Q&A: ABC backs screening process after News Corp criticises Khaled Elomar

Not one of Australia’s elite backs Pauline Hanson. Not one in media, academia, etc, that I know.

The Guardian: Q&A has defended allowing a Muslim engineer in its audience to ask Pauline Hanson a question after a front-page story in the Australian newspaper claimed he had not been properly screened.

Khaled Elomar was cleared by police and the program’s producers before being allowed to ask Hanson about Islamophaobia, the ABC has said.

The News Corp broadsheet highlighted offensive posts on Elomar’s Facebook account and raised questions about the extent to which Q&A vets its audience members.

On Monday’s Q&A, Elomar had challenged Hanson on her policies towards Muslims and the religion of Islam, which include a ban on all Muslim immigration to Australia.

On Facebook Elomar has mocked the One Nation senator, calling her “Sheikha Pauline Hanson” and depicting her wearing a hijab. One post tells Hanson to “Go Upper Cut Yourself”.

The Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie is also targeted by Elomar and referred to on Facebook as “ugly”, stupid” and “a deformed creature”.

Other posts on Elomar’s Facebook account includes criticisms of “Zionist Israel” as well as capitalism. One post said: “The Zionists and capitalists of the world ‘Go fuck yourself’ … We want peace motherfuckers.”

Another post said: “The world is waking up to the crimes of Zionism/Capitalism. The world is extremely cognisant of the bias and flawed western foreign policies. Islam has a vast international supportive audience.”

Elomar, who is an engineer by trade and works at the Caltex refinery in Kurnell, told Guardian Australia on Friday morning that he stood by his posts on Facebook, and that he believed he had been targeted by the Australian for speaking out on Q&A.

“I don’t shy away from what I wrote. I don’t shy away from my strong convictions,” he said. “We live in a democratic society, and I thought it was one that preaches doing what you want to do anything as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.”

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on Q&A: ABC backs screening process after News Corp criticises Khaled Elomar

Trump Is Right about Crime

Heather Mac Donald writes:

The media rushes to downplay the post-Ferguson shooting and homicide surge—and its effect on black lives.

