Monday 30 September 2024

The DEI tyranny

As a recent university graduate entering the world of work, it’s almost impossible to find a job or career pathway that’s not infected by corporate wokery.

By corporate woke, I mean the professional obsession with ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’ (DEI) initiatives, that essentially demonstrate a workplace’s ‘commitment’ to everybody other than straight white men.

Having started to apply for various private or public sector graduate trainee schemes, every single one involves me filling out a ‘monitoring form’.

Quite how my sexuality is relevant to my application to become a corporate legal secretary is beyond me.

And why should my race be a factor in my application to join the Civil Service Fast Stream?

I had thought that the obsession with the DEI agenda was finally being revealed for what it is - a corporate virtue signalling exercise that does more harm than good.

After all, it is riddled with problems.

The diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda divides people on the basis of their fixed group identities at the expense of their individual rights.

It separates them off into one of the ‘oppressed’ (i.e., racial, sexual, or gender minority) groups, or ‘oppressor’ (i.e. white, straight, men, Jewish) groups, pitting people against one another on the basis of nothing more than their group identity.

It prioritises this identity dogma over meritocracy, forcing entire organisations to focus on “equal outcomes” rather than “equality of opportunity”.

It is instinctively suspicious of any evidence or research that challenges its core claim that Western nations and white majorities are inherently ‘racist’.

It imposes speech codes and restrictions to stifle free speech, free expression, and a genuine diversity of opinions and beliefs in the workplace.

And, on top of all this, it has been shown in a growing number of studies to make people MORE likely to discriminate, or to breed resentment.

Training people about the highly contested and dubious concept of ‘white privilege’, for example, which is directly drawn from Critical Race Theory, has been shown to make elite white liberals LESS sympathetic toward struggling, working-class whites.

However, far from fading from view, my recent experience on the job market suggests this agenda remains completely dominant.

And as support for the kind of luxury beliefs like those spotlighted by DEI increases, standards are slipping through the floor, often at vast expense on the public purse.

The following examples across different workplaces and within the health and education sectors make this point.

It’s become easier than ever to be successful in getting on the Civil Service Fast Stream –mainly due to applications dropping by 45% in the last three years.

Support My Work

Training is no longer the gold standard and has collapsed. Today, you don’t need more than a 2.2 degree to get onto certain parts of the scheme.

This is rather worrying alongside the recent finding that nearly-half of all first-class degrees in Britain cannot be explained, or that nearly one-quarter of students with three D-grades at A-level are now getting first-class degrees at university.

Nonetheless, it’s in this time that the Civil Service has become infamous for being completely ideologically captured by the most egregious and DEI initiatives there are.

Such as the fact that civil servants are allowed to spend their working time promoting politically activist staff networks, with one such network recently being given £200,000 of taxpayers’ money to spend on the LGBT organisation “a:gender” – who compare gender critical activists to the Ku Klux Klan!

This is insane.

If central government is bad, then local government is no better, spending millions on promoting luxury beliefs for the elite class at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.

Lambeth Council, where I live, just spent more than £25 million on climate and active travel projects since 2019, but is ranked worse than 90 per cent of all councils for failing to deliver basic public services, such as safeguarding vulnerable children and ensuring social housing is fit for purpose.

My bins haven’t been collected on time once since I moved here but, don’t worry, the council has still found the time to campaign on ‘the climate emergency’.

Or consider the education system, such as maths in Scotland. The Pisa report measures education standards among 15-year-old students worldwide, and the latest report reported ‘an unprecedented drop’ in performance, and shows a long term decline in Scotland in maths and science.

Rather than focusing on getting standards up, at a recent conference in Scotland, in 2023, education leaders were told the education system is ‘institutionally racist’.

And if you’re an ambitious teacher who wants to raise the standard of education in Scotland, don’t think of getting a job there unless you’re non-white.

A job advert for non-whites was posted recently in Glasgow advertising to non-white people only. Bear in mind Scotland is 95% white…

Yes, it is common for many DEI projects to actively endorse discrimination – against white men, the apparently acceptable kind of discrimination.

In 2017, the BBC opened an internship that was exclusively for non-whites. While making headlines then, it appears this kind of discrimination is mainstream today.

A recent tribunal, for example, found that an employer did NOT discriminate when they hired a woman over a man because they wanted to hire ‘fewer white men’.

Or take the NHS.

Clearly one sector worth exploring as a university graduate is DEI roles themselves (a starting salary of around £39,000, after all, is not to be sniffed at).

In 2022, the NHS advertised £700,000’s worth of diversity officers in just one month, despite waiting lists for operations being at a record high of seven million.

The same cash could have paid for six GPs, 19 nurses, and 20 paramedics, much like the amount of money we are squandering on our broken asylum system, estimated to be upwards of £7 billion each year, could fund yearly salaries for 200,000 nurses.

The DEI agenda is now a multi-million, if not multi-BILLION pound industry, fuelled by endless training courses on “anti-racism” and “allyship” which don’t work.

The most important thing a diversity officer must do is justify their own existence by pointing to “systemic racism” and sexism in the workplace.

Back in March, then chancellor Jeremy Hunt urged local councils to spend less on these diversity schemes, given many of them are effectively bankrupt.

An FOI project identified that around £30m was being spent across nearly 400 councils, or about £75,000 each on average.

Given the well-documented financial pressures local councils have been under for years, how can the sheer scale of this spending on the DEI agenda be justified?

These are just a few examples within the public sector of how the diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda has gone COMPLETELY mad.

With private sector firms like Google and Meta downsizing DEI programmes in the last year, and universities in America finally doing likewise, there is a glimmer of hope that things might be starting to change.

But then, look at my own generation, Gen-Z, the members of whom were born in the late 1990s and the early 2000s.

No less than 88% of today’s students say they consider a company’s commitment to DEI before deciding whether to apply to the grad scheme.

I wonder how that statistic will change when half the companies recruiting go bust because of DEI, or its internal contradictions become impossible to ignore.

As an ambitious and hard working young professional, I should be recruited on merit and my ability to do the job, nothing more or less.

This is what people like my parents and grandparents used to believe —that meritocracy not political dogma should guide the labour market.

I only hope that those ideas come back into fashion before it’s too late.

https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/anonymous-zoomer-its-impossible-to ?

**************************************************

Sexist judge quashes Mona Ladies Lounge tribunal decision that saw it shut down

Strange reasoning

In March, New South Wales' man Jason Lau brought an anti-discrimination case against Hobart's Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) after being denied entry to the lounge last year, and initially won in Tasmania's appeals tribunal.

But that decision has been quashed by Acting Justice Shane Marshall, and sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration.

He found the lounge was designed to promote equal opportunity for women generally, and so it could lawfully exclude men.

Acting Justice Marshall found the discrimination experienced by women was not just confined to the past, but occurs today as well, and so women should be able to create an "exclusive space" to create a "flipped universe".

"The correct approach … is to ask first whether the arrangement's purpose was to promote equal opportunity," he wrote.

"On the evidence, the unequivocal answer is 'yes' because the Ladies' Lounge was designed to provide women with an exclusive space where they receive positive advantage as distinct from the general societal disadvantage they experience."

'Celebration certainly due', curator says
Artist and Ladies' Lounge creator Kirsha Kaechele described it as a win for women.

"I'm very inspired by the occurrences in the courtroom today. In 30 seconds the patriarchy was smashed," she said.

"The verdict demonstrates a simple truth: Women are better than men."

**********************************************

Duke Health Fires ER Doctor Who Questioned Racism Pledge

Duke University Health System fired Dr. Kendall Conger, an emergency room physician in its Raleigh, North Carolina hospital, for questioning Duke’s 2021 “pledge” against racism in medicine.

Conger stated his views in a May 2023 Martin Center article, “Duke Health’s Antiracist ‘Pledge’ is Not Guided by Science.”

Conger, a respected member of the medical community, did not object to standing against racism or treating people with decency and respect, primary tenets of the pledge. Conger questioned whether racism in medicine was as significant a problem as Duke claimed it to be and whether there was legitimate scientific evidence to support that belief.

In 2020, for example, Duke Health had gone so far as to declare racism “a public health crisis.”

Going Public a No-No

After years of being ignored and receiving information from Duke that was long on ideology and short on science and clinical data, Conger exceeded his employer’s tolerance.

In December 2023, Conger’s supervisor told him that the reason the institution was typically reluctant to engage him on its stances was his tendency to discuss those matters outside of the workplace. Conger was understandably puzzled that a prominent institution would take issue with challengers after it released its statement publicly and strongly defended it.

Conger immediately sent a letter to several of his colleagues informing them of the message he had received from his supervisor.

Duke Health notified Conger of his termination a few weeks later. Under the terms of his employment, Duke was not required to provide a reason. Duke, however, stated in a letter to Conger, “We believe your behavior is negatively impacting the emergency physician team, which could jeopardize the care of patients. Given this, we are choosing not to renew your contract for employment.”

Accused of Harming Patients

While failing to offer any specifics, Duke Health appeared to suggest Conger’s commitment to treating patients as individuals and rejecting the dynamics of collectivism could put patients in harm’s way, as could his observation of the lack of scientific evidence for Duke’s ominous claims about racism in medicine.

In his article, Conger said Duke is “guided by science” but its 2021 “antiracist pledge,” while well-meaning, was an unnecessary response to a popular political movement.

Duke employees had been briefed on the pledge before it was released publicly and were invited to contact their superiors with any questions or concerns. Conger’s trouble began when he decided to take his employer up on that offer.

Up the Chain of Command

Conger reached out to Duke Raleigh Hospital President Dr. Barbara Griffith and met with her in person. Also present at that meeting was a representative from the human resources department. Conger’s specific question was “Why is equity a better goal than equality?” Griffith did not respond to Conger’s follow-up emails related to that meeting.

