It was Kathy’s 50th birthday on Saturday, and I took her to Melbourne to see Love Never Dies, the sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera. There were no deep social messages. It was simply entertainment, and very well done. The music was performed by a very competent small orchestra, the set design and costuming were colourful and interesting, the story worked, the characters were engaging. I was glad to see it.
That was at the Regent Theatre. As we walked back to our hotel near the Queen Victoria Market I pulled down every ‘Boycott Brenner’s’ poster I saw, and threw them in the bin. There were a lot. Only once did anyone ask me what I was doing. I said the posters were Nazism – telling lies to get people to hate Jews.
If people had torn down the swastikas when they first appeared, and refused to accept the scape-goating of the Jews, the Second World War and the Holocaust might never have happened. There are some things that must not be tolerated, cannot be tolerated, in any society that wants to believe itself civilised.
The next day we went to the Tutankhamen exhibition at the museum. The most interesting part for me was the DNA research into Tutankhamen’s ancestry. I had not known that Tutankhamen was Akhenaten’s son. Some of the items recovered from the tomb were in remarkable condition – colours still bright after 3,000 years.
I heard a young man behind me ask why there wasn’t anything about Cleopatra. His girlfriend told him that there wouldn’t be, cause she was like, his aunt or something.
That night we went to the Melbourne Central shopping centre and had a superb meal of sushi and sashimi at Tomodachi. We also went to see Cowboys and Aliens. Again, no great social message, no environmental or political agenda, just pure entertainment. It was fun. Daniel Craig was especially good – cool and tough, much like his version of James Bond. The only minor disappointment was that the film was one scene too long. The final scene in town added nothing, and detracted from the brilliant poignancy of the preceding scene with Lonergan, the cabin and hummingbird. That one mistake took it from a B+ to a good C.
A (slightly edited) letter by Carrie Geshus in the May 1st issue of reason magazine:
Extreme paternalism, over-protectiveness, giving in to a loved one’s every desire are simply shortcuts and not expressions of real love. It is much easier to give little Johnny a trophy after he loses a baseball tournament than it is to watch him sulk and cry for an afternoon. But allowing him to learn that many of life’s endeavours naturally come with failure will impart a lesson that strengthens him for a lifetime, while the sorrows of specific failures are long forgotten. Falsely bolstering self-esteem with endless coddling does nothing but create individuals who stare across the threshold of adulthood, terrified and without a clue how to stand on their own. I would hardly call that love.
Children need the chance to learn that failure is not the end of the world, that failure does not mean that they are a failure, that failure is an opportunity to learn and grow. Current parenting and educational practices which ensure that no one ever fails, while comfortable for parents and teachers, set children up for such abject misery in the long run that they amount to child abuse.
In a natural follow up to the story below, where a bunch of toddlers attempt to pretend something does not exist, the UK government and the BBC pretend something does exist – cheap renewable energy.
What is the maddest thing going on in Britain today? There may be many competitors for that title, but a front-runner must be what the Government has made the centrepiece of its energy policy, to ensure that our lights stay on and that our now largely computer-dependent economy remains functioning. Last week, the BBC ran a series of reports by its science correspondent, David Shukman, on the Government’s plan to ring our coasts with vast offshore wind farms.
The nearest thing allowed to criticism of this policy came in an interview with the Oxford academic Dieter Helm, who we were told had “done the sums”. What, Shukman asked, had he come up with? The only figures Helm gave were that the Government’s offshore wind farm plans would, by 2020, cost £100 billion – scarcely a state secret, since the Government itself announced this three years ago – plus £40 billion more to connect these windmills to the grid, a figure given us by the National Grid last year.
Helm did not tell us that this £140 billion equates to £5,600 for every household in the country. But he did admit that the plan was “staggeringly expensive”, and that, given the current extent of “fuel poverty” and the state of our economy, he doubted “if it can in fact be afforded”.
Even shorter on hard facts, however, was Shukman’s report on a monster new wind farm off the coast of Cumbria, where a Swedish firm, Vattenfall, has spent £500 million on building 30 five‑megawatt turbines with a total “capacity” of 150MW. What Shukman did not tell us, because the BBC never does, is that, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, these machines will only produce a fraction of their capacity (30 per cent was the offshore average in the past two years). So their actual output is only likely to average 45MW, or £11 million per MW.
