Australia's Matildas are named 'one of the gayest teams at the World Cup' by leading LGBTQ news site

I had been told that female footballers are mostly butch Lesbians but I follow no sport so wondered if that was correct.  Looks like it was.  It may explain why play in their most recent match was pretty rough.  It must be a first that a team of homosexuals received great public praise but one must wonder if many fans knew the full score about the team

The Matildas have been named one of the 'gayest' teams in the Women's World Cup,  having the equal highest representations of lesbian players of all teams in the competition.

Pink News made the assessment ahead of Australia's semifinal against England on Wednesday night which the Matildas lost 3-1.

The UK-based news site said the Matildas had nine first-team players and three reserves who were in same-sex relationships, tying the squad with the Brazil team for the most openly lesbian players in the 2023 World Cup.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fifa/article-12415403/Australias-Matildas-named-one-gayest-teams-World-Cup-leading-LGBTQ-news-site.html

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

The old air pollution boogeyman rides again


For many years now, I have been reviewing studies of air pollution.  Both Greenies and health advocates abhor it.  But the research results are always disappointing.  The ideal research result would be a demonstration that motor vehicle emissions give you cancer but there is no solid proof of that. Pollution repeatedly turns out to be peskily harmless.  But no-one believes that.  So they keep on doing studies to prove their point.  One such is below. They hypothesize that air pollution sends you gaga.

Does it?   It's another geography study.  It tests your health according to where you live.  It does NOT detect your personal exposure to air pollution.  So that is a major flaw.  But its conclusions are still amusing.  They found no effect from most sources of pollution -- with one exception:  Dust that farmers kick up when plowing etc.  Avoid farms or lose your marbles!

As I said, the results are shaky anyway  -- with their lack of personal data -- so I would not start demonizing farmers yet. The global warming folk demonize them enough already.  And farm populations may be more prone to dementia anyway

I probably should note again why I think air  pollution is so harmless:  It is because human beings have been sitting around smoky campfires for about a million years.  Over that time they have adapted to all the resultant pollution they inhale.  Basically, they just cough it up.  Looking at the big picture does help, doesn't it?


Comparison of Particulate Air Pollution From Different Emission Sources and Incident Dementia in the US

Boya Zhang et al

Question  Are long-term exposures to particulate air pollution from different emission sources associated with incident dementia?

Findings  In this nationally representative cohort study in the US, higher residential levels of fine particulate matter were associated with greater rates of incident dementia, especially for fine particulate matter generated by agriculture and wildfires.

Meaning  These findings support the hypothesis that airborne particulate matter pollution is associated with the likelihood of developing dementia and suggest that selective interventions to reduce pollution exposure may decrease the life-long risk of dementia; however, more research is needed to confirm these relationships.

Abstract
Importance  Emerging evidence indicates that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution may increase dementia risk in older adults. Although this evidence suggests opportunities for intervention, little is known about the relative importance of PM2.5 from different emission sources.

Objective  To examine associations of long-term exposure of total and source-specific PM2.5 with incident dementia in older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The Environmental Predictors of Cognitive Health and Aging study used biennial survey data from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2016, for participants in the Health and Retirement Study, which is a nationally representative, population-based cohort study in the US. The present cohort study included all participants older than 50 years who were without dementia at baseline and had available exposure, outcome, and demographic data between 1998 and 2016 (N = 27 857). Analyses were performed from January 31 to May 1, 2022.

Exposures  The 10-year mean total PM2.5 and PM2.5 from 9 emission sources at participant residences for each month during follow-up using spatiotemporal and chemical transport models.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The main outcome was incident dementia as classified by a validated algorithm incorporating respondent-based cognitive testing and proxy respondent reports. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for incident dementia per IQR of residential PM2.5 concentrations using time-varying, weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with adjustment for the individual- and area-level risk factors.

Results  Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age, 61 [10] years; 15 747 [56.5%] female), 4105 (15%) developed dementia during a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.2 [5.6] years. Higher concentrations of total PM2.5 were associated with greater rates of incident dementia (HR, 1.08 per IQR; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). In single pollutant models, PM2.5 from all sources, except dust, were associated with increased rates of dementia, with the strongest associations for agriculture, traffic, coal combustion, and wildfires. After control for PM2.5 from all other sources and copollutants, only PM2.5 from agriculture (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27) and wildfires (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) were robustly associated with greater rates of dementia.

Conclusion and Relevance  In this cohort study, higher residential PM2.5 levels, especially from agriculture and wildfires, were associated with higher rates of incident dementia, providing further evidence supporting PM2.5 reduction as a population-based approach to promote healthy cognitive aging. These findings also indicate that intervening on key emission sources might have value, although more research is needed to confirm these findings.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2808088

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

Will exercise help you live longer?

The article below claims to have found that it will but the hazard ratios they  report are so low that if there is a  effect it is so tiny as not to be worth the bother.  I have reached 80 without ever doing any significant exercise so the findings are  no surprise to me.  Apologies to the gym bunnies

Prospective Associations of Different Combinations of Aerobic and Muscle-Strengthening Activity With All-Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality

Rubén López-Bueno et al

Question  What is the optimal combination of moderate aerobic physical activity (MPA), vigorous aerobic physical activity (VPA), and muscle-strengthening activity (MSA) to reduce the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality?

Findings  In this cohort study of 500 705 participants, balanced amounts of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined were associated with a lower risk of mortality. These risk reductions may be greater with aerobic physical activity at higher vigorous and moderate intensities than current recommendations for all-cause and cancer mortality, respectively.

Meaning  Balanced levels of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined may be associated with optimal reductions of mortality risk.

Abstract
Importance  Studies examining the associations of different combinations of intensity-specific aerobic and muscle strengthening activity (MSA) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality are scarce; the few available estimates are disparate.

Objective  To examine the prospective associations of different combinations of moderate aerobic physical activity (MPA), vigorous aerobic physical activity (VPA), and MSA with all-cause, cardiovascular (CVD), and cancer mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This nationwide prospective cohort study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey. A total of 500 705 eligible US adults were included in the study and followed up during a median of 10.0 years (5.6 million person-years) from 1997 to 2018. Data were analyzed from September 1 to September 30, 2022.

Exposures  Self-reported cumulative bouts (75 weekly minutes) of MPA and VPA with recommended MSA guidelines (yes or no) to obtain 48 mutually exclusive exposure categories.

Main Outcomes and Measures  All-cause, CVD, and cancer mortality. Participants were linked to the National Death Index through December 31, 2019.

Results  Overall, 500 705 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.4 [17.3] years; 210 803 [58%] female; 277 504 [77%] White) were included in the study. Compared with the reference group (doing no MPA or VPA and less than recommended MSA), the category associated with the lowest hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was more than 0 to 75 minutes of MPA combined with more than 150 minutes of VPA and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42-0.59). The optimal combinations for CVD and cancer mortality risk reduction were more than 150 to 225 minutes of MPA, more than 0 to 75 minutes of VPA, and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.57), and more than 300 minutes of MPA, more than 0 to 75 minutes of VPA, and 2 or more MSA sessions per week (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.82), respectively. Adjusted mortality rates represented an approximately 50% lower mortality rate for all-cause and cancer mortality and an approximately 3-fold lower mortality rate for CVD mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance  This cohort study demonstrated that balanced levels of MPA, VPA, and MSA combined may be associated with optimal reductions of mortality risk. Higher-than-recommended levels of MPA and VPA may further lower the risk of cancer and all-cause mortality, respectively.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807854

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

The Bhagavad Gita


I have always respected India and Indians so I thought that it was time to read something of their great holy book, written around 200BC.

I have just read the first two chapters and am very impressed. Its thoughts resonate with me. Chapter 1 sets out very vividly the folly of war. Even though I am a former member of the Australian army, war has always seemed a horror to me: So many deaths of so many good men for so little gain. I am at the moment distressed by the war in Ukraine. I have Russian and Ukrainian friends so Russian and Ukrainian deaths are horrible thoughts to me. Why can we not put that ongoing disaster to a stop? And the Hindu prince (Arjuna) in the Gita expresses grief at war very vividly. He sets out the folly of war better than I could do. He sounds very modern to me.

I am no pacifist. I accept that if we are attacked, we have to fight back. But the Bhagavad Gita questions the very essence of that. It asks what is the benefit of any attack? Nothing is worth it. The Hindu prince asks should we simply refuse to fight. Is pacifism better?

I have some sympathy for that view. Would rule by Hitler be so bad? Germans loved him. Was it worth all the bloodshed to defeat him? Hitler did after all initially just want to banish all the Jews to Palestine (The Haavara Agreement) but the British and others blocked that. Those are the sorts of doubt that the Hindu prince had in chapter 1 of the Gita. And a couple of hundred years later Jesus said much the same: "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38). That scripture has worried me since I was 14 and is why I was a pacifist in my teens

But the Gita said it first and said it much more vividly.

And in chapter 2 the Gita goes on to answer the pacifist doubts. It says your soul is indestructible so what you do in war can cause no serious harm. I don't believe in God or souls so that is no help to me. We atheists are stuck with reality.