Conger wanted to be sure he wasn’t being personally roped into a political position held by his employer. Duke never offered any scientific or clinical justification for the idea that racism is a significant problem in medicine.

That concerned Conger, who wanted to perform his job free from the shadow of politics or well-meaning but false social narratives. Conger specifically asked Duke brass why they believed it was beneficial to view patients as members of ethnic groups more than as individuals requiring care.

As a respected physician, Conger was particularly concerned about any ideas being presented as absolutes without accompanying clinical data or scientific proof. A Duke-employed doctor for 12 years, Conger had everyday professional experiences in the intense field of emergency medicine that were at odds with Duke’s claims about racism.

‘Implicit’ Bias Claimed

Duke’s antiracism pledge states, “We recognize our own implicit biases.” Ironically, by definition, one cannot recognize his or her own implicit biases as that phrase is traditionally defined. Before his notice of termination, Conger did at one point receive an email from a Duke official who said, “I concede that I cannot find a [clinical] trial that proves implicit bias is the cause of worse health outcomes for African Americans. Believe me. I have looked.”

Conger was astounded that the Duke official admitted to searching for supporting data after the institution created and publicly released its pledge.

The Duke official who corresponded with Conger mentioned “ample causal inference data in the social sciences.” Conger believes a medical institution should rely on evidence-based clinical data. Social science data are known to be easily manipulable and are generally viewed as inappropriate and insufficient for forming conclusions or driving actions in the field of medicine.

White Males Singled Out

Conger also recalls being shown an illustration during a Duke-sponsored function, that depicted white males as agents of oppression and exploitation while ominously labeling members of other demographics as “targets.” Again, no scientific or clinical data were offered to justify or explain why a major health care provider espoused such darkly generalized views of people.

While Conger is left to plan his next professional move, Duke Health—an arm of a Tier 1 research university and so-called Southern Ivy—has yet to explain its ominous claim that racism is “a public health crisis.”

********************************************

Australia: Why the ABC has come under fire after chilling detail emerged at pro-Palestine rally in Australia

The ABC has been slammed after failing to call out pro-Palestine demonstrators who were mourning the death of a leader of a listed terrorist organisation.

Thousands took to the streets in Sydney and Melbourne on Sunday to walk in support of Palestine and Lebanon, amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Small groups of young men, many masked, were seen at the rallies in each city waving the red and green flags of Hezbollah, a militant and political group hailing from Lebanon, which has been listed as a terrorist organisation in Australia.

Others, including both adults and children, held framed photos of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed by an Israeli air strike in Beirut on Friday.

The ABC covered the pro-Palestine rally in Sydney and released a two-minute report that included demonstrators mourning the death of Nasrallah.

The segment failed to mention how Hezbollah was listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government.

'He was the mother, he was the father of Lebanon,' one woman, who was wearing a hijab, said.

'He brought comfort, he brought security, when we really wanted answers we turned to him.’

Drew Pavlou, a political activist and prominent critic of China, accused the ABC on X of being 'embarrassingly biased' claiming the segment was filled with 'uncritical interviews'.

One social media user added: 'A new low'.

'We’ve been saying defund the ABC for ages,' a second chimed in.

'This is disgraceful!' a third wrote.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke blasted those showing 'any indication of support' for a terrorist organisation, and threatened to cancel their visas.

'It draws the immediate attention of our security agencies,' Mr Burke said.

'There is a higher level of scrutiny if anyone is on a visa. I have made clear from day one, that I will consider refusing and cancelling visas for anyone who seeks to incite discord in Australia,' he said.

Victoria Police told Daily Mail Australia they were 'aware prohibited flags were seen at a demonstration in the Melbourne CBD' on Sunday.

'Appropriate referrals will be made to Australian Federal Police as the lead agency concerning prohibited symbols,' a spokesperson said.

The group supporting Hezbollah were also heard chanting 'labayka ya Nasrallah' in Arabic, which translates roughly to 'at your service, Nasrallah'.

Rally organisers in Melbourne told AAP the group carrying Hezbollah flags was not affiliated with those running the demonstration.

Islamic community leaders also said this group was not representative of the Muslim community in Australia or the protest, which was calling for Israel to stop military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, where they are fighting Hezbollah.

'They are definitely a minority. An absolute, tiny minority,' Islamic Council of Victoria's president Adel Salman told The Australian.

'For my own experience, my knowledge of the community, there is no support of Hezbollah, no love of Hezbollah, right now, this is all about support for the Lebanese people.

Hezbollah, an Iran-backed political party and paramilitary group in Lebanon, was listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government in 2021.

It acknowledges that there are 'no known specific threats to Australia or Australian interests' posed by Hezbollah.

'However, it is possible that Australian interests could be harmed by future attacks,' the Australian government website states.

On Saturday, Israeli forces said Nasrallah had been killed during a massive air strike on Beirut, reportedly using 5,000-pound bunker-busting bombs.

Israel is currently fighting on two fronts, with the Hamas fighters in Gaza and the Iranian backed militia Hezbollah in Lebanon

***************************************************

Austria's Freedom Party secures first national election win for far-right since World War II

Austria's Freedom Party has secured the first national parliamentary election victory for the country's far right since World War II, finishing ahead of the governing conservatives in the Austrian election race on Sunday.

Preliminary official results showed the Freedom Party finishing first with 29.2 per cent of the vote.

Chancellor Karl Nehammer's Austrian People's Party was second with 26.5 per cent. The centre-left Social Democrats were in third place with 21 per cent.

The outgoing government — a coalition of Chancellor Nehammer's party and the environmentalist Greens — lost its majority in the lower house of parliament.

Herbert Kickl, a former interior minister and longtime campaign strategist who has led the Freedom Party since 2021, wants to be chancellor.

"I am a mountain climber, but the bag that I have been given is not light," he told supporters.

But to become Austria's new leader, he would need a coalition partner to command a parliamentary majority. Rivals have said they will not work with Mr Kickl in government.

Opposition should 'sleep on the result' after far-right win, Kickl says

The far right has benefited from frustration over high inflation, the war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic. It has also built on worries about migration.

Austrian far right party was projected to take the historic election win.

In its election program — titled Fortress Austria — the Freedom Party called for "remigration of uninvited foreigners", for achieving a more "homogeneous" nation by tightly controlling borders and suspending the right to asylum via an emergency law.

The Freedom Party also calls for an end to sanctions against Russia, is highly critical of Western military aid to Ukraine, and wants to bow out of the European Sky Shield Initiative, a missile defence project launched by Germany.

Mr Kickl has criticised "elites" in Brussels and called for some powers to be brought back from the European Union to Austria.

"We don't need to change our position because we have always said that we're ready to lead a government, we're ready to push forward this change in Austria side by side with the people," Mr Kickl said in an appearance alongside other party leaders on ORF public television.

"The other parties should ask themselves where they stand on democracy," he added, arguing that they should "sleep on the result".

Mr Nehammer said it was "bitter" that his party missed out on first place, but noted he brought it back from lower poll ratings.

He has often said he would not form a coalition with Mr Kickl. After the poll he confirmed: "What I said before the election, I also say after the election."

More than 6.3 million people were eligible to vote for the new parliament in Austria, an EU member that has a policy of military neutrality.

Mr Kickl has achieved a turnaround since Austria's last parliamentary election in 2019. The Freedom Party narrowly won a nationwide vote for the first time in the European Parliament election in June, which also brought gains for other European far-right parties.

Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders, whose party dominates the Netherlands' new government, took to X to congratulate the Freedom Party on Sunday. So did Alice Weidel, a co-leader of the Alternative for Germany Party.

The Freedom Party is a long-established force but Sunday's result was its best yet in a national parliamentary election, beating the 26.9 per cent it scored in 1999.

In 2019, its support slumped to 16.2 per cent after a scandal brought down a government in which it was the junior partner.

Then-vice chancellor and Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache resigned following the publication of a secretly recorded video in which he appeared to offer favours to a purported Russian investor.

While the Freedom Party has recovered, the popularity of Mr Nehammer's People's Party declined sharply compared with 2019. Support for the Greens, their coalition partner, also dropped to 8 per cent.

During the election campaign, Mr Nehammer portrayed his party, which has taken a tough line on immigration in recent years, as "the strong centre" that would guarantee stability amid multiple crises.

But crises ranging from the COVID-19 pandemic to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and resulting rising energy prices and inflation also cost it support. The government also angered many Austrians in 2022 with a short-lived COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the first in Europe.

But the recent flooding caused by Storm Boris that hit Austria and other countries might have helped Mr Nehammer slightly narrow the gap as a crisis manager.

Coalition plans still undecided

The Freedom Party would need to form a coalition with one or more parties to secure a parliamentary majority and build a stable government, but when party leaders held a discussion on Sunday evening, no potential partners were forthcoming.

Mr Nehammer repeatedly rejected joining a government led by Mr Kickl, describing him as a "security risk" for the country, but did not rule out a coalition with the Freedom Party itself — which would imply Mr Kickl renouncing a position in government.

But that looks very unlikely with the Freedom Party in first place.

The other three parties have long ruled out a coalition with the Freedom Party altogether — whether Mr Kickl led it or not.

Liberal NEOS leader Beate Meinl-Reisinger said: "I don't want you in government and I stand by that."

"I simply believe it would not be good for our country."

Social Democrats leader Andreas Babler ruled out governing with the far right and labelled Mr Kickl "a threat to democracy".

The alternative would be an alliance between the People's Party and the Social Democrats — with or without the liberal NEOS, who took 9 per cent of the vote.

A final official result will be published later in the week after a small number of remaining postal ballots have been counted, but those will not change the outcome substantially.

About 300 protesters gathered outside the parliament building in Vienna on Sunday evening, holding placards with slogans including "Kickl is a Nazi".