Compare this with the figures for Britain’s newest gas-fired power station, recently opened in Plymouth. This is capable of generating 882MW at a capital cost of £400 million – just £500,000 for each megawatt. Thus the wind farm is 22 times more expensive, and could only be built because its owners will receive a 200 per cent subsidy: £40 million a year, on top of the £20 million they will get for the electricity itself. This we will all have to pay for through our electricity bills, whereas the unsubsidised cost of power from the gas plant, even including the price of the gas, will be a third as much.
It is on the basis of such utterly crazy sums – which neither the Government nor the BBC ever mention – that our politicians intend us to pay for dozens of huge offshore wind farms. In a sane world, no one would dream of building power sources whose cost is 22 times greater than that of vastly more efficient competitors. But the Government feels compelled to do just this because it sees it as the only way to meet our commitment to the EU that within nine years Britain must generate nearly a third of its electricity from “renewable” sources, six times more than we do at present.
The insanity does not end here. The Government talks of building 10,000 windmills capable of generating up to 25,000MW of the electricity we need. But when it does so, it – like the BBC – invariably uses that same trick of referring to “capacity”, without explaining that their actual output would be well below 30 per cent. (Last year, onshore turbines generated just 21 per cent of their capacity.) In other words, for all that colossal expenditure – and even if there was the remotest chance that two new giant turbines could be built every day between now and 2020 – we could only hope to generate some 6,000MW. This is not only way below our EU target, it is only a tenth of our peak demand during those cold, windless weeks last winter, when wind power was often providing barely 1 per cent of the power we needed.
That ‘renewable’ energy (in fact it is no such thing) needs such enormous subsidies is a sure sign that it is a rampant waste of taxpayer money.
If you can’t produce something without subsidies, this means you cannot produce it it at a price people are willing to pay. If you can’t produce something at a price people are willing to pay, you shouldn’t be producing it.
Subsidies hide the real price of a product. They discourage investment and inventiveness.
For example, the cost of the NBN to each household in Australia is about $6,000, whether they connect to it or not.
There is no business case for the NBN. If there were, business would be doing it. The NBN can only survive at huge cost to the taxpayer, and by sabotaging competition from existing copper wire networks and developing high speed wireless technologies.
The NBN will discourage research and investment into alternative internet technologies – just as massive subsidies for currently popular green energy schemes will discourage investment in other energy research. Who can compete when the government is throwing billions of dollars at your less efficient competitors?
That the government choice of technologies is less efficient and more costly, whether in power generation or internet transmission, means our costs are higher and consequently our industries are less efficient. So inevitably we are less competitive, we make less profit, and wages, employment and tax income all suffer.
Which means more people are unemployed, and there is less company profit going into superannuation funds, which means even greater burdens on social services, and less money available to support them.
Which means lots of misery.
But that’s what you get when ideology trumps reality.
Julia’s toddler team is certainly entertaining.
Australian politics have not been so interesting since the days of Joh and Russ.
Of course, ‘May you live in interesting times’ is a well known curse, and this government has certainly been a curse for Australia.
This afternoon Julia sabotaged Question Time by simply getting up and leaving. Another thirty or so of the toddler team did the same.
This was in response to Tony Abbott’s questions about Gillard’s continuing support for Craig Thomson.
Why would the Prime Minister do something that confirms the general view that the current crop of Labor politicians are immature, arrogant and self-serving?
I guess because the alternative would be to answer the question. And answering the question would show the Labor Party in an even worse light than acting like a bunch of spoilt two year olds.
The end is nigh!
Essentially, it is because women have choices about blending work, leisure, and home life which are not available to men.
Warren Farrell said in The Myth of Male Power
- Work full time
- Care for children/family at home
- Some blend of the two
Men have a different range of choices:
- Work full time
- Work full time
- Work full time
This is part of an article by Kay S. Hymowitz in City Journal:
“Women still earn on average only about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. That’s a huge discrepancy.”
Let’s begin by unpacking that 75-cent statistic, which actually varies from 75 to about 81, depending on the year and the study. The figure is based on the average earnings of full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers, usually defined as those who work 35 hours a week or more.