I will read on



What if there’s a simple way to close the gap?

It is one of the ironies of life that those who need high quality education the least are also the ones most likely to get it.  Private schools undoubtedly help kids to learn and develop more effectively than do government schools.  Yet the kids in private schools usually come from wealthy homes where talent is  passed on both genetically and via a more learning-oriented environment

So it is a rather obvious idea to turn that on its head and give a quality education for the bottom rather than the top end of the social scale.  And the example below would seem to have reaped rich rewards from that approach.  It is likely however that the kids selected to benefit from the program were a carefully selected bunch and you can always get better results from selective admissions. The success of the strategy might in other words be limited to a small subset of poor students who were capable of using expanded opportunities.  Poor students can in some cases be quite bright.  I was one myself


Andrew Penfold’s ears pricked up last week when he heard federal Education Minister Jason Clare observing young Indigenous men are more likely to go to jail than university.

Clare said university costs taxpayers about $11,000 per year on average, per student.  Jail costs taxpayers $148,000 per prisoner, per year. For juvenile justice, it‘s $1 million a year, per kid.

Penfold got out his calculator.

To send an Indigenous child to one of the nation’s most prestigious schools costs his Australian Indigenous Education Foundation approximately $150,000.

That’s for six years – the entirety of high school.

And the 1200 students who’ve won an AIEF scholarship over the organisation’s 15-year history have an average 90 per cent school completion rate. This year it’s 93 per cent, with 50 bright young things to be celebrated at a graduation celebration on Monday night.

“Every single kid who goes to school, completes Year 12 and goes on to do something productive with their life, they then become an incredible role model in their family. And each time you change your family one by one, you change your whole community. The ripple effect of that is you actually are changing the country,” Penfold says.

That brings Penfold – who has a gift for making big things seem simple – to some intimidating numbers.

The Closing The Gap targets for education are that by 2031, 96 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people should have completed Year 12, and 70 per cent should have a tertiary qualification.

“We know from evidence that where Indigenous people are well-educated, including university and 12 completion, there really is no gap,” says Penfold, who with his wife Michelle quit a finance career in the late 2000s to devote himself to Indigenous education.

But, he says, “there needs to be an upstream supply”.

“If you don‘t have more kids completing year 12, you’re not going to be having the kids to go to university. Some years ago I saw some data that said to achieve the Year 12 Closing The Gap target only involves educating to Year 12 an additional 10,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids.

“So when you move away from talking in percentages and start talking about the number of students, it actually feels quite achievable. Of course we (AIEF) can’t do 10,000 on our own. But collectively there’s enough organisations out there that have got the track record to demonstrate that if there was further investment given, they would be able to close that gap.

“And literally the only thing holding that back is the funding.”

Indigenous graduates are now working as police officers, teachers, lawyers, doctors and academics.

And, like Brianna Dennis, community leaders.  Now 36, Dennis left Walgett, in NSW’s central west, in 1999 for St Scholastica’s in Sydney‘s Glebe.

“I was really, really excited, actually, for this new opportunity. I was only 11 years old.

“If I’d stayed back home – our family really struggled. I was lucky enough to grow up in a loving home. But the exposure from the educational opportunities presented to me have been critical.”

Dennis went to university and travelled the world after school – and was the first in her family to buy a home. She now lives in Dubbo as the district manager for MacKillop Family Service.

Dennis takes immense pride in seeing opportunity light up her girls Orani, eight and Nhalara, three.

“Both my daughters participate in gymnastics, something I always wanted to do as a child but didn’t have the opportunity locally, plus my family wouldn’t have been able to afford it. I am glad my children get to experience what I never could.”

Dennis knows sometimes parents are reluctant to let children leave home, for fear they may never return, but firmly believes connection to country cannot be extinguished.

“These educational opportunities are not something for communities to fear.

“Some kids will go away and then come back, and some will stay home and take other opportunities. And both are now enriching community life – in their own ways.”

Kodie Mason is one AIEF grad who has come home.

After St Vincent’s College in Sydney’s Potts Point, and a degree at UNSW, Mason is back in the vibrant Dharawal community around La Perouse, on Botany Bay’s northern edge.

She has started her own business, Malima, teaching traditional weaving techniques passed down in her family’s direct descent from the Dharawal people who first came into contact with the Endeavour‘s crew.

Through her community work, Mason was invited to write the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for her distant great-grandmother Biyarung ‘Biddy’ Giles, an expert fisherwoman and hunter who also founded her own business.

“She had a couple of boats, she was running fishing and hunting tours around Botany Bay, having her own business at a time when Aboriginal people were thought incapable.

“So looking at my life – I’ve got my own business, practising my culture, and sharing my knowledge.”

Between these two lives, two centuries apart, came the NSW Aborigines Protection Act, which allowed wholesale child removal and the dislocation of communities from traditional lands.

“We still feel those impacts today,” Mason says. “So to be able to go out and get a great education, and finish high school, go to university; I just feel so privileged.”

Mason is excited about the possibility of an Indigenous voice to parliament, and recently got to meet Anthony Albanese at the Garma festival in Arnhem Land.

“Our grandparents and great-grandparents; they’ve all been fighting to have a say in what happens and how they’re treated. I definitely think it will make a huge impact in Aboriginal communities across Australia, and we’ll start to see more positive outcomes for our people.”

If Andrew Penfold is the father of AIEF, Paul Hough is its godfather. The Marist brother was strongly influenced by Shirley ‘Mum Shirl’ Smith, the famous Redfern matriarch and prisoner advocate who raised scores of children in her own home, and reconciliation activist and priest Ted Kennedy.

In the 1970s Kennedy asked Hough to come and work with him in Redfern.  “I remember one night Father Ted looked across the table at me and said: ‘Why don’t you give all that (teaching) stuff away and come and work with us?’  “And I said ‘Ted, I appreciate your confidence but as Marists, we do it through education.”

That remark rang through Hough’s career for the next five decades as he pioneered Indigenous education programs from St Augustine’s in Cairns to St Gregory’s in Campbelltown.

He was leading St Joseph’s in Sydney’s Hunters Hill in the 2000s when Andrew Penfold, a Joey’s old boy, approached him with the wild idea to give up his job and volunteer at St Joseph’s in a bid to grow Indigenous enrolment.

“He came up with the idea of setting up a fund which would be $8 million,” Hough says.  “We thought that was probably the last we’d see of him for a while. Anyway, he came back in about 15 months’ time and said: ‘Guess what? I’ve got it.’ He went straight to the big end of town.  “He’s got the business brain, and he’s got the head that knows how to work it.”

Penfold is confident AIEF, which presently takes 350 students per annum, could grow to take 1000 a year on its present model of seeking Government funding which is matched dollar-for-dollar by fundraising.

Penfold is unashamedly “interested in scale”.  “It’s not because we are trying to be famous,“ Penfold says.  The more students we have, the more impact we make on changing the country.“

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/closing-the-gap-maybe-its-not-as-hard-as-we-think/news-story/39eecbfdaf5cc06651608f052f681b27

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

Another Sabbath thought


Did you know that, according to Genesis chapter 1 God did NOT create the heavens and the earth?  What's that?  You say.  What the heck am I talking about?

What I am talking about is what the original Hebrew  Bible says, not what the King James version or some other translation says.

You see, the original Hebrew Bible is very exact when it refers to God. It uses a specific name for him: "Yahveh" (or Jehovah in English).  I have a copy of the Hebrew Bible so does it anywhere in Genesis 1 mention the Tetragrammaton (Divine name in Hebrew)?  

It does not. The Tetragrammation is quite a short word, whereas Elohim is quite a long word.  You can't miss the difference.  What Genesis 1.1 to 1:3 says is that the Heavens and Earth were created by "Elohim", which in Hebrew means "gods", any gods.  Could be pagan gods.  Don't blame me.  That's what it says.

So what is going on?  Why is Genesis 1.1 to 1:3  so different from the rest of the Torah?  It's because that passage is what scholars politely call an  interpolation, in plain words a pious fraud.  It was not there when the original Torah was written.  It is a late addition, presumably put there by some priests.

The original creation story starts from Genesis 2:4.  And guess who gets a mention there straight away? Yahveh.  The divine name now appears.

So Genesis 1.1 to 1:3  is a document from somewhere much later than the rest of the Torah.  It dates from a time when Israelite priests had ceased using the divine name out of a fear of taking it in vain.  They used "Elohim" instead, as a respectful plural. It is quite a late document.

So Why?  Why did the priests do that? It's propaganda.  The Israelites have always had to exist among pagans and pagans all regard the Sun as a great god.  So they dedicate the first day of the week to him. So it has always been a battle for Israelites to defend their unique god.  

And one way they did that from early on was to defy custom and have their Holy day on the 7th day, not the 1st.  But that needed defending to the Israelite public.  They had to have a reason for celebrating the "wrong" day.  So in desperation the priests invented a story about God resting on the 7th day of  creation.  Keeping Saturday holy was simply following God's example.  Neat, eh?