************************************************

Lawyer Lana Collaris faces heavy backlash after refusing to take part in Acknowledgement to Country

It's fundamentally racist

A top lawyer has hit back after being accused of racism for refusing to participate in an Acknowledgement to Country procedure at the Victorian Bar Council.

At meetings of the Victorian Bar Council, the president Georgina Schoff precedes matters with an acknowledgement of the Aboriginal group associated with the land on which it is held.

At a recent such meeting, barrister Lana Collaris instead acknowledged all Australians and then posted the minutes of the meeting on social media.

She was quickly met with a barrage of criticism, including being called a 'racist', a 'visitor' and an 'introduced species'.

Ms Collaris was also attacked by two Bar Council colleagues and was told by the Indigenous Justice Committee that she had brought the Victorian Bar into disrepute.

The under fire lawyer stood by her actions and told Sky News she could not tolerate the ubiquity of the Welcome to Country ceremonies.

'The reason why I decided to acknowledge all Australians that day is because I'd had enough of this implicit ceding of sovereignty before every meeting, before every Zoom meeting, before every time we land on a Qantas flight,' Ms Collaris said.

'I'd had enough and just wanted to take a stand against it.'

She said the implication of the welcome messages was that non-Aboriginal people are of a lesser status, and to say so was at odds with the law she had sworn to uphold.

'It's the constant repetition of this message that's being given to us, that sovereignty does not exist within the Crown in some way, and that's what I've got an issue with.

'It's wrong in law and it's wrong in fact as well and that's why I decided to make a stand.'

Ms Collaris said the response she got online was no surprise.

'I got fairly predictable personal attacks levelled towards me.

'And that's what made me think "I'm going to sit down and I'm going to express my views clearly in writing", and that's what I did.'

In that article, published by The Australian, she wrote that 'acknowledgments of country are not about respect but were part of a political agenda.

'We show respect to Indigenous Australians by celebrating their culture and language, by valuing their historical knowledge, and by holding them to the same standards as all other Australians, not by making ubiquitous acknowledgments of country.'

The barrister said Welcome to Country ceremonies go against 'the fundamental guiding principle of our constitution today (which) is the quality of citizenship.

'If you're going to take a stand that's different to that by making these repeated acknowledgements of country, which repeatedly chip away at that sovereignty, then I think Australians have an instinct and they know that something is not quite right and they understand that there is a political push behind this.

'For as long as people continue to make political statements by way of acknowledgments of country, I will continue to acknowledge all Australians, signalling my support for an Australia where we are all equal and subject to the same laws regardless of our race.'

**************************************************

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Sunday 29 September 2024

Are conservatives happier?

As the aricle below rightly notes, there is a long history of survey findings which show conservatives to be hapier than Leftists. It would be surprising otherwise. Leftism is almost by definition dissatisfaction with the world about the Leftist so that should show up in characteristic mood. Leftists are the miserable people politically so one might expect that description to be generally true

And the article below does deliver that expected conclusion.

I am going to be a spoilsport, however, and say that while I do agree with their concluson and am myself a happy conservative, their findings in fact show something quite different from what they claim.

The big problem with their research is that it used as data that old standby of lazy psychologists: The responses of college students. Such subjects can be very different from what you find among general population studies. During my long career as a survey researcher, I used almost entirely general population samples and what I found might as well have been from another planet when compared with student "samples".

It compounds the difficulty that most of the student samples in the literature were not in fact samples in any sense, They were just available groups.

The nature of the "samples" used by the authors below makes their findings very easy to understand. If you look at the tables of correlations their report, the correlations between conservatism and happiness were very weak, quite marginal. They were generally in the right direction but that is about all you can say

The fact of the matter is that happiness was by far best predicted by richness of experience. Young people like to be out and about doing and experiencing different things. That is what explains the findngs below. Their findings tell us nothing more than that.

Sad that such an extensive body of work yields such an unremarkable conclusion

Title and abstract only below:



Differing worldviews: The politics of happiness, meaning, and psychological richness

Abstract

Objective/Background
Conservative ideology, broadly speaking, has been widely linked to greater happiness and meaning in life. Is that true of all forms of a good life? We examined whether a psychologically rich life is associated with political orientation, system justification, and Protestant work ethic, independent of two other traditional forms of a good life: a happy life and a meaningful life.

Method
Participants completed a questionnaire that assessed conservative worldviews and three aspects of well-being (N = 583 in Study 1; N = 348 in Study 2; N = 436 in Study 3; N = 1,217 in Study 4; N = 2,176 in Study 5; N = 516 in Study 6).

Results
Happiness was associated with political conservatism and system justification, and meaning in life was associated with Protestant work ethic. In contrast, zero-order correlations showed that psychological richness was not associated with conservative worldviews. However, when happiness and meaning in life were included in multiple regression models, the nature of the association shifted: Psychological richness was consistently inversely associated with system justification and on average less political conservatism, suggesting that happiness and meaning in life were suppressor variables.

Conclusions
These findings suggest that happiness and meaning in life are associated with conservative ideology, whereas psychological richness is not.

**************************************************

The American Economic Association Leaves Out the Free Market
Loaded political jargon populates the program for its annual conference.

Mark Skousen’s op-ed “The American Economic Association Snubs Hayek” (Sept. 16) calls attention to political bias at the American Economic Association’s annual conference. While I have not seen Mr. Skousen’s rejected proposal on economist F.A. Hayek, several accepted proposals on the AEA’s program point to a leftward drift in the organization.

The coming conference will feature seven papers on Karl Marx and Marxian economics, a fringe school that almost all professional economists reject. Loaded political jargon similarly populates the program. It features six papers on the critical-race-theory concept of “intersectionality” and 16 papers on “neoliberalism,” a pejorative term used by left-wing activists to attack free-market thinkers. The far-left Union for Radical Political Economics has 16 dedicated panels and lectures on the program. Progressive economist John Maynard Keynes appears to be the dominant lens at the conference, with 32 abstracts mentioning Keynes and various Keynesian schools of thought.

By contrast, free-market perspectives are rare at the AEA. Only two accepted papers mention Hayek, with another two mentioning Milton Friedman. The monetarist school appears twice, and the public-choice tradition appears only once. I make no claim of knowing the optimal balance between these competing perspectives, but the AEA’s current ideological filter is proving to be a poor mechanism for rationing scarce conference space.

***************************************************

Taxpayer-funded Minneapolis food pantry bans white people - as boss' astonishing outburst at local who complained is revealed

The boss of a Minneapolis food pantry, funded by city taxpayers, has banned white people from taking advantage of the resource.

Mykela 'Keiko' Jackson used a Minnesota State grant to launch the Food Trap Project Bodega designed to help poor and hungry residents living close to the Sanctuary Covenant Church in the north of the city.

The pantry only opened up on July 27 but within months it has been forced to close and relocate away from church grounds after Jackson attempted to block white people from accessing the service, including a local chaplain who complained.

A sign that on the door to the pantry reads how the food inside was specifically for 'Black and Indigenous Folx' only. After a civil rights complaint was made against the pantry by a local, Mykela accused the complainant of 'political violence.'

'The resources found in here are for Black & Indigenous Folx. Please refrain from taking anything if you're not,' it stated.

Jackson used a Paths to Black Health grant which aims to reduce health disparities among African Americans while fostering a 'vibrant and thriving' community.

The last census showed Minneapolis to be 58 percent white with 18 percent of the population African-American.

But a number of reports have emerged suggesting how non-black residents are being denied access to the pantry, sowing the seeds of racial discrimination in an area considered to be an ethnically diverse.

The grant's description states how the 'funds are specifically designed to support organizations that work with U.S.-born African Americans... for whom studies indicate that health has been impacted as the result of historical trauma. This trauma includes post-traumatic slave syndrome (PTSS) and epigenetic inheritance.'

Chaplain Howard Dotson, 54, went to take a look at the pantry for himself, but claims how as a white man was refused service.

'This is not building community, it's destroying it,' Dotson said to Alpha News. 'I went over there and confronted her. I told her that I saw the sign and I asked if she really thought she could take grant money from the state and discriminate against poor white people.'

Dotson then filed a complaint with the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission.

He claims that Jackson told him in person how the food pantry was set up to serve black and indigenous people and was told how he should go across the road to the church's free pantry should he needed it.

********************************************************

What The Left Is Getting Wrong About The GOP’s Health Ideas/b>

In an interview the other day, J.D. Vance said that Donald Trump will “promote more choice in our health-care system and not have a one-size-fits-all approach that puts a lot of the same people into the same insurance pools.”

In no time at all, left-wing critics pounced.

Trump and Vance would “permit insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions,” wrote Jonathan Chait. They would allow insurers to “charge less to the healthy and more (much more) to the sick,” added Josh Barro. “That’s exactly how health insurance worked before Obamacare,” said Paul Krugman.

Yet it is the critics who don’t understand how Obamacare is working and how it needs to be reformed. When insurers are forced to sell to everyone at the same price, they have strong incentives to attract the healthy (on whom they make a profit) and avoid the sick (on whom they incur losses). That is what is happening today.

Obamacare didn’t solve a problem; it merely changed the nature of the problem. In the old days, some chronic patients couldn’t get health insurance. As I show below, today they can get insurance, but they may not be able to get health care.

So, what’s the answer? It begins by recognizing that almost everyone in America today who buys private health insurance is getting a tax subsidy for their purchase. People who get insurance from an employer have that benefit excluded from their taxable income. People who buy in the (Obamacare) exchange are getting tax credits, which are transferred to the insurers along with the buyer’s payment.

Part of the premium we pay is coming out of our pockets, and the rest is picked up by government. Even if our part of the premium is community-rated (that is, the same price regardless of health status), there is no reason why the government’s share has to be restricted in that way.