But consider the mischief contained in that “or more.” It makes the full-time category embrace everyone from a clerk who arrives at her desk at 9 am and leaves promptly at 4 pm to a trial lawyer who eats dinner four nights a week—and lunch on weekends—at his desk. I assume, in this case, that the clerk is a woman and the lawyer a man for the simple reason that—and here is an average that proofers rarely mention—full-time men work more hours than full-time women do. In 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 27 percent of male full-time workers had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 15 percent of female full-time workers; meanwhile, just 4 percent of full-time men worked 35 to 39 hours a week, while 12 percent of women did. Since FTYR men work more than FTYR women do, it shouldn’t be surprising that the men, on average, earn more.
The way proofers finesse “full-time” can be a wonder to behold. Take a recent article in the Washington Post by Mariko Chang, author of a forthcoming book on the wealth gap between women and men. Chang cites a wage difference between “full-time” male and female pharmacists to show how “even when they work in the same occupation, men earn more.” A moment’s Googling led me to a 2001 study in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association concluding that male pharmacists worked 44.1 hours a week, on average, while females worked 37.2 hours. That study is a bit dated, but it’s a good guess that things haven’t changed much in the last decade. According to a 2009 article in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, female pharmacists’ preference for reduced work hours is enough to lead to an industry labor shortage.
The other arena of mischief contained in the 75-cent statistic lies in the seemingly harmless term “occupation.” Everyone knows that a CEO makes more than a secretary and that a computer scientist makes more than a nurse. And most people wouldn’t be shocked to hear that secretaries and nurses are likely to be women, while CEOs and computer scientists are likely to be men. That obviously explains much of the wage gap.
But proofers often make the claim that women earn less than men doing the exact same job. They can’t possibly know that. The Labor Department’s occupational categories can be so large that a woman could drive a truck through them. Among “physicians and surgeons,” for example, women make only 64.2 percent of what men make. Outrageous, right? Not if you consider that there are dozens of specialties in medicine: some, like cardiac surgery, require years of extra training, grueling hours, and life-and-death procedures; others, like pediatrics, are less demanding and consequently less highly rewarded. Only 16 percent of surgeons, but a full 50 percent of pediatricians, are women. So the statement that female doctors make only 64.2 percent of what men make is really on the order of a tautology, much like saying that a surgeon working 50 hours a week makes significantly more than a pediatrician working 37. …
In the literature on the pay gap and in the media more generally, this state of affairs typically leads to cries of injustice. The presumption is that women pursue reduced or flexible hours because men refuse to take equal responsibility for the children and because the United States does not have “family-friendly policies.” Child care is frequently described as a burden to women, a patriarchal imposition on their ambitions, and a source of profound inequity. But is this attitude accurate? Do women want to be working more, if only the kids—and their useless husbands—would let them? And do we know that more government support would enable them to do so and close the wage gap?
Actually, there is no evidence for either of these propositions. If women work fewer hours than men do, it appears to be because they want it that way. About two-thirds of the part-time workforce in the United States is female. According to a 2007 Pew Research survey, only 21 percent of working mothers with minor children want to be in the office full-time. Sixty percent say that they would prefer to work part-time, and 19 percent would like to give up their jobs altogether. For working fathers, the numbers are reversed: 72 percent want to work full-time and 12 percent part-time.
Inappropriate discrimination in the workplace should stop. But the gender wage gap will never stop, because men and women are different, and choose different things. This is not a sign of systemic injustice against women, but of the freedom women have to make those choices.
Knowing this should be empowering for women who want to earn more. There is nothing in ‘the system’ which works against them. They just have to make the same choices men do.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn is the former head of the International Monetary Fund. Whatever happened in his New York hotel bedroom on May 14th, prosecutors are right to drop rape charges against him.
“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant,” the motion states. “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”
Among those falsehoods was that she had been gang-raped by soldiers in Guinea.
Prosecutors said that at one point when she was confronted with untruths, “she dropped to the floor and physically rolled around while weeping” before saying she did not know the answer to their questions.
Even her insistence that no one could “buy” her, and that she had no interest in earning money off the case, was greeted with suspicion by prosecutors.
“The complainant had a recorded conversation with her incarcerated fiance, in which the potential for financial recovery in relation to the May 14, 2011, incident was mentioned,” the document says. “Although there is nothing wrong with seeking recovery from a defendant in a civil suit, the complainant’s disavowal of any financial interest is relevant to her credibility.”
The sad thing is that she may very well have been raped. But her history of lying about sexual assault, and her myriad changes of story in this case, put prosecutors in the position where they were no longer certain beyond reasonable doubt, and consequently, could not put the case to a jury.