I give a fuller account of the above matters here:

https://ntwords.blogspot.com/2017/03/#804425755551654534

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


Westpac customer calls out bank after teller's alarming question and claims they are 'punishing' him for using cash

Cautions used to prevent scams make sense but it is hard to see how the actions described below help anyone or anything. Bureaucratic stupidity would seem to be the best descriptions of them.  Banks should clearly have a better appeal process for such instances

In the circumstances, I am mildly surprised that when I recently transferred a sum in excess of  $10,000 to someone else I experienced no friction at all from CBA.  But I did put in the note field "school fees" so that was probably calming.  Expensive private school fees are well-known


An outspoken bank critic claims Westpac froze his accounts when he tried to withdraw $2,000 and would not allow the transaction until he told them what the money was for.

Author Crispin Rovere said it was only by showing the branch manager the publicity his previous run-in with Westpac generated that he was allowed access to his money.

'She then visibly panicked,' Mr Rovere told Daily Mail Australia.

However, he said he still had to wait 45 minutes before the manager came out and said the accounts were unfrozen.

'There is no conceivable explanation for this continued trespass other than seeking punish me for using cash,' Mr Rovere said.

A little more than a year ago Westpac froze his accounts when he tried to make a substantial cash deposit that was considerably less than the $10,000 threshold banks must report to the federal government. 

Mr Rovere said Westpac's 'anti-fraud team' were the stumbling block on both occasions and acted dismissively when he challenged them on their right to stop him using his funds the way he wanted.  

'The teller was in communication with the Westpac fraud team to get an explanation,' Mr Rovere said about the more recent funds denial.

'The fraud team demanded to know what the money was for. 

'When I said it wasn't any of their business the fraud team simply replied "if you are not willing to disclose what you want the money for we will not unfreeze you accounts. Thank you for contacting us, goodbye".'

It was then that Mr Rovere had to call in the manager. 

'I have since submitted another internal complaint regarding this incident but have yet to receive Westpac's reply,' Mr Rovere said. 

'Last time Westpac said that it was because the deposit was made from a state other than where it was opened. 'However, this time the freezing occurred when I was physically standing in a branch in the same state as the account was opened.'

Mr Rovere accused the bank of not being truthful when it issued him a statement about the block which read 'we've detected unusual online activity on your account'. 

'Westpac are straight liars,' he said.  'There was no "online activity" - I was literally standing in the branch in-person.' 

Mr Rovere is promoting a petition to federal Parliament that declares 'access to banking is a human right'.

'Banks must not be allowed to deny financial services to customers unless explicitly required by law,' the petition states.

Westpac said that 'due to confidentiality obligations we are unable to comment on individual customer matters'.

'In response to the high number of scams and fraud cases, we apply extra care to ensure the safety and security of customers,' a spokesperson said.

'This might include temporarily blocking an account when unusual activity is observed so relevant checks can be carried out.'

Last week TV personality Prue MacSween told Daily Mail Australia she had a similar experience where her 100-year-old mother was denied a substantial withdrawal unless she could answer questions on what she would be doing with the money.

'It's none of their God-damn business what she wants to do with it!' MacSween said.

'It's the Spanish Inquisition if you want to go in and take out a few grand you need a letter from your blasted mother telling you why you should be allowed to have the money. 

'It's just disgusting. It's your money and they are using it to make these huge profits and you have to justify why you are spending your money.

'I am offended we are all treated like we are money launderers for the simple act of wanting to take out money out.'

As further evidence of the control banks are asserting over their customers money last week Daily Mail Australia reported the Commonwealth Bank will limit customers from transferring more than $10,000 to crypto exchanges and associated websites.

A CBA spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia the move is to protect customers from scam risks by reducing the amount of money lost by customers. 

The spokesperson said the bank was trying to find a balance between keeping customers safe and minimising inconvenience. 

Other banks have used the same justification to impose similar blocks on certain sites, although without blanket transfer limits, and this has enraged Australia's crypto community.

Digital currency enthusiasts accused the banks of 'running scared' from a competitor that threatens to muscle in on the traditional financial industry.

'How does this actually help stop crypto scams? Blanket rules don't help anyone. Disgraceful,' crypto trader Ben Simpson posted online.

Daily Mail Australia also reported in June that the Commonwealth Bank reserves the right to stop transactions 'that in our opinion' are 'offensive, harassing or threatening to any person' or 'promotes or encourages physical or mental harm of any person'. 

A bank spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia the terms were to prevent 'to address the issue of financial abuse in the context of domestic and family violence'. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12403273/Westpac-customer-calls-bank-tellers-alarming-question-claims-punishing-using-cash.html

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

Voice referendum question likely ‘misleading, unconstitutional’, legal experts warn

What lies behind all the vagueness is that Albo is quietly aiming at something very big and controversial.  He wants the body of "advisers" formed by the bill as someone he can negotiate a "treaty" with, following the very damaging NZ example.  It is all about a creating a treaty with Aborigines, nothing else.  And there is no knowing what a treaty will do. Some extreme ideas have been put forward. It is dangerous racism


The wording of the Voice referendum question being put to Australian voters could be fundamentally “misleading” and unconstitutional because it fails to state the core function of the proposed body, according to one of the nation’s leading silks.

At the upcoming referendum, likely to be held in October or November, Australians will be asked to vote yes or no on a single question, “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Victorian barrister and constitutional law expert Stuart Wood KC, in a legal opinion for the conservative Institute of Public Affairs think tank published on Thursday, argued that the question “misleads and misinforms voters” and has a “serious deficiency” as it “fails to state the core function of the Voice”, and would be “open to challenge in the High Court of Australia”.

“In our view, the government’s proposed question misleads and misinforms voters about what they are being asked to approve at this year’s referendum,” Mr Wood said in the opinion, jointly written with barristers Paul Jeffreys and Jakub Patela.

“The central issue with the question is that, although it mimics the long title of the Bill, it fails to state the core function of the Voice, being to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

The question “instead, as presently framed, emphasises the notion of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with the establishing of the new body being only a symbolic step to achieve that aim”, they wrote.

“This is significant in circumstances where there is differential support amongst electors as to the concept of constitutional recognition, and the concept of a new constitutionally entrenched body,” the opinion said.

Assuming the proposed question remains deficient, they argue it would be “open to challenge by seeking relevant relief, such as a High Court declaration that an answer to the proposed question can not be taken to constitute approval of the proposed law, or an injunction preventing it being put to electors”.

Leading barrister Stuart Wood KC, left. Picture: Liam Kidston
Leading barrister Stuart Wood KC, left. Picture: Liam Kidston
The barristers suggested an alternative referendum question that could be put to voters instead.

“A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution by establishing a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice that, despite any Act of Parliament to the contrary, may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Daniel Wild, the IPA’s deputy executive director, said in a statement that the legal opinion showed “fundamental questions now hang over the constitutional validity of the Voice to Parliament referendum”.

“The federal government has sought to prevent the release of detail on the Voice to Parliament proposal at all costs,” Mr Wild said.

“Mr Wood KC’s advice demonstrates the attempts to shroud the danger and divisiveness of the proposal have created a questionable and contestable legal scenario. Every step of the way, the Prime Minister, and Voice to Parliament advocates, have sought to deny Australians basic details, to stack the deck in favour of the Yes case, refused to answer rudimentary questions, and have admitted to not fully reading critical documentation on key legal matters.”

The IPA has called on the government to revise the question before the vote is held.

The legal opinion comes after Mr Wood earlier this year claimed that the “gravy train” of government work created a “big incentive” for barristers to support the Voice to Parliament.

“If you’re a sensible person making decisions about wanting to get onto the gravy train of government work, you’re not going to put sand in the gears,” he told Sky News.

“You’re going to tend to do the sort of things that make you more attractive to the biggest client in town.”

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/voice-referendum-question-likely-misleading-unconstitutional-legal-experts-warn/news-story/77fb2ffc944d928e562af0d38d9c464b

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

The old air pollution boogeyman rides again


For many years now, I have been reviewing studies of air pollution.  Both Greenies and health advocates abhor it.  But the research results are always disappointing.  The ideal research result would be a demonstration that motor vehicle emissions give you cancer but there is no solid proof of that. Pollution repeatedly turns out to be peskily harmless.  But no-one believes that.  So they keep on doing studies to prove their point.  One such is below. They hypothesize that air pollution sends you gaga.

Does it?   It's another geography study.  It tests your health according to where you live.  It does NOT detect your personal exposure to air pollution.  So that is a major flaw.  But its conclusions are still amusing.  They found no effect from most sources of pollution -- with one exception:  Dust that farmers kick up when plowing etc.  Avoid farms or lose your marbles!

As I said, the results are shaky anyway  -- with their lack of personal data -- so I would not start demonizing farmers yet. The global warming folk demonize them enough already.  And farm populations may be more prone to dementia anyway


I probably should note again why I think air  pollution is so harmless:  It is because human beings have been sitting around smoky campfires for about a million years.  Over that time they have adapted to all the resultant pollution they inhale.  Basically, they just cough it up.  Looking at the big picture does help, doesn't it?


