Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil For Climate Deaths Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2024

This could be brilliant. A complete defence would be to show there is NO dangerous climate change. And a court of law would have to consider the evidence on that. And the evidence tracing deaths to climate change is non-existent. It's all just theory. So a ruling on this could put the whole climate change myth to bed. Bring it on!


Prosecutors regularly bring homicide charges against individuals and corporations whose reckless or negligent acts or omissions cause unintentional deaths, as well as those whose misdemeanors or felonies cause unintentional deaths. Fossil fuel companies learned decades ago that what they produced, marketed, and sold would generate “globally catastrophic” climate change. Rather than alert the public and curtail their operations, they worked to deceive the public about these harms and to prevent regulation of their lethal conduct. They funded efforts to call sound science into doubt and to confuse their shareholders, consumers, and regulators. And they poured money into political campaigns to elect or install judges, legislators, and executive officials hostile to any litigation, regulation, or competition that might limit their profits.

Today, the climate change that they forecast has already killed thousands of people in the United States, and it is expected to become increasingly lethal for the foreseeable future. Given the extreme lethality of the conduct and the awareness of the catastrophic risk on the part of fossil fuel companies, should they be charged with homicide? Could they be convicted? In answering these questions, this Article makes several contributions to our understanding of criminal law and the role it could play in combating crimes committed at a massive scale. It describes the doctrinal and social predicates of homicide prosecutions where corporate conduct endangers much or all of the public. It also identifies important advantages of homicide prosecutions relative to civil and regulatory remedies, and it details how and why prosecution for homicide may be the most effective legal remedy available in cases like this. Finally, it argues that, if our criminal legal system cannot focus more intently on climate crimes—and soon—we may leave future generations with significantly less for the law to protect.


Relax, Roast Magazine, Climate Change Is Not Causing ‘Systemic Shocks’ Harming Coffee Production

AGAIN! At least once a year we get a claim that global warming is endangering coffee production. Same old, same old. And it never happens. Coffee beans are very widely grown throughout the world so a crop failure in one place is only one part of the world's productive output. Prices rise and fall but that is it

Roast Magazine’s Daily Coffee News rans a story claiming climate change was causing “ongoing systemic shocks,” harming coffee production by creating more simultaneous extreme weather events across different growing regions. This is false. Data refutes claims that extreme weather events are increasing in number, intensity, or frequency. Also, coffee production is increasing amid modest warming.

According to the Roast Magazine story, titled “Study: Climate Change Increasing ‘Systemic Shocks’ to Coffee Production:”

The global coffee industry can expect increasing and “ongoing systemic shocks” to coffee production due to climate change, according to new research published this month in the journal PLOS Climate.

The research, which was funded by the Australia’s national Climate Service agency, says that there has been a been a notable increase in “synchronous climate hazards” among the world’s 12 largest coffee-growing countries over the 40 years ending in 2020. In other words, more coffee-producing areas are being negatively affected by climate change at the same time.

The study takes particular note of the El Niño, the La Niña and the Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) climate phenomena effecting global tropical regions throughout the coffee-growing world.

There are so many false or mistaken claims packed into these three introductory paragraphs its hard to know where to begin to refute them. Starting with the last paragraph first. El Niño, the La Niña and the Madden–Julian oscillation are large scale natural oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns and they do effect climate on regional and trans- and multicontinental scales. However, contrary to the implication of the paragraph and evidently the study it references, those patterns drive weather events. Climate models are unable to account for the impacts of these patterns on climate change.

Data neither show, nor does the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, any significant changes in these large-scale natural circulation patterns that can be linked to climate change. There is no evidence whatsoever that climate change is altering these natural patterns; either making their impacts more severe or the circulation patterns themselves more persistent or erratic. Whatever effect El Niño, the La Niña and the Madden–Julian oscillation, or other large scale short- and long-term natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns, might be having on coffee production, they have always had such effects—there is no evidence this has changed.

Just as there has been no detectable change in various periodic oceanic and atmospheric patterns that are drivers of weather, there has also been no increase in the number or severity of various extreme weather events which effect coffee growing regions, as well as the rest of the world. As discussed at Climate at a Glance, data does not show droughts, floods, hurricanes, or other classifications of extreme weather events that might negatively effect coffee production are increasing in number or severity globally. And higher carbon dioxide concentrations and the decline in unseasonable cold spells have benefited coffee production, as they have almost every other crop.

Which leads us to the most important claim made in the paper. Because oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns aren’t changing, and weather isn’t becoming more extreme in any way that has been measured, is it impossible for these factors to be causing a decline in coffee production. Indeed, data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that it is not.

“The occurrence of these spatially compounding events has become particularly acute over the past decade, with five of the six most hazardous years occurring since 2010,” say the authors of the study cited as evidence of a pending coffee apocalypse in Roast Magazine. Such struggles are not evident in the production data recorded by the FAO.

FAO data show that coffee yields set new production records seven times since 2010, most recently in 2020. And at no time after 2010 did coffee yields fall below yields recorded before 2010. Indeed, from 1990 to 2021, the last year for which data is currently available, during the recent period of climate change, coffee yields increased by nearly 56 percent.

What’s true of coffee yields is also true of coffee production. Even as a growing number of coffee producers have begun growing boutique coffee varieties using only organic methods, which have reduced yields on those plantations, coffee production overall has grown substantially. Once again, the data show that rather than the period since 2010 being one of hard times for coffee producers, production has set records regularly. Between 2010 and 2021, coffee set records for production five times, and coffee production has grown by nearly 17 percent during that period. Over the term which climate change is measured, 30 years, coffee production has increased approximately 64 percent.

To sum up: Roast Magazine claimed climate change was altering large scale oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns, which was causing an increase in the number and severity of simultaneous extreme weather events, allegedly threatening coffee production worldwide. Each of these claims is refuted by hard evidence. Perhaps going forward, rather than uncritically parroting the alarming findings from the most recent, but untested, study asserting climate change threatens a serious coffee decline, the reporters at Roast Magazine will look into the data and ask some hard questions to determine whether setting off the climate alarm is justified. If they do so, they will likely find they can sit back, relax, and enjoy their next cup of Joe, unburdened by fears that this enjoyable daily ritual will soon pass.


Why So Much Anti-Jewish Hatred?

The article below asks the question but provides no real answer to it. Yet the answer is as old as the hills: Envy of Jewish success and dislike of Jewish supremacism. I have been studying antisemitism since the 1970s and published my findings mainly in Jewish journals. My comprehensive paper on the subject is here

Zur Judentum, even Karl Marx despised Jewish success in business and after Prussia emancipated the Jews in 1812, Jewish success spread into many other fields. In prewar Germany, Jews sat at the pinnacle of most endeavours in society, as they do to this day in the USA. It is a little less obvious in the USA today as few Americans recognize Askenazi names when they see them. The mames concerned are of German origin and they stand out if you know German, as I do: Fink, Blum, Bankman-Fried etc. So even to me it is slightly irritating to see the surnames of most of the prominent people that I read about. The names are overwhelmingly of Jewish origin and their frequency leaves the impression that you have to be Jewish to get anywhere these days. Hitler drew that conclusion.

So people have learned from Hitler what not to do but what irritated him still exists. Both blacks and many whites resent Jewish success and such resentment will almost certainly always be with us

In the words of New York City Jewish leader Eric Dinowitz, “hate is on the rise—and the high-profile cases on the news are often the endpoint of hate.” He continued, “We see the assaults in Hell’s Kitchen and Times Square. We see mass murders at synagogues and supermarkets. And what this report card shows us are those seeds of hate are the precursors to physical violence.”

Dinowitz was responding to a new report from the Simon Wiesenthal Center on Digital Terrorism and Hate. And he was speaking in particular about hatred and violence against Jewish people.

According to JNS, “The report warns of increased antisemitic, racist, anti-LGBTQ messaging and calls for violence against black, immigrant and Jewish residents.”

What motivates such attitudes and actions? Why is that, “Among all racial and religious groups, Jews remain the greatest hate crime target”? And why is it that Jews are targeted by both White Supremacists and Black Supremacists? (I began documenting this more than 30 years ago. It is even worse today.)

One group that received attention in the report was the Black Hebrew Israelites (or, just Hebrew Israelites as they call themselves today), whose views have been popularized by high-profile figures like Kanye West and Kyrie Irving.

Not only do they claim to be the true Israelites, they even supply a chart that purports to connect the 12 Tribes of Israel to various people groups in North and South America (seriously!). But they also deny that the Jewish people (which would include me) are true Jews.

In their eyes, we are the “synagogue of Satan” (based on a misinterpretation of Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) and “white Edomite devils.” (Yes, according to this cult, Jacob’s son Esau, also called Edom, was white, and White Jews today are actually his devilish descendants.)

On a regular basis, we receive comments like this on our YouTube channel: “Hitler is an Idumean [= Edomite] devil like yourself Dr. Brown. The holocaust never happened. So stop lying to the world.” And it was posted by – get this – “The Tribe of Levi”!

