#doublestandards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy of the Mayor of Sydney

9BFAF40E-2081-4110-A923-4F8004D9E273.png

It shouldn’t surprise but in the self-serving interests of the Marxist Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore has vowed to make venues in Sydney’s prominent places free for 100 days for any gay weddings if SSM is legalized. Yes, if marriage equality is approved, the first thing Moore intends to do is promote “inequality”. I sincerely hope that gay couples reject her offer should the legislation pass because it would only serve to prove the height of double standards. Gaining equality should not mean getting an advantage. Love is love. Money is money. Loony progressive logic.

Hollywood hypocrites exposed by the Weinstein scandal

8A16DD9C-7570-4181-AE9D-F6FC3595CBBA.jpeg

Most Hollywood celebrities are a hypocritical mob, a claim CM has made countless times. Grandstanding about all of the social injustice in the world but in most cases doing nothing personal about it, Whether it be Leo DiCaprio telling us that climate change is the biggest threat of our time as he flies his eyebrow stylist half way around the world on a private jet to Meryl Streep speaking of her utter disgust at the President and his lack of respect for women. Now we have a thermonuclear scandal within their own ranks  – Harvey Weinstein. His career now appears so sullied, all celebrities can act (being the operative word) as paragons of virtue and exemplary behaviour because he has lost his career-influencing mojo and now serves no purpose. He is a sacrifice.

True to form celebrity double standards come shining through. All of a sudden, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett and others come out of their bubble and condemned his actions of which they claim they had no idea. Of course his actions, if proven true are abhorrent. Presumably in all of the drug and alcohol fueled benders that in and out of rehab celebrities – who spend their lives boasting, boosting then denying self made rumors to gain the spotlight – attend, not one of them got a whiff of what was going on? Puhlease. How obvious is it to spot an office romance at your company Christmas party? Doesn’t take an Einstein to work it out.

After all these celebrities are the most switched on of all enlightened beings when patronizing us with their wisdom on politics, refugees to the environment. Many would never let a moment pass to provide their guidance or opinion. Yet, they somehow managed to miss what must have been a pretty obvious behavioural pattern if it has been as widespread over decades as reported. Not one of these up and coming fame seeking stars confided in one of the established Hollywood A-listers that they were pressured to watch him supposedly pleasure himself or presumably participated in sex acts or became victims of rape?

So who has come forward?

ANGELINA JOLIE (1998) Jolie said she rejected Weinstein’s sexual advances in a hotel room during the release of 1998’s Playing by Heart.

GWYNETH PALTROW (1996) Weinstein met 22-year-old Paltrow for what she thought was a work meeting at a Beverly Hills hotel. He suggested they head to his bedroom for massages. She refused.

HEATHER GRAHAM (early 2000s) Graham says Weinstein called her into his office and said he wanted to put her in one of his movies. He mentioned an agreement he had with his wife where he could sleep with whoever he wanted while he was out of town.

MIRA SORVINO (1995) Sorvino said Weinstein “harassed her” and pressured her to have a sexual relationship while she acted in Miramax films, massaged her shoulders and chased her around

ROSETTA ARQUETTE (1990s) Arquette took a business meeting with Weinstein that escalated into her being sexually propositioned.

ASHLEY JUDD (1990s) Judd was summoned to Weinstein’s hotel room to talk about roles in his movies. Instead, Weinstein asked her for a massage, and after she declined, he asked her to watch him shower. “I said no, a lot of ways, a lot of times.”

ROSE MCGOWAN (1997) McGowan had reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein after an unwanted encounter in a hotel room during Sundance Film Festival in 1997.

LAUREN SIVAN (2007) Weinstein trapped the journalist in the hallway of a restaurant, tried to kiss her, then blocked her path and masturbated.

TOMI-ANN ROBERTS (1984) Roberts was waiting tables in New York and hoping to start an acting career. Weinstein urged her to audition for him saying she would give a better audition if she were comfortable “getting naked in front of him”.

LOUISE GODBOLD (1990s) Godbold, co-executive director of the non-profit Echo Parenting & Education said during an office tour she got trapped in an empty meeting room, where Weinstein begged for a massage.

LAURA MADDEN (1991) Madden, a former employee of Weinstein’s said he would ask her to give him massages in hotel rooms.

KATHERINE KENDALL (1993) Actress Kendall said Weinstein gave her scripts and invited her to a screening, which turned out to be a solo trip with him. He emerged from the bathroom in a robe, asking for a massage and chased her and asked to at least see her breasts.