Comparison of Particulate Air Pollution From Different Emission Sources and Incident Dementia in the US

Boya Zhang et al

Question  Are long-term exposures to particulate air pollution from different emission sources associated with incident dementia?

Findings  In this nationally representative cohort study in the US, higher residential levels of fine particulate matter were associated with greater rates of incident dementia, especially for fine particulate matter generated by agriculture and wildfires.

Meaning  These findings support the hypothesis that airborne particulate matter pollution is associated with the likelihood of developing dementia and suggest that selective interventions to reduce pollution exposure may decrease the life-long risk of dementia; however, more research is needed to confirm these relationships.

Abstract
Importance  Emerging evidence indicates that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution may increase dementia risk in older adults. Although this evidence suggests opportunities for intervention, little is known about the relative importance of PM2.5 from different emission sources.

Objective  To examine associations of long-term exposure of total and source-specific PM2.5 with incident dementia in older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The Environmental Predictors of Cognitive Health and Aging study used biennial survey data from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2016, for participants in the Health and Retirement Study, which is a nationally representative, population-based cohort study in the US. The present cohort study included all participants older than 50 years who were without dementia at baseline and had available exposure, outcome, and demographic data between 1998 and 2016 (N = 27 857). Analyses were performed from January 31 to May 1, 2022.

Exposures  The 10-year mean total PM2.5 and PM2.5 from 9 emission sources at participant residences for each month during follow-up using spatiotemporal and chemical transport models.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The main outcome was incident dementia as classified by a validated algorithm incorporating respondent-based cognitive testing and proxy respondent reports. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for incident dementia per IQR of residential PM2.5 concentrations using time-varying, weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with adjustment for the individual- and area-level risk factors.

Results  Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age, 61 [10] years; 15 747 [56.5%] female), 4105 (15%) developed dementia during a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.2 [5.6] years. Higher concentrations of total PM2.5 were associated with greater rates of incident dementia (HR, 1.08 per IQR; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). In single pollutant models, PM2.5 from all sources, except dust, were associated with increased rates of dementia, with the strongest associations for agriculture, traffic, coal combustion, and wildfires. After control for PM2.5 from all other sources and copollutants, only PM2.5 from agriculture (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27) and wildfires (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) were robustly associated with greater rates of dementia.

Conclusion and Relevance  In this cohort study, higher residential PM2.5 levels, especially from agriculture and wildfires, were associated with higher rates of incident dementia, providing further evidence supporting PM2.5 reduction as a population-based approach to promote healthy cognitive aging. These findings also indicate that intervening on key emission sources might have value, although more research is needed to confirm these findings.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2808088

Wife slammed for telling other women to date rich men

This advice is not uncommon  but is not really smart.  Very rich men tend to be spoilt and sometimes go broke so are not a good target.  A well-off but not super-rich man would probably be a better deal.  And you might actually get real affection with it.  Real affection beats any number of helicopter rides (etc.)


A self-proclaimed “femininity influencer” is being slammed online for her advice to women they should only date men who are cashed up.

Digs like “gold digger,” “delusional” and “money dog,” are being savagely slingshotted at a self-crowned femininity influencer after she advised women to aviod dating “broke men”.

Sofia Kralow praised her husband for his deep pockets and went viral recently for encouraging women against dating guys without cash but her unsolicited advice just isn’t clicking with keyboard critics.

“Daily reminder to never date broke men,” urged TikTok tastemaker Sofia Kralow, based in Dubai, in the on-screen text of her controversial clip, New York Post reported.

The trending footage, which has stacked up over 1.3 million views, features the brunette being lavished with helicopter rides, designer accessories, luxury cars and wads of cash via husband Thomas Kralow, an affluent hedge fund manager and YouTuber.

“Raise your standards,” she penned in the caption, punctuating her pearls of wisdom with hashtags such as “#PrincessTreatment,” “#Goals,” and “#Millionaire.”

As a finishing touch, Kralow — who, in other clips, unabashedly flaunts the posh perks of being a wealthy man’s wife such as hulking bouquets of roses, exotic vacations, enviable spa treatments and fistfuls of dough — topped off the post with a remixed sound bite of rapper Latto coquettishly saying, “Thank you to my man”.

But rather than being dazzled by her glamorous trappings, women were disappointed in Kralow’s presumed financial dependence.

“No thanks I rather have my own money and be in love,” wrote a self-sufficient naysayer in the comments.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/dating/wife-slammed-for-telling-other-women-to-date-rich-men/news-story/bd543cee61ff4c4de0029c4b02d3afbc

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

Why food prices could surge as farms are forced to close by 2030 under a plan by Labor Party activists


This policy is unlikely to get up but we have seen where Green attacks on orthodox farming have led in SriLanka -- to some real starvation. In Australia the effect would probably be just to jack up food prices. As if we haven't already had enough of that! It would be a great election-loser. It's a good comment on the unrealistic thinking of the Left that they are advocating a policy that would lose them the next election.

Food prices could surge as farms are forced to close by 2030 - leading to mass job losses - if radical Labor Party environmental activists get their way.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government is already committed to reducing carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, with support from the Greens.

But the Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) wants carbon emissions slashed by an even more dramatic 50 per cent within six-and-a-half years as part of its 'climate, clearing and cows' campaign.

LEAN has support from 350 Labor Party branches and is urging them to push that motion at Labor's national conference being held in Brisbane this week.

With federal Labor under threat from the Greens in Byron Bay and inner-city areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, there are fears middle-class, left-wing activists within the party could prevail.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, whose gentrified electorate of Sydney overlaps with the Greens-held state seat of Newtown, was photographed at a LEAN event in 2016 holding a sign touting 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

While 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030 is less contentious, it is part of LEAN's '50/50 branch motion' campaign to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2030.

National Farmers Federation president Fiona Simson said the push to halve carbon pollution in little more than six years could result in much higher food prices as farms are forced to close by 2030.

'This motion is about taking farms out of production, killing jobs and pushing up food prices,' she said. 'This is not a sensible policy for a mainstream political party.

'Voting this through would be an open-armed embrace of fringe views that are anti-science and anti-farming. It's as simple as that.'

LEAN describes land use as one of two major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, along with energy consumption, and is campaigning to halve agricultural carbon pollution describing it as 'cows; their burps and farts'.

'Around 51 per cent of Australia's methane emissions come from agriculture, primarily as a by-product of the way cows and sheep digest food,' it said. 'They burp and fart methane into the atmosphere.'

Ms Simson said truck drivers and port stevedores would also be out of work as a result of these policies.

'We're not just talking about farming jobs, but also in trucking, in stevedoring and of course in meat processing – our largest manufacturing industry.'

This would threaten unionised jobs and affect members of the left-wing Maritime Union of Australia who work on the ports, along with truck drivers with the Transport Workers Union and meat processors belonging to the Australian Workers Union.

Ms Simson said Labor Party delegates needed to keep jobs in mind as the party of trade unions.

'Delegates need to be clearheaded about what really matters to Australians and what the ALP stands for,' she said.

'Is it protecting jobs and tackling the cost of living?

'Or pleasing environmental outliers who have turned their back on science and common sense?'

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

A mushroom cook and her killer family lunch that left three dead: The mysterious case gripping Australia

Not sure why this is a mystery.  It was clearly an attempted  murder of her ex -- who wisely stayed away after previous bad experience of her cookery.  The fact that she herself was alone unaffected is also grounds for grave suspicion

It was supposed to be a family meal where differences could be reconciled and future plans made for the sake of the estranged couple’s children.

Instead, it kicked off events that could have come straight out of a murder mystery novel or the board game Clue.

Four of the five people sat around the table fell gravely ill, three of them later dying with the fourth left fighting for his life.

The fifth, meanwhile, appeared to escape unscathed – curiously the very same person who prepared and cooked the meal for the other four guests.

What has since emerged is a bizarre case that continues to enthrall people all across the globe – involving mushroom poisoning, a series of deaths, a tearful interview and now reports of a past mystery illness.

It all began one fateful day on 29 July, when Erin Patterson prepared a special meal of beef Wellington with “lots of mushrooms” for lunch at her home in Leongatha, a rural town in the Australian state of Victoria.

Present at the church-mediated lunch — set up to sort out visitation rights for her two children — were her in-laws Gail and Don Patterson, both 70, Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, and her husband Ian, 68.

All four of her elderly in-laws fell violently ill that night from suspected mushroom poisoning.

Gail, Don and Heather, all teachers, died in hospital days later, while Ian, a local pastor, has been left fighting for his life.

Erin’s estranged husband Simon Patterson had skipped out on the meal at the last moment, while the couple’s two children had also left their mother’s home to see a movie just before the meat and pastry dish was served.

Victoria Police have since launched a homicide investigation, and at a press conference last week confirmed Ms Patterson is a suspect in the killings.

Erin, an experienced wild mushroom forager, reportedly told investigators she used dried fungi that she had purchased months earlier from an Asian grocery store and a fresh button variety bought recently from a local supermarket.

