s ambition to be PM was for his own ego but he will not to go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of our country. In fact I’m struggling to see who is worse – Turnbull or Gillard. In terms of party wrecking ball, Mr Turnbull takes the wooden spoon.