#virtuesignaling

Charlie’s Angels flops due to misogyny

You have to hand it to the progressive left. Instead of making a film that doesn’t pander to all of this gender equality nonsense so prevalent today, it was easier for the writer and producer Elizabeth Banks to say,

Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too. This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.”

OK so it must be the audience’s fault it has flopped. More specifically, just blame men. After all Banks said,

One of the statements this movie makes is that you should probably believe women.

Perhaps the whole point of film making is ensuring the content fits the tastes dictated by the market, not the other way around. Yet the social justice warriors just don’t get it and blame the consumer when things don’t succeed.

Yet what is the obsession inside Hollywood to possess such a lack of creativity as to merely make a remake by substituting men for women or vice versa? Ghostbusters flopped in its feminist remake. So did Oceans 8. Now Charlie’s Angels remake.

Michael McCaffery wrote,

“the social justice geniuses in Hollywood decided this year it would be a good idea to remake two movies that no one wanted remade, Mel Gibson’s What Women Want (2000) and Steve Martin and Michael Caine’s Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1998), except this time with female leads. To the shock of no one with half a brain in their head, What Men Want with Taraji P. Henson, and The Hustle, with Rebel Wilson And Ann Hathaway, resoundingly flopped.

This year’s Book Smart, directed by Olivia Wilde, was little more than a rehash of the 2007 Jonah Hill and Micheal Cera smash-hit Superbad. Replacing Hill and Cera with two teenage girls as the protagonists in the formulaic film did not inspire audiences, as indicated by the film’s anemic domestic box office of $22 million.

Original movies with feminist themes fared no better than their re-engineered woke cinematic sisters. Late Night, a feminist comedy/drama starring Emma Thompson and Mindy Kaling, made a paltry $15 million domestically, while the painfully politically correct Charlize Theron vehicle, Long Shot, raked in a flaccid $30 million.

As evidenced by these failures, audiences of both sexes are obviously turned off by Hollywood’s ham-handed attempts at woke preaching and social justice pandering. The movie-going public is keenly aware that these woke films are not about entertainment or even artistic expressions, but rather virtue signaling and posing within the Hollywood bubble.”

Does Hollywood ever reflect on why viewership of the Oscars is down 40% over the last 5 years? It isn’t because they can stream it. It is because it has become nothing but a woke-fest where the world’s biggest hypocrites spew rubbish on climate change, Trump and #metoo while wearing dresses which have three pieces of fabric the size of postage stamps held together by dental floss.

Audiences aren’t stupid and when spoken down to avoid these causes like the plague.

Do as we say, not as we do

Take that. Despite living with the irony that half of the members of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) fail to meet the very diversity quotas they expect ASX200 companies to hit, what a complete laughing stock to publicly tell conference organisers it won’t join unless there is a guarantee of gender balanced speaker participation. How about try to get the best diversity of thought for a speaking panel regardless of their identity? There won’t be a man in the audience who complains at a panel of superstar women speakers.

The ACSI demands are listed here. A default letter the ACSI uses is as follows.

“SAMPLE RESPONSE TO EVENT INVITATIONS

Thank you for your invitation to speak at [name of event]. ACSI has taken the Panel Pledge and will only participate in events which are gender diverse and inclusive. Before accepting your invitation, I’ll need some additional information to determine whether this event is consistent with our commitment.

Can you please confirm the following:

– Will there be a gender balance among speakers at this event?
– Will speaking roles be allocated equitably among genders?

If I agree to participate in this event, I reserve the right to withdraw later should I become aware there will not be a gender balance among speakers.

Thanks in advance for your support of our efforts to promote gender diversity.”

What if the ACSI was offered a chance to speak next to Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk for the third and final slot at an investor conference? Would ACSI turn it down to stick to its principlesb or be the first in line to take selfies to upload to Instagram?

Get woke, go broke.

Can we defund SBS too?

This isn’t journalism. This is alarmist quackery for the sake of it. Venice has been subject to flooding for centuries. While the floods in Venice now are the highest for over 50 years, it still means that floods were higher in 1966. Let that sink in. Presumably it wasn’t climate change driven back then.

One can only imagine what a Venice Council could possibly do to combat climate change? Perhaps ruin the skyline with wind turbines and solar panels atop the roofs of the Rialto Bridge or San Marco Square?? To alarmists, no amount of tokenism is too little. Claim a climate emergency and show how worthy you really are.

No matter what the Venice Council does to “combat” climate change it will have no effect. Maybe the gondola union can indulge in some crony capitalism and demand that the €7.50 Vaporetto passenger ferries are banned so they can charge €150 to go from Santa Croce to Piazza San Marco instead. At least gondolas are zero emission vessels.