Before the accusations, Strauss Kahn was considered the leading Socialist Party candidate in the next French presidential election.
How the heck does a socialist become head of the International Monetary Fund?
Andrew Wilkie wouldn’t recognise a pimple on his own nose. But Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor just might. This is what they should be saying:
After the general election I believed the interests of my electorate, and the people of Australia, would best be served by a Labor government.
I was wrong.
This government has been the most inept in Australia’s history. Its major projects and policy announcements have been a series of expensive and embarrassing failures.
Whatever you may think of the carbon and mining taxes as policy, the government has no mandate for them, and in the case of the carbon tax, can only introduce it by breaking a clear pre-election promise.
The government’s reluctance to act over allegations involving the member for Dobell have made it clear that the leadership of the Labor Party is more concerned with holding onto power than with justice, or the rights of ordinary Australian workers.
Anthony Albanese’s description of hundreds of truck drivers and their families and supporters as ‘the convoy of no consequence,’ demonstrated the contempt the Labor Party feels for the concerns and aspirations of Australian families and small business owners.
A government can only function fairly and effectively if it governs with the consent of the people. The Labor Party has lost the right to claim that consent.
As a result, I have to announce that I intend to support the Leader of the Opposition in a motion of no confidence in the government.
Not only would Oakeshott and Windsor be doing the right thing, and earning the gratitude of the entire country, this is the only conceivable way their own political careers have any chance of continuing past the next election.
Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese today threw his support behind Mr Thomson, saying he “absolutely” believed the Member for Dobell’s denial of wrong-doing.
“I have the view in life that when someone tells you something you believe them,” Mr Albanese said today.
That would be fine it Mr Albanese applied the same rules to everyone. I too believe in the presumption of innocence. Although the only thing that makes that possible in Craig Thomson’s case is the presumption of idiocy.
But Mr Albanese, while willing to believe someone who is either a lying, thieving, sleazebag or a lying, irresponsible moron, is not willing to grant the same courtesy to hundreds of truck drivers and their supporters, some of whom have travelled thousands of miles to put their views to the government.
These are not your typical leftist Canberra rent a crowd. It is easy to drag to together a few thousand people who have nothing better to do than play computer games, whine about John Howard and line up for their dole money.
These are mostly small business people, the ones who drive the Australian economy, people who pay taxes and employ other Australians. Many of them are already struggling, yet they have given up days of time and thousands of dollars in lost income and expenses, to come and talk to the government they elected.
For the Labor government to dismiss them as a bunch of whingers whose views are of no consequence, is rudeness driven by a pungent blend of arrogance and stupidity.
No one from the Government appeared before the group.
Inside Parliament federal transport minister Anthony Albanese criticised the event.
“The convoy of no Consequence, Mr Speaker, the convoy of no consequence where a couple of hundred people gathered with no support from the mainstream organisations, the people who believe in one world government.”
I guess most Australians have already worked out that the Federal government thinks their views and livelihoods are of no consequence, but for the Minister for Transport publicy to despise ordinary people in this way is an indication of how hollow and isolated from reality this government really is.
Systemic social problems are not an excuse for rioting and theft.
But changing some of our social systems to encourage personal responsibility may make ‘entitlement’ riots and opportunistic looting less likely.
That is the gist of Michael Coren’s new column in the Toronto Sun:
If the British riots disaster is not to be replicated elsewhere, here is a manifesto of advice. Ignore it at your smug peril.
1) Reduce the role of the state and, as a balance, increase the role of the family.
For many years in Britain, parents have been told their children’s social, sexual, moral and cultural formation was better achieved by schools and social workers than mothers and fathers. Not only is the notion flawed philosophically, in practical terms it emasculates parents and enables children to act out every aggressive and narcissistic fantasy imaginable.
In West Indian families, for example, there are numerous cases of poor but good and responsible parents who, in trying to discipline their children, are prosecuted by white, middle-class lawyers for spanking a kid who goes on to join a gang and spend years in prison. Equally, parents are not informed by law if their underage daughters tell doctors or teachers they are sexually active, but they are left to face the consequences when teenage pregnancy or STDs occur.
2) State-supported education and health care may, arguably, serve a purpose, but state-supported welfare and social services have become so all-embracing that individual self-reliance has evaporated. The balance is important here. Neither the fanatical libertarian nor the obsessive socialist model works.