She later admitted lying to investigators about dumping a food dehydrator used to prepare the meal in a local refuse site after the deaths, according to the ABC.

In a statement obtained by the Australian public broadcaster, she said she was at the hospital with her children “discussing the food dehydrator” when her former husband asked: “Is that what you used to poison them?”

The 48-year-old mother-of-two has vehemently maintained her innocence, and in an interview this week claimed she is unfairly being painted as an “evil witch”.

As the poisoning mystery has shaken the small rural community 136kms southeast of Melbourne, and gripped Australian and international media, more disturbing details continue to emerge – with Simon Patterson now claiming that he once spent 16 days in an induced coma from a mystery gastro illness after eating food prepared by his wife.

Deadly dinner party

In a police statement obtained by the ABC, Erin reportedly told investigators that she had prepared a meal of beef Wellington with a “lot of mushrooms”.

Erin claimed she had purchased dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer several months ago, and button mushrooms from a local supermarket recently – using both in the dish.

Yet she reportedly could not remember exactly where she had bought them, according to the ABC.

She stated that she stored the dried mushrooms at a home she owns in Melbourne, before bringing them to the home in Leongatha.

“I used the dried mushrooms as they been in my cupboard for some time and I wanted to use them up. I rehydrated them and put them into the dish with the mushrooms that I had bought at [the supermarket],” according to the ABC.

Don and Gail Patterson died after eating poisoned mushrooms at Erin Patterson’s home in Victoria, Australia, on 29 July.
— (Supplied)
Erin said she served the others and allowed them to select their own plates, before taking the last plate.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/a-mushroom-cook-and-her-killer-family-lunch-that-left-three-dead-the-mysterious-case-gripping-australia/ar-AA1foMHy

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

Balneology etc


A person I respect has recently undergone balneology at Aix-Les-Bains and claims benefit from it, so it has attracted my interest

Criticism has long been a basic element in scientific progress and I have been publishing criticisms of what I regard as shoddy science since the 1970s.

But much criticism of scientific claim seems to be frowned on these days.  Criticize Global warming, transsexualism, critical race theory etc and you may well suffer serious consequences  -- loss of job etc.

I have however been unbowed by such strictures and have continued to defend real science.  But what I want to derogate today is a lot safer.  I refer to a popular European health practice,  one that is particularly popular in Germany

Germans are great fans of herbal and other "alternative" health treatments and there may be some real basis for some of them but the faith they attract is massive.  You have no idea of what Camomile tea can do, for instance.  It does nothing for me.

And balneology is so popular in Germany that you can get prescribed it on the government's dime.  Balneology is the centuries-old practice of "taking the waters".  There are many natural hotsprings or "Spas" in Europe and Europeans have long believed that dipping yourself in the waters concerned gives health benefits.

That is in principle dubious.  The whole function of the skin is to keep what is underneath it from any external influences.  So how is mineralized water supposed to break through that barrier and have some influence?  There may be some rare molecules that can defeat the skin barrier but the simple salts in spa water would seem to be the least probable such influences, though the radioactive ones might be another matter.

There have of course been studies to check on the efficacy of balneology but none have come up with anything conclusive.

In some spas you do get to drink the water but that is a different issue.  You could drink the same water out of a bottle at home. No need to attend a spa.

But taking the waters may have other benefits.  It is generally experienced as a relaxing holiday and relaxation can have real benefits

Community upheaval as great Australian home ownership dream dies

Gottliebson rightly notes below that in Australia from here-on, it is going to be impossible from many young people to leave home.  I and my contemporaries back in the '60s left home at age 16.  Why?  Because we could. Affordable rental accommodation was available -- even if only in a boarding house.  That liberty is gone.  The ever-growing power of ham-fisted governments has  destroyed housing availability

For young people who do not have accommodating parents or available parents of any sort the only alternative is going to be shared accommodation, and that can be a difficult experience.  So the aristocracy of the future is going to be those who have wise parents.  If your parents worked and saved during their lifetime and were then able to buy and pay off a comfortable home, you too will be able to live in comfort and may inherit that home when they die.

But there will be many outside that aristocracy.  There are always many people who become parents while poor who remain poor.  They will have no advantage to offer their children.  And even if you are lucky enough to get into social housing, your problems may not be over.  Both the the quality of the housing and the quality of your neigbours will often be a problem.  Welfare housing can be hell:  Drugs, crime, violence, noise etc

So privilege in society will be more and more a function of your housing.  If you have inherited comfortable and secure housing, you will be sitting pretty.  If not you will face perennial difficulties.  You may in some cases be capable enough to earn a high income and thus be able to break out of your inherited trap by buying a house of your own but that will be rare



The national concentration on issues like interest rates, inflation and the referendum is obscuring the fact that the Australian community of 2024 will be different to anything we have seen in the post WWII era.

Bankers tell me that in most cases couples on average incomes cannot obtain the finance to buy a capital city dwelling unless it is rundown or very small.

Renters aged in their late 40s find the finance door has been shut and they can no longer buy the most valuable asset they can have for retirement – a dwelling.

Accordingly, they must live with their family, rent and later get themselves into an aged care facility. The social ramifications of these fundamental changes are only just emerging.

Another fundamental change is also taking place. The affluent people in the community have cut back their spending partly because they fear a significant downturn and partly as almost a social contribution to help the Reserve Bank. Perhaps they know their children/grandchildren will need help.

In part the politicians of both major parties plus the regulator APRA have been key contributors to this state of affairs and so altering the environment will require them to change their policies.

In the case of home loans the “risk buffer” APRA requires banks to calculate over and above the interest rate being charged means that the interest rate calculations for loan eligibility are now around 10 per cent.

That means few people on average incomes can pass the test.

Meanwhile, partly as a result, we are set to experience a build for rent boom in our major cities, although in Sydney the bureaucracy mess which delays approvals and contributes to higher building costs will need to be first dismantled.

And to all that we can add higher power prices because of the renewables cost miscalculations.

In recent weeks I have been writing about the components of this social change on an individual event basis, but it is now time to stand back and look at what is happening overall.

We went through a period of unlimited bank credit to buy dwellings and a great many people purchased dwellings on loans that they now are having difficulty servicing.

After the banking royal commission and when rates were low, APRA set interest rate rules for home lending that are now making it impossible for ordinary Australians with good jobs to buy dwellings.

In normal times that would cause the dwellings to fall in price to bring those people back into the market. But a series of events including the crashes of building companies and difficulties in getting approvals has cut back supply and at the same time there has been a huge rise in migration.

Accordingly, dwelling prices have not fallen and indeed in recent times the prices have risen slightly. The banks want to lend more for housing but are not able to do so.

Unless the rules are changed bank profits are going to be tightened because their past great driver of profitability – home loans – particularly in Sydney – will be a low growth earner. Non bank lenders with higher funding costs will fill some of the gap.

But we will become much more of rental a society.

Accordingly, first overseas institutions and later our local institutions will build large complexes on a ‘build for rent’ basis so creating a very different Australian society to anything we have seen post war.

The process of course may be delayed if politicians make more mistakes by trying to artificially push down rents rather than foster greater supply. .

One of the great drivers of the Australian nation has been the belief that if a couple had reasonable jobs, they would be able to buy a house or an apartment. In turn that has been a major force in the aspirations of Australians. I fear that if it is removed then Australia will be a far less aspirational nation and that will reduce the productivity in smaller enterprises, large companies and of course the public service. That’s an assumption that will be legitimately debated.

Leaving that aside, clearly, we need more rental stock, and we will also need to make a decision as to whether we want to reserve home ownership to the affluent. And if that happens then don’t be surprised by further rises in the sort of community upheavals we are now starting to see particularly among males. (of course, the reason for those upheavals extends beyond housing issues).

But the group of people that I really feel sorry for are individuals and they can be couples but are often single females who suddenly discover that banks are not allowed to lend to them because they are too old to take out a 30-year loan.

And that leads us to a pillar that may be required to change if we want to restore a situation where people with reasonable jobs can buy a house. We established our superannuation movement in an era where people could buy dwellings. In my view the superannuation movement must now be adjusted to help members buy dwellings because superannuation has always been a secondary aid in retirement. The first essential is a dwelling. In future commentaries I will look at ways that this might be done.

Last month the retail network explained to me that their affluent customers had money but were holding back spending. That has now been confirmed in the banking figures --- the affluent are increasing their savings rate. They maybe be back in the market either late this year or in 2024.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/community-upheaval-as-great-australian-home-ownership-dream-dies/news-story/6d431f7dc763ddaf56a433855fab24d5

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

The Man Behind the Curtain


By: Judd Garrett

I don't entirely agree with this article. It is painfully obvious that Biden is gaga but who is writing his speeches? Garret is drawing a long bow in identifying  Obama but I am inclined to think it is simpler than that.  I think that some of Biden's closest advisers are very Leftist and it is they who are putting the words into Biden's mouth.  Just who is the closest adviser we do not know as yet,  There have been various suggestions so we may just have to wait and see



In the 1939 classic movie, the Wizard of Oz, in the climactic scene at the end of the movie, when Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion, finally meet with the all-powerful Wizard of Oz whom they all hope will solve their problems, they stand before a gigantic screen, with the Wizard’s enormously round face projected on it, speaking to them in a loud ominous voice with fire and smoke flashing all around. As the Wizard is rejecting their requests, Dorothy’s dog, Toto, jumps out of her arms, runs off to the side of the big screen, and pulls back a curtain revealing a little man, pushing and pulling different levers. The voice from the big screen, tells the group, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” The little man behind the curtain was, in fact, projecting onto the screen, the image of himself as the all-powerful Wizard of Oz that they were all terrified of. It was all a fraud.
 