***************************************************

New Jersey Moves to Deregulate Home-Based Businesses

The New Jersey state legislature advanced legislation this June that would give entrepreneurs more freedom to open a business cheaply. As South Jersey-focused publication 70 and 73 reports, the Home Business Job Creation Act, which still awaits state senate approval, would allow homeowners to operate a business from their own home by-right, without approval from municipal zoning authorities. The change mirrors a trend towards online commerce and is a welcome reexamination of strict use separation rules that prevent entrepreneurship nationwide.

Allowing business owners to operate from their homes would help save money and lower entry barriers. In Jersey City, Class C retail space rents are in the ballpark of $40 per square foot annually, based on LoopNet listings. This works out to at least $40,000 (and often much more) in yearly rent for ground-level storefronts in the state’s many urban neighborhoods.

Nationally, prices for Class C retail tend to be much lower (in the $10-20 per square foot annual range). But the point still stands: if you’re an upstart entrepreneur who can’t afford 5-figure rent and live in a city that bans home-based businesses, you’re out of luck.

The proposed New Jersey reform would not only help entrepreneurs, but could also make neighborhoods more walkable and mixed-use, serving much of the same need as accessory commercial units. In New Jersey itself, the format harkens back to older land-use styles, where the state’s charming urban cores, such as Union City and Hoboken, are replete with apartments near businesses.

The law’s authors, Assembly members Jay Weber, Robert Auth, John DiMaio, and Dawn Fantasia, point out that numerous businesses in the state would be forbidden under strict enforcement of current laws. Carveouts exist for businesses like doctor’s offices and accounting services, but the more workaday enterprises are beholden to municipal regulations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities is fighting the law on the grounds that it undermines local control.

Many jurisdictions heavily regulate or outright ban home-based businesses on the premise that they create externalities such as traffic congestion or are difficult to regulate safety-wise. According to 70 and 73, New Jersey’s bill will include similar stipulations.

Such criticisms often do not pass muster. Home-based businesses have become more logistically easy with the rise of service-based apps and websites that allow small-scale businesses to connect with a broader customer base. For example, Etsy, a crafts sales platform, saw its membership increase by over 4 million from 2019 to 2021. Rather than drawing customers to their homes, Etsy merchants ship their products outward (or often drop-ship from a 3rd-party location). So the traffic caused is minimal compared to what craftsmen would’ve drawn 20 years ago.

Since the pandemic, food businesses have also emerged. Readers might be familiar with “ghost kitchens,” a franchise-like business model where a distributor like WoodSpoon and Shef allow users to sell meals directly to consumers. Its membership has also grown significantly.

But New York and other states forbid its use for hot food delivery. Generally, according to the Institute for Justice, hot food businesses operating from people’s homes are tightly regulated, if not banned, on safety grounds. Even pre-prepared food is scrutinized: Rhode Island made barely any allowance for home food sales until late 2022. Georgia had similar restrictions, requiring anyone who wanted to sell food to do so in a certified commercial kitchen.

The Institute for Justice conducted a review of the states with the most permissive home-based food rules, including Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota, which do not require special permitting for such business, and found that “not a single state had a confirmed case of a foodborne illness caused by food sold under its homemade food law.”

What’s more, the proscription of such businesses does not guarantee that food sales will be safer, as banning them may just drive them onto the illegal market, where no oversight exists. There isn’t any particular reason why appropriate health and safety regulations cannot apply to home-based businesses.

Beyond food, other businesses have faced scrutiny from regulators. In Nashville, a joint hair salon and recording studio was shut down because both businesses relied on in-person visits. Childcare services have often run afoul of zoning regulations, motivating reform in several states.

The inherent tradeoff here—if we’re to conclude that many of the “safety” concerns are just a disingenuous smokescreen—is about traffic. Even if home-based businesses are “online” now, they’ll still inevitably cause more parking and congestion than if homes were strictly residential. The upside is that more small-scale entrepreneurs can afford their shot at growing a successful business.

Hopefully, the New Jersey Senate will see the positives and pass the bill. It will only be an early step towards broader liberalization, but it will unlock opportunities for many people.

“My whole life, people told me, ‘You need to do something with your food,’ but I always shut myself down without even trying,” one user of WoodSpoon told the New York Times. “Now I have weekly income.”

**************************************************

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Thursday 26 September 2024



Why diplomacy won’t be enough in latest Mid-East escalation

Israel is once again under attack. The Hezbollah terror organisation escalated its aggression against Israel on September 21, launching a series of attacks that targeted civilian population centres deep inside Israel, leaving devastation in their wake.

In recent days, Hezbollah significantly expanded the range of its rocket attacks, reaching past Tel Aviv and putting more than half of Israeli citizens in danger. But that’s not all.

Last week, Hezbollah’s top commanders held a high-level meeting in which they planned a large-scale terror attack against Israeli communities, one that would mirror the horrific massacre of October 7. Israel acted to prevent this attack and protect its citizens from an imminent threat.

The current conflict initiated by Hezbollah began on October 8, without any provocation from ­Israel, with frequent attacks launched from southern Lebanon, a territory Israel fully withdrew from in 2000. This aggression follows more than 11 months of rocket fire, which has claimed the lives of dozens of Israelis, including 12 innocent children murdered during a ­soccer game. These attacks have turned the northern border regions of Israel into a death zone, displacing some 70,000 Israelis from their homes, and creating a humanitarian and security crisis that cannot be ignored.

In the face of Hezbollah’s onslaught, Israel is doing what any sovereign nation would: defend the safety and security of all its ­citizens, Jews and Arabs alike. Every state has the duty to protect its people from assaults originating from enemies beyond its ­borders. Israel is fulfilling this obligation within the framework of international law and will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure its citizens can return safely to their homes.

The international community is increasingly aware of Hezbollah’s destabilising role in the region. Designated as a terrorist organisation by numerous countries including Australia, the United States, member states of the Arab League, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Hezbollah took an active part in the massacres committed by the Syrian regime and is a focal factor of chaos in the region.

Hezbollah’s relentless offensive is, of course, driven by Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s fingerprints can be found not only on Hezbollah but also on Hamas, the Houthis, and a network of Shia militias across the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Iraq. Iran’s proxies are actively working to spread violence and mayhem. The Iranian regime has long sought to destabilise the region, imposing its radical ideology through violence to control the Middle East.

However, Iran’s ambitions go far beyond. Its influence extends into Europe, Africa, and the Americas. It threatens global security, including by providing drones and missiles to attack Ukraine, as it supports efforts that undermine peace and stability worldwide.

There is still a possibility to stop Hezbollah’s aggression and restore regional stability through diplomacy. This is how:

First, the international community must designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation. The world must increase sanctions on Iran, target the Ayatollah regime’s financial, military and terror networks. The IRGC is the nerve centre of Iran’s global terrorism operations. By sanctioning and isolating this entity, the international community can cripple its ability to finance and direct groups like Hezbollah.

Without this crucial step, Iran will continue to evade accountability, enabling it to pursue its ­destabilising goals unchecked.

Second, the UN Security Council must enforce Resolution 1701, which mandates the withdrawal of Hezbollah forces in Lebanon to the north of the Litani River. This resolution was passed to end Hezbollah’s stranglehold on southern Lebanon and prevent its attacks on Israel, yet Hezbollah continues to operate freely in that area, with Iran’s full support.

Hezbollah’s domination of Lebanon, its occupation of southern Lebanon, its reign of terror against Israeli civilians, and Iran’s unrelenting support for this terrorist organisation and its malevolent activities must be confronted. Israel stands at the forefront of this battle, defending not just its citizens but the security and values of the free world.

As a career diplomat, I truly believe in the importance of diplomacy and the role it can play in bringing Hezbollah’s aggression to a halt. But we must act now. Those truly committed to peace and stability in the region must designate the IRGC as a terrorist organisation and push for the immediate implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, before it’s too late.

****************************************************

Javier Milei Slams the UN for ditching freedom for socialism

Milei’s first speech before the General Assembly held little back.

The chainsaw-wielding Libertarian took a proverbial axe to the ideological weeds choking the life out of the UN’s original mandate. Castigating the UN for abandoning freedom in favour of socialism, Milei rejected Project 2030, stating that Argentina will not participate in the UN’s promotion of collectivism.

This once liberty-centric organisation, Milei asserted, has replaced the cooperation of Nation States protecting God-given freedoms and the right to life with:

‘…a model of supranational government of international bureaucrats who seek to impose a certain way of life on the citizens of the world.’

Project 2030, and The Summit of the Future, he added, ‘…is nothing other than the deepening of this tragic course the UN has adopted.’

Such as the UN’s plan to ‘define a new social contract on a global scale, redoubling the commitments of the 2030 Agenda’.

The project is socialist in nature, Milei argued.

He also said that Project 2030 undermines the sovereignty of nation states and violate people’s right to life, liberty, and property. Applying more socialism to cure the consequences of socialism, only deepens the problem, he protested. ‘World history,’ the Argentine President declared, ‘shows that the only way to guarantee prosperity is by limiting the power of the monarch.’

This coexists with ‘guaranteeing equality before the law, defending the right to life, liberty, and property of individuals’. Quoting Isaiah 2:4, Milei pointed to the Biblical foundations of the United Nations, stating that the UN’s early success was being negated by a mutating bureaucratic structure.

The UN, he continued, had stopped watching over the principles outlined in its founding declaration. What was once a ‘shield to protect the Kingdom of Men was transformed into a multi-tentacled Leviathan’. Milei argued that the UN no longer pursues peace but rather imposes an ideological agenda on its members.

As an example, he cited the adoption of the Agenda 2030 goals which he indicated were obeyed for privileged interests.

Milei then accused the UN of ditching the principles outlined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This, he said, had distorted the role of this institution, and put it on the wrong path.

‘The organisation born to defend human rights, has been one of the main promoters of the systematic violation of freedom.’