If that’s not enough, consider that, according to the Hebrew Israelite chart used by the Sicarii, which is the most militant sect among them, the people of Haiti today are the tribe of Levi. I bet you didn’t know that before!

I recently debated the leader of the Sicarii on the subject of “Who Are the Legitimate Children of Israel? Ashkenazi Jews or the 12 Tribe Chart?” (You can watch the debate here.)

And while we have interacted cordially since the debate, I did challenge him on his rhetoric, including lines like this from February 2022: “That's how this movie ends man all right. That's the future of this world. Black and Latino people ruling the world.

“[Jesus Christ] is a big angry black man, a black man whose eyes are red and he's ready to come and kill. He wants to stomp people’s brains out of their cranium. He wants to step on you people’s heads until your brains come out.

“Remember when 50 Cent [said], ‘and his brain came out the top like jack-in-the-box’? Remember? That’s one of my favorite lines, right? That's what Christ is coming back to do.”

You can be assured that “you people” includes those of us who are not people of color, especially White Jews.

Yet my quotation of these words at the end of the debate only brought a smile to his face, along with lots of affirmation from his followers in the large chat. (There were as many as 4,500 people watching at once on the host’s channel. And moments ago, when I went to the channel while writing this article, they were playing a clip from my recent YouTube video discussing the debate. A comment posted on the screen read: “Who is this pink devil?” So, I graduated from white to pink!)

In reality, though, this is nothing to joke about. It was reported one year ago that, “Antisemitic hate crimes were up 400% last month, according to new data released by the New York Police Department.”

Specifically, “Many of these incidents targeted Orthodox people dressed in distinctive clothing, like the Jewish man who was punched in Bed-Stuy on Feb. 7 while walking on Shabbat.”

And what is a typical, Hebrew Israelite response to such things, “This edomite [meaning me, when I referenced such crimes during the debate] showed himself to be a devil. He said *fake*Jews are being attacked by African Americans.”

The reality is that words have consequences, and attitudes of hatred will leads to acts of hatred. But the question still remains: Why? Why the Jews?

When I debunk the nonsense of the 12 Tribes Chart, I feel no animosity towards any of the peoples on the chart, including Mexicans (who are supposed to be the lost tribe of Issachar!) or the Seminole Indians (who are supposed to be the lost tribe of Reuben!) or African Americans (who are supposed to be the tribe of Judah!). And, based on the comments I see when I address these things, no one who agrees with me feels animosity as a result of these people being fake Israelites. (To be clear, there are Black and Hispanic Jews. No one is questioning that. What is being utterly rejected is the information on the chart.)

Yet when the Hebrew Israelites call Ashkenazi Jews (and other Jews) “fake Jews,” it triggers visceral hatred and anger towards us. Why?

I can only offer two suggestions. First, these Black Americans, who have historically suffered so greatly at the hands of White Americans in the past, have fastened their resentment and anger on White Americans today, in particular White Jews.

Second, antisemitism is demonic and needs no rational explanation. As Sigmund Freud commented in 1927, “With regard to anti-Semitism, I don’t really want to search for explanations; I feel a strong inclination to surrender my effects in this matter and find myself confirmed in my wholly nonscientific belief that mankind on the average and taken by and large are a wretched lot.”

What we can say with assurance is that we must confront these hateful attitudes and ideologies wherever we find them, since they will not go away on their own. And we must be determined to overcome hatred with love and lies with truth. It’s a long battle, but it’s a winning strategy.


Developers thrown huge tax incentives to fix housing crisis. Property developers who build affordable homes will receive a slew of tax concessions

The tax concessions are attractive so developers may grab them. The fact that only one out of 10 homes has to be "affordable" is a rort. The developer will provide minimal facilities in one propery and build the rest to an attractive standard. So the poor will still get only the most basic accommodation

Property developers who build affordable homes will received a slew of tax concessions including land tax slashed in half Treasurer Cameron Dick has revealed.

Owners of build-to-rent projects will have their land tax bill slashed in half for 20 years if they make one in every 10 units an “affordable home”.

Other available tax concessions include a full exemption on the 2 per cent foreign investor land tax surcharge also for 20 years.

A full exemption from the additional foreign acquirer duty for the future transfer of a build-to-rent site will also be available.

The concessions will come in on July 1, 2023.

Mr Dick said the private construction sector was “at capacity” across Australia, and the government was “working with industry to identify innovative ideas that create new pipelines of housing”.

It comes as Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced hundreds more emergency hotel rooms across Queensland will be funded under a $28m boost to the state government’s housing response package for another year.

The announcement comes as the state government prepares to focus the parliamentary sitting week on housing, including the push to limit rent increases in Queensland to once a year.

The government will unveil the rent shake up as housing stakeholders gather on Tuesday to look at progress from last year’s housing summit, which the Premier called following The Courier-Mail’s Hitting Home series.

Under the changes, it is understood property owners and landlords will only be allowed to lift the rent on their property once every 12 months.

The move would bring Queensland in line with other states, such as Victoria and South Australia – where the rental price on a property can generally only be changed once a year.

Ms Palaszczuk on Tuesday morning also confirmed the state government would fund its immediate housing response package for an extra year to the tune of $28m.

The support would help “our most vulnerable Queenslanders facing homelessness and housing stress” and including funding more than 600 emergency hotel room spots, and help pay bond payments.

“Through our immediate housing response for families package we've supported more than 4000 families with over 44,000 nights of accommodation,” Ms Palaszczuk said.


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports reveals Great Barrier Reef could be destroyed

This is a thoroughly dishonest piece of reporting. It takes scenarios that the IPCC deems highly unlikely (3C+ warming) and treats it as if it were probable. It's just blatant propaganda from a fanatic below

The Great Barrier Reef could be destroyed and Queensland could endure extreme weather conditions if the planet warms more than 3C, a new report has revealed.

A United Nations report by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change warned that time may be running out for the world to only warm by 1.5C, saying it was already at 1.1C.

The report details what changes a rising temperatures would bring to Australia.

If they increaee by 4C globally, Australi’s temperaturs could possibly surge by 6C, meaning the potential for 50C days.

Director of Griffith University Climate Action Beacon Professor Brendan Mackey said to make sure the dire effects of global warming won’t happen we need to transition away from fossil fuels and accelerate to clean energy.

“Each government has made a pledge of policies and programs to achieve mitigation which is what the current government propose,” Prof Mackey said.

“If you add all the commitments it would limit global warming.

“A global warming of three would mean the end of the Great Barrier Reef as we know it,” he said.

“Every increment of warming, that makes it hard for everyone. For Queensland it would mean much heavier impacts for agriculture, huge impacts for Great Barrier Reef.

“If you have a temperature of 40C, it’s life threatening and the doctor would send you to hospital, when we talk about levels of warming a healthy temperature would be 0 above pre-industrial levels.”

Prof Mackey said the Reef couldn’t handle the amount of choral bleaching that would occur.

Prof Mackey said things were heating up fast. “That means we are going to see a big increase in climate impact, an increase of severity of extreme weather events,” he said.

“For Queensland this is interesting, as it is highly exposed to extreme weather events.”

“It would mean more heavy flooding, we will have more of everything that’s bad when it comes to weather.

“Every increment of warming, that makes it hard for everyone.”

But Prof Mackey said the report also revealed there was still opportunity to cap the amount of climate change and limit it at 1.5C.

“It’s really Queensland’s interest to prevent further climate change, while Queensland has a lot of fossil fuels, it also has the minerals that it needed for clean energy, there’s a huge opportunity to become a clean energy powerhouse,” he said.

“What the report is saying for Queensland is that climate change is going to get worse than its better. That’s going to be more climate risk for Queensland.”


It's not hate to allow women to have their own spaces and their own events

The desperation of the elites to look good lies behind this suddenly invented "trans" war.  They are aware that others envy and dislike them so grab at anything that will make them look good and wise and noble.  So the poor old trannies have suddenly been elevated to an important group requiring support at all costs

For a while "women" were a big cause to the elites but women were just a convenient group for them to use to show that they cared.  The fact that they all along did not care about women at all is now so clearly revealed that they are not even prepared to name them.  It must be quite a shock to genuine advocates for women to find that they have gone overnight from friend to enemy in the minds of the  insecure Leftist elites

And once the elites have set the ball rolling and given the latest issue big support, lots of other people climb on board in support of the issue in the hope of also becoming seen as good and wise and noble. They too seize the chance to be seen as virtuous

There are two issues at stake in the transwars that are again finding their way to our shores with ‘Posie Parker’s’ (aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s) Australian Let Women Speak tour. These are: children’s bodily integrity, and women’s rights including the need for single-sex spaces. These issues have very different histories, politics, and ontologies but they coalesce around transgenderism because this is the point at which the conflict of interest arises.

On social media and in the legacy media this week, this critique has been presented as tantamount to Nazi ideology. What we have is a classic case of reductio ad Hitlerum, defined by Leo Strauss as a type of ad hominem used to derail arguments by creating a ‘guilt by association’. In other words, ‘playing the Nazi card’.