In an article released this week by historians, David Samuel and David Garrow, it was revealed that Barack Obama is currently “serving as a third-term president in all but name, running the government from his iPhone.” This aligns with his wishes that he revealed to Stephen Colbert in a 2015 interview when he mused, “I used to say if I can make an arrangement where I had a stand-in or front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in, and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff, and I could sort of deliver the lines while someone was doing all the talking and ceremony… I’d be fine with that because I found the work fascinating.” Most people who observe the political landscape with their eyes and ears open, and are not blinded by their partisanship, realized over two years ago that this is what the Biden presidency actually was – Biden is the avatar for Obama’s third term. There are many so-called journalists who work in the mainstream media who have collectively decided to ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, pulling the levers of our government.’
 
Joe Biden is the perfect politician to play the figurehead for Barack Obama. Any politician worth their salt – and Joe Biden is clearly not worth his salt – would refuse to play the fraudulent role that Joe Biden is willingly playing right now. Gavin Newsom wouldn’t do it. If he were elected President, he would want to be the President. He would have the job and the title of the most powerful man in the free world, so he wouldn’t sit idly by taking orders from someone who isn’t the President of the United States. That’s why the Democrat party has hesitated in replacing Joe Biden when it is clear to everyone, he is a bad candidate, an unpopular President, and will most likely be completely catatonic by the year 2028. Joe obliges because he knows that there is no other way that he would have become President other than this charade. So, Obama needs to do anything possible to push Biden across the finish line one more time so he can serve his fourth term.
 
This is another reason why I believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Any politician who campaigned legitimately and won the Presidential election legally would never allow a former President to call the shots in his administration. Biden is allowing that to happen because he knows that his entire election is fraudulent. It was Barack Obama’s voter fraud apparatus that ushered Biden into the White House, which in turn, makes Joe beholden to Barack, causing him to allow Obama to call all the shots. Joe knows that if he doesn’t do as he’s told, Obama will pull the rug out from under him. If Biden had actually won legitimately, he would turn to Obama and tell him, “I’m the President now, you sit off to the side and be quiet.” Ronald Reagan was not calling the shots in the George HW Bush White House. If he were, Bush probably would’ve been reelected in 1992.
 
Everything about Joe Biden is fraudulent. Joe Biden‘s entire political career has been mired in dishonesty. Biden has been selling influence from his political office to enrich himself and his family for the last 40 years. We all know that Joe Biden could not possibly get 81,000,000 legitimate votes. We all know that Joe Biden is not running our country. He couldn’t run a lemonade stand. He doesn’t know that he’s President half the time. He can barely spit out a coherent sentence. He’s been caught on camera, shaking hands with people who aren’t even there. His face is frozen in a deer-in-the-headlights look. Barack Obama is the puppet master, and Joe Biden is the willing puppet.
 
Biden made himself a puppet 35 years ago when he stole the speeches of accomplished politicians like British politician, Neil Kinnick, and also the speeches of John F Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. By doing that, he made the statement that ‘I cannot speak for myself, I need the words of other, smarter people to speak for me.’ He was plagiarizing – pawning off the words of others as his own – all the way back in law school. And that is what Biden continues to do being Obama’s puppet. How ironic is it that the one Democratic challenger that Biden is facing in this primary season is Robert Kennedy Jr, the son of the politician from whom Biden stole the speeches in 1988 which forced him to drop out of the Presidential primaries back then.
 
So, we hear a lot about threats to our democracy (which we are not) and threats to our elections, but what is playing itself out right now at Pennsylvania Avenue where the person who has the title of President, actually, isn’t the President, and another politician, who wasn’t elected to be President is working behind the scenes, as President, is the real threat to our political system. The most important part of our political system is the people’s ability to hold our politicians accountable. So, when the person who is calling all the shots is hiding behind a curtain, and never asked a question about any decision that he makes, his feet are never held to the fire for any of the problems that his decisions have created, we no longer have a democratic system, we no longer have a Constitutional Republic. We have a banana republic.
 
And that is what we have become over the last three years. This administration, run by Obama, is actually indicting, arresting, and trying to throw political opponents into prison for the rest of their lives for their political speech. Last week, Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump was charged with defrauding the federal government and defrauding our election system. As always, the Democrats will accuse the Republicans of doing what they themselves are doing. Barack Obama calling the shots in the White House behind the scenes, and Joe Biden, simply being a figurehead, is defrauding the United States federal government, and defrauding our election system. Like Joe Biden, everything about Barack Obama is fraudulent.
 
His policies which are run through the Biden administration, have caused over 5 million illegal immigrants to walk into our country over the last 2 ½ years with the sole purpose of changing the racial dynamic in our country under the guise of that “diversity is our strength“. But diversity is not our strength, unity is our strength. We are the United States of America, with the emphasis on “United”. As the saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.” And the man behind the curtain, pulling the levers of our government is hell-bent on dividing our country, so he can destroy our country because he hates our country. In 2008, his wife, Michelle said, that the first time she was ever proud of our country was when her husband won the presidency. Does that mean that only 45 wives should be proud of their country? Obama is determined to bring in millions and millions more illegal immigrants into the country because he knows that very few of those illegal immigrants have the love and respect for our country that citizens need to have for America to remain united and strong. They will eventually cause our country to implode because their loyalties are elsewhere.
 
At the end of the movie, it was revealed that each of the characters looking to the Wizard of Oz to solve their problems had the power to solve their own problems themselves. The Scarecrow was in fact smart; the Tin Man did indeed have a heart; the Cowardly Lion was actually very courageous; and Dorothy had the power to go home all along. The problems that each of them looked to the Wizard to solve were either not problems at all or could be solved by themselves without any help from the all-powerful Wizard. And that is true in our country as well. Most of the problems that we turn to the government to solve are either not problems – fictions created by the government to scare the people into giving them more power – or are problems that are best addressed and solved by the people themselves without the damaging help of the all-powerful government. But the leftist politicians must maintain the fiction of the all-powerful government who can fix all problems in order to cling to the power over us that they so desperately crave. When in reality, the government is just a group of elected and non-elected citizens who are no smarter and no more moral than the average citizen walking the streets. When we remove the pomp, the circumstance, the smoke and mirrors of the government, each politician and each government official look as small and as powerless as the man behind the curtain in the land of Oz.

https://juddgarrett.substack.com/p/the-man-behind-the-curtains


Sexual abuse hysteria in the Church of England finally put right

Sex-related hysteria resulting in the defamation of the innocent has recently come undone in Australia's  Higgins/Lehrman affair.  See below about that: 

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com/2023/08/drumgold-rise-and-fall-of-boy-from-mt.html

But the C of E got there first with abominable zeal to convict a genuinely holy man on no good evidence. "The woman must be believed" was again the poisonous basis for action. Who ever heard of a lying woman? I have posted previously on the matter.  The source articles are below</i>

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/24/archbishop-canterbury-apologises-unreservedly-coes-mistakes/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3501953/Church-England-wrong-smear-sex-abuse-bishop-group-lawyers-politicians-church-leaders-say-allegation-upheld-question-named.html


Last week, 4 Canon Lane, Chichester, was renamed George Bell House. It had been called 4 Canon Lane since 2016. Before that, it had been called George Bell House. This forth-and-back reflects the strange sequence of events. 

In 2015, the diocese paid compensation to ‘Carol’ for an alleged sexual assault by Bell, when Bishop of Chichester, in the late 1940s or thereabouts. In that year, the present Bishop of Chichester also gave her a formal apology. Bell had died, unaccused, in 1958. 

The church process by which he was posthumously convicted nearly 60 years later had not included anyone speaking on his behalf. A number of us, one or two of whom had known Bell, started an informal group to clear his name. We were confident that the accusation was false and certain that the process had been wrong. 

The latter point was conceded by the Church after a fine review by Lord Carlile. The former was not. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, asserted that a ‘significant cloud’ still hung over Bell. He finally retracted this in November 2021. 

By then, poor Bell had been unpersoned by the diocese – his name, which had been hallowed, effaced. George Bell House, founded to promote his interest in vocation, education and reconciliation, was one example. 

The re-renaming all but completes the formal restoration of Bell’s reputation. The Chapter of the cathedral, especially the interim Dean, Simon Holland, deserves credit, because this change was resisted in some quarters. The innocent man won in the end. 