He also said that Covid lockdowns should be considered a crime against humanity and then took the UN to task for elevating murderous dictatorships to the Human Rights Council. ‘This house,’ Milei thundered, ‘put ’Cuba and Venezuela on the HRC without question. This is same house that claims to defend women’s rights, puts countries that punish their women for showing their skin, on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.’

‘This same house,’ Milei continued, ‘that has systematically voted against the State of Israel, the only country in the Middle East defending liberal democracy. All while demonstrating a total inability to respond to the scourge of terrorism.’

Then his speech turned to the issue of the UN promoting collectivist policies that turn countries into ’perpetual debtors’ enslaved to what he referred to as the agenda of global elites. Here Milei described the World Economic Forum’s tutelage as useless.

Milei called out what he said were ridiculous policies such as Net Zero and advocacy of Malthusian eugenics which harm, above all, poor countries.

Implying that high abortion rates announced a bleak future, the Argentine President scolded the General Assembly for advancing ‘sexual and reproductive rights, when the birth rate of Western countries is plummeting’.

The UN is failing, Milei concluded. ‘They’re losing credibility.’

‘It is powerless to provide solutions to the real global conflicts, such as the aberrant Russian invasion of Ukraine. Instead of facing these conflicts, the UN invests time and effort in imposing on poor countries the WEF’s agenda.’

The organisation, Milei argued, is too busy dictating to nations what they should produce and how they do it, whom they might associate with, what their citizens should eat, and the ideologies the should believe.

To this Milei warned, ‘We are at the end of a cycle.’

‘Collectivism and moral posturing, of the Woke agenda, have collided with reality and no longer have credible solutions to offer to the real problems of the world.’

In sum, the UN went woke, now it’s going broke.

‘We cannot persist in the error by doubling down on an agenda that has failed. We in Argentina have already seen with our own eyes what lies at the end of this path of envy and sad passions: poverty, brutalisation, anarchy and a fatal absence of freedom. Argentina will not support any policy that involves the restriction of individual freedoms, or of trade. Nor any policy, that violates the natural rights of individuals, no matter who promotes it or how much consensus that institution has.

‘We invite all the nations of the free world to join us, not only in dissenting from this pact, but in creating a new agenda for this noble institution: the agenda of freedom.

‘May God bless the Argentines and all the citizens of the world, and may the forces of heaven be with us.’

Amen!

****************************************************

While Xi reigns, China’s economy is unreformable

It was presented as a bold stimulus to boost China’s ailing economy – but while it excited stock markets in Asia, Western economists were underwhelmed. At a rare press conference in Beijing on Tuesday, the usually gnomic governor of the People’s Bank of China, Pan Gongsheng, unveiled a range of measures designed to ‘support the stable growth of China’s economy’ and see that it hits this year’s target of five per cent growth.

There was a time when such measures, which included an interest rate cut and more funds to support the stock and property markets, would have quickened the pulse of investors. But this is unlikely to reverse their exodus. It merely confirms fears about China’s deep-seated problems and casts doubt over whether the Chinese communist party (CCP) is capable of meaningfully reforming an economic model that is no longer sustainable.

With the CCP increasingly in every lab and boardroom, the country’s start-up scene is on its knees

The measures ‘indicated policymakers’ growing concerns over growth headwinds,’ said Goldman Sachs, an investment bank. Liu Chang, macro economist at BNP Paribas Asset Management, meanwhile, said that though positive, ‘we think there is still a worrying lack of urgency behind their words around stimulus’.

The problem for Pan is that not only do few economists believe that five per cent growth can be achieved, but China is widely believed to be cooking the books. Analysts have long used alternative gauges for measuring China’s economic activity, such as electricity consumption or energy imports, but their scepticism has increased as the country’s economic problems have mounted. Growth in 2013 may have been as low as 1.5 per cent, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group, a research organisation, as supposed to the 5.2 per claimed. This year has probably been tougher.

While president Xi Jinping has portrayed himself as China’s ‘supreme reformer’, the heir to Deng Xiaoping, his principal achievement since coming to power in 2012 is to put Deng’s reforms sharply into reverse. A property bubble continues to burst with slumping sales and prices, youth unemployment is soaring, and inward investment is plunging amid growing signs of social stress, including a spike in protests.

Beijing has reacted by restricting data about the economy and criminalising pessimism. The Ministry of State Security, China’s main spy agency, has declared that gloom about the economy is a foreign smear and that ‘false theories about “China’s deterioration” are being circulated to attack China’s unique socialist system’.

The announcement of these stimulus measures coincided with reports that Zhu Hengpeng, a prominent economist at one of China’s top think tanks has disappeared after criticizing Xi’s management of the economy in a private chat group. Zhu, who for the past decade has been deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has been placed under investigation, detained and removed after making comments about the flagging economy and referring to Xi’s mortality, according to the Wall Street Journal.

An economic model that for four decades relied on cheap exports and massive, wasteful state-led investment in property and infrastructure is no longer sustainable. It produced dizzying rates of growth but has also led to soaring debt and diminishing returns, with China littered with ghost cities, containing 60 to 100 million empty or incomplete homes, while companies accounting for 40 per cent of China’s home sales have defaulted.

It is widely agreed that China needs to rebalance its economy and that consumers need to spend more, since private consumption accounts for just 39 per cent of the economy – extremely low by world standards (the figure in the US is 68 per cent). But there is no consumer confidence, with 80 per cent of family wealth tied up in property and no meaningful social safety net.

Xi hopes renewable energy technology can replace property as a new motor of growth, and mouth-watering subsidies have been thrown at industries ranging from solar panels to electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries. This has lead to massive over-capacity and vicious price wars. Yet the benign global environment that accompanied China’s earlier export splurges has gone: the world is much more wary.

Xi’s longer term goal is to build a world-beating ‘innovation’ economy driven by domestic tech, but the most effective way of achieving this – giving more sway to the market and to private companies – runs counter to everything he stands for. Xi has prioritised security and CCP control, even over the economy. He has hobbled China’s most innovative technology companies, which have faced tightening restrictions. With the CCP increasingly in every lab and boardroom, the country’s start-up scene is on its knees, with one executive recently telling the Financial Times, ‘The whole industry has just died before our eyes … The entrepreneurial spirit is dead’. Last year, China led the world in the number of millionaires leaving the country, according to the Henley Wealth Management Report.

This is the background against which Pan wheeled out his stimulus, hinting that further measures might be in the pipeline. It had more than a hint of desperation about it and came days after Beijing announced it was raising the retirement age – a measure that was also widely criticised as inadequate to fend off a fast-approaching demographic crisis.

The CCP has long cultivated the myth of the technocrat, claiming that its officials have risen through a meritocratic system and are superior to those in the West because they can plan rationally for the long term. That was always a highly tenuous claim and ignores the reality that even the most gifted technocrat can make little real difference in an autocratic system where ultimately the only thing that matters is the opinion of the leader. Indeed, such a system encourages fraud as underlings clammer to tell the emperor what he wants to hear or face the consequences of voicing unwelcome opinions – as the economist Zhu did.

Pan is perhaps the embodiment of that hapless technocrat. He is no doubt aware that China’s troubled economy has peaked and may go sharply into reverse, but unable to mutter the unspeakable – that it is unreformable as long as Xi Jinping remains in charge.

*****************************************************

Not all masculinity is toxic: Hold the front page: men are different to women

Gender wars are a subset of culture wars. We risk raising a generation of boys who are emotionally damaged and mentally fragile amidst a sea of snowflake children who, terrified by multifront extremist alarmism, demand governments keep them safe from any unpleasantness and all life challenges. Indoctrinated into bearing the burden of collective guilt for past sins that isn’t really inheritable, how many white Christian boys will struggle with mental health issues?

The excesses of trans extremists have finally begun to attract serious pushback from some brave souls like popular writers, athletes, civil servants, police officers, school teachers, professors and a few politicians like Moira Deeming and Claire Chandler. When are men, with the support of women who believe in gender equality and need to consider the welfare of their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands, going to organise the fightback to restore equal rights for all regardless of racial, religious and gender identity? To fight that war and hope to win, an army must first be raised. An army of advocates, activists and even some metaphorical martyrs to the cause.

Instead, additional demands continue to come from women’s rights advocates. On 17 September, Chief Executive Women released its annual report showing that 91 per cent of CEOs are men. It called on companies to set real gender targets because ‘diverse voices are important and diverse leadership teams are good for business’. There are big problems with its tall claims. It pushes the interests of a narrow cultural elite, not of most women in their quotidian activities.

We never, but never, hear talk of equal gender outcomes in the dangerous, menial, physically demanding, family life-disrupting and geographically remote jobs. If the nation’s senior women executives are truly motivated by concern for group-based social justice and the belief that diversity in the senior executive leadership will ‘unlock substantial economic growth and productivity’, they should prioritise getting racial minorities ahead of women who are even more badly under-represented.

However, promoting people into senior positions based on chromosomes and race is not talent-scouting but virtue-signalling. And what if top women leaders were disproportionately represented in high profile leadership disasters? Would a male police chief have prioritised a visit to the hair stylist and going out to dinner during the Black Saturday bushfire that killed 173 people in 2009?

Of course there are many examples of female leaders acting with acumen, courage and integrity: Christina Holgate’s commercial success with Australia Post and Renée Leon (sacked by Scott Morrison as departmental secretary for terminating the unlawful Robodebt). But only recklessly courageous researchers would explore gender-based failures of leadership and so we are stuck with platitudes instead of empirical data.

The ubiquitous gender pay gap myth mostly reflects different occupational choices on work-lifestyle balance. How many women would choose to work 12-hour shifts in mines in remote locations for extended periods, for double what they might be earning? In full-time work in the US, men work on average two hours more per week. Among those working less than 35-hour weeks, women earn five per cent more. In countries that offer more job flexibility without imposing financial hardships on families, for example in Scandinavia, more women choose the lower paying but less stressful and more flexible professions that provide more job satisfaction.

