#hypocrisy

Israel to deduct terrorist salaries from PA transfers

BEC57A13-24FC-4226-B625-FEB1E8E31F61.jpeg

No sooner had Australia announced it would no longer give money directly to the Palestinian Authority (PA) than the Knesset put into law a previous bill that sought to deduct terrorists’ salaries from the roughly $130 million in monthly tax revenues Israel collects on behalf of them. PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh said,

The Palestinian presidency strongly refuses to accept this severe decision, which damages the foundations of the relations since the Oslo Agreement to this day…If this decision is implemented, it will prompt important Palestinian decisions to deal with it.”

How is it that even with the Oslo peace process coming into effect in 1993 that the PLO carried out 4,000 attacks till 1999. The Israelis so desperate (under Ehud Barak of all people) for peace gave the PLO 95% of their territorial demands yet they still kept up the attacks killing more than 1,000 Israelis, a total exceeding the previous 25 years combined. So the foundations of the Oslo Agreement remain flakey at best. 

What Abbas’ spokesman is technically saying is that they openly admit to spending money on terrorist salaries (nothing new) when their very own people want monies to be allocated on services (education, sanitation, water, electricity, healthcare) that benefit the whole. The press doesn’t report the 1,000s of Palestinians treated in Israeli hospitals.

While Israel remains an open, democratic and multi-ethnic society the PA has proven itself to be an intolerant, corrupt and self-serving dictatorship which has little interest in serving its constituents as the comptroller of its first ever audit revealed. International aid money lined the pockets of the leaders of the PLO. The French money laundering authorities discovered that Arafat’s wife’s bank account had amassed $3bn over 20 years. It is ironic that most of the original founders of the PLO didn’t live in the Palestinian Mandate when Israel was created. Arafat was born in Egypt. 

At the time of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, 90% of Palestinian Arabs lived in Transjordan. At the time there was no movement to create a Palestinian state. It is somewhat ironic that no Arab outrage ensued when Jordan annexed the West Bank (what we know as the occupied territories) in 1950 blatantly disenfranchising the Palestinian Arabs in the process. Even then they never fought for self-determination. In fact it wasn’t until the PLO was first established in 1964, a time the West Bank belonged to Jordan, that they started to pursue it.

The irony of many leaders in Palestine is the blatant hypocrisy. In 2014, during the last conflict, former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh sent his daughter across the border to Israel for emergency medical treatment. On what grounds does a father trust his daughter to his mortal enemy to save her? Yahya Sinwar, a prisoner in an Israeli jail for murdering 12 Israelis was given life saving surgery after being diagnosed with cancer. He was released in a prisoner exchange in 2011 and took over from Haniyeh as leader of Hamas yet swears “we will tear out their hearts” of the very people who saved him.

What might have escaped many is that in the last few months terrorists have burnt more than 30,000 dunam (7,400 acres) of land near the border with Gaza. Israel’s honey industry has almost been wiped out. Israel is under pressure to do something to stop such destruction. Iran is the biggest headache for Israel at present. Despite digital diplomacy, the last thing the country wants to invite is a conflict with Iran-backed Hamas.

However do not be surprised if some skirmish kicks off on the border in coming months to contain the fire bombing of farmland. It will have nothing to do with cutting out payments to terrorists and martyrs although don’t be surprised if that pretext is used.

Israelis truly want peace. Yet the PA will only accept one which requires the destruction of the Jewish state. Ask yourself whether you would sign an agreement with that as a clause? Exactly.  Even Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, said several months ago,

In the last several decades, the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given…It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the table or shut up.”

The 90th Oscars – viewership down 16%

75D52928-136C-43D5-89C9-9D7E7E934D83.jpeg

The Oscars. Who actually takes the time to watch it? The irony is that these supposed social justice warriors think they pack significant political clout. On the one hand actresses still dress as scantily as possible while protesting sexual harassment and women’s rights while on the other stick it to the NRA when so many action or suspense movies glorify gun fights and blood shed. Trump bashing is a regular feature these days and the jokes are plain boring and the audience, what’s left of it, have tuned out.

They can’t have it both ways. In any event viewers voted with their eyes sending ratings down 16%. Perhaps The Oscars could take a lessson from 90 years ago and stick to silent movies!