I hope history will record this fully. If, for example, you look online at the ICSA report on child abuse, which made Bell one of its cases, you will not pick up the vital fact that Bell did not abuse anybody. 

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/the-spectators-notes-280/


Russian star soprano refused to repudiate Putin, so the Metropolitan Opera dropped her. Now she's suing


The new respectable form of bigotry: Anti-Russian bigotry. I have three Russian friends so this grieves me. Why should individual Russians be oppressed just because the present tyrant of their country has behaved abominably? Why should individual Russians be asked to criticize their government when doing so would risk their lives and liberty in their beloved homeland? It is totally unjust

Netrebko is a world-famous soprano. Her art in opera is supreme. So anti-Russian bigotry against her is particularly deplorable. She has done nothing to hurt anyone. She is just a dear little thing who sings. She is simply preserving her safety in her homeland by going silent on Putin

See her below in a famous duet with Dmitri Hvorostovsky




The Metropolitan Opera last year cut ties with Russian star soprano Anna Netrebko after she refused the general manager's demand that she repudiate Russia President President Vladimir Putin over the invasion of Ukraine.

Now Netrebko is suing, the Associated Press reported.

Her suit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan is against the Met and its general manager Peter Gelb, alleges defamation, breach of contract, and other violations, and asks for at least $360,000 in damages for lost performance and rehearsal fees, the AP said.

Netrebko claims the Met caused ”severe mental anguish and emotional distress” that included “depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, and emotional pain and suffering," the AP added.

“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Met and Peter Gelb have used Anna Netrebko as a scapegoat in their campaign to distance themselves from Russia and to support Ukraine,” the management of the 51-year-old soprano said in a statement, according the AP.

The suit also notes that “due to the Met’s requirement that Netrebko issue public statements opposing the actions of Russian government, Russian politicians have denounced Netrebko, Russian theater companies have canceled contracts with her, Russian audiences have criticized her on her social media channels and in the Russian press, and Netrebko and her family and friends in Russia have suffered the risk of harm, retaliation, and retribution by the Russian government," the AP also reported.

The Met said in a statement, according to the outlet, that “Ms. Netrebko’s lawsuit has no merit.”

After Netrebko withdrew from Met performances over the Putin issue, Gelb last year told the AP that "it is a great artistic loss for the Met and for opera. Anna is one of the greatest singers in Met history, but with Putin killing innocent victims in Ukraine, there was no way forward.” Gelb also told the outlet at the time that the Met would not engage artists who back Putin.

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

Additionally ...


Ok. Ok..  I have had a bit of correspondence about my recent posts involving mention of my personal life.  Several men have been fascinated by my story of finding an attractive female form under the covers of my bed when I got home.  They want to know how they can arrange something similar!  Seriously, though, despite having only average looks I have had a lot of fine women flitting in and out of my life over the years, including 4 marriages.  My life story would make incels suicidal.  So how do I do it?

I can and will give an exact and succinct answer to that but before I do, I want to stress that I personally do NOT regard myself as a great success with women.  I see myself as more of a failure.  As my 4 marriages attest, I am very marriage-minded and at age 80 I find myself unmarried.  That is a great regret to me.  I do still have 4 fine women calling on me regularly but none stay all day which is what I would like.

So on to the point of this post:  How have I managed to attract many fine women into my life?  I am afraid my answer is a rather brutal one, that will not be of much help to anyone else.  I have always said that I am attractive to only about 2% of women but 2% is a lot of women. So who are those 2%?  They are unusually bright women.  

Women greatly dislike having man in their life who is dumber than they are and in the end they usually cannot stand it.  They just cannot respect him.  And the smarter the woman gets the bigger the problem that is for her.  The top-scoring ones have a devil of a job finding a man who is at least as smart as they are.  Smart men are a small minority to start with and such men often use their smarts to find a suitable lady fairly early on in life so are not long "on the market".

And that is where I come in. I am a genuine top-scorer in IQ.  I ran Sydney Mensa for a number of years.  So when a very bright lady encounters me it can be like finding water in the desert to her.  And I don't have to be all that good in other ways -- such as looks.  For the sake of having conversations on her own level, she will put up with a lot.

Let me give just two examples of the sort of conversation concerned:

I was sitting in her living-room with a very highly educated lady.  We were both reading but reading different things.  She piped up at one stage and asked me:  "What does "peynted" mean?  I replied immediatey:  "It is Middle English for "painted".  That was the correct answer and what she needed -- as she had been trying to decipher a Middle English poem at the time. But 99% of women would not even know what Middle English was.  They would certainly not be prone to reading poetry written 600 years ago.  But high IQ people can be  that weird

Another episode was with one of my current girlfriends.  She is very bright and intellectual but is from Serbia.  So her cultural awareness is East of most of mine -- from Germany to Russia.  She has only a nodding acquaintance with English literature. So  recently she asked me something about Rilke.  Rilke who?  Rainer  Maria Rilke to be precise.  I not only knew who he was but had read some of his poems in the original German.  I even showed off a bit by pronouncing his name using <i>Die gehobene Sprache</i>, which was more than she can do.

So very bright women can be very advantageous.  They are usually pretty good-looking too.  But to be accepted by them you usually need to be on their level or higher and only your genes can take you there.  I do know women who have accepted a less intelligent man into their lives in return for various advantages but they know the bargain they have struck and live with it.  They are however derisive of their man on occasions, which is sad.

Forgiving infidelity


I have  little to say about infidelity in marriages and other committed relationships because  my morality is very old fashioned.  Once in a committed relationship I don't usually look aside.  I am not "unfaithful" so there is never anything to forgive.  When women leave me they will usually have some gripes but infidelity is not one of them

But I am not always in committed relationships.  In the interval between such relationships it is not unusual for me to have two or three girlfriends at the same time.  And that is  a situation where women might conceivably feel hard done by and feel anger at the "betrayal"  So I think I might have something to add to the discussion below.

I think the discussion below is pretty moronic.  It presents itself as new and exciting wisdom but in a nutshell simply says that infidelity should be forgiven because the unfaithful one is simply "finding" themselves.  That would have to be the oldest excuse for infidelity in the book and does not even to touch on the big problem of infidelity:  The loss of trust.

It appears close to universal that lying and deception is associated with infidelity.  An unfaithful man will hide his affair from his wife for some time.  And it will be devastating to the wife when she discovers the deception.  A man in whom she confided her trust was not trustworthy at all and that will tend to upset her entire mental world.  She will have lost her condidence in her own judgment.  And recovery  from that will be very difficult and bromides about the man "finding himself" will be no help at all

So what can a man do to prevent such a devasting upset in someone for whom he still presumably cares?  I have an answer to that and it has always worked wonders for me: I don't lie to women.  And that is not as hard to do as you might think.  

Let's say you met a gorgeous female on a business trip and coupled with her.    What I would do would be to to tell immediately the other woman or women in my life something like:   "Sweetheart, I met this  attractive woman on my trip and we did go to bed together.  I think it will be a passing thing but at any event I will not hide it from you. I will make sure that you are kept aware of anything relevant."  

The admission might be upsetting but her confidence in you as honest and trustworthy will have been preserved. You will gain credit as an honest man. There may still be upset about your revelation  but the lady with be profoundly comforted by your trust in telling her everything.  You will be trusted in return.

And even in a committed relationship that strategy should be enormously beneficial.  What works for me in more casual relationships should work well in general.  It is certainly what I would recommend

And let me allude once more to what I pointed out recently:    It is amazing what a woman will put up with from a man they like.  I gave a rather vivid example of that. So I have some confidence that even in a committed relationship, honesty about infidelity would often preserve good will and trust

On the topic of honesty, let me give one more anecdote.  I was for some years married to a bright, shapely and good natured lady.  I was a lucky man.  And she had an equally bright friend who I came to like.  I eventually decided that I would like to sleep with that friend.  So what did I do?  Did I scheme to make an arrangement behind my wife's back that  would enable me to sleep with that friend?  Not at all.  I told my wife that I fancied her friend. Did she rage and scream?  Not at all. She arranged for her friend and me to get together.  In the event I didn't feel right to go ahead with it but  I think you can again see the great benefit of being honest.

I obviously have somewhat unusual relationships but I think there is something to be learned from them.   I have certainty had a good life with no angry woman in it at any time


I discovered Esther Perel a few years ago through a TED Talk.
She spoke about relationships and examined why people cheat. But it wasn’t just any TED Talk — it was more like an awakening. Perel, a Belgian psychotherapist and author, has left her mark on me. I ended up reading her books, saving her podcasts, and coming back to them every now and then.

I started reading The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity about three years ago, and I still haven’t finished it — only because I don’t want to. Every single page holds insurmountable wisdom and information. I would spend many days and nights reflecting on an idea or a particular discovery.

Perel has revisited modern relationships and given them a new meaning. She discusses marriage, infidelity, love, and monogamy like nobody else. Her ideas are new, rational, and sometimes shocking. To read and accept them, one must be brave.