LIZA CAMPBELL (1995) The British artist and writer started working with the Weinstein Co in 1995. He invited her to his hotel room and suggested they take a bath together.

JUDITH GODRECHE (1996) Weinstein invited Godreche to breakfast at the Cannes Film Festival in his hotel suite to see the view and discuss her film’s marketing campaign. Instead he asked for a, started “pressing against me and pulling off my sweater”.

ROSE MCGOWAN (1997) McGowan reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein after an encounter in a hotel room during Sundance Film Festival in 1997.

ASIA ARGENTO (1997-1999) The Italian actress was 21 when she met Weinstein, whose company was distributing her film. She said she entered a “consensual” relationship afraid of what would happen if she refused. During the first encounter he forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop.

ROMOLA GARAI (2000) The British actress claimed Weinstein had her privately audition for him in a hotel room while he was wearing a bathrobe. “I was only 18. I felt violated by it, it has stayed very clearly in my memory.”

DAWN DUNNING (2003) Dunning met Weinstein when she was waitressing and he offered her a screen test. When she arrived, he was in a bathrobe and said he had contracts for his next three films, but she could only sign them if she would have three-way sex with him.

LUCIA EVANS (2004) Actress Evans said she was forced to perform oral sex on Weinstein. She says she tried to resist but was overpowered.

EMMA DE CAUNES (2010) At Cannes Film Festival, Weinstein told the French actress she would be perfect for an adaptation of a book he had in his hotel room. He emerged from his hotel bathroom naked and demanded that she lie on the bed. She left petrified.

JUSSICA BARTH (2011) Barth met with Weinstein in his hotel room for a business meeting. Instead, the meeting “alternat[ed] between offering to cast her in a film and demanding a naked massage in bed”.

EMILY NESTOR (2014) Nestor was an assistant at Weinstein Company when Weinstein offered to relocate her to the London office so she could be his girlfriend. The two got coffee, which Nestor said was “the most excruciating and uncomfortable hour of my life”.

AMBRA BATTILANA GUTIERREZ (2015) Gutierrez filed sexual assault charges in 2015 after Weinstein grabbed her breast during one of their meetings. The charges were dropped by NYPD, but initially, Gutierrez worked with the police to try and catch Weinstein confessing to the crime on tape.

Are we to believe that these were the only ones affected by his indecent proposals? In all the time she worked with Weinstein, Kidman never came across his lecherous advances? Are we to think that nothing happened just because he is not into redheads? If these shenanigans had been going on for over a decade in Hollywood, one cannot help but think that such a high profile person’s antics weren’t just urban myths by a long shot. If indeed some of these Hollywood stars in the making were true victims of sexual impropriety, surely many of the production crew, managers, other stars and make up artists must have noted changes in their behaviour or manner off set.

Sexual harassment and/or assault are serious crimes. Let us make no bones about this.  Should Weinstein be found guilty in a court of law for his actions then may the book be thrown at him with full force. Not even the best actors can hide the side effects of such despicable behaviour.

Yet, the celebrities who had a chance to expose Weinstein in public since 20 years ago for his supposed actions chose not to. Presumably chasing stardom for multi millions a film ended up more important than raising a red flag and protecting multiple other people from a fate they need not have faced at the risk of their own careers. Hypocrites indeed.

On the flip side as much as we might not like to admit it, it is also not hard to believe that some will gladly sell their souls for fame and fortune. With power comes inevitable corruption and false belief in one’s own infallibility. Perhaps Weinstein thought his elevated status granted him the ability in his own mind (however warped) if a few responded positively to his advances? An intoxicating drug which kept him in a state of continually seeking reconfirmation of his massive ego. That does not excuse any claims about what he did in anyway but I won’t be the least bit surprised if the psychological assessment in any trial confirms this mental state.

We don’t condone violence but we want to fund the guy that headbutted the former PM because he deserves it

12D498E7-7F43-4557-A5C6-A01444A6DAA3.jpeg

Talk about double standards. This is the chap who has already pleaded guilty to headbutting former Australian PM Tony Abbott yet fellow ferals want to fund his court costs. Of course for the left, it is not the principle but the side. Unsurprisingly the Twitterati have  applauded his actions however if he was the true hero they make him out to be he wouldn’t resort to the type of cowardice he did. Then again it speaks volumes about their willingness to fight with foreheads rather than facts.

Read the rationale for the  gofundme campaign for yourself.

I propose we raise some funds which will most likely be needed in the near future for court fees and lawyer fees plus any possible fulines coming the way of Astro Labe, the gentleman that gave Tony Abbott a little bit of what he deserves.

