#truth

Farage: “do you really want me back here?”

Brilliant speech as usual. How on cue were the EU incumbents ready to jeer his remark of “do you really want me back here?” on the basis he recontests the EU elections if the Brexit delay is extended. Of interest note that the EU has published a “No Deal” scenario which does not seek to sink Britain.

As a message to the spineless politicians in Westminster, just get on with what you’ve been instructed to do rather than tell us that you know better. I’ve tried this with my wife and it works wonders.

On a 2nd referendum CM believes the Brits would vote Leave by a bigger margin.

Why are the 99.6% required to opt in for gender on birth certificates?

7D3A8E2F-A916-4B8E-B9EF-3CA73B95674D.jpeg

So Tasmania’s lower house has passed the motion to remove gender from birth certificates allowing people to choose what they identify with from age 16. Apart from the biological and genetic implications, one question is why must the majority opt in as opposed to the minority opting out? It can only be viewed as a form of constructed  re-education.

According to the ABS Census of 2016, only 0.4% identify as other than male or female. 10,000 out of 24 million. Therefore 99.6% are comfortable with traditional biologal gender.

What are the risks? At what point will legislation be tied to the use of puberty blockers? We can’t rule out some parents might try to encourage their young child to associate with the opposite gender?  It has already happened in the US. Parents will know that it is not hard to manipulate a 10yo. It is not to rule out completely that a child may truly identify as the opposite of biological gender but statistically it would be improbable to suggest it is a majority or all. So to dispense puberty blockers under false pretenses is a dangerous risk. Assuming a 10yo is of sound peace of mind to take such drugs, why not give them the ability to vote?! Effectively that is the decision making process being put forth. It is ludicrous.

Assume a child is coerced by guardians/parents (even if a small subset) into believing they are the opposite sex than biological gender and get government permission to take puberty blockers. We do not have enough empirical evidence to know if terminating these drugs will automatically lead to a natural resumption of puberty.

Scientific research has noted that side effects of puberty suppression hormones can lead to arrested bone growth, decreased bone accretion, can prevent full organization and maturation of the brain, cause sterility, coronary/cardiovascular disease, elevated blood pressure and lead to breast cancer. Hey, it is worth it for inclusion, right?

That’s a horrible set of risks to put on a child who might potentially grow out of gender dysphoria. That child’s life could be irrevocably ruined for the sake of ideology determined by those who shouldn’t be in a position to enforce such directives.

The Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom saw a 2,000% increase in referrals over seven years—from 94 children in 2009/2010 to 1,986 in 2016/2017. Is this a case of creating a market to allow people to file for  gender dysphoria? Note this is not to cast aspersions on those who may properly suffer from the condition.

Hruz, Mayer, and McHugh wrote in a Supreme Court brief filed in the Gavin Grimm case that most-cited studies conclude most children with gender dysphoria come to embrace their birth sex but caution hormone therapy often solidifies a child’s gender dysphoria.

800 children in the UK aged as young as 10 are taking puberty blockers. Are we buying time or merely arresting development? The risks seem more like a concerted  push for institutionalized child abuse.

Ultimately who is the arbiter to determine between whether a child might be confused or properly gender dysphoric? Get it wrong and that life might be irreparably damaged. But hey, as long as it was done for the sake of progressive goals, such sacrifices are all in the name of diversity, no?

High Time The NY Times believed or changed its own self-prescribed S&E code

5D09A335-3C02-4A34-96B5-D4AC6C587448.jpeg

Integrity is a must in journalism. Rarely do we see it. It seems that the white hating “fab new editor” Sarah Jeong also hates men and cops. If we forgive her hatred because others baited such that she was just giving it back, is there any evidence police mistreated her? Could it be a question of pulling her over for a traffic violation that they were doing their job, not deserved of “f*ck the police.” ?

44740AE6-D60D-4E2A-9384-A2F544A4D921.png

Although not on Jeong’s watch, isn’t the hypocrisy telling? Several weeks before the Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki the NYT was championing LGBT Pride Week. Post the summit, the paper proudly displayed a homophobic cartoon to disparage the two presidents. How is it that the champions of identity politics can’t even get their own self determined playing field equal?

In terms of integrity, fairness and truth the paper fails on all counts. Let’s see for ourselves. A quick referral to The NY Times own Standards & Ethics page we find:

Integrity

For more than a century, men and women of The Times have jealously guarded the paper’s integrity. Whatever else we contribute, our first duty is to make sure the integrity of The Times is not blemished during our stewardship.  At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.

Under Fairness it prescribes:

The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so. The reputation of The Times rests upon such perceptions, and so do the professional reputations of its staff members. Thus The Times and members of its news department and editorial page staff share an interest in avoiding conflicts of interest or an appearance of a conflict.

And Truth

As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot. Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We do not tolerate such behavior.

As CM mentioned yesterday, there is no call for a boycott of the NYT or a movement to fire Sarah Jeong. CM wants these people at the NYT to walk the talk. If there is a code that the paper lives and dies by, stand by it or change it to reflect the unhinged nature the once reputable paper has become. Once again free markets will ultimately decide the paper’s fate. If it’s subscriber ranks swell then all power to it reading the mood of the public. Not even the return of the remains of gallant Korean War veterans who fought for their freedom remains worthy front page news. No just more anti-Trump noise.

The irony is that all the Jeong saga has exposed is that standards only apply conditionally. Just like those Hollywood actors who threatened to leave the US if Trump was elected. Pretty much all of them are still here.

The NY Times no longer hides the fact that it breaches all of it’s own self-imposed governance. That racism can be defended (even if it is not condoned) and because the paper is  so proud of its new hire it publicly announced an apology on Jeong’s behalf. Oh the sincerity! Surely if she is sorry for her racist outbursts, she could openly apologize herself? Perhaps the S&E code is still in transit to her home in Portland!

Imagine if the police decided to deprioritise a distress call from Jeong? It is highly likely they wouldn’t. There is a difference in those who put their lives on the line and a Harvard trust-fund baby that tweets from the safety of the very security those she accuses provide her.