#hypocrites

#boycottyourself next time you buy take-away coffee

26396013-B44E-41B5-AB6C-FCD86BA4D49E.jpeg

Poor old Coles. In an attempt to listen to its customers over plastic bag use, activists push for a boycott against the supermarket chain! Yet why aren’t these same activists openly protesting in front of department stores or retail chains who brazenly use plastic bags to help their customers carry often bulky items? Why aren’t take away food court vendors openly shouted at when handing over plastic cutlery? Why is Coles subject to social media thuggery when the plethora or other retail chains escape? Talk about double standards.

While we’re at it, do people realize that the majority of take away wax-lined coffee cups aren’t recycled even though you can feel good about yourself when disposing of it? How many people elect to have their brew poured into a ceramic cup? Look net time – hardly any! The cost to recycle the 500 billion (and rising) coffee cups consumed annually is so astronomical (it is hard to separate the wax that stops the cup disintegrating because of the energy intensity involved to do so) that over 90% end up in landfill. No one talks about that 300 million tons of virgin paper used to make these cups! How many of us give it one thought when we need a shot of caffeine? Right?! Although Starbucks is trialing a 5p latte levy for those that elect to use a paper cup.

A decade ago, Japanese retailer Fast Retailing publisher in its annual report:

Additionally, in December 2007 UNIQLO introduced polyethylene shopping bags using the “Nano Hybrid Capsule 2 (NHC2) additive.” These were researched and developed by Professor Masahiko Abe at the Science and Engineering Department of the Tokyo University of Science. NHC2 helps increase the strength of the bag and reduces its weight by roughly 20% and CO2 emitted during incineration by about 40%. This new shopping bag thus reduces about 60% of CO2 emitted altogether compared to the previous model.

Most supermarket shopping bags used in Australia before the self-imposed ban were biodegradable.

In 2006 the UK Environment Agency did a study on the effectiveness of alternative packaging solutions to HDPE (conventional plastic bags) in terms of lowering environmental impact. It said,

The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower [impact] than conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused.”

So if conventional shopping bags are used to throw out garbage that means 6, 8, 21 and 262 days.

So we can virtue signal all we like. No one wants to see irresponsible use of disposable plastics cause damage to the environment but this idea that some think government intervention is the answer is palpable. In Australia’s case, after examining the most ridiculously incompetent stewardship over power generation in a country endowed with cheap energy sources (we manage blackouts and $1200kWh surges in spot pricing) they have none of the prerequisites to manage disposable shopping bags.

#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!?

True colours of the left exposed when it comes to white Sth African farmers

DDD875EC-E209-43D5-B2B1-55F6FB5643ED.jpeg

There is something to be said of the left when it comes to compassion. For all of the sanctimony of how we must do our bit for social justice and fight to stop every -ism in the world, whites need not apply. It shouldn’t have escaped many that certain “white” South African farmers are fleeing persecution while their land is being confiscated. Murders, beatings of men and women, children having their faces given the “joker’s cut” with razor blades. It’s truly horrific. Yet some are prepared to cynically fire off “the poor whites…”

Yet because of their skin colour some on the left deem their “white privilege” should be checked first. It would seem in order to restore justice, white South African farmers should get a taste of their own medicine after the oppression of apartheid some 30+ years ago. Surely people in need are indeed just that – in need. Are all white farmers guilty of apartheid? Back of the line. Sacrifice your lives for the sake of equality.

Australia is often beaten over the head for its asylum seeker policies. That somehow asylum seekers kept in detention centres (where they demand Hyatt 5-star  services and amenities) awaiting processing on Manus Island got a raw deal as ‘fellow whites’ get a fast pass. What the media, like The Guardian often fail to do is report the balance. Immigration Minister Dutton fast tracked the visas of 700 Yazidi women who had escaped ISIS rape gangs. They aren’t white. They were in grave danger. Instead of congratulations it wasn’t reported.

On the flip side 12 Iranians had their visas revoked by Dutton’s office for lying in their applications. They had pleaded they were fleeing persecution in Iran yet the first thing they did on receipt of visas was to fly back to the very danger zone they had escaped for a holiday. Was that racist policy or one that is simply preventing visa fraud to ensure integrity in the immigration system?

Asylum seeker policy is a touchy subject. How Angela Merkel was praised for her social caring programme by granting a come one come all refugee policy, one which ended up being the mother of all misguided altruism. Instead of helping the truly needy, the EU tallied that 80% were economic migrants seeking better fortunes in the West. That’s right 80% weren’t fleeing war zones.