This means if neo-Nazis are on the steps of the Victorian Parliament, ushered around by police and with excellent camera crews capturing their Sieg Heil, and you happen to be in the vicinity, you’re ‘guilty by association’.

If you’ve been so propagandised as to assume that there is no legitimate discussion to be had around these issues, then you’re a victim of a corrupt media that has ceased to do its job. The Third Estate has well and truly died if a smallish group of women, including MPs, teachers, doctors, and philosophy professors, can’t gather in a public place to discuss matters of cultural and political importance to women.

When Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and progressive party leaders such as the Greens’ Adam Bandt define these women (or their protest) as associating with ‘neo-Nazis’, we have a gross misrepresentation at play and one that anyone participating in this charade should be ashamed of.

This whole mess is an orchestrated misrepresentation that amounts to propaganda.

It is obliterating the legitimate concerns of women regarding the safety and privacy of women and girls in rape crisis centres, women’s shelters, women’s prisons, women’s changerooms, and toilets. It is sabotaging the discussion around how women can possibly compete against natal males in sport, and of the gross inequality of quotas, prizes, or shortlists for women being filled by trans-identifying males. It is also about the loss of meaningful language for motherhood, including the removal and replacement of words such as pregnant woman, mother, and breastfeeding (with abominations such as ‘vulva owner’, ‘birthing people’, and ‘chest feeder’). These are important conversations, nothing more, but also nothing less. It is not and never has been about the violation of trans people’s legal, civil, or social rights. It is about the recognition of women’s rights.

Sure, feel free to disagree but don’t engage in this false and indeed defamatory characterisation of the gender-critical feminist voice. There are two sides to this discussion; not one legitimate side (trans) and a motley assortment of neo-Nazi bigots. Moreover, we have seen misogynist overtones from male leaders who appear to dismiss women speaking about issues of fundamental importance like equality, privacy, safety, and the well-being of children.

The neo-Nazi optics are undoubtedly appalling, and one can’t help but wonder how this came about. At the very least, this alignment serves the status quo very well, as every polite mainstream-media-reading centre-Left, small ‘l’ liberal who, having never left their media ecosystem, assumes that ‘Terfs’ are a bunch of scary bigots with radical ‘far Right’ views. Political goal achieved.

A quick lesson in protests: not all who attend a protest are in agreement. Some are widely divergent politically. Moreover, ‘outside agitators’ can and are planted to stir up trouble and/or to alter the public’s perception. A quick lesson in propaganda: the truth doesn’t matter if the lie has been accepted. Certainly, in the public’s mind, ‘gender critical feminism’ and the important political issues this argument represents, have been thoroughly besmirched.

In the public’s mind, Kellie-Jay has a kitsch Norma Jean aesthetic going on and seems to be showcasing more star-spangled nylon and sequins as her social media following grows (and concomitantly, as we descend into the ‘bread and circuses’ era of the culture wars). Moreover, in my opinion she has failed to overtly distance herself from the far Right, as some local feminist groups have rightly pointed out.

Nonetheless, her message is direct and simple, delivered in a working-class idiom: ‘men can’t have vaginas’, ‘men can’t give birth’, ‘men can’t be women’, ‘men shouldn’t be in vulnerable women’s spaces’, ‘men can’t (or shouldn’t) compete in women’s sports’, and ‘children aren’t old enough to surgically remove their primary and secondary sex organs, or make decisions about adult sexuality or fertility’.

These were all uncontroversial statements not long ago. Indeed, the first three statements were common knowledge in all cultures, in all places, and across all time until maybe five years ago (that’s a pretty big sample!). At this point, inner-urban, educated progressives extrapolated an obscure set of gender ideologies localised to arcane corners of university Arts departments and gaslit or bullied anyone who disagreed.

Magically, and in lockstep, governments the world over introduced legislation and policy to allow self ID, to outlaw ‘conversion therapy’ (i.e., newspeak for adopting an exploratory approach to gender dysphoria rather than uncritical affirmation), to update the protected category of sex in law, and to revise statutes regarding sex discrimination so that sex-category was replaced with gender identity.

This effectively created a mandate around the acceptance of transgenderism with no capacity – politically or socially – to disagree. If the ‘choice’ is to agree or be an incorrigible bigot with few job prospects, except perhaps as Mark Latham’s cleaning lady, then most people are going to shut up and go along with this agenda. This is the coward’s bargain; it is not agreement.

Let’s stop pretending this doesn’t have the full force of the corporate-state and captured media and academia behind it. Let’s stop pretending that there are two sides to this ‘debate’: there is one side and a maligned minority of women bravely fighting for the right to have a conversation. As I have said before, what we are owed is more and better disagreement, not slogans and abuse.

Until a moment ago we all understood what a woman was, and we understood that men were physically stronger than women. Most also understood that women had been historically excluded from political rights with ongoing ramifications for their civil standing in liberal democracies. Feminism was the movement for women’s rights that began with married women’s property rights and culminated in suffrage and access to education and the professions. It was the movement to end women’s legal and political subjection. From second-wave feminism onwards, larger questions were asked concerning women’s role in society, the family, sexuality, and psyche as women entered into paid work en masse and redefined what it meant to be women.

That the ‘category of woman’ is now being jettisoned (or revised beyond all recognition) at the precise historical hour that women in the West have gained a political and cultural voice is disturbing. Moreover, in redefining women’s rights almost entirely in terms of queer identity politics, crucial issues such as women’s poverty and homelessness, sexual and domestic violence, and mothering and care work, fade from view. These issues barely raise a mention as sex-class transmogrifies into gender ID.

Assuming this debate is like other debates between say, liberals, and conservatives, or between opposing philosophical paradigms like positivism and hermeneutics, is sadly mistaken. This debate, like so many in the contemporary culture wars, is on an entirely new epistemological terrain: what is at stake here is nothing short of reality itself!

The ‘priors’ therefore of either side are no longer shared; we need rather to understand this issue (as with several other contested political issues) as a disagreement, not on a shared understanding of reality, but rather a disagreement about the nature of reality itself. The question pivots, interestingly enough, on what it means to be a woman.

A poignant example to illustrate this point can be seen in the nomenclature used: one party refers to themselves as ‘gender critical feminists’ and sympathetic media outlets adopt this terminology, sometimes situating it in the longer history of feminism. This side suggests that ‘transwomen’ are better understood as ‘trans-identifying males’ to locate both the person’s natal or biological gender and their preferred identification.

However, the other side, the trans activists and their allies, refer to gender-critical feminists as ‘transphobic’ and as committing dangerous ‘hate speech’. These are such egregious accusations that, if true, require punitive action and redress. Thus, a position itself is defined by one side as ‘gender critical’ and based on women’s ‘sex-based rights’ and by the other as ‘hate speech’. The issue pivots on the ‘category of woman’ which is defined by one side (the gender criticals) as a political class – a ‘sex class’ – founded in biology and given its contemporary meaning in society.

That is, from a classical feminist perspective, the category of woman is a biological category with political implications, namely subjection within a patriarchal society. The newer definition replaces gender with sex and defines the category of woman (or man) as one that can be opted into, it is a subjective state or a feeling. Thus, we haven’t even made it out of the paradigmatic gate before we find ourselves fighting over the nature of reality itself. The category of sex is the site of the struggle. If we cannot agree that sex exists or is materially, politically, and linguistically distinct from gender, then we are not arguing about the same thing. To invoke Smith’s famous aphorism regarding the two women arguing from their respective balconies: they were arguing from different premises!

To suggest that any discussion which assumes natal women have a claim on the sex category woman is a priori an act of discrimination is effectively to quash the discussion. It is to define it as an abominable act of hate speech before it is even out of the gate. How is this a fair discussion? To suggest that gender-critical feminists are neo-Nazis is transparent bullying and it’s coming from the top – literally the leader of the Victorian government – not from minorities as we’re being told. It has the sanction of the mainstream media who are hacks failing in their duty to the electorate to fairly represent the issues from all sides.

Parker’s Let Women Speak Tour gives women an opportunity to speak about their experience of this inflamed political and cultural conflict without being silenced.

In the sinkhole of partisan politics and propaganda this act of discursive generosity is defined as ‘far Right’. In the real world of heterodox politics and culture, Posie Parker’s message cuts across the increasingly defunct Right/Left divide and indeed speaks to women and men across the political spectrum.

Anthony Albanese announced wording of Voice question

The Voice to Parliament will be voted on by Aussies

One word makes this very disturbing. The parliament will be able to give "powers" to the new body, WITH NO RESTRICTIONS. They could even give it veto power over all legislation. Australia would have the most racist parliament since Apartheid South Africa

In the referendum, due to be held between October and December, the public will be asked to consider: 'A proposed law: to alter the constitution to recognise the First People's of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?'

In an emotional press conference, Mr Albanese said: 'This moment has been a very long time in the making. It's a simple matter from the heart.

'Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in our Constitution is the best chance this country has had to address the injustices of the past and move Australia forward for everyone, the best way to do this is to give people a voice.'