Nataliya Ilyushina made a similar argument by noting that the report on the gender pay gap from Australia’s Workplace Gender Equality Agency had accidentally measured women’s freedom of choice.

The increasingly radicalised and unhinged attacks on toxic masculinity culminated in the #MeToo moment when women had to be believed and men vilified, defenestrated and perhaps even incarcerated, no matter how thin the evidence and absurd the alleged victimisation and grievance narrative. In the process, longstanding pillars of Western jurisprudence and criminal justice systems have come under sustained assault with a weakened commitment to the key principles of equal protection under the law, due process and innocence until proven guilty. There’s a double standard at play, where the woman is effectively infantilised and denied responsible agency.

Being too intoxicated is an acceptable excuse to transfer the burden of proof and responsibility entirely to the male defendant. But being drunk is no excuse for him.

Judgmental remarks about a woman’s sexual behaviour and the choices she makes will unleash a social media pile-on demanding public censure and dismissal. Yet it is permissible to characterise men’s conduct in judgmental language.

The justice system downplays the reality that some women can act unwisely, succumb to temptation in the heat of the moment and change their stories subsequently either because they regret their ethical lapse, or because they fear the consequences for their marriage or relationship; and some are outright malicious or manipulative and use sex consciously as a weapon. Following public criticism of ‘lazy and perhaps politically expedient’ but unserious and unmeritorious prosecutions for alleged sexual assaults, New South Wales chief prosecutor Sally Dowling told a Senate hearing on 4 September, an audit was launched and 15 rape cases were discontinued.

The biggest victims of the culture wars have been whites, Christians and males. By a clever sleight of mind, ‘toxic masculinity’ has morphed into the charge that masculinity itself is toxic. Competition, bravery, honour, chivalry, gallantry are also hardwired traits of masculinity. The warrior-protector trait led a dad to jump to the tracks in a fatal effort to save his twin babies whose pram had rolled down from the platform while the mother screamed. Few would be surprised by that gender difference or judge the mother harshly.

Treating the accused perpetrators and victims of serious crime differently is anathema to the fair administration of justice. As in every aspect of public policy, sexual assault laws should balance the rights of complainants for justice and closure with the rights of the accused to a fair trial, due process and protection against malicious, extortionate and vengeful allegations. A particular category of crime should not have a lower threshold of evidence for prosecution than other serious crimes. The process itself as punishment and the cost of being found not guilty further undermine justice.

Lower life expectancy and higher suicide and incarceration rates for Aborigines in Australia and blacks in the US supposedly prove the reality of systemic and institutional racism. But do lower life expectancy and higher suicide (three-quarters of suicides in Australia and the UK are among males) and incarceration rates for men prove toxic and criminal masculinity? The death rate for American men on the job is twelve times higher and injuries are 50 per cent more than for women. In Australia, ABS data show that men comprise 70 per cent of those working over 60 hours per week and 96 per cent of those dying in the workplace. Which women’s lobby group highlights these job statistics?

****************************************

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Wednesday 25 September 2024


Israel Derangement Syndrome

Julie Hartman, a 24-year-old woman with whom I do a weekly podcast (“Dennis & Julie”), described the anti-Israel world perfectly: A vast number of people suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome.

The description is, of course, based on the widely cited “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party deride as nonsense. Though I voted for former President Donald Trump and thought he was a very good, at times excellent, president, I never used that term during the four years of the Trump presidency. I did not regard opposition to Trump as necessarily an expression of psychological pathology.

Eventually, however, I changed my mind. I came to believe that much Trump hatred was rooted in psychology, not moral reasoning. This was particularly so regarding conservatives who became “Never Trumpers.” Given that the Left had taken over the once largely liberal Democratic Party, and given that the Left is the greatest threat to freedom and the entire American experiment since the Civil War, the only explanation for why a conservative would vote for a leftist rather than for Trump had to be a psychological one.

Whether or not one subscribes to the existence of a Trump Derangement Syndrome, “derangement syndrome” perfectly explains support for Hamas and the Palestinians (at this time, the two are largely the same, just as “Nazis” and “Germans” were largely the same, and therefore used interchangeably, during World War II).

On Sept. 21, The New York Times provided a perfect example of Israel Derangement Syndrome in a column written by Michael Walzer, a professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, titled “Israel’s Pager Bombs Have No Place in a Just War.”

As is well known, last week, pagers used by Hezbollah terrorists exploded, killing a handful of them and wounding hundreds more. Amazingly accurate, the exploding pagers killed very few noncombatants.

Hezbollah is the Shiite and Lebanese equivalent of the Gaza-based Sunni Hamas. Like Hamas, Hezbollah has one purpose: to kill as many Israelis as possible and eradicate the Jewish state. Hezbollah has fired more than 8,000 rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. Tens of thousands of Israelis have fled their homes in northern Israel and have not returned in nearly a year.

That Israel is being attacked for killing Hezbollah terrorists is proof that, according to the vast array of Israel-haters—the political, media and academic left, and Muslims in the Western world—Israel is not allowed to defend itself. It should now be obvious that the current hatred of Israel is not a result of Israel’s bombing of Gaza. When Israel targets Hezbollah terrorists—and only Hezbollah terrorists—it is equally condemned.

Which brings me to the Times column by Walzer.

Walzer writes: “The explosions on Tuesday and Wednesday were very likely war crimes—terrorist attacks by a state that has consistently condemned terrorist attacks on its own citizens.

“Yes, the devices most probably were being used by Hezbollah operatives for military purposes. This might make them a legitimate target in the continuous cross-border battles between Israel and Hezbollah. But the attacks … came when the operatives were not operating; they had not been mobilized and they were not militarily engaged. … It is important for friends of Israel to say: This was not right.”

According to Walzer, terrorists can only be killed when they are “operating,” “mobilized,” or “militarily engaged.” If they are not doing so, it is a “war crime” to kill them. Furthermore, the mere fact that these members of Hezbollah had those pagers—devices the professor admits “probably were being used by Hezbollah operatives for military purposes”—means these terrorists were “operating.” That’s why they had them: to plan and carry out operations against Israel.

That, dear reader, is derangement.

********************************************

Following Texas, Newsom signs bill requiring social media age verification

Like how?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a controversial new bill requiring social media companies to verify the age of users, and preventing non-verified users from accessing algorithm-driven social media feeds. While described as a bill to combat youth social media addiction, tech and free speech groups argue the bill could worsen cyberbullying and infringe on First Amendment rights. Other states' similar bans have been struck down in court, with a challenge to Texas' age verification law to be heard by the United States Supreme Court in the coming term.

SB 976 bans social media notifications to California minors during school hours and between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM without parental consent, require chronological, not algorithmic social media feed presented to minors without parental consent, and only allow these features if a social media company has "reasonably determined" the user is not a minor, or if a parent has consented. The California Attorney General is empowered to define what the “reasonably determined” standard actually means, and the whole law goes into effect on January 1, 2027.

Tech groups argue barring access to algorithm-generated feeds will make products less useful and enjoyable for users — and could even increase the impact of cyber-bullying that current algorithms seek to limit, while First Amendment advocates say requiring individuals to verify their age by surrendering personal information — likely to be government identification — would have a chilling effect on online speech.

Pro-technology lobbying group Chamber of Progress filed several letters of opposition against the bill and focused its arguments on the loss of editorial control for social media companies with the mandate to not show weighted algorithmic content to non-verified users, and the security risks of what they believe will be government ID-based age verification systems.

“There’s no way to verify the age of minors without verifying the age of all users,” said Chamber of Progress technology policy director Todd O’Boyle in an interview with The Center Square. “Whether you ask individuals to manually verify government ID, or you say all right, online services are allowed to use a third-party verifier, you’ve got a huge cybersecurity concern.”

Earlier this year, lack of encryption by a third-party background check provider allowed hackers to steal a data package with the name, Social Security number, and phone number of every American. The file was first listed for $3.5 million then later leaked for free.

“However well-intentioned, it’s going to result in a world where the algorithmic tools the platforms use to make the internet safer for young people by downranking and removing content that is harassing or otherwise abusive — if platforms don’t have those algorithmic tools at their disposal, teens are going to be at risk of dogpiling,” continued O’Boyle.

With regards to taking away algorithmic feeds, called “addictive” by the bill, O’Boyle said, “From a First Amendment perspective, the courts have been quite clear you can’t regulate design without running into serious First Amendment issues, because ultimately, this is trying to regulate the core curatorial and editorial functions of social media platforms.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a pro-free speech legal nonprofit, also took issue with the bill’s restriction on access to legally protected First Amendment content.

“It … basically says that people have to show their papers at the door before they can get access to constitutionally protected speech,” said FIRE chief counsel Robert Corn-Revere in an interview with The Center Square. “It is worth noting that other states attempting similar things have found that efforts to restrict access to this medium are being scrutinized very carefully by the courts. We’re still in the process of going through that same scrutiny in California, so for the legislature to move forward with potential legislation that doubles down on unconstitutional violations strikes me as unwise.”

Arkansas and Utah have seen similar rules struck down in court, but a final ruling on Texas’ age verification law being heard in the United States Supreme Court could soon set national precedent on the matter.

********************************************************

German weakness against Vladimir Putin and Russia during the Ukraine war and the rise of AfD is dangerous for Europe, NATO, and the free world

By Niall Ferguson

It felt a little strange for a British historian to fly to Berlin to tell the Germans, of all people, to rearm. That’s not a role I ever imagined I’d play when I was a graduate student in the divided Berlin of the 1980s, where the buildings in the Soviet sector still bore the scars of World War II.

But times change. And so I recently found myself in the German capital addressing a hall full of conservative parliamentarians urging them to double their defense budget.