The SBS needs to grow up and deliver proper well reasoned content for the $400m in taxpayer funds it receives.

Former Fire Chief inflames the climate debate

Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue said today, “Just a 1 degree C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters…Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”

CM could not hope to hold a flame (no pun intended) to his knowledge of fire behavior but why does the WA Government’s own fire service website, Bushfire Front (BFF) contradict him,

Compared to slope, wind strength, fuel quantity and dryness, temperature is an insignificant driver of fire behaviour. Experienced firefighters do not fear a 40-degree day per se. This is because even on a hot day, a fire in one or two-year old fuel can be controlled; on the same day a fire in 20-year old fuels with high winds would usually be unstoppable.”

One of them must be right. Could it be that Mullin’s personal beliefs about climate change are a factor? After all he serves as an author for the Climate Council.

Mullins also said that ” We saw it coming. We tried to warn the government.”

Indeed BFF notes clearly,

““Large wildfires are inevitable”

This statement is, to put it politely, bosh. Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:

• an ignition source,

• severe fire weather and,

• a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.

Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).

We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.

Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years. There were a number of very large fires in Western Australian forests from 1900 to 1960, but after the 1961 Dwellingup fire disaster, the wide-scale fuel reduction program carried out by the then Forests Department, ensured that the fuel accumulation was well controlled. The graph below demonstrates this very clearly. It was only after the burning program gradually fell away following a diversion of resources away from forest areas, that the area of wildfires began to climb again after about 1990.

How is it that so many of these fires have been started by arsonists? A 16-yo has been alleged to have started fires in central Queensland. Johannes Leak’s cartoon was absolutely on the money.

Even assuming Australia pandered to Mullins and went zero carbon emissions tomorrow, could he guarantee that the bushfires would slow or end? Even though Australia is such a tiny contributor to global CO2 emissions? Could he show the science behind his beliefs on fires and the link to climate change even though 85% are deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit?

Of course the climate alarmists immediately endorse his words because he is a firefighter. Although are his words on climate change anymore relevant than those of the AMA?

Maybe we should reflect on the politics within the upper echelons of the fire services? Not so much the rank and file front line fire fighters but the bureaucrats who make daft decisions such as buying a Boeing 737 fire-bomber which can only be used at 4 airports rendering it highly inflexible (as much as it’s a great political sales point) or a military helicopter which spends 5hrs in maintenance for every hour it is in the field working. Or replacing 1yo trucks with brand new ones because records are poorly kept?

Nope, just blame climate change for it. Get out of jail free card for everything.

Surely you jest, sir!

Self appraisal is indeed a wonderful thing. How ironic that former Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, believes he was impartial in his previous role.

Bercow was seen in Brussels negotiating with the new European Parliament President David Sassoli to prevent a no deal Brexit. No one goes to Brussels for a weekend getaway when Italy is 30 minutes further.

The role of speaker is supposed to be strictly non-partisan and he:she must give up any current or future affiliation to any political party. The speaker is only supposed to cast a tie break vote and even then, one which follows Speaker Denison rules which advocate pushing it for further debate?

It is not lost on anyone Mr. Bercow. Your biases were so clear. After all it won’t be a lie if you believe it.

M&S pushes sandwich equality

Corporate virtue signaling at its finest. Marks & Spencer hijacks a movement to sell lettuce, guacamole, bacon & tomato (LGBT) sandwiches. Where is the quinoa or Italian tomatoes to include the Q & I minorities? Shame on the marketing team. Surely deserved of a written warning? Did they use soy ink and recycled paper? How thoughtless to have bacon as an option for “B”, given it is most certainly not Halal?

M&S is free to make & sell what it likes. Although the LGBT is made with political correctness to appear woke. Perhaps an ANTIFA sandwich? Asparagus, nutmeg, tomato, iceberg lettuce, fennel and artichoke? A REMAINER baguette? Ricotta, egg, mustard, apple, Idaho potato, nuts, eggplant and radish. A Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) focaccia made from turkey, dill and sauerkraut? Or a Greta ? Ginger, radish, egg, taramasalata and almonds?

For equality in the debate, why not make a White Patriarchy (WP) sandwich with white bread and pastrami? A right wing nut job (RWNJ) ciabatta made of rye, walnuts, New York steak and jalapeños perhaps? A NAZI roll? Nutella, anchovies, zucchini and iodized salt?

Then see which politically correct sandwich sells the best? C’mon M&S, spice it up and allow people to have a laugh at lunch rather than push a narrative.

Time for a Lefty loaf. Lettuce, egg, figjam, turnips and yams. It seems unfair at a time the left wants to eat its own that there isn’t an offering on M&S shelves.

The ultimate irony of renewable energy – go off the grid

Basically prepare for their failure and become self sufficient off the grid.