Perel was the first to tell us that having an affair doesn’t mean the end of a relationship. And having an affair doesn’t always mean there’s something missing in the relationship — it means there’s something missing within us. She puts it like this:

“We are not looking for another lover so much as another version of ourselves.”

In a world that associates cheating with endings, Perel shatters our inherited perceptions and tells us that cheating could serve as a window to something totally different and new.

After years of reading and watching Perel, I wholeheartedly believe that we need a certain level of openness and readiness to welcome her ideas.

Here’s a glimpse of what Perel has in store for everyone who has ever been in a relationship:
“Divorce happens now not because we are unhappy, but because we could be happier.”

“Sometimes, when we seek the gaze of another, it isn’t our partner we are turning away from, but the person we have become. We are not looking for another lover so much as another version of ourselves.”

“There is never ‘the one.’ There is a one that you choose and with whom you decide that you want to build something. But in my opinion, there could also have been others.”

“The grand illusion of committed love is that we think our partners are ours. In truth, their separateness is unassailable, and their mystery is forever ungraspable. As soon as we can begin to acknowledge this, sustained desire becomes a real possibility.”

“However authentic the feelings of love, the dalliance was only ever meant to be a beautiful fiction.”

“When we select a partner, we commit to a story, yet we remain forever curious. What other stories could we have been part of? Affairs offer us a window into those other lives, a peek at the stranger within. Adultery is often the revenge of the deserted possibilities.”

“Until now monogamy has been the default setting, and it sits on the premise (however unrealistic) that if you truly love, you should no longer be attracted to others.”

“Sex is about where you can take me, not what you can do to me.”

“Today, we turn to one person to provide what an entire village once did: a sense of grounding, meaning, and continuity. At the same time, we expect our committed relationships to be romantic as well as emotionally and sexually fulfilling. Is it any wonder that so many relationships crumble under the weight of it all?”

“But one theme comes up repeatedly: affairs as a form of self-discovery, a quest for a new (or a lost) identity. For these seekers, infidelity is less likely to be a symptom of a problem, and is more often described as an expansive experience that involves growth, exploration, and transformation.”

“Monogamy used to mean one person for life. Now monogamy means one person at a time.”

“Our partners do not belong to us; they are only on loan, with an option to renew — or not. Knowing that we can lose them does not have to undermine commitment; rather, it mandates an active engagement that long-term couples often lose. The realization that our loved ones are forever elusive should jolt us out of complacency, in the most positive sense.”

“It’s hard to experience desire when you’re weighted down by concern.”

“If you start to feel that you have given up too many parts of yourself to be with your partner, then one day you will end up looking for another person in order to reconnect with those lost parts.”

“Acceptance doesn’t mean predictability. Sex isn’t always for 11 at night — it’s also ‘meet at a hotel room at noon.’ What you feel during dating can exist at home, if you don’t suffocate it.”

https://medium.com/mindfullove/15-quotes-from-esther-perel-that-will-shatter-everything-you-know-about-monogamy-affairs-ac5cbe356b13

Why the men are no good


Some excerpts below from an article that condemns the immaturity of most men on the dating scene.

The female author below, Karen Marie Shelton, does her best to explain why men become so unsatisfactotry to women but can come up with nothing definite. I am going to suggest that it is because she is a woman. It needs a male point of view to understand men. And I think I know a major thing she misses.

I know I will raise some hackles by saying so but I am going to suggest that men have been made selfish, unreliable and demanding because women have made them like that. Women spoil men. Men are inconsiderate, insensitive etc because they can be. Is is the "sisters" of the dissatisfied women who have made men so unsatisfactory.

OK. Why do I say that? For one reason: It is amazing what women will put up with from a man they like. Good looking men experience that regularly but even average-looking men like me experience it.

I am just going to give one example from my own life that I think drives home the point.

At one time I had a girlfriend who I would visit regularly at her house. Our routine was for her to cook us a dinner followed by a trip to her bedroom. And we went well together in that department. But she would get such a blast out of sex that she would fall asleep at about 9:30, whereupon I would make my exit and go home.

And when I walked into my bedroom at home I would find another woman in my bed waiting for me, naked under the covers. She knew perfectly well where I had just been but still wanted sex with me -- and I was able to oblige. And she was no dragon. She was rather pretty and quite bright

So what does that tell you? It tells you that women can be amazingly flexible in what they ask of a man. They can forgive the unforgiveable

So how does that affect the men concerned? It obviously makes them expect a lot of indulgence from women. And they get it. They have no reason to behave more considerately. Women not prepared to behave indugently will mostly not get what they want, sad to say.

And let's face it: What woman would not want a man who is "emotionally intelligent, kind, understanding, compassionate, and empathic" That's what the woman writing below expects.

And there are indfeed some men like that. But the competition for them will be fierce. Men like that will get lots of offers and will therefore be in a position to pick the best of the available women. Most women will sooner or later have to settle for a less ideal man. And many do.

So do I have a message for the women who think most men are no good? I do. You are right. But are you any good from a man's point of view? The frankness of your answer to that will determine whether or not you have much in the way of relationships. We are all imperfect and the path of wisdom is to truly accept that. Two of the ladies in my life at present are very imperfect from certain points of view but I enjoy the company of both of them greatly



I’ve recently been watching the latest 2023 season of Peacock’s show ‘Love Island USA.’ The reality dating show features male and female singles in the 18–29 category looking for love.

Watching even a few episodes makes it painfully clear why so many men are single today.

As the show unfolds, the couple’s male or female can decide to dump their partners for other Love Islanders. This encourages a lack of loyalty, lying, cheating, hurt feelings, and drama.

Toward the end, couples have a few days to decide whether to have a more permanent relationship outside the villa. At this point in the reality dating show, the shit hits the fan.

Although there have been five seasons of the show — and I confess I binge-watched all of them — the current 2023 season has a toxic and unhinged cast.

While most female islanders seem genuine in their search for a permanent boyfriend, a long-time love, and maybe even marriage in the future, the male participants are not close.

It’s hard to begin to pick the worst of the boys.

The man-child syndrome is in full bloom

We’ve already experienced over-the-top toxic-male bullying and gaslighting from 28-year-old Victor Gonzalez.

Even though his partner, 22-year-old Carmen Kocourek, expressed a wish to go slow with the relationship, Victor continued to violate her boundaries. The rest of the women couldn’t seem to connect with him either.

Leonardo (Leo) Dionicio is a 21-year-old salesman who has already demonstrated some serious Island bed-hopping. He can’t seem to decide between two women, which allows him to act disrespectful, inappropriate, childish, or all of the above.

Harrison Luna Hans’ is also exhibiting relationship red flags. The 29-year-old diamond merchant has made it clear to all the men that he cannot be honest with his true feelings for his unsuspecting partner, Destiny Zammarra, 27.

There are so many other subplots of male immaturity and overt toxicity it’s hard to keep track of them all.

The man-child pattern is famously known as the ‘Peter Pan syndrome.’ Psychologist Dan Kiley first described in his iconic 1983 tome ‘Peter Pan Syndrome: Men Who Have Never Grown Up.’

Some psychologists use more informal terms to describe boys who refuse to become men.

A Peter Pan man-child is unreliable, struggles to form meaningful relationships, is socially and emotionally immature, may exhibit narcissistic behaviors, and often ‘mommy-zone’ their partner.

Those traits sound like many, if not most, of the guys from ‘Love Island USA.’

Although there isn’t much research on the triggers, some experts believe it might result from boys being coddled by their parents. Or conversely, they are raised in environments with strict gender roles.

The old theory that ‘boys will be boys’ or ‘boys mature slower than girls’ may have some value in this scenario.

Some might find it ‘adorable’ when men need a woman because they can’t cook, clean, do their laundry, express their emotions or handle adult responsibilities. Are all those things really that complicated?

Maybe it is if you’re a male who’s been socialized to believe it’s a woman’s responsibility to act like the mommy of the man you’re dating.

Being a man’s mommy, maid, cook, housekeeper, personal assistant, and whatever else they may want becomes incredibly exhausting, especially when a woman has their own life to manage.

It’s not like men can’t possibly know what most women seek in a relationship. It’s not some great mystery buried deep in a file cabinet somewhere.

Women have been outspoken about what they want in a man. They want one who is emotionally intelligent, kind, understanding, compassionate, and empathic.

They don’t want a self-centered man-child who’s needy, has zero emotional control, throws tantrums when things don’t go his way, and is overly focused on a woman’s looks.

Of course, not all men are like that, nor is that the only reason so many men are lonely, single, and sexless. But it’s definitely one of the reasons.

I doubt any woman in their right mind wants to babysit a fully grown-a** man. Most ‘Love Island USA’ couples don’t form long-term, off-island relationships. It’s not all that shocking, is it?

Some people speculate that the show’s producers intentionally cast immature toxic men because they want the viewers to get angry.

Is that true? Maybe. But the current season illustrates a broader problem women often face in heterosexual relationships: having to mother their partners.

https://medium.com/bitchy/peacocks-love-island-reveals-why-so-many-men-are-single-today-fc7fdfc862b6