For 122 years, the Constitution has made no reference to Indigenous Australians, who, the PM pointed out, have had 'more than 65,000 years of continuous connection to this vast land'.

If a majority of Australians vote in favour of the Voice, the Constitution would be amended as follows:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions powers and procedures.


Central Venous Thrombosis Of The Brain After Covid Infection And Vaccination

Peter McCullough is a fearless critic of conventional views about Covid and the response to it. So I read his article below with interest and attention. I was however rather confounded to see him claiming that a journal article showed the opposite of what the journal claimed.

The journal clearly claimed that the pathology they studied was vastly much less frequent among people vaccinated against Covid. McCullouch, in contrast, said that the pathology was just as likely to be found in unvaccinated people.

Looking at the raw numbers, however, I think I can follow McCulloch's reasoning. The actual numbers of people with the pathology were very small: 9 cases in the vaccinated group and 6 in the unvaccinated group. That might seem to show the vaccinated group being worse off but it overlooks the size of the populations those groups were drawn from (the denominator). As a PERCENTAGE of their respective populations, the vaccinated group was much better off.

What McCulloch does, however is to reject the denominators given. He thinks that the vaccinated group were much easier to access statistically so no comparable estimates of the denominators were possible. He just looks at the raw number of cases and says that is what matters. I think he has a point -- but the pathology is a very rare one anyway so may not be worth sustained attention

I reproduce the journal abstract below as well as McCulloch's commentary

Proponents of COVID-19 mass vaccination acknowledge that similar disastrous outcomes occur with both SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 vaccines (myocarditis, blood clots, neurological problems)

They position a tradeoff and suggest you should risk it with the vaccine in hopes its lower than that of the infection.

Since 94 percent of Americans have had the COVID-19, its water under the bridge for the infection.

Early therapy reduces the invasive systemic manifestations of the illness and markedly reduces hospitalization and death including from complications.

With vaccination its a different story, the full force of engineered Spike protein is felt in the body with each shot and per case, the severity of the side effect is far worse than that with COVID-19.

Tu, et al illustrated this principle while analyzing central venous thrombosis which is a blood clot in the major vein of the brain which is a medical emergency requiring, hospitalization, intravenous or subcutaneous blood thinners, serial imaging, observation and in some cases surgery.

Tu attempted to divide cases by large denominators to minimize risk; that is invalid in safety research since not all cases can be found particularly fatal ones without an autopsy.

The important findings from Tu are in the tables.

Central venous thrombosis after vaccination was a catastrophe with more cases, greater need for therapy, more brain surgery, and higher degrees of neurologic impairment at discharge for those who took the mRNA vaccine.

Under no circumstances could someone accept a blood clot in the brain with the vaccine in the hopes of not getting COVID-19.

That tradeoff is untenable and yet another reason why vaccine promoters have lost trust from a discerning public.


Incidence of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection vs mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Singapore

Tian Ming Tu et al.

Key Points

Question What is the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) after diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with after messenger RNA (mRNA)-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination?

Findings In this observational cohort study of 62 447 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 3 006 662 individuals who received mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Singapore from January 23, 2020, to August 3, 2021, the incidence rate ratio of CVT requiring hospitalization within 6 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 32 times higher compared with after mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Meaning These findings suggest that the risk of CVT after SARS-CoV-2 infection is higher than after mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.


Importance Reports of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) after messenger RNA (mRNA)-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has caused safety concerns, but CVT is also known to occur after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Comparing the relative incidence of CVT after infection vs vaccination may provide a better perspective of this complication.

Objective To compare the incidence rates and clinical characteristics of CVT following either SARS-CoV-2 infection or mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Design, Setting, and Participants Between January 23, 2020, and August 3, 2021, this observational cohort study was conducted at all public acute hospitals in Singapore, where patients hospitalized with CVT within 6 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection or after mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) were identified. Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was based on quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or positive serology. National SARS-CoV-2 infection data were obtained from the National Centre for Infectious Disease, Singapore, and vaccination data were obtained from the National Immunisation Registry, Singapore.

Exposures SARS-CoV-2 infection or mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Main Outcomes and Measures Clinical characteristics, crude incidence rate (IR), and incidence rate ratio (IRR) of CVT after SARS-CoV-2 infection and after mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Results Among 62 447 individuals diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infections included in this study, 58 989 (94.5%) were male; the median (range) age was 34 (0-102) years; 6 CVT cases were identified (all were male; median [range] age was 33.5 [27-40] years). Among 3 006 662 individuals who received at least 1 dose of mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 1 626 623 (54.1%) were male; the median (range) age was 50 (12-121) years; 9 CVT cases were identified (7 male individuals [77.8%]; median [range] age: 60 [46-76] years). The crude IR of CVT after SARS-CoV-2 infections was 83.3 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 30.6-181.2 per 100 000 person-years) and 2.59 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 1.19-4.92 per 100 000 person-years) after mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Six (66.7%) received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine and 3 (33.3%) received mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine. The crude IRR of CVT hospitalizations with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with those who received mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was 32.1 (95% CI, 9.40-101; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance The incidence rate of CVT after SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly higher compared with after mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. CVT remained rare after mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, reinforcing its safety.


Tenured Professor Amy Wax, Under Siege for ‘Truth Telling’ on Race, Makes Her Case

She is both very bright and highly principled.  She speaks the truth without fear.  The moves against her are pathetic.  If they succeed, the matter will just end up before SCOTUS, where she will win

The future of tenure in American higher education could turn on the fate of a septuagenarian professor who teaches law at the University of Pennsylvania who has an intense mien and history of inflammatory opinions of which she has no regrets.

Professor Amy Wax has catapulted to national attention because of comments about race and gender that have made her a truth telling seer to some and a bomb throwing bigot to others. In refusing to back down, she could break the back of tenure, the system of a job-for-life that in its modern contractual form has been the coin of the academic realm since 1940.  

Ms. Wax has come to represent a test case because of both the extremity of her pronouncements — she has alleged to have made a series of controversial comments over the years asserting discrepancies in cognitive ability relating to race, has claimed that she has never seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of their class, and called India a “sh-thole” —  as well as Penn’s effort to oust her. 

“Universities,” Ms. Wax tells the Sun in the course of a nearly one hour conversation, “need to have room for people like me to explain the opposition and above all, to explain to students that there is another point of view” than the reigning one, which she regards as “lopsided, stunted, and inadequate.”

Ms. Wax speaks in the forceful tones of someone who has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. Her resume includes all the usual gold stars, plus a white coat; she graduated from Harvard Medical School and completed a residency in neurology before turning to the bar full time.

Now, Ms. Wax is facing what she calls “a formal attempt to take away my job,” notwithstanding that she secured tenure two decades ago and holds a named chair, another mark of distinction. The dean of her law school, Theodore Ruger, is initiating disciplinary action against her to determine whether her patterns of speech warrant a “major sanction.” This could include firing, despite her tenure.   

For Dean Ruger, it appears personal. He told students at a town hall meeting in 2018  that he is “pissed off” that she remains on faculty, a reality which he says “sucks.” He explained that the “only way to get rid of a tenured professor” is a process that will “take months.” That effort is now underway.    

Dean Ruger’s report, which reads like a criminal complaint,  accuses Ms. Wax of  a “callous and flagrant disregard for our University community” in the form of “incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic actions and statements.” He finds that faculty “call her presence demoralizing and disruptive” and students steer clear of her courses.  

Ms. Wax asserts that this line of accusation heralds a dawning age  where universities “can take away your job and your tenure just for what you said and for your opinions.” She calls Mr. Ruger “one of the worst deans in America” and accuses him of “groveling and pandering” to students.

Even some of Ms. Wax’s defenders have their doubts. The director of campus rights advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech stalwart, told the New York Times that “academic freedom has to protect the Amy Waxes of the academic world, so that it can be there for the Galileos of the academic world.” Ms. Wax allows that she is “unhappy” with that explanation. 

Ms. Wax has, in turn, filed a grievance against the school, which she says is targeting the expressions of opinion that she is “fully and totally entitled to make by every tradition and standard in academia.” She calls Penn’s effort to sanction her a “direct attack” that aims to enforce a “rigid orthodoxy of permissible speech and expression.”

The grievance, which aims to arrest the disciplinary push against Ms. Wax, acknowledges that her opinions are “at times hard to hear or read” but asserts that they find support in “empirically based sources.” It adds that no Penn faculty member has “ever been formally charged with an infraction of University rules based on what he or she has taught, written, assigned to students, or opined in the media. No one.”

The lack of any accusation of sexual or behavioral misconduct sets Ms. Wax’s case apart from other instances where the shield of tenure has been pierced, such as the firing of a professor of the Classics, Joshua Katz, at Princeton. Mr. Katz was ostensibly dismissed over a lack of candor regarding a sexual relationship with a student, although he has claimed that was pretextual.     

With Ms. Wax, it’s all about speech. She sees herself as a trespasser of an “unseen borderland” that cuts through campus, beyond which “dissent is not tolerated.” This zone  is policed by academic hunters of “crimethink” that aim to “get rid of people or silence people or punish people” like her. 