Since she started her benevolence, Merkel gagged the media, muzzled the police and silenced those that spoke out about the cover up of the deterioration in public safety, rapes and crime which even now Merkel admits has led to the creation of no go zones which never existed before. She’s now paying for refugees to leave with generous incentives. Yet where is the left’s media outrage? Why not just admit it was a dreadfully executed policy which cost her the worst election result for her party in 70 years and gave the anti-immigrant AfD the second largest following in Germany from nowhere?

Then the folly is extended to the EU which then tried to cover up for Merkel by enforcing migrant quotas like they were cattle. Asylum seekers were mostly making a B-line to Germany yet the EU in its infinite wisdom thought all members had a duty to take a share. If they truly spared a thought for asylum seekers, why would any wish to be allocated to countries like Hungary that held a referendum on the topic and got a 98.4% response against having them? Not a promising starting point.  Then we sit back and wonder why the Italians voted for anti-immigrant, eurosceptic parties? Or why the UK voted Brexit? Or why the Austrians also voted in a government that put a right wing anti-immigration party in charge of immigration? Or The Netherlands? Poland? Hungary? The list goes on.

Yet the media focuses on a drowning 3 year-old boy on a shoreline and tried to shame our collective lack of compassion. Still the media refused to focus on the billion dollar illegal people smuggling industry that lured so many who weren’t fleeing persecution to their deaths. That poor little Aylan Kurdi died, not  because he and his family were fleeing  to safety (they already had been for 3 years in Turkey) but that his life was put at risk without a life jacket in a flimsy vessel for the sake of his father’s own dental treatment.

Why not beat Gulf states over the head for not doing their bit? The Saudis can accommodate 3 million, chair the UN Human Rights Council yet refuse to step up and the media stays silent. Why not smash up Japan for letting in low double digit numbers of asylum seekers? Is it a coincidence that the 98% homogeneous society has such low crime rates, social harmony and safety record the envy of the world? It is not to say that foreigners commit most of the crime in Japan because they don’t (per head of population they do) but Japan is not prepared to throw its culture out the window to get with the times on doing its bit for humanity. Japan would prefer to throw billions in foreign aid to fix the problem at source.

The better narrative is to pick on the West. Shame our white privilege. Mock our colonialist past and tell South African farmers to go to hell.

Compassion for the truly needy should only depend on the danger faced. Skin colour, religion, sexual orientation or any other identity based criteria should be irrelevant. People who are desperately fleeing for their lives should fall over themselves to willingly respect the rules of their new house. They should be only too happy to repay the generosity of those that provide safety and strive to become model citizens. Many Vietnamese fleeing the ravages or the Vietnam War have paid back our support in spades.

Yet too often those who have not escaped persecution end up being the ones that expect society to bend to their culture not the other way around. Our authorities and judiciaries are becoming self annointed justice warriors often turning a blind eye to crime by meting out lenient sentences for armed robbery, rape, child grooming, assault and manslaughter with paltry community service orders. Take this example. Ibrahim Kamara, from Sierra Leone, received a suspended sentence of just over one year, with an 18-month good ­behaviour order, after admitting to five counts, including grooming and having sex with a minor. The ACT Supreme Court judge said “(Kamara) has tried to make a good start on his life in Australia”. Or last week a Sudanese woman, Ayou Deng, was given 80 hours community service for running over and killing a 13yo boy in a car she was driving unlicensed. What message is being sent to the people that we would hope want to integrate in the great Aussie way of life? Do what you please as the worst you’ll get is a slap on the wrist.

Then should we criticize Australia’s asylum seeker policy when we ask for the recipients of asylum visas to sign a code of conduct order which explicitly tells them that rape and sexual harassment of women and children is not accepted? Surely civilized society shouldn’t need to have to force new arrivals to sign a document for common decency but apparently they do. Clearly the immigration department saw it as a requirement supposedly to stem the tide of countless incidents before it was introduced. Then again Canada is trying to remove female genital mutilation from its new citizen’s code of conduct for fear it might offend. You can’t make this stuff up.

So to the left that wants to selectively administer asylum seeker policy based on prejudices. In the quest for diversity they should check their own hypocrisy before asking white South African farmers to check their privilege as they cry for genuine grounds for asylum. The true colours of the left are exposed for what they are. Institutionalized diversity folks is anything but. No one wins acceptance by denying their own identity,

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.

Gutter press or smutter press?