Urging Germans to rearm might seem a rather counterintuitive thing to do—and not just because of Germany’s past. This year, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland has achieved a string of successes in regional elections, coming first in Thuringia and second in Saxony and Brandenburg.

Deutschland den deutschen, Ausländer raus!—“Germany for the Germans, foreigners out!”—is a popular chant in Germany these days, and not only amongst the disgruntled, underachieving inhabitants of the formerly East German states that are the AfD’s electoral strongholds. German media briefly went berserk back in May, when a viral video captured preppy partygoers at a club on the North Sea resort island of Sylt gleefully chanting the taboo five words. The young man leading the chorus even gave a mock Nazi salute, his left hand supplying a virtual Hitler mustache.

What would the American equivalent be? The members of a Harvard final club donning Ku Klux Klan hoods on Martha’s Vineyard, perhaps.

You may insist, “But it was ironic! They were chanting Deutschland den deutschen over the Italian DJ Gigi D’Agostino’s track ‘L’amour Toujours’!” Still, I can see why the average American might be mildly freaked out by my arguing for German rearmament at a time like this. But, as I said, times change. Back in the ’80s, I didn’t expect to witness a Russian invasion of an independent Ukraine either.

**************************************************

Dr Nick Coatsworth issues an urgent warning over Australian government's proposed speech law

One of Australia's most high-profile doctors has urged Australians to actively oppose the Albanese government's proposed misinformation laws saying they would have been potentially harmful during the pandemic.

Dr Nick Coatsworth, who was the nation's deputy chief medical officer during the pandemic period, feared the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill would be 'weaponised' to shut down debate.

He noted the legislation was in part aimed at stopping the spread of 'misinformation' that caused 'harm to public health in Australia, including to the efficacy of preventative health measures'.

However, he said this was 'astonishing' after the Covid pandemic because the medical fraternity and general public became 'acutely aware' the 'facts' changed as the virus became better understood.

This means the new laws could brand 'legitimate concerns' about about public health policy as 'misinformation', according to the government of 'scientific orthodoxy of the moment'.

'Misinformation causes harm,' Dr Coatsworth said. This bill should be rejected in its entirety.

'The weaponisation of misinformation as a term to shut down debate causes even greater harm.

Dr Coatsworth said 'he shares the government's deep concern about the harms of social media to community trust and cohesion'.

'But misinformation is such a widely used accusation these days that I can't see how the law could work practically',' he said.

Dr Coatsworth said that while some things online are 'verifiably false' the 'only solution is to equip the community from a young age to recognise what they (falsehoods) are and to understand how social media works to manipulate debate'.

'Let's teach our kids critical thought and how to question and debate, not how to dismiss or reject other's opinions or ideas with random accusations of misinformation,' he explained.

'I'd strongly encourage Australians to do something they may never have done before and submit to the Senate Inquiry.

'Even if it's a short paragraph expressing deep concern about what this Bill represents.'

Dr Coatsworth has previously admitted Australian governments and health officials lost the trust and goodwill of the public over the pandemic.

He told Sydney radio station 2GB in February said draconian measures to contain the virus dragged on too long and caused people to tune out and grow resentful.

In a 10-page submission made in February to a special inquiry, Dr Coatsworth admitted imposing mandates was wrong.

Under the new laws beefed up watchdog Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) would be able to order social media companies to crack down on repeated misinformation and disinformation on their platforms.

Should the companies fail to do so they face a range of penalties and whopping fines, which could include forfeiting five per cent of their global revenue.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has denied the laws would curb freedom of expression.

'We've been very clear as a government to take strong advice around this and to consult widely and to ensure that it aligns precisely with what we have under international law so as not to curb freedom of speech,' she told the ABC earlier this month.

Shadow communications minister David Coleman has accused the government of trying to shotgun the laws through parliament after an earlier version of them was withdrawn last year following substantial public opposition.

'How are people supposed to respond to this complicated law in just a week?,' Ms Coleman told The Daily Telegraph.

'Labor wants to ram this legislation through and is trying to stop the massive backlash we saw last time.'

**************************************************

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Tuesday 24 September 2024


New post just up on "FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC"

See https://john-ray.blogspot.com/

Can an inert chemical be harmful?

*******************************************

9th Circuit’s Characteristic Nuttiness on Gender Identity Again on Display

Women and girls seeking equal opportunity in scholastic athletics have notched a few significant wins this year against the Department of Education over its massive rewrite of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Title IX is the brief, 50-plus-year-old civil rights law that prevents sex discrimination in any publicly funded education program. The Biden-Harris administration, however, has expanded the meaning of “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity or expression.” But based on a plain reading of the text of Title IX, and with an eye toward the congressional history of the law as geared toward ensuring women’s equality in education, the rewrite is more than a little illegal.

At least three federal appellate courts have agreed.

Not so, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, however. It brought that streak of victories to a halt recently when it determined that the state of Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act was both unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX.

This isn’t the first time that the 9th Circuit has botched its analysis on “gender identity.” And once again, its reasoning left court-watchers scratching their heads.

Last year, the 9th Circuit reached an identical conclusion in striking down Idaho’s women’s sports fairness law in Hecox v. Little. Legal scholars have called the court’s opinion in that case “full of deceptions and irrelevancies.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, that case is now pending on a petition for review at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Doe v. Horne, the court followed its flawed reasoning in Hecox to affirm the trial court’s finding that two biological boys (referenced in the court’s opinion as “transgender girls”) were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the state of Arizona—something that prevented the state from enforcing its Save Women’s Sport Act.

While the underlying litigation proceeds, the court ruled that both boys must be allowed to play on girls’ sports teams at their respective Arizona schools.

So, how did the court reach such a hackneyed conclusion? Its twisted reasoning went something like this: It began with blind acceptance of the Left’s talking points on “gender identity” as something distinct from sex “assigned” at birth, including the fact that there is “a consensus among medical organizations that gender identity is innate and cannot be changed through psychological or medical treatments.”

That ignores the increasing body of clinical evidence that most prepubescent and pubescent children will—if left alone to experience normal pubertal development—grow out of any purported expression of a “transgender” identity.

The court continued that the state law, which separated scholastic sports teams by males, females, and coed or mixed teams, was discriminatory. That was so because the classifications based on biological sex discriminated against students who were biologically of one sex but expressed a different gender identity, by preventing them from playing on sports teams in accordance with that gender identity.

In the words of Judge Morgan Christen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, who wrote the opinion for the unanimous three-judge panel that included Judges Mary Margaret McKeown and David A. Ezra, appointees of Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, respectively: “[T]he ban turns entirely on a student’s transgender or cisgender status.”

Not so. The ban turns entirely on a student’s sex—regardless of whether that student’s sex is male or female.

The court’s opinion ignored one very glaring weakness in its own arguments: the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that “sex” and “transgender status” are one in the same.

Classifications based on sex are just that. And in Arizona’s case, whether the students were transgender “girls” or “boys” resulted in the same outcome: All students, regardless of gender identity, were required to compete on teams that matched their underlying biological sex.

The court’s opinion also clung to the fact that, in its view (and the view of the trial court):

[t]ransgender girls who receive puberty-blocking medication do not have an athletic advantage over other girls because they do not undergo male puberty and do not experience the physiological changes caused by the increased production of testosterone associated with male puberty.

However, medical evidence now indicates that regardless of the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, males begin to distinguish themselves athletically from their female counterparts around the age of 11.

Hormones have limited or no impact on wingspan, muscle mass, height, or bone density—all critical physiological advantages in competitive sports.

The court went on to rationalize that laws that discriminate based on “transgender status” are subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

That meant that the state of Arizona bore the burden of proving that its law served an important government objective, and that the law was substantially related to achieving the objective.

The appellate court wrote that the state had not met its burden. In the court’s view, the act had been adopted for the sole purpose of excluding “transgender girls” from playing on girls’ sports team. This was not, the court wrote, a law substantially related to achieving an “important government objective,” nor could the state bear the burden of demonstrating an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for what it viewed as a discriminatory classification.

Turning to the Title IX discrimination claims, the 9th Circuit panel was influenced mightily by the Department of Education’s expansive rewrite of Title IX to include “gender identity or expression” as commensurate with biological sex.

Christen wrote that the law “does not afford transgender women and girls equal athletic opportunities … [and] the record does not demonstrate that transgender females would displace cisgender females to a substantial extent if transgender females were allowed to play on female teams.”

In the end, the court determined that in addition to the foregoing, the “public interest” was served by preventing “the violation of a party’s [i.e., the transgender student’s] constitutional rights.”

Despite the court’s ongoing delirium about transgender discrimination, Arizona’s then-governor, Doug Ducey, when signing the women’s sports bill into law, noted perhaps the simplest and clearest aim of the legislation:

This legislation simply ensures that the girls and young women who have dedicated themselves to their sport do not miss out on hard-earned opportunities, including their titles, standings, and scholarships due to unfair competition.

This bill strikes the right balance of respecting all students while still acknowledging that there are inherent biological distinctions that merit separate categories to ensure fairness for all.

The simple, nondiscriminatory mission of the Save Women’s Sports Act, however, was utterly lost on the 9th Circuit.

Perhaps, in time, sanity will prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court.

************************************************

Class Action Scams Enrich Lawyers, the Left

John Stossel

Have you gotten a letter that says, “You may be entitled to compensation”?

I get a bunch. One claimed my union (New York state forced me to join) probably cheated me on medical insurance. I didn’t think they did, but I filled out the forms.

I got a check for $557. Great!

Except … my lawyers pocketed $7 million.

How is that fair?

Likewise, lawyers accused the Boston Globe of illegally sharing my clicking habits with Facebook.

I don’t really care. Facebook already knows my clicking habits. Anyway, I’d only briefly subscribed. I canceled as soon as I realized that much of the Globe is insipid leftist drivel rerun from The New York Times.