Not spared Professor Wax’s indignation is the “tea table gossip of modern journalism.” In particular, she calls the New York Times a “rag” and tells the Sun that their report that she describes herself as a  “race realist” — asserted in the recent profile of her case —  is “made up.”    

The Sun asks Ms. Wax whether she feels that she has inflicted “severe harm” on her students, as Penn alleges. She rejects this “weaponized” notion of harm, where disagreement and offense have “transmogrified that harm into something that warrants discipline or ejection of a person who inflicts the harm.”

Ms. Wax is asked if  it shows “discriminatory animus” to make the statement that “on average women are less knowledgeable than men?” She claims that “every study that’s been done worldwide” discloses that finding. Punishing her for statements like that one, she argues, will mean the “destruction of academic freedom.”

Ms. Wax acknowledges the utility of a “certain kind of restraint and decorum when talking about groups and comparing groups and making generalizations especially in a diverse society.” Alongside that caveat, though, is her aspiration to “defeat wokeism by developing a counter narrative.” 

Ms. Wax’s account rejects the “premise that all groups are equal in their skills, ability, preferences, and talents.” That, she says, is both untrue and “not to be expected in a free and diverse society.” She sees the “core of wokeness” and its “central pillar” as the conviction that in the absence of racism “all groups are equal, equally capable and assimilated to positive norms.” She does not believe that.

Ms. Wax fiercely objects to Penn’s accusation that her pedagogy is marbled with bias and that her convictions compromise her classrooms. She tells the Sun that she has “never been biased against any student.” She elaborates that she treats “every student the same” in that she “responds to who they are as an individual” and demands from Mr. Ruger “forensic proof” to the contrary. 

The Sun asks Ms. Wax if she misses teaching first year law classes, which are devoted to the basics of the legal canon. She was stripped of those duties in 2018. She responds that she’s told by colleagues that it is “no longer fun” to teach first year courses because “you’re always on your guard against committing some kind of violation or infraction of the progressive and woke rule book. ”

One particular flashpoint in l’affaire Wax was her invitation of the white supremacist and editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, to speak to a seminar she was teaching on conservative thought. Mr. Taylor has written a book entitled “White Identity.” He was a contemporary of Ms. Wax at Yale.     

The Sun pushes Ms. Wax on the merits of importing Mr. Taylor to her classroom. She responds that “whether you like it or not Jared Taylor is an educated informed articulate proponent of a far right position.” She explained that “students know nothing about this stuff” except that “they are supposed to condemn it and call it evil.”  

Ms. Wax worries over this ignorance of both students and academic administrators of positions they find repugnant, saying how neither her pupils nor their instructors can  “define a white nationalist,” which signals a state of “complete and total ignorance.” Spreading her arms and leaning forward in her chair, Ms. Wax declares “I am a teacher, I am a professor, and I am there to banish that ignorance.”

Within this condition of what she calls “educational malpractice,” Ms. Wax contends that she is a “very important person at the University of Pennsylvania” because of her “pastoral role” as mentor and confidant. She suggests that she is the only faculty member at Penn conservative students believe will not “turn them in” for contraband thought. 

The professor casts back to her childhood to explain the distinction between “defending your right to say something” and “agreeing with what you say,” a difference that to her has been lost. She recalls sitting at the “dinner table when the Nazis marched through Skokie and my father said ‘I’m proud to live in a country where the Nazis can’” fly their flag. The American Civil Liberties Union defended the marchers then, but would be unlikely to do so now.  

If Ms. Wax is a kind of pastor to the unwoke, her congregation stretches beyond Penn’s campus. She sees herself as channeling the thinking of an “enormous chunk of our democracy,” voicing opinions that are “discussed in living rooms and kitchens behind closed doors and at dinner parties” but have no place in the contemporary academy.

Reaching for examples of the kind of opinion she speaks that others wouldn’t, she cites Charles Murray’s “Facing Reality” for the persistent existence of a “one standard deviation difference in cognitive ability between blacks and whites.” She points to “differences in family structure and family stability and birth rates out of wedlock” as “really important.” 

Speculating on her future, Ms. Wax calls the case against her “pathetic” but acknowledges the possibility that a “show trial” undertaken by a “kangaroo court” could oust her. She explains that she “would love to stay on” and that, aided by deep-pocketed backers, she is going to “fight the good fight to the death.”


Bible college fires theologian for tweet against homosexuality, threatens to report as terrorist: lawyers

A Bible college that disrespects the Bible! Amazing! See Romans 1:27; Jude 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Mark 10:6-9; Matthew 19: 4-16; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Genesis 19:4-8. It sounds more like the Devil's college

A Methodist Bible college in the U.K. fired a Christian theologian and threatened to report him as a terrorist because of his tweets in opposition to homosexuality, his attorneys claimed.

Dr. Aaron Edwards, who taught theology at Cliff College in Derbyshire, England, was dismissed from the school after being accused of “bringing the college into disrepute” on social media last month.

In a series of now-deleted tweets, Edwards had criticized the Church of England’s stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. He also accused the church of “promoting perversion.”

Edwards’ attorneys said he was called into a meeting with Cliff College officials on Nov. 27 and told that his tweets had caused “distress” among members of Britain’s Methodist Church, of which the college is a part. He was then given two options: resign or be fired immediately.

When Edwards refused to resign, he was escorted off campus and told never to return. He was also warned that if he ever stepped foot on campus again, he would be reported as a terrorist under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

“The decision to summarily dismiss Dr. Edwards and ban him from campus is an outrageous attack on academic freedom and free speech,” Edwards’ attorneys said in a statement released Tuesday.

“This case also raises serious questions about whether Cliff College has acted unlawfully by discriminating against Dr. Edwards on grounds of his religion or belief.”

The statement continued: “We have advised Dr. Edwards to lodge formal complaints with both the police and the Equality Commission.”

A spokesperson for Cliff College denied that Edwards had been discriminated against, telling Fox News in an email Thursday that while they could not comment on individual personnel matters, they took any such allegations “very seriously.”


Rental crisis Qld: Premier ‘seriously considering’ introducing rental price cap

A price cap is another word for rent control and rent control always leads to a REDUCTION in housing availability. Is that what the government wants? Queensland had rent control decades back but had to abandon it to ease the shortages it created. That reducing the price reduces the supply is one of the iron laws of economics. No goverment can repeal it. It does however lead to abuses, such as large bonds, "key money" and shorter term rentals. And it is the poor who will suffer from such abuses

Annastacia Palaszczuk revealed the state government is “very seriously” considering introducing a price cap on private rentals after a new report laid bare the scale of Queensland’s housing crisis.

The Premier also confirmed the government is in discussions to buy thousands of homes that will lose funding from the winding back of a federal support scheme.

Ms Palaszczuk said she was “very concerned” about the crisis in Queensland after it was revealed 150,000 households were in critical housing stress and the rate of homelessness soared 22 per cent since 2017.

She said sharp increases in rents had squeezed Queensland families, leading to the government considering reforms to cap rental prices which she said will be discussed at the Housing Summit roundtable meeting next week.

“This is a big issue for families,” Ms Palaszczuk said. “They are constantly being faced with huge increases in rent and this is putting a lot of pressure on families.

“We’re looking very seriously at how a rental cap can be put in place.”

Before leaving office, the Morrison government began to wind back the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) but Ms Palaszczuk said she was in discussions with Treasurer Cameron Dick and Deputy Premier Steven Miles about acquiring those homes to continue support.

“There are over 5000 properties as part of that scheme – Queensland stands ready to purchase those houses,” Ms Palaszczuk said on Monday morning.

“What we do know is that we do need additional support from the federal government and where the federal government is stepping out, we are stepping up.”

Mr Miles said NRAS was a time-limited plan to subsidise rent for 5000 properties with the looming end of the support approaching in the next couple of years.

“So they will go into the general rental market – the only way to avoid that is by stepping in with support of social housing providers and purchasing them, ensuring that they remain within the social housing stock,” the Deputy Premier said.

“We are, as the premier said, discussing with those social housing providers exactly how we can do that.”

St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland chief executive Kevin Mercer said they had resorted to paying people’s car registrations.

“Sometimes the best response we can provide is to pay someone’s car registration so they can live and sleep in it ... to get them through as a temporary solution,” he said.

Mr Mercer said homeless services had been full for a long time.

“The designated specialist homeless services are designed to be short-term accommodation,” he said.

“We’ve got people that have been in our services for 18 months, almost two years, because there’s nowhere for them to go. And we’re not going to put them out on the street.”


The hidden cost of sex for women

Katie Jgln often mocks the current heterosexual singles scene. She is bisexual so part of that unhappiness could reasonably be construed as the effect of living in a world into which she does not fit. Normal women might see the situation differently. And I think she misses two major points below.

1). She describes modern-day relationships between the sexes as unequal and oppressive towards women. Most of what she says is probably pretty true in her environment. But it is surely not true of all male/female relationships. There are relationships in which the woman is dominant and some relationships in which men treat women lovingly and considerately.