4126EE64-F3C8-4099-B570-AA0F691676A4.jpeg

Gutter press. No other word for it. One would expect better from The NY Times. Still why not make a baseless claim for the heck of it should it help paint a narrative? Indeed the Stormy Daniels $130,000 shut-up money story would have legs if she produced the ‘deposit slip’ and the contract which any media outlet would  pay “any price” to insure against any litigation for her breach of it.

Think of the $100s of millions media outlets have spent on tying to take the President down. Whether Russiagate which CNN’s own Van Jones called a “nothing burger” for ratings or MSNBC’’s Rachel Maddow who made that  embarrassing “we got his tax returns!” gaffe. Every celebrity event (Grammy’s, Oscars or Golden Globes) has become more about blasting Trump than blowing wind up the back sides of their own Hollywood hypocrites who blatantly turned a blind eye to all of the sexual misconduct that has gone on for decades in their own industry. Where is the outrage over that? Even career feminist Germaine Greer said that if one opened their legs for a movie role they “consented”.

Indeed if Trump frolicked with Stormy Daniels it appears it was consensual on the basis of the rumours. It is not condoning it but look at all the petty behaviour of Clinton post the election still crying to her elitist buddies in sympathy for losing to a man, who less than a week after the grab p*ssygate scandal, stared down the barrel of a camera to 100s of millions of viewers in the second debate to say “no one respects women more than I do” If indeed it was an election issue, voters overlooked it to boot the establishment. Case closed

Still the one-eyed NY Times has to make baseless read acrosses on Melania’s actions being about her acting in a huff over her husband’s supposed infidelity. Make no mistake had she cheated on her husband the mainstream media would celebrate it and chalk it down for a win for their side. They’d get panels of feminists talking about how his behaviour brought it on and how he deserved it for being a chauvinist pig.

However we shouldn’t point fingers at just the NYT.

Last week The Guardian wrote of Melania Trump: “Seldom seen and even more seldom heard, the former model may not be as popular as her predecessor Michelle Obama, but she is far more popular than her husband. Unfortunately for his Republican administration, she seems to have little interest in using that popularity to do anything of substance with the post.

Well had Tbe Guardian bothered to check, the left has made it clear of how they see her in the public eye. When she went to donate Dr Seuss books for children’s education, the recipient librarian at Cambridgeport School refused to accept the gift, criticizing the Trump administration’s education policies further writing that Seuss’s illustrations are “steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes,” Never did I know as a child that reading about the Cat in a Hat was some conspiracy by my parents to turn me into a hateful bigot. Now it’s all so clear!

The Daily Mail had to settle a $2.9mn lawsuit and issue a full public apology for libel against the First Lady for suggesting she gave more than “modeling services.” What awful slander! Could it be that the press is hardly lining up to champion anything she might host which is of social good? Is trying to be a good mother by not dislocating her son’s education in the early days a crime?

All the jokes from the left thanking immigrants for marrying Trump because Americans wouldn’t do it flies in the face of the very stereotypes they get so easily triggered over. Indeed the racist president married a Slav. Never mind the contradiction.

While the press can speculate over what FLOTUS might be thinking perhaps they should give her advice on the ways they wish her to behave. Should we anticipate Melania Trump’s hashtags on social media championing flaccid and impotent US foreign policy to terrorist groups like Michelle Obama? Mrs Obama is indeed a highly educated person but that doesn’t automatically exclude Mrs Trump from serving the office gracefully and proudly. The Trumps are a power couple

Yes, her husband leaves much to be desired in the manner in which he serves his country. However the scoreboard suggests many of the things he is doing are working. Such is the bias in the press about how world leaders hate him, CBS painfully admitted almost everyone of them lined up for a selfie with POTUS at Davos.

If we look at the last State of the Union address he blew the left out of the water. Even Van Jones admitted he’s going to do 8 years with talk like that. Now he has far more achievements to crow about. So yes, Melania will be there looking a million bucks and her face will speak of how she feels about Stormy Daniels. Storm in a teacup mode like it.

Hillary only proves how unfit she was for President

2A0A9E17-4A73-47CD-AA3F-DC38B63AC137.jpeg

Clinton’s appearance at the Grammy’s reading ‘Fire & Fury’ only shows she has learnt absolutely nothing. Out of touch liberal hanging with her millionaire mates. No humility and yet again shows how she can’t let go the fact that her coronation fell through. Her appearance would be funny only if it wasn’t so cringingly true. At least she can count on the champagne socialists at the Grammy’s buying a copy of her book so they can read about how one can absolve oneself from all responsibility.  Even better it’s discounted.

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.