3) Stop the war on religion. Whatever your view of faith and God, the massive decline of religious observance and community in Britain has removed one of the glues that held the country together.
When churches disappear, the vacuum is filled by gangs or tribes. Beyond this is the disappearance of moral standards and ethical absolutes. Witness how in the black community it is the Christian evangelical youths who are least touched by the anarchy.
4) Control immigration, so it is based on the cultural and social needs and unity of the host population as well as on compassion and economic growth. The privileged people who decide our immigration policy seldom live in those areas where the mass of newcomers settle. A nation is more than an assembly of financially viable shopping malls, and without some sort of national and emotional fraternity we see inevitable decay.
5) Liberate the police from the whims of political correctness and government fashion. If London police had reacted swiftly and harshly to the rioting, there would not have been copy-cat incidents throughout Britain. Because of years of “racial sensitivity” training, they were held back in Tottenham, meaning — irony of ironies — law-abiding local people were attacked and robbed.
The police are not guardians of the state but protectors of the people. Their job is not to arrest storekeepers protecting their property, not to hand out traffic tickets, not to control controversial speech, not to be empathetic, but to stop crime and arrest criminals.
6) Do not romanticize the worst of lower-class antics on TV and in cinema and music. Entertainment once presented a world worthy of aspiration, now it glorifies the mud and muck. It makes the rich richer, keeps the poor poorer.
In conclusion, will any of this be achieved? Keep the baseball bat handy.
‘Zionism’ is simply the assertion that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. This is no more racist than saying that Jordan or Saudi Arabia have the right to exist as Arab states.
Jews have an unbroken connection with Israel that goes back between three and four thousand years. If anyone can claim to be the indigenous people of that part of the world it is the Jews.
The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate to make the old Ottoman province of Palestine, the historical home of the Jewish people, into a Jewish homeland and state. Britain did so, but carved off 80% of the mandated territory – everything East of the Jordan River – to create the state of Jordan to be a homeland for the region’s Arab people.
The 20% left to the Jewish people was reduced again in a proposed partition which gave a further 30%, Gaza and the West bank of the Jordan, to local Arabs.
The Jews accepted this arrangement, which left them with only 15% of the mandated territory, less than one 6th of 1% of the land of the Middle East. Leaders Golda Meyerson and David Ben Gurion repeatedly affirmed their desire to live in peace with their Arab neighbours. Arabs living in Israel would be given the full protection of the law, and full rights of Israeli citizens.
Arabs leaders rejected this plan, and told Arabs living in Israel to leave, since the Jews would soon be defeated, and they would then be able to return to take over the farms, schools, roads and hospitals the Jews had built.
The state of Israel was proclaimed in a declaration of independence on May 14th 1948. The following day Israel was attacked on all sides by the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, said “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the crusades.”
Israel survived, as it has survived the relentless attacks on its territory since that time, including three more major conflicts (1967,1973 and the Intifada) and ongoing terrorism.
Israel is the only non-racist state in the Middle East. Arab citizens still have full rights of citizenship. Arabs can be, and are, members of parliament, judges, police officers and soldiers. Jews are not even allowed to live in Jordan, Saudi Arabia or the Arab occupied territitories of Israel.
There are temples, mosques, and churches throughout Israel, as well as synagogues.
Yet Israel is constantly attacked by the UN, and nowhere more viciously and dishonestly than at the Durban Conferences.
It is an disgrace that Australia is still considering sending a delegation to the planned Durban conference in New York.
It is bizarre and embarassing that while talking about moral leadership in imposing a pointless tax on ‘carbon,’ our government is considering legitimising a conference which is itself grossly racist.
It is especially important that the government give a clear lead given the recent spate of boycotts and blockades of Jewish businesses in Australia. Nineteen ‘protestors’ (read thugs) were arrested and three police officers injured during a rally outside Max Brenner’s chocolate shop in Melbourne in July.
Even if the government won’t, some Australians are taking a stand against anti-Jewish bullying:
I will be in Melbourne next weekend to visit the theatre and to see the Tutankhamun exhibition. I think I’ll call at Max Brenner’s for a coffee as well.
Reason number 12934618 to get the heck out of the Epsicopal church, if not the entire gluey mess that is worldwide Anglicanism.
Episcopalians will mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 with a three day memorial including readings from the Koran.
Robert Spencer has selected some verses which might be appropriate:
Qur’an 98:4-6: “Nor did the People of the Book make schisms, until after there came to them Clear Evidence. And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight. Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.”