Negotiation is the secret to getting things right. All human relstionships involve the striking of bargains. They all have to be negotiated in some way. To take a very simple example, a bargain that still exists to this day is one where the wife does most of the housework while the man does various outdoor chores such as taking out the trash.

I am of course neither recommending nor criticising that "bargain". The point is that bargains of that general sort are routinely entered into. Division of labor between men and women goes back deeply into our evolutionary past. And some degree of compromise will be needed for such bargains to be entered into. Large numbers of married couples do succeed in finding agreements that suit them.

So what jiggling Katie is describing is the situation of a woman who has not or cannot find a bargain that suits her. She is far from alone in that. There is much complaint of dating failures

But if individual negotiation cannot deiver a comfortable heterosexual relationship, is there an alternative?

2). There is. What Katie describes is a common modern situation but she appears to miss competely how it all came about. Traditional society once offered a balance of its own. It had all the unequal treatment of women that Katie deplores but it had something else as well. It had ways of treating women which recognized and compensated for inequaity.

I am of course talking about something that feminists fiercely mock: Chivalry towards women. Women did not personally have to negotiate a fair deal with men because men were brought up to believe that they must give women a favourable deal in some ways.

Male violence towards women is a real and great concern for women these days and no-one seems to have found any way of preventing it. The usual hilarious "solution" offered is to tell men to be more like women (!). But violence WAS prevented once -- by the traditional attitude that violence towards women was shameful and a great weakness. Such beliefs were not always effective in protecting women but often they were. Traditional society had answers where the modern world has none.

So the world Katie knows is one where women get treatement that is still unequal but shorn of the protections that once went with it. Feminists took away chivalry and have offered nothing to replace the very important functions it had. Women are much the poorer for that. They still have typical female burdens but none of the support that once went with it.

There are still some men with traditional attitudes. Women would be well advised to seek them out. Feminism has stripped women of important protections and thrown them to the wolves but, fortunately, not all men are wolves. Christians in particular tend to have a traditional orientation

In my notes here about relationships, I often add personal anecdotes by way of illustration of my points. And I am pleased on this occasion to relate that I did personally do very much as recommended above in my own life.

I had a long marriage in which I did nothing about the house while my wife did it all. I seemed to do nothing. Yet at the time she regarded me as the love of her life. Why? What was the bargain involved? What did she get out of it?

Simple. I enabled her to give up work and become a full-time wife and mother. That is about as traditional as it gets. She was also a single mother of three lively kids when I met her so the chance to spend lots of time with her kids was a a huge boon to her. Most mothers want that. I also treated her kids as my own. So a very traditional marriage can be a very good one from the viewpoint of both parties involved.

In an ideal world, hook-up culture would likely work just fine for those who genuinely want to participate in it.

But we clearly aren’t living in one now. At least not yet.

Our society is still saturated with gender inequality, rife with patriarchal double standards and filled with men who are socialised to disrespect and dehumanise women. And all of that, unfortunately, shows up in many aspects of our lives — including hook-ups, relationships and sex in general.

And it’s the reason why there’s a hidden cost of sex for women.

On a societal level, the still existent purity culture implies that women ‘lose’ something while having sex with men, making the social stakes for women to engage in it much higher. Because while for men having a high ‘body count’ is a point of pride, for women, it continues to be a point of shame. And even something that can damage their reputation.

Even if you aren’t religious or don’t subscribe to sexual double standards, you obviously can’t control the fact that many people do and will judge you on it. (Ironically, that often also includes the men who want to sleep with you in the first place.)

Thanks to patriarchal social norms, women also bear most of the financial and health-related costs of birth control. We’re the ones who are expected by our male sex partners — casual or not — to stuff our body with hormones and risk its many side effects, ranging from depression and breast cancer to diabetes.

And then there’s, of course, the fact that depending on where you live, you might not even be able to access it. Or reproductive and sexual health care in general, including emergency contraception and abortions.

Women also face a much greater burden — and more severe health consequences — than men when it comes to getting diagnosed and dealing with sexually transmitted diseases. And it doesn’t exactly help that some straight men — according to some surveys among Millenials, as much as a third — never even got a full STI test, meaning they could be spreading HPV or other infections that rarely cause symptoms without knowing about it.

(Without the HPV vaccine, you might even develop cancer from contracting it. So if you’re a woman who’s never got it and hasn’t done a pap smear in a while, perhaps it’s time to book it now.)

Heterosexual women are also the least likely to orgasm out of… literally everyone else. According to one recent study, while heterosexual men orgasm nearly all the time, and lesbian and bisexual women about 86% and 66% of the time, respectively, heterosexual women only reach orgasms at a 62% rate.

There’s also a far greater taboo around female pleasure than the male one, and both men and women often grow up believing it simply doesn’t matter.

Not to mention that sexual violence and intimate partner violence both affect women disproportionately more than men — according to some global estimates, as many as 1 in 3 women experience it across their lifetime — or that thanks to a myriad of rape culture myths, rape remains one of the least frequently persecuted crimes.

And if all that wasn’t enough, many men now believe that feminism has ‘gone too far’ — in the UK, for instance, half of the young men do — and are being increasingly groomed by violently misogynistic online ‘gurus’ that equate women with…. animals. Or men’s property.


Air Pollution, Mass Killer or Mass Fraud?

Over the years I have examined here many research reports which claimed to show harm from air pollution. Not one was methodogically sound. The article below adds to the evidence that air pollution as we normally encounter it does no harm

Fine particulate matter in outdoor air, also called PM2.5, is the most toxic substance known to man. PM2.5 is responsible for 8 million, or one-in-seven deaths per year on a global basis. A single molecule can kill within just a few hours of inhalation. Or at least that what environmental and health regulatory agencies around the world claim.

PM2.5 is so dangerous that no one noticed it until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started trying to regulate it in the early 1990s. PM2.5 kills, in fact, no one. A point that is easily demonstrated and will be done so here. That we still must talk about PM2.5 is a testimony to the stubborn commitment of regulatory agencies to science fraud.

What is PM2.5?

PM2.5 is fine airborne soot and dust. A PM2.5 particle is about one-twentieth the width of a human hair. The soot form of PM2.5 is emitted by all forms of manmade and natural combustion: from fossil fuel plant smokestacks; truck and automobile exhaust pipes; and furnaces, fireplaces and barbeques to wildfires and volcanoes The dust form of PM2.5 exists as pollen, pet dander, dust and mold. Smokers of all sorts inhale PM2.5 in massive amounts, especially compared to PM2.5 levels in outdoor air. You may think that last point condemns PM2.5 as a killer. But it actually is the among the best evidence that PM2.5 doesn’t kill anyone.

What is the history of PM2.5 regulation?

Having eliminated virtually all large and visible particulate matter from US skies by the late 1980s and having established a massive regulatory program in the proicess, the EPA hit on the idea of regulating smaller PM2.5 to keep its regulatory bureaucracy going.

In the late-1980s, the EPA began funding PM2.5 research at the Harvard University School of Public Health. In 1993, the Harvard group issued an epidemiologic study of six cities in the US claiming to associate higher PM2.5 levels with higher death rates. Another larger EPA-funded study reaching the same conclusion was published in 1995.

These studies caught the eye of EPA’s legally mandated panel of independent scientists and experts (the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council or “CASAC”) who asked EPA for the raw data so that it could review the studies. The agency refused to provide the data. A subsequent request from Congress for the data was also rebuffed.

Based on these two studies, EPA proposed for the first time in 1996 to regulate PM2.5 in outdoor air. The agency claimed that its new regulations would prevent 15,000 deaths in the U.S. per year. As EPA valued human lives at the time at 5 million dollars each, the agency claimed that saving these lives would provide $75 billion worth of economic benefits to the economy per year.

When called upon to review the scientific basis of the proposed rule in 1995, CASAC balked and stated there was insufficient evidence showing that PM2.5 killed anyone. Although the EPA was legally required to obtain the advice of CASAC, the law does not require that the agency accept CASAC’s conclusions. And the EPA did not.

The agency proceeded to regulate PM2.5 for the first time anywhere on the basis that PM2.5 kills. Its success in issuing these regulations emboldened and empowered the agency over the next 15 years to convert and an unknown killer into the most potent killer known to man. The EPA used these claims in a series of regulations during the Obama administration that destroyed 50 percent of the U.S. coal industry.

Does PM2.5 kill anyone?

The EPA, of course, knows that PM2.5 doesn’t kill anyone. Here’s how we know that, too.

Recall that the EPA’s crusade against PM2.5 was launched by the previously-mentioned 1993 and 1995 epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology is the statistical study of disease in human populations, the key part of that description being “statistical.” I could spend pages and pages describing the flaws in EPA’s data and statistical analysis, but your eyes would gloss over and it’s unnecessary thanks to EPA.