It is remarkable how little black lives matter when they have not been taken by a police officer. The mainstream media is foaming at the mouth over Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s warnings about rising crime during his Thursday night convention speech. Trump pointed out that homicides were up nearly 17 percent in the largest 50 cities. (The latest research actually shows a nearly 17 percent increase in the 56 largest cities). There have been more than 2,000 shooting victims this year in Chicago, he said, and more than 3,600 killed in Chicago since President Obama took office.
The overwhelming majority of the victims in this post-Ferguson shooting and homicide surge have been black. In Baltimore, for example, 45 people were killed in July 2015 alone; 43 of them were black. Baltimore’s per capita murder rate was the highest in its history in 2015. In Chicago, 2,460 blacks were shot in 2015—lethally or non-lethally—or nearly seven blacks a day. By contrast, 78 whites were shot in Chicago, or one every 4.6 days. Twelve cities with large black populations saw murders rise anywhere from 54 percent—in the case of Washington, D.C.—to 90 percent, in Cleveland.
Trump’s concern about rising crime is therefore not a concern about white victims and the loss of white life. Rather, it is a concern about black lives. As Trump said: “[Y]oung Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson . . . have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America.” Hint to the media: He was referring to black children in those cities, such as the ten children under the age of ten killed in Baltimore last year; the nine-year-old girl fatally shot while doing homework on her mother’s bed in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2015; and the nine-year-old boy in Chicago lured into an alley and killed by his father’s gang enemies in November 2015.
And yet the media is twisting itself into knots trying to downplay and trivialize the crime increase. Isn’t it white Republicans (and, of course, the cops) who are supposed to be indifferent to black lives? The Washington Post and Vox.com rushed out fact checkers to recycle many of the failed arguments against what I have called the “Ferguson effect”—the crime increase resulting from cops pulling back from proactive policing. Yes, crime is up, these journalists say, but it’s not as bad as it was years ago. “Even if the nationwide murder rate increased by 17 percent in 2015, that rate would remain far, far below the peaks of the 1960s and ’70s and below any period in the ’90’s,” argues Vox. But a crime decrease that took two decades to achieve is not going to be reversed completely in two years. If present trends continue, however, we could see that unprecedented and unpredicted crime decline of 50 percent disappear in a few more years.
Vox compares the 1980 murder rate with the much lower 2014 murder rate. But the Ferguson effect kicked in only after the death of Michael Brown in August 2014. The second half of 2014 reversed the crime decline of the year’s first half, but the full Ferguson effect showed up in 2015 and continued at least into the first quarter of 2016, with homicides up 9 percent and non-fatal shootings up 21 percent.
Confronted with the Chicago bloodshed, Vox changes the subject to America’s high rate of gun ownership. But the number of guns has not changed since Ferguson. What has changed is the willingness of young gangbangers to carry and use guns now that officers are making so many fewer pedestrian stops—90 percent fewer in Chicago this year, for example.
Vox also argues that there is “no evidence that ‘this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement’ caused violent crime to rise” in Chicago (or, presumably, elsewhere). The Washington Post likewise challenges Trump’s ascription of the violent crime increase to the Obama administration, pointing out that policing is mainly a local phenomenon. Here, Trump’s critics are on more solid ground. The real action when it comes to policing and crime is at the local level. The federal government has little role in local crime-fighting, except for federal-local task forces on drug trafficking. To be sure, the Obama administration’s drive to slap an unprecedented number of consent decrees and federal monitors on police departments has created enormous headaches and wasteful paperwork challenges. At the margins, those consent decrees could have had an impact on policing and crime, as a recent study found. When the administration’s push for bogus “implicit bias” training kicks in, officers will be diverted from desperately needed tactical training and time spent fighting crime on the streets.
Yet, while there was no affirmative, policy-driven federal “rollback of criminal enforcement,” a rollback of enforcement at the local level has in fact occurred, with officers backing off of proactive policing. On that front, Trump got the causation absolutely right. “The irresponsible rhetoric of our president, who has used the pulpit of the presidency to divide us by race and color, has made America a more dangerous environment for everyone,” he said.
President Obama’s relentless accusations that cops are lethally biased, his embrace of Black Lives Matter, and the media’s amplification of that mendacious movement’s lies about the police have led to the drop in proactive enforcement and the resulting increase in crime. Trump’s recognition of the role that official rhetoric plays in determining facts on the ground is sophisticated. And his unapologetic alarum about the rising threat to law and order signified by the deliberate attacks on police officers is welcome.
Vox tries to downplay those attacks by noting that all on-duty deaths—including those from traffic accidents—are down 1 percent. But the Black Lives Matter hatred is not causing more car crashes; it is inspiring people to kill cops. Lethal shootings of cops are up 84 percent this year, according to Vox’s source, and up 68 percent according to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Those are chilling numbers. Not to worry, says Vox, “on-duty deaths remain rare, and 2016’s increase in gunfire deaths so far came after decades of decline.”
If on-duty deaths remain rare, so do police shootings of unarmed black males. In fact, a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. And the fact that “2016’s increase in gunfire deaths so far came after decades of decline” is precisely what makes the increase so striking. That it reverses decades of decline is not a point in Black Lives Matter’s favor. Read on.

Posted in Blacks, BLM, Crime | Comments Off on Trump Is Right about Crime

Clinton’s VP

Scott Adams blogs:

For context, consider Trump’s VP running mate, Mike Pence. He’s the perfect choice for Trump because of the contrast it creates. If you started with Trump and removed everything interesting about him, you’d have Pence. Visually, Pence is the washed-out, smaller, duller Trump. That’s perfect contrast. When you see the two of them together, Pence looks like a black-and-white photograph compared to Trump’s full color. In other words, Pence helps to make the top of the ticket look better, and that’s exactly what you want.