This GoFundMe nor the creator in no way condone any violence, but do believe the politician did recieve a little if what he deserved after causing so much mental anguish for so many Australians over the years.

Below is an article explaining the situation:

Hobart resident Astro Labe this week allegedly attempted to smash Tony Abbott’s face. He’s since been charged with assault – and naturally became a hero to gentle, pacifist, left-wingers. Labe, 38, claims his alleged attack was not associated with his support for same-sex marriage. Rather, it was all about mere idiotic malice: “It was nothing really remotely to do with that. It’s just about Tony Abbott – the f***ing worm that he is,” the man told News Corp Australia. “All it was is I saw Tony Abbott and I’d had half a skinful and I wanted to nut the c***. “I want to divorce myself [from the same-sex marriage issue] — not because I disagree with their stance — but this was nothing to do with that. That’s just my personal hatred.” He admitted he had a same-sex sticker on his jacket, but said that was a coincidence. “It was purely because a friend of mine had walked past handing them out and had stuck one on my jacket,’ he said. He said he had been drinking at a Hobart waterfront hotel when he had seen Mr Abbott walk past. His version of what followed was almost identical to Mr Abbott’s. “I was like ‘Tony, Tony’, I kind of trotted up behind him. I trotted up behind him, ‘I just want to shake your hand’ and just went bang. Kind of missed it. Gave him a fat lip. “He got off pretty lightly. He’s just lucky I’m not a violent c***.” Obviously. The barista and bartender says he returned to the pub and had a couple of shots of scotch. He said he would apologise for his actions when he appeared in court, but his opinions had not changed. “I’m an anarchist, he’s an evil c**.” Er, who allegedly attacked who? Labe also spoke to Fairfax: “[It] was just a lifelong ambition to headbutt a fascist because I’m a skinhead that likes ska music and hates fascism. He’s an evil c—, I’m an anarchist and I believe in human rights … “I headbutted him quite piss-poorly because I was quite pissed,” Mr Labe said. He said he had no remorse but acknowledged his actions had harmed the “yes” campaign and said he was “really f–king embarrassed by it”.

Crass but are you really shocked?

If you read the Pravda on the Hudson (NY Times) they are in an uproar over a spoof video of President Trump hitting Hillary Clinton with a golf ball. It is a pretty crass stunt to be sure but is anyone surprised? They shouldn’t be. Presidential? No. Befitting of the office? No. Exercise in good judgement? Not really. Violence toward women was his main aim?  Hardly.  Playing the mainstream media to his tune? Absolutely, 3,2,1…explode. The problem is that the media will give this lots of airplay and bring in all manner of experts to discuss something that is actually pretty trivial. Given Hillary’s book promotion blaming everyone (even Republican males bullying their wives to vote Trump) this was likely his response to say ‘sore loser’. Doesn’t condone it but I am sure the world will move on.

Nearly ever liberal feed I’ve read deplores his childish antics here and insist he focus on all the other pressing issues at home and abroad – the very same issues they continually claim he is absolutely mentally unfit to deal with. So which is it? So to these same liberals – if he genuinely achieves proper successes on any pressing issue will you congratulate him? No, thought not. Literally playing the man, not the golf ball. It’s this whining that probably ensures he’ll torment them an extra 4 years if they don’t change their tune.

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.

Italy proves the ECB Thinks some banks more equal than others

IMG_0274

The ECB proves it is powerless to push member states into banking solutions. It is in fact nothing more than an accomplice. No sooner had the ECB turned a blind eye to a bailout of two banks last week, this week saw the world’s oldest bank likely to get the same treatment.  The state-backed rescue of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA may be approved by the European Commission as soon as today.

EU approval would pave the way for the third recapitalization of an Italian bank by the state this week. Last month, European authorities and Italian officials reached an agreement in principle on a rescue plan that may include a capital increase of about 8.3 billion euros ($9.4 billion) and the sale of about 26 billion euros of bad loans through securitization. Monte Paschi was forced to seek state aid after it failed to raise capital from investors in December.

All it shows is that for all the rhetoric of bail-ins and tough talk, the ECB has no choice but to let member states handle their own affairs. Italy has a banking sector with 20% NPLs with up to 50% in southern parts of the country.

In reality it shows up the ECB to be powerless to control its members. While the US can openly state it is paring back its balance sheet, the ECB has to be content with rolling over and playing dead. At the same time Italy sets precedents that become the benchmark for others to follow. Must be food for thought for all the banks that have been forced to bail-in…-all banks are equal…some more equal than others!