In 2012, a group with which I am affiliated, sued EPA for conducting illegal human clinical research experiments involving PM2.5. By the early 2000s, EPA had concluded that any exposure to PM2.5 could kill in a matter of hours and that elderly and sick people were most at risk. To prove its point, conducted numerous experiments on elderly and sick people in which diesel exhaust from a truck was pipelined into an actual gas chamber where the human guinea pigs inhaled very high levels of PM2.5 for hours at a time. This was illegal because researchers are not allowed to conduct Nazi-like experiments where the purpose is to cause harm, especially without the informed consent of the human guinea pigs.

In its defense to our lawsuit, the EPA stated that it conducted the PM2.5 experiments because the PM2.5 epidemiology was only statistics, and as all researchers know, statistics only demonstrate correlation and correlation is not the same as causation. The EPA told the court that the human experiments were needed to establish needed biological plausibility for the claims of the epidemiology studies.

The EPA’s unequivocal admission that epidemiology alone was an insufficient basis to conclude that PM2.5 kills obviates any further need to consider the many significant flaws of the PM2.5 epidemiology.

And what were the results of those clinical experiments?

Despite exposing hundreds of elderly (as old as 80) and sick people (with asthma and heart disease) to extraordinary levels of PM2.5 (as high as 75 times the level in average US outdoor air), not so much as a gasp, wheeze or cough, much less any death, was reported. The clinical research, in fact, provided not an ounce of biological plausibility to the (dubious) epidemiology.

There is one last important point to make about EPA’s PM2.5 epidemiology. Recall that EPA refused to produce to the CASAC and Congress the raw data used in the epidemiology studies it funded. Frustrated by this most unscientific refusal to share data, I sought a way around the EPA refusal and discovered one.

The state of California provides vital statistics, such as death certificates, to researchers. The state also has the best and most localized air quality readings that can be readily matched to the death certificates. After obtaining some of these death certificates and related air quality data, I did a rough epidemiologic study of my own to see if deaths were in fact correlated with PM2.5 levels. They were not.

I subsequently convinced prominent and expert researchers to obtain 12 years-worth of California death certificate and air quality data and do their own rigorous study. Their study of all deaths in California between the years 2000 to 2012 (more than 2 million) reported no correlation between PM2.5 and death.

Although PM2.5 levels in Chinese and Indian cities can reach quite high levels ? e.g., 100 times average outdoor levels in the US ? no actual deaths are ever reported. The reason for this is that the level of acidic gases always remains in a safe range. Simply inhaling PM2.5 alone kills no one.


Mediterranean diet rich in nuts, oils and leafy veg slashes risk of an early death in women by a QUARTER, study suggests

This study is greatly over-hyped. For a start it is about WOMEN ONLY. Applicability of the findings to men is unknown.

Secondly, only extreme groups were studied. I cannot see whether they used quartiles or quintiles, but, either way, they threw out at least half of their data BEFORE analysing it. What the relationships in the whole data body were is unknown -- almost certainly no significant correlations

Even after that surgery on the data, the hazard ratios were still very low -- less than 1.0 -- meaning that the relationships were not strong enough to support policy recommendations. In a word,the conclusions below are rubbish

The original journal article is here

Following the Mediterranean diet can slash a woman's chance of an early death by nearly a quarter, a study suggests.

In the study of more than 700,000 women, the famed diet decreases a woman's chances of dying from any cause by 23 percent. Australian researchers also highlighted similar drops in deaths from heart disease and stroke.

Rich in whole grains, vegetables, fruit, legumes, nuts, fish and olive oil — the diet has been lauded in recent years for its brain-boosting and heart-helping effects.

A study just last week found it could even drop a person's risk of suffering dementia.

The Mediterranean diet has been described as a 'gold standard' by experts. Some have even declared it as a form of preventative medicine.

It appeared on the radar of American doctors in the 1950s, when reports of low rates of chronic diseases such as Alzheimer's and hear disease began to arise.

Further exploration found that the typical diets of people in the region were playing a role in their great health.

In the time since, a growing body of research has continued to confirm the benefits of the diet rich in vegetables and healthy fats.

Whether one gender may benefit from the diet more than the other has not been explored much, though.

For their research, published in the journal Heart, a team from the University of Sydney combined data from 16 studies published between 2003 and 2021.

The studies, mainly from the US and Europe, included data from hundreds of thousands of women aged 18 and above.

Their cardiovascular health was monitored for an average of 12.5 years.

Sticking closely to a Mediterranean diet lowered the risk of cardiovascular disease by 24 percent, researchers found.

It also dropped the likelihood of death from any cause by 23 percent. The risk of coronary heart disease was 25 percent lower and they were less likely to suffer from stroke.

However, the reason why this diet is particularly beneficial for women is unknown.

The study author, Dr Sarah Zaman, of of the study's authors, said: 'Mechanisms explaining the sex-specific effect of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular disease and death remain unclear.

'Female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, including premature menopause, pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes, or female predominant risk factors, such as systemic lupus, can all independently increase cardiovascular disease risk.

'It is possible that preventative measures, such as a Mediterranean diet, that targets inflammation and cardiovascular disease risk factors, impose differing effects in women compared with men.'

Cardiovascular disease accounts for more than a third of all deaths in women around the world.

However, many clinical trials and research include relatively few women and do not often report results by sex.

The current guidelines on how to best lower cardiovascular disease also do not differentiate by gender.

This latest study calls for more sex-specific research to help guide clinical practice in heart health.


Panelist calls out Australian TV for being too white as our local shows are branded a 'neo-Nazi's wet dream'

The rave below offers no statistics or evidence. It is in fact a very strange thing to say about Australia's politically correct media

By contrast, Malcolm Smith has given examples to show that minorities are OVER-represented on Australian TV.

So the unhappy lady is probably peeved only because HER minority group is little mentioned. She is simply over-generalizing. Ironic that the the host of the TV program where she made her accusations is in fact an Aborigine, a dark minority group

In any case Australians are overwhelmingly of European ancestry so that is the group that advertisers or others would reasonably aim to reach. Targeting such people is simply what you have to do if you want your messages to have maximum reach and impact

And the big irony is that the Arab population that produced the angry lady REALLY IS NAZI. The antisemitism of Islamic countries is well known.

A guest on ABC's Q+A has branded Australian television a 'neo-Nazi's wet dream' after Indigenous host Stan Grant slammed it for being dominated by white faces.

Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf - whose parents moved Down Under from Lebanon in the 1970s - blasted networks for being stuck in the era of the 1960s' White Australia policy.

Ms Lattouf lashed out at the representation of multicultural Australia on mainstream local television shows, saying it was now badly lagging behind the rest of the world. 'Australia's really far behind the UK or the US,' she raged on Monday night's show.

'We still have networks or programs that look like a neo-Nazi's wet dream. We still do despite the fact that more than half of the population are culturally diverse. '[But] we're just gonna kind of ignore those voices.'

Her comments came after Grant hit out at the lack of representation for people of colour on local television.

Monday night's show featured an otherwise all-white line up of 80s British pop star Billy Bragg, Labor MP Josh Burns, economist Gigi Foster, and Senator Perin Davey.

Grant claimed the lack of diversity was giving viewers a false impression of the multicultural society they actually live in.

'People like you and I are still rare on our screens,' the veteran broadcaster and outspoken racism activist told Ms Lattouf. 'And stories are still told by people who look like other people on the panel here tonight. 'What does it take to break through, because the world doesn't look like that? It looks like us!'

Grant, along with Ten's The Project host Waleed Aly and Malaysian-born ABC newsreader Jeremy Fernandez, are among the few people of colour regularly seen on mainstream Australian TV.

Ms Lattouf, a mother-of-two who founded Media Diversity Australia in 2017, said it required grit-teethed determination to succeed as a non-white in Australia. 'It takes patience. It takes a thick skin,' she told Grant. 'It takes having to fight the urge to go into Tourette-style swearing spiel when you get the opportunity. 'Because sometimes it's frustrating that the change is glacial. You take one step forward, four steps back.

'Even in the year of the referendum [on the Voice to Parliament], we still have all-white panels discussing things like the referendum. 'We still have all-white panels talking about refugees and asylum seeker policy - that baffles me.'

She added: 'At least in the UK, when you see politicians when you flick on the telly, even the Prime Minister, though arguably he's not a great win for progressive politics.

'All our all our storytellers, all our institutions of power - they have all been largely white men. 'There's a bit of progress now. We've got white women. And so there is a lot more work to be done.'


Andrew Tate is flooding Australian schoolboys with an aggressive ideology contemptuous of feminist correctness

image from

So what are the schools going to tell the boys? Under feminist pressure, the official ideology is that boys should be more like girls. Such advice will go down like a lead balloon. Telling boys to be sensitive and respectful is probably good advice but it will at most get a bored yawn.

Tate has shown the emperor to have no clothes. There is no considered guide to healthy masculinity. There is nothing to replace his message. Masculinity is simply attacked by elite writers

A prominent principal has warned schools are contending with a “tsunami” of misogynistic digital trends and revealed they are tackling the problem with in-house education programs to specifically address the rise of so-called ”mega misogynist” Andrew Tate.