But Clinton had the extra challenge of being a woman in a sexist country. If she picked another woman as her running mate, it would seem to the public as a gender-based hire and work against her. That would be a losing strategy.

If Clinton picked an alpha male running mate – a Donald Trump type – it would create an awkward contrast and do nothing to make her look stronger. So Clinton’s best path was to select a beta male with solid credentials. Tim Kaine fits the bill.

Posted in America, Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Clinton’s VP

Since 2009, I’ve Started Every Day With A Cold Shower

Occasionally I will take one or two during the day as well to get a burst of energy and clarity but the most important thing for me is to take one first thing in the morning to get my day started right with an act of will over the most difficult part of my schedule.

My dad has been recommending the cold shower thing for as long as I remember.

New York Times: The point is that starting your morning by tackling challenges head-on will help encourage similar behavior throughout the day. And, it turns out, there’s a wealth of research to back up this idea as well. People who do hard things first tend to procrastinate less and get more done, according to Brian Tracy’s book, “Eat That Frog.”

It’s important to note that it’s not just about taking cold showers, it’s also about doing it in the morning. Consider that a one-two punch. According to the Florida State University psychology researcher Roy Baumeister, one of the leading experts on willpower, “The longer people have been awake, the more self-control problems happen.” In other words, if you wait until the evening to take your cold shower, there’s a greater chance you just won’t do it. Not to mention that it nullifies the whole idea of getting your day started on the right foot. So don’t just do it, do it in the morning.

The world is full of hard and scary things. We are at our best when we can tackle them bravely and confidently, not when we are accustomed to shying away. Set your alarm for two minutes earlier, get in the shower and before you turn it off, put it on cold. Think of it, quite literally, as stepping out of your comfort zone. It may be really hard, but just remember that most good things are.

Posted in Health | Comments Off on Since 2009, I’ve Started Every Day With A Cold Shower

It’s Dangerous To Disagree With The Narrative

I’ve found that if you just post your own comments on your account and you don’t argue with anyone, you reduce your chances of getting in trouble with Twitter and Facebook and other social media as well as in real life.

I almost never argue in real life or on social media.

Comment: A few weeks ago, I posted contradictory information on a BLM Facebook page. I also said something to the effect of “black dads matter,” as well as facts regarding Michael Brown. It was like a sack of hornets converging with bizarre and shrill accusations galore from regulars on the site.

A few days ago, my Facebook account was suspended. I was informed that my account was suspended until I provided evidence that I was who I said I was. They required a scan either my driver’s license, my birth certificate, or mail of a utility bill with my name and address on it. I’ve had the account for years.

What this means is, unless I dox myself for Facebook, so they can keep a record of me, for future use, my account cannot be cancelled, and can never be used again. All my posts, email messages, Facebook messages, photographs will remain with Facebook, as property of Facebook.

This also means Facebook can cite me as one of their users, even though I cannot cancel the account, which I would if they’d allow it.

This being the case, I’m hard put to figure out how Scott Zuckerberg isn’t a functional sociopath.

This is because he seems to be saying, “if you post anything against any political theory of mine, I will dox you, so that I can have leverage over you in the future, should it ever come to that. In the meantime, what you’ve posted so far, I own and control for good.”

Again, I didn’t post anything on the BLM pity page besides a differing opinion, as well as contradictory citations.

* I post all kinds of chauvinist, sexist, misogynist and racist stuff on my FB page and I’m still waiting for the FBI to knock on my door.
When I troll leftists sites, I make sure to report each and every asshole who calls me names. So far, it works.

* Maybe Thiel will help you file suit against him for billions.

Or maybe you can contact writers over at Breitbart. They would probably like to cover it. Once they do, Drudge can link.

Posted in Facebook | Comments Off on It’s Dangerous To Disagree With The Narrative