From a Nielsen:

The 8 p.m.-11 p.m. portion of ABC’s telecast averaged an 18.9 household rating and 32 share in Nielsen’s metered market overnight ratings, which cover about 70% of U.S. TV households. That’s down about 16% from the 22.5/37 rating generated by the 2017 Oscars.

Hypocrisy and Hollywood go hand in hand. One wonders whether Leo DiCaprio flew his eyebrow groomer half way around the world on a private jet when climate change is the biggest problem we face  today.

After decades of digital disruption Hollywood still pushes the idea that they are important enough for us to make an appointment for when Netflix and Fox allow us to watch whatever, whenever On demand in our own living rooms. Times have changed and Hollywood needs to get with them and keep their mouths shut when it comes to thinking they’re remotely living in the real world.

Oprah – fantastic delivery to those lost in fantasy

793B184A-1AC1-4534-B290-05D68F701A07.jpeg

One can’t fault Oprah for delivery. Her Cecil B. De Mille award speech justifies her position as the highest paid performer in Hollywood. She’s eloquent! Despite her speech to an audience full of hypocrites who applauded every aspect of the victim culture that has not held 99% of them back. She is unsurprisingly lighting up liberal social media feeds. Hail the identity politics!

Oprah is the poster child of how America rewards talent no matter what background one comes from. She earns $140mn a year. While she can talk of the importance of the civil rights of the 1960s from a lino floor watching Sidney Poitier win the same award, the America today (and decades ago) hasn’t  held her back. She should be celebrating and acknowledging that change not rattling off how unjust the world still is. Sure it isn’t perfect but the injustices of the 1960s are virtually non existent by comparison. Show me a perfect society and we’d all move there.

After all a black president served two terms in America. Had he not won those elections would civil rights in America been immeasurably worse off since 2009?  Would parents of African-American descent have told their children to hold tight to their injustices had he lost? Or did they tell them to chuck them away when he won? Why wouldn’t Oprah cheer that? Afterall the virtue signallers in the audience would smile, cry and swoon on anything she said so out of touch with the world they are

While the washout from the Weinstein saga has yet to finally flood them out, here was Hollywood trying to sell themselves as paragons of virtue. Champagne socialism is alive and kicking.

It was so ironic that immediately after the Oprah speech Natalie Portman introduced the “all male nominees for best director” which only amplified how full of it Hollywood is. Could it be that most directors are male? The Golden Globes said that Barbara Streisand was the only female winner of a best director award in 1984. Could it be that Spielberg or Ron Howard pulls movie financing  more adeptly than others regardless of gender? Previous track record -> future sales expectations -> higher financing -> better cast -> more sales etc. it’s based on economics not gender.

Then Jennifer Chastain jumped in with the 23% gender pay gap quip in a room where they all get paid millions. Leading actors get paid more depending on movie, budget and a whole host of issues. I doubt Meryl Streep has suffered a 23% pay gap to her male actors in any of her movies since Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs Kramer. Geena Davis added to the pay gap nonsense in her introduction. Yawn.

Yes, Oprah grew up in Jim Crow times. Indeed she witnessed first hand those injustices. Once again isn’t a night of virtue signaling better served by focusing on positives than nothing but negatives. Of course not. It’s terrible being a multi millionaire.

Frances McDormand talked of the time for a female president. Barbara Streisand banged on about gender inequality. By her own admission she won an award 33 years ago.

So the Golden Globes was all the same rubbish. 100s of Hollywood celebrities thinking their words carry any meaning or weight. Every social justice case was put to full effect. If they actually believed their own nonsense they’d do their utmost to repeal the very civil rights thy fight so vigorously to defend.

No Oscars for honesty. Plenty for hypocrisy

As the dirty laundry of Hollywood gets aired how many celebrities forgot that the internet has a half life of infinity and that there are trolls that will go to the ends of the earth to dig up things actors did in the past. Whether it be Jimmy Kimmel asking young girls to fondle his crotch to see if they could tell what the bulge was or Ben Affleck grabbing a handful of reporters’ breasts one thing is for sure, the public have such a low opinion of celebrities that one wonders why the Democrats want these liberal elites championing their causes. This video at election time last year spoofing the previous one done by Hollywood actors (who by the way made jokes about Mark Ruffalo ‘showing his dick’ if they registered – I mean how funny is that!?!? NOT.) was perhaps one of the best send ups which summarises why they should just stick to film making and shut up about everything else.