Tate, the former professional kickboxer turned king of “toxic masculinity’’ has amassed a huge global following on social media sprouting his extreme anti-feminist, alpha male views.

Youth workers say Tate, currently in a Romanian jail under investigation for human trafficking, rape and forming an organised crime group, has emerged as a key influencer of 11-17 year old boys.

St Joseph’s Nudgee College principal Peter Fullagar, 62, said Tate had been on the school’s radar for the past 12 to 18 months and discussions about him had been incorporated into its educational programs.

“There is a tsunami working against us to be fair. It is relentless,’’ Fullagar said.

“We do talk to boys about Andrew Tate and rather than say, ‘Don’t go there’ and try to shut it down, we want to learn why boys are attracted to his message.

“As schools, as educators, we are working really hard to give boys an opposite message.

“We are dealing with young boys‘ behaviour all the time through mistakes they make in and around misogynistic behaviour, homophobic language, racial comments, bullying and harassment. It is part of young people’s landscape today.

“The power of social media has come at us in a rush over the past 10 years so schools are continually responding and refining responses. If it’s Andrew Tate currently, it will be a bigger name in a couple of years time.’’

Fullagar said his school’s established Student Formation Program covered a range of issues including respectful relationships, the definition of masculinity, mental health and wellbeing, risk taking, drugs, issues of consent, social media and being safe in the online environment. Andrew Tate was discussed in the context of social media and what it means to be a young man in today’s world.

St Paul’s School, a coeducational private school north of Brisbane, is also aware of Tate’s influence. Headmaster Dr Paul Browning said young people were bombarded with negative social media messages.

“The temptations are right there in their face, in their bedroom at night time. Unfortunately, undesirable influences follow them into that space,’’ Browning said.

“You can’t ignore it and we have strong programs at the school to help with social and emotional development of young people and the development of their character. We’re not just interested in a child’s academic achievement but also the type of people they are becoming.’’

St Paul’s executive director of Faith and Community Nigel Grant said he first became aware of Tate about a year ago when year nine boys “tried to shock me’’ during a school wellbeing program called The Rite Journey. “We are trying to be on the front foot on this,’’ he said.

“We were having a conversation with year nine boys about what it means to be a man, asking who they respected and who were their heroes. It was in that context that Andrew Tate’s name came up.

“The boys had heard all about him and were aware of the power to shock adults. Some had been impressed by some of the stuff he was saying.

“I was suitably naive but quickly became well informed and, as a group of teachers, we addressed the issue directly and tried to produce a suitable counter message.

“We are regularly shocked but rarely surprised at the content young people see. The internet is like the wild, wild west. Even the best filters can be worked around and children are particularly vulnerable.’’

QUT Professor of sociology Michael Flood, an expert in engaging men in violence prevention, men and masculinities, said schools must be proactive in dealing with toxic social media influencers.

“Schools have an absolutely central role to play particularly through respectful relationships education in inoculating young people against the sexism and the misogyny that Tate and others preach,’’ Flood said.

“Conversations about influencers like Tate should be going on in schools and certainly growing numbers of teachers are forced to have those conversations whether they want to or not because boys and young men are repeating some of the things that Tate claims.’’

A Department of Education Queensland spokesperson said the Respectful Relationships Education Program has been available in Queensland schools since 2017.


Ibuprofen Kills Thousands Each Year, so What Is the Alternative?

This is a conventional assertion but it is poorly founded. It is true that there are some studies that show excess deaths among users of Ibuprofen but what does that prove?

People who took Ib did so for a reason: pain. And what caused the pain? In some cases serious diseases. So did those who died do so because of the Ib or because of what they took it for? We don't know.

A randomized placebo controlled trial among healthy people would answer that question but I can see no example of such a trial being undertaken. All the studies seem to be of people who were already ill. So I can see no reason NOT to take Ib. I take one dose of it on rare occasions for arthritic pain and I will continue with that

Pain and unhealthy levels of inflammation are fast becoming default bodily states in the industrialized world. While in most cases we can adjust the underlying pro-inflammatory conditions by altering our diet, and reducing stress and environmental chemical exposures, these approaches take time, discipline and energy, and sometimes we just want the pain to stop now. In those often compulsive moments we find ourselves popping an over-the-counter pill to kill the pain.

The problem with this approach is that, if we do it often enough, we may kill ourselves along with the pain…

Ibuprofen really is a perfect example of this. As mentioned above, this petrochemical-derivative has been linked to significantly increased risk of heart attack and increased cardiac and all-cause mortality (when combined with aspirin), with over two dozen serious adverse health effects, including:

Ibuprofen is, in fact, not unique in elevating cardiovascular disease risk and/or mortality. The entire category of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) appears to have this under-recognized dark side; cardiovascular disease and cardiac mortality score highest on the list of over 100 unintended adverse health effects associated with their use.


‘Too pretty to be Aboriginal’: Meet the model who wants to abolish our beauty ‘paradigm’

image from$zoom_0.363%2C$multiply_1.9577%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_27%2C$y_194/t_crop_custom/q_62%2Cf_auto/02105d5300b05390b17f721bf167e36d1edaa03b

Fat chance. Her looks are just average by normal Western standards. The Nordic ideal is heavily entrenched in Western minds: Narrow face and nose, fair skin, blue eyes and blonde hair. She has none of that. Her lips are rather fashionable, though.

As I move around the shopping centres, nearly every young woman I see is wearing her hair long, straight and blonde. And few naturally have that hair colour. That is very clear evidence of how entrenched the Nordic ideal is. I can think of nothing that is likely to change it

Sasha Kutabah Sarago has been a model, a magazine editor, a documentary maker and a writer: now, she describes herself as an abolisher of paradigms.

The Wadjanbarra Yidinji, Jirrbal and African-American woman wants us to reject the idea of beauty perpetuated by corporations and across pop culture, and in her just released memoir, Gigorou, she details her mission for change.

Through the book she traces her life as being surrounded by beauty, from her first job as an assistant at her mother’s salon to the revelation of seeing the black supermodels of the 1990s, then becoming a model herself. In reaction to that experience, she launched the first digital magazine for women of colour, Ascension, in 2011.

“When I look at beauty... I look at it more through sovereign beauty,” she says. “What I was born into: how my community embraces me and nurtures me. If we all looked at where we come from and the beauty in who we are, the lineage, the bloodlines ... that’s where you abolish paradigms, or make the change.”

To her mind, things have changed for the better since the Black Lives Matter movement and that informs her belief that change will only come from the individual, “Putting the onus on the government or the beauty industry, we set ourselves up to fail. You just have to look at how the system was built and then you’ll find your answer.”

She questions what we’ve been fed by popular culture, folklore and the multi-billion-dollar Australian beauty industry - particularly how women of colour were told they were not beautiful for so long. “If you’ve ever dimmed your light or hated how you looked or searched for beauty in all the wrong places, this is the book for you,” she says.

As a child of 11, she was told “you’re too pretty to be Aboriginal”. In those days, she says, “we internalised our shame and tried to reconcile it as best we could”. That ugly comment inspired her 2019 documentary of the same name.

Researching the film, she spent time in the State Library of Victoria, going through shocking and offensive material about Indigenous women in articles from The Bulletin, People and even this newspaper, as well as in films, music, literature and advertising. “There seemed no limits to the colonial perversion that sullied our women; there was no room for her dignity,” she writes.

Sarago writes as she speaks and although the book deals with many big and confronting issues, it is also very funny. When her aunt, who often travels alone in the bush, speaks of the ‘little man that travels with her and protects her’, she quips: “That’s where I draw the line. I don’t do spirits.”

There’s also the experience she had dropping $1500 on a Louis Vuitton bag only to find it was completely impractical: handcream tarnished the leather handles, “finding clean surfaces for Louis to sit on, checking the weather to see if Louis could join me for the day... and where were the goddamn compartments?”

At the opposite end of the spectrum are warnings about men with fetishes for Black women, and Harvey Weinstein-types who she says you’ll inevitably find in any industry that involves women and money.

In Gigorou, Sarago reflects on her experience modelling and then a magazine editor. Those insights inform her firm belief that the system is inherently flawed. “Working for government in the past and in the corporate world to the fashion and beauty industry, I see how the machine works and I see how the game is played. So for me to thrive and to be able to make change, I have to extract myself from them. That’s why I talk about decolonising beauty. I talk about it with a First Nations perspective - after going through the mainstream and then trying to find my beauty or my self-worth through those systems, I’ve always failed.”

“You’re working within a system that is designed to serve a certain group, so why would I go and play in that space again? And get burnt? It’s insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results.”

Her vision is bigger than just beauty - she underlines how much would be gained by Australian society if we were to embrace the world’s oldest living culture. Sarago speaks proudly about how her people operated before colonisation.

“We had women’s business and men’s business... the symbiotic relationship and connectedness that everything had. There was a system of lore that would govern if things were out of discord, if there were boundaries that were stepped over. It was written over 60,000 years ago [and operated] until colonisation.”