Still, I got a check for $158.

My new video looks at those class action lawsuits.

In theory, they protect consumers, but many of these lawsuits resemble anti-consumer scams.

First, lawsuits make most everything cost a little more.

Second, they deprive us of good products. Bendectin, a morning-sickness pill, was pulled from the market after hundreds of lawsuits claimed side effects. But the Food and Drug Administration says the drug was safe.

Lawsuits helped kill three-wheeled ATVs, too. Lawyers I confront say losing risky products is a good thing: “If they’re scared of someone like me,” one told me, “I’m happy about that.”

We pay for his happiness.

Of course, if companies do wrong, they should be punished.

When Google was caught sleazily collecting location data from users who turned off location history, it wouldn’t have been worth any single user’s time, or money, to sue. A lawsuit would cost more than anyone might win. Hence class actions.

But the lawyers create their own scam. When Google paid $62 million to settle that lawsuit, the class action lawyers gave themselves $18 million and then gave $43 million to their favorite nonprofits. That included left-wing advocacy groups like the ACLU (after it promised to use the money to help “people of color,” “activists” and “people seeking … transgender health care”). They gave victimized class members nothing.

Why would a judge approve such a deal? Because judges are just lawyers in robes, and most lean left politically. They love donating other people’s money to their favorite causes.

“It’s a huge conflict of interest,” says Anna St. John, whose law firm challenges such settlements.

“You have this slush fund of tens of millions of dollars, and the parties and judge are allowed to decide who should get this money. When they have a choice between distributing that money to millions of class members who are not going to say ‘thank you,’ versus directing millions of dollars to their alma maters, to organizations where they sit on the board, the choice is clear what they’re going to do. Six of the attorneys or Google employees involved in the case sit … or sat on the boards of the recipients getting millions of dollars.”

“The guys who did bad get to reward their friends?” I ask.

“Yes. Google’s giving money to organizations it already donates to,” she notes. “It’s unclear how it can be a benefit to the class when the defendant’s just doing what it already does.”

“This is a left-wing money raiser,” I observe.

“It is. This is a settlement class of millions of Americans with diverse viewpoints, and yet the money goes to very extreme, left-wing causes favored by the attorneys and by the defendant.”

I asked the attorneys and judge who approved the deal to explain why it isn’t a scam. They didn’t answer.

America needs lawyers to protect our rights and our freedom, just like we need missiles and bombs. But lawsuits, like missiles and bombs, are tremendously destructive.

We try not to use our missiles. We should do the same with lawyers.

***************************************************

New Docs Shed Light on Air Force’s ‘Goal’ to Reduce ‘White Male Population’ Joining Officer Ranks

The Air Force finally handed over a trove of documents pertaining to its sweeping “goal” of reducing the number of white male applicants in a popular officer program after spending months stonewalling requests for their release.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman C.Q. Brown—at the time the highest-ranking member of the Air Force—issued a memorandum in 2022 that the branch was updating its racial and gender demographic goals for applicants seeking to become officers, in a bid to prioritize “diversity and inclusion.”

Internal documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation include a slideshow from 2022 where the Air Force outlines racial and gender quotas and details how it hopes to “achieve” a reduced number of white males in its Reserve Officers’ Training Corps officer’s applicant program.

The documents reflect the Biden-Harris Pentagon’s intense focus on implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in the armed forces, even as the military continues to combat dwindling morale among its rank-and-file, recruiting and retention shortfalls, and low pay.

“The American people are rightly concerned that, at a time when our country is facing dangerous and increasing threats throughout the world, the Air Force is focused on recruitment efforts based on arbitrary racial diversity goals—not merit or increasing the force’s lethality,” James Fitzpatrick, director of the Center to Advance Security in America, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Center to Advance Security in America requested records regarding the Air Force’s new officer applicant standards through a federal transparency request in 2023. At the time, the Air Force said it couldn’t find any records, according to a letter obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Center to Advance Security in America then sued the Air Force for the records in April 2024 and received hundreds of documents and slides in response, which the Daily Caller News Foundation subsequently obtained.

A spokesperson for the Air Force told the Daily Caller News Foundation, “The FOIA request was being processed at multiple levels within the Air Force.”

“One of the units responded to the FOIA request with a ‘no responsive records’ response after conducting their own local search, while the remainder of the units continued to process the responsive documents that were ultimately provided,” the spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

One of the slides in question, labeled “AFROTC White,” depicts a graph that shows the percentage of white male ROTC officer applicants declining from approximately 60% in fiscal year 2019 to a projected 50% in fiscal year 2023. The graph further details how the Air Force’s goal is to reduce that percentage down to approximately 43% by fiscal year 2029, denoted by a star with the label “achieve(d) goal.”

“White male population will decline as other demographics increase,” the slide reads.

The respective slides in question also explain that the Air Force is either on track or needs to do more to hit racial and gender quotas in the ROTC’s officer applicant pool.

For example, with the African American population, the slideshow suggests the Air Force “target [the] male population through ongoing programs and marketing” and notes it has already met its “female goal” for ROTC officer applicants. For the American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic applicants, the slideshow says the Air Force is “on track to grow diversity.”

“These documents show us that the Air Force has taken steps toward implementing their new directive of specific racial quotas for officer recruitment and enrollment throughout the branch,” Fitzpatrick told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Included in the slide deck are funding requests for diversity recruiting initiatives, including $500,000 for “diversity advertising campaigns” and $250,000 for “influencer engagements.”

*******************************************

A Wittgensteinian Defence of Robert Jenrick

It’s difficult to decide which is worse: that a Conservative MP with leadership aspirations should be thought of as brave for talking fondly of “English identity”; or that the Left establishment via its media outriders should be so predictably sniffy about the possibility of there even being such a thing. “Englishness”, for the Left, is like Australian wine or the success of Clarkson’s Farm: tolerable only to the extent that it’s not discussed.

Robert Jenrick MP has an inexplicable aspiration to lead the post-election wrecking yard still bafflingly known as the “Conservative Party”. He has written this, for the Daily Mail:

The combination of unprecedented migration alongside the dismantling of our national culture, non-integrating multiculturalism and the denigration of our identity have presented huge problems.

Cue the inevitable “gotcha” ambush, this time from a house mediocrity on Sky News, who demanded from Jenrick a definition of this curious relic he calls English identity. Jenrick’s reply was sensible enough, as far as it went: that he was unable to condense in soundbite form a set of cultural, historical and legal phenomena which make for a collective of quantum complexity is hardly surprising (I’m helping him out a bit here, but that’s the gist).

The journalist’s question amounted to a crude, tedious and very voguish reiteration of the Socratic strategy. The Socrates of the Platonic dialogues, talented though he undoubtedly was, was also a nuisance who spent his days walking the streets of Athens in search of likely marks on whom he could lay down his own “gotcha” schtick. This would involve asking them to provide a definition of an abstract concept (such as “justice”) and then explaining to the victim why his response was deficient.

Most of us know how that ended: a speedy trial followed by an invitation to down the cup of hemlock – cancellation being of a less reversible (and arguably less deserving) form in those days.

A “gotcha” of this sort is philosophically in error. It assumes that for a thing to have an identity then it must have an essence, one which is definable in non-vague terms. But the world is not constructed like that. There are logical systems which are constructed in acknowledgement of the fact that vagueness is an intrinsic feature of the universe. It would be absurd to think, for example, that a person is not bald when he has n hairs but becomes so when that number declines to n-1. There is hirsute, there is comb over, and there is bald – and the details of that journey are not conducive to a strictly arithmetical formalisation. Certain parts of that map are of necessity impossible to read.

What is it we want from a definition? Wittgenstein, whose competence as a philosopher of language arguably exceeds that of even the most intellectually agile news anchor, has some persuasive things to say here. In his later writings he suggests that it is strange to think that the meaning of a concept is reducible to a list of necessary and sufficient conditions which determine its application:

The idea of a general concept being a common property of its particular instances connects up with other primitive, too simple, ideas of the structure of language.

The example Wittgenstein uses is that of a “game”. There are all manner of games. Some of these require a ball others do not; some are played as a team while others are not, etc. These things we call “games” admit of no single unifying definition but share in a common resemblance. As with games so with “English identity” – perhaps its resistance to an easy classification is evidence of the strength, rather than the weakness, of the concept.

We do not need a theory of Englishness to be able to know it when we see it, any more than a Catholic communicant is required to fully understand the concept of transubstantiation before she receives the Host. An account of English identity might refer to the Common Law, make mention of the complicated history of the Anglican church, or valorise the peculiar nature of English traditions (including the tradition of being sceptical about the nature of Englishness). Or it might prefer to point at the perverse pleasure we take in an England batting collapse, or the Pavlovian and very English default to apology when somebody bumps into us.

These are, of course, all things which exercised the wonderful mind of Sir Roger Scruton, whose explication and defence of English culture and identity is distributed throughout many articles and books. Sir Roger was famously ostracised by the Tory parliamentary party for “unacceptable” remarks he made during a New Statesman set-up job a year or two prior to his death. Remarks which, it almost goes without saying, his accusers had not bothered to contextualise. Perhaps the current crop of Tory leadership contenders would find it useful to look at what Scruton had to say about our shared culture and the increasingly acute threats to it? (An appreciation of irony is, of course, also a very English thing.)

Sky’s question to Jenrick was not worthy of serious consideration. And to his credit Jenrick displayed a very English embarrassment at being expected to answer it. I’d have been more robust. If asked the same question I’d have said that English identity includes an affection for eccentricity and a love of queueing. If further pressed I’d have pointed out that Englishness is a bit like crap journalism: we can’t define it, but we know when we are in its presence.

**************************************************

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Nottingham University Puts Trigger Warning on Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales – Because They Contain “Expressions of Christian Faith” ...