Listen to this Golden Globes speech by Meryl Streep and put all of her words she made about the President in the context of the then untouchable Weinstein as she said,

when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose”

We need the principled press to hold them to account..”

”I only ask that the famously well heeled foreign Hollywood press and all of us…to supporting the committee to protect journalists…to protect them going forward…we’re going to need them…and they’ll need us too…to safeguard the truth…”

Isn’t it a privilege to be an actor?…yes it is and we have to remind ourselves of the privilege and responsibility of the act of empathy

How prophetic those words are given the denial of the real culture of Hollywood. That as vulgar as the man she accused in her speech isn’t it ironic that her privileges were in part granted by safeguarding people from the truth by protecting the very journalists who turned a blind eye to the bullies so they wouldn’t be held to account. Which part is the act of empathy? Not even sympathy.

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.

Now Kathy Griffin is the helpless victim

IMG_9108.PNG

What a blithering idiot. If she couldn’t see that her stunt was potentially career ending then it is hard to have sympathy. Did she not weigh up her decision in the days and weeks it would have taken to prepare the prop? Did she not seek third party advice? Now she’s playing the victim card. How pathetic. She even hired a lawyer to defend her from attacks from the Trump family. I would imagine most sane families would hound you if you held a mock decapitation of the head of the family. Let’s see if she is crowd funded to keep her out of self inflicted poverty.

The likes of Jim Carey came out to say that comedy is all about crossing lines. To a point he is right but Griffin’s stunt at no point had a comic element to it. This was a venomous, targeted and mal-intended event to make a point of her dislike for her democratically elected leader. Amazing how she can go on TV as a victim. The reason she has been fired is that the networks is they don’t think she’ll be a drawcard. Given the low cost of online platforms maybe she can set up her own pay-per-view comedy channel and see how popular she really is. Sorry Kathy, you own this.

I’m tiring of Corporate Hypocrisy

img_8968

I do wish corporations would shut up about their political affiliations. Last week, Mars Inc, Starbucks, Levi Strauss and several others voiced concern over climate change and the coming Trump administration’s appointment of a climate change skeptic (not a denier) which might derail the Paris climate summit agreement made late last year. I think the appointment of a skeptic is the right way to go. More of that later.

I’m sorry. If I go into a Starbucks I’m looking for just a cup of Joe to kickstart the morning. I’m not out for a lecture on your political leanings. You did this before (and doing it again this year) with the removal of snowflakes and Christmas trees on your cups by replacing them with red cups only. The public rationale they gave – the cup mimicked a blank canvas that “welcomes all stories.” Yes, you’re free to sell whatever cups you see fit but I don’t want to have your progressive ideals rammed down my throat to ruin the taste of my already burnt coffee. I doubt any Muslim, Jew or a person from any other religious affiliation would raise protest if served a Christmas cup. If you truly want to welcome all stories, why not take your blank canvas and celebrate Muslim, Jewish, Shinto and Buddhist holiday periods? Embrace them all instead of hiding behind the typical leftist ideal of appealing to their own moral virtue.

Mars, Inc.  is no better. Barry Parkin, Chief Sustainability and Healthy & Wellbeing Officer at Mars, feels strongly that business must lead the push for real change: “We know it’s going to be important for companies to lead on climate change, and we’re already taking actionWe’ve declared our own decarbonization commitment – to eliminate the use of fossil fuel energy and greenhouse gas emissions from our operations by 2040 – and our Mesquite Creek wind farm is already generating the equivalent of 100% of the electricity needed to power the entirety of our U.S. operations.” That’s 24 years away. A quarter of a century.