Qur’an 5:14: “From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.”
Qur’an 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
In words as slippery as fish oil, presiding ‘bishop’ Katherine Jefferts Schori said: “The anniversary is an opportunity for reflection” adding that the Episcopal Church “continues to work for healing and reconciliation. The greatest memorial to those who died 10 years ago will be a world more inclined toward peace.”
Well, yes. Except that peace and reconciliation have their foundation in truth, something the Epsicopal church seems to have lost track of completely.
Yep, Obama gets a ringing endorsement from the pampered niece of Fidel Castro.
“Let’s overlook President Obama’s failures during his first term,” advised Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela to Congresspersons Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Sam Farr recently in Havana. “We must support him for a second term so that he can have a better opportunity to accomplish better things.”
While being feted by a Stalinist regime that shoots and imprisons labor leaders, outlaws strikes and burns Orwell’s “Animal Farm” as “seditious,” the three smitten U.S. legislators were acting as honored plenipotentiaries of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
While delighting in the company of a regime that jailed and tortured the longest suffering black political prisoners in modern history, that to this day jails and tortures Cuban blacks for the crime of quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., and whose co-founder (Che Guevara) declared, “The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities and drink, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent,” — while swooning in this august company, California Rep. Barbara Lee also acted as plenipotentiary of the Congressional Black Caucus.
This Congressional delegation’s respectful visit to the Stalinist regime that jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin’s, murdered them at a higher rate than pre-war Hitler’s and bans elections under penalty of torture chambers and firing squads, was sponsored by the California-based Center for Democracy in the Americas.
Mariela Castro, 49, serves as head of the Cuban National Center for Sex Education, which is dedicated “to enlightening people against traditional sexual prejudices,” and is run by the only regime in the modern history of the Western hemisphere to herd gays into forced labor camps for the crime of being gay, and to herd HIV sufferers into isolation camps until they died.
More on the economic and human disaster that is communist Cuba at The American Spectator.
Dim witted leftists who gush over Castro’s ‘achievements’ are in the same category as the useful idiots who came back from Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia with glowing reports about new industries and a workers’ paradise.
I was on my way to work yesterday when I saw this dead polar bear on the side of the road.
It is tragic that melting ice forced this magnificent creature to leave its home and swim all the way across the Pacific and around the coast of Australia, only to be killed by a careless motorist.
At least, it looked like a polar bear. And I was a lot closer than this guy:
According to a recent report by Human Events, special investigators from the US government’s Interior Department (ID) have found that a scientific paper published in a 2006 issue of the journal Polar Biology is filled with baseless assumptions about four specific polar bear deaths — and this eventually became the foundational argument for the fight against global warming. But in reality, the deaths may have had nothing to do with melting ice caps, and everything to do with a simple windstorm.
It all stems from an unusual air observation of what appeared to be four dead polar bears floating in the sea. From 1,500 feet (457 meters) in the air, observers reported to study author and biologist Charles Monnett, as well as contributor Jeffrey Gleason, that dead polar bears had been observed, which the duo later used to make various statements, including that “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”
Jennifer S Bryson notes the high proportion of captured terrorists who have had large amounts of pornography in their possession.
Pornography makes women and men masturbation aids. The actors cease to be human. Their only purpose is to provide physical stimulation. If they don’t do their job, they disappear – the page is turned, the next website clicked.
Pornography de-humanises both actors and users.
If we want to understand the inner workings of terrorists and would-be terrorists, we must seek to understand their entire person, including the relationship—or inconsistencies—between their words and actions. In the case of the 9/11 hijackers who visited strip clubs, and in the case of Abdo and among what seems like an increasing number of terrorists, actions include sexual perversions and pornography use that cannot be squared with what these ideological terrorists and their supporters espouse.
Terrorist acts rely on the ability to dehumanise planned victims. Victims are less than real, less than people. They are to be blotted out.
Are there security costs to the free-flow of pornography? If so, what are they? Are we as a society putting ourselves at risk by turning a blind eye to pornography proliferation?
I wonder further: Could it be that pornography drives some users to a desperate search for some sort of radical “purification” from the pornographic decay in their soul? Could it be that the greater the wedge pornography use drives between an individual’s religious aspirations and the individual’s actions, the more the desperation escalates, culminating in increasingly horrific public violence, even terrorism?