What about saving people’s lives?  Skittles, M&Ms and Mars bars hardly count as health food. They are filled with chemical additives. Take a bag of Skittles – Sugar, Corn Syrup, Hydrogenated Palm Kernel Oil, Apple Juice from Concentrate, Less than 2% Citric Acid, Dextrin, Modified Corn Starch, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Coloring (Includes Yellow 6 Lake, Red 40 Lake, Yellow 5 Lake, Blue 2 Lake, Yellow 5, Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 1 Lake, Blue 1), Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C). Acccording to Fooducate “A single serving 2 oz pack contains 250 calories and a whopping 47 grams of sugar (that’s 12 teaspoons of sugar in a personal bag). Surprisingly, vitamin C content is 50% of the daily value, but that’s because Ascorbic acid has been added to the product. The palm kernel oil contributes 2.5 grams of saturated fat to the mix (that’s 13% of the daily value, from a candy!)”

img_0006

While we’re on the subject of Skittles, do you remember the outrage when Donald Trump Jr. during the campaign compared Syrian refugees to a bowl of Skittles sprinkled with a few that “would kill you.” How dare he politicize candy!! Skittle’s parent Wrigley (owned by Mars, Inc.) wrote, “Skittles are candy. Refugees are people. We don’t feel it’s an appropriate analogy. We will respectfully refrain from further commentary as anything we say could be misinterpreted as marketing,” 

When a bunch of feminists used the following analogy to explain male rape culture:

“You say not all men are monsters? Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful.”

Mars did and said absolutely nothing. So typical of the double standards culture of the left Where was the “M&Ms are chocolate. Men are people. We don’t feel it’s an appropriate analogy…”?

Yet there they were during London LGBT Pride Week politicizing candy. Skittles removed the colours in an all white packet releasing this statement,

“So this is kind of awkward, but we’re just gonna go ahead and address the rainbow-colored elephant in the room…You have the rainbow … we have the rainbow … and usually that’s just hunky-dory…But this Pride, only one rainbow deserves to be the centre of attention—yours. And we’re not going to be the ones to steal your rainbow thunder, no siree.”

IMG_0007.JPG

So why should we should we pay attention to Mars, Inc’s beliefs over climate change? Let’s think about the Paris COP summit. Every year the same 50,000 climate alarmist pilgrims fly half way around the world belching tonnes of their most feared CO2 to kneel at the altar of the UNIPCC. It is lobbying at its finest. It is self interest. It is about securing funding grants.

For those that believe the scientists are holier than thought take the Centre for Climate Change Economics (CCCEP) at the London School of Economics (LSE). It is accused of swindling £9 million in UK government grants by claiming credit for studies it had not funded and for papers published by rival academics. One of the misrepresented authors, climate economist Richard Tol described it as “a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain.”

I have absolutely no problems acting responsibly and breathing clean air but I don’t need a corporate to lecture me on how I should live my life. By the same token, the climate alarmists believe there should be an alarmist in charge of funding appropriation. That way we can be assured of almost zero objectivity. I think Trump’s appointment of a climate skeptic was the right decision. There needs to be balance and objectivity. California and some other states have pledged to continue commitments to reducing emissions. If we look at the four largest polluters – America, China, India and Russia – which make up 75% of man made CO2 creation and their commitments at Paris:

America only tentatively agreed if there was no legal recourse by nations affected by their polluting activity.

China said emissions would peak out in 2030. It wants to clean up pollution masked as ‘climate change’. I remember writing about local governments in China preferring corporates to pollute in order to receive tax revenues on excess emissions.

India wants to clean up ahead of the celebration of the 150th year since Gandhi’s birth in 2019 but economic growth won’t take a back seat to climate with plans to roll out over 50 coal fired power stations.

Russia gave its commitment in Paris on a hotel napkin 7 minutes before the event.

Hardly a sign that the biggest polluters are chomping at the bit to save the planet immediately.

Whether we like it or not, the job of the corporate should be to sell their wares not their beliefs.

Perhaps more telling is the 5 core Corporate Principles of Mars. I read through them and wondered where the one pleading for environmental awareness was? It spoke of looking to reduce its environmental impact as a normal course of business briefly but if it was such a footnote then why the hype to the media about its fears on global warming? Make it a core value Mars! Anything short of that only exposes you to the hypocrisy that pervades your PR department.

Perhaps if you made products that didn’t cause obesity (maybe an obesity tax should be slapped on you) then you could appeal to your commitment to save people’a health before your commitment to save the planet. Maybe in tandem? A reduction in obesity would lead to lower human tailpipe emissions too. Sure it serves you to make candy and it is consumers who ultimately buy your goods knowing the health risks of excessive consumption but leave your Samaritan virtue inside the oil-based plastic wrapper that serves you so well.