NYT: White Woman Calls Police on Black Bird Watcher in Central Park

I side with the black gentleman in this story. Whites often treat dogs as members of the family. This is absurd. I notice that many white women do not like to obey leash laws. I’ve seen this ugly behavior too often. I had a girlfriend who was warned by police to obey the leash laws and when she thought the police were gone, she unleashed her dog, the police came back and gave her a ticket and she started yelling at the cops until I got her to quiet down.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* People like this woman treat their pets as if they are members of some special victim group and will fiercly defend their ‘rights’ to intrude your space, share their bodily fluids with you or even attack you. Dogs should just be on leases. If you call the cops on someone who points that out, you are trash, period. The rest is secondary.

* The internet is jumping on this woman—from all sides. Lefties are going for the white-woman-v-black man setup (the filmer/complainer against the woman is supposedly a black male). Non-lefties are focusing on the NY-lefty-who-thinks-her-dog-is more-important-than-people-and-she-can-break-the-rules part. She’s being painted as a Karen who also engages in Munchausen by proxy via her dog (internet posts attributed to her have that dog having a series of bizarre life-threatening accidents one after another).

I really don’t care, I’ve learned some caution in believing everything the internet says about someone based on a 1 minute clip. She looks bad and presumptuous, but I really need a lot more evidence before I start demanding her head be cut off. Entitled dog people are crappy, but I’m not sure this is it.

Also, more up Steve’s alley, the internet also went after Jimmy Fallon last night around the same time for “blackface”, because in 2000 he did an impression on SNL of a black celebrity. Jimmy Fallon, perhaps the least-threatening, most obsequious late night talk show host on the market today!

We really need to accurately define blackface. It’s not portraying someone who is black when you’re white, its a specific caricature of blacks made by whites in minstrel shows that have gone the way of the dodo.

Or not. I don’t care. Fallon’s a lefty, so let them eat their own.

* The video is priceless and she got her just deserts. I’m rooting for the black nerd birdwatcher in this one.

* NYT: “Internet sleuths digging into Ms. Cooper’s life found an Instagram profile of her cocker spaniel mix and began sharing old photos documenting injuries the dog had suffered…. She also returned her dog to the Abandoned Angels Cocker Spaniel Rescue, where she adopted it a few years ago, after allegations that she choked the dog while calling the police.

“The dog is now in our rescue’s care and he is safe and in good health,” the organisation wrote on Facebook.”

The above is no exaggeration; the poor dog was yelping in pain as she repeated hoisted it and jerked it by its collar.

So: Entitled scofflaw huffery, cruelty to animals, making a false police call with threatening intent… she better blame it on Asperger’s or something. Total idiotic meltdown.

MORE COMMENTS ON A NEW THREAD:

* Frankly, given the way she conducted herself, I would not want her working for my company. You don’t have a “right” to a job in America. It was her privilege to represent Franklin Templeton before the world and she could no longer be trusted with that privilege. Probably she was a psycho to her co-workers all along but psychopaths suck up to their superiors so that they are never found out. This time she showed her fangs.

Cooper is not a danger black man. He was not Trayvon Martin or a “jogger” with construction boots and a hammer. This was one time when the black media hero really is a good guy. And she didn’t FAIL to alert the police to him. She had no duty or right to alert the police to him because he had not committed any crime.

Instead she falsely accused him of threatening to kill her. This is a very serious false accusation and she should be in jail or at least fined for making a false police report. She is a sociopath who was caught doing the wrong thing and instead of humbly admitting that she was in the wrong and leashing her dog she falsely accused a man of a serious felony as a below the belt tactic to “win” the encounter. She played the short game and didn’t think of the larger implications of her tactics (to say the least). And she clearly was NOT afraid of Cooper – rather than running AWAY from him, she approaches him. He was afraid of HER. He asks her to stay away from him on the film as she approaches menacingly.

Of course, the racial aspect is what took this to a whole different level in the press, but what she did was despicable regardless of color. But she was the one who pulled the race card. She was an idiot to do this in America 2020 and now she is suffering the consequences.

* Well, he’s probably the only black man in the history of the world who’s ever tweeted, “I pull out the dog treats I carry for just such intransigence”.

* He also called her a “scofflaw” in the New York Times interview, so I pretty much have to take his side here.

* He appears to be a better human being than a woman who broke rules and then tried to frame him with a crime all the while consuming public (law enforcement) resources needlessly.

* Screw her. She admitted she knew the rules.

It could be worse–I carry a knife and I will gladly kill someone’s retarded, untrained, unleashed dog who jumps on me. And every single woman and liberal’s dog is untrained.

How many times have you heard that crap? “Oh, she’s just friendly!” as a dog jumps on you without your consent. Get your dogs on a leash, losers. If you don’t like leashing your dogs then move to rural Vermont and own your own property. My personal space in a public park is not part of your dog’s territory.

* I highly doubt he is that Machiavellian. The guy was honest about what he said and did re dog and dog treats even though it puts him in a negative light. The truth is that you or I up against a Karen would be lynched for saying what he says he said but they’d be wrong to lynch us. She was breaking the rules to his detriment and he responded in a manner that he had a right to.

When it became obvious that she was going to use his words against him he decided to start videoing and she freaked out. I don’t know whether her freakout was out of misplaced righteous indignation or out of actual fear but both are human level errors.

Either way, while admitting to not having read or watched any more than 5 minutes about this issue, if he is on the record as going against what the SJWs did to her than he is a better man than most of us.

* She doesn’t come off looking great. If she did it to me I’d be super pissed and feel quite good about her losing her job. Not that her bosses seem justified in taking her job but I think he would have been justified in rejoicing that they had.

* Only race-obsessed morons wouldn’t see from the video that she is the one who advanced on him and started to act on the phone with the police like she was being assaulted. Geez. The dog needs exercise? Take it for a walk or a run on a leash instead of breaking park rules and choking her dog by stringing it up.

And he didn’t ruin her – she did that all by herself by calling the police and trying to frame him for a crime. Did he “provoke” her into breaking the park rules and disturbing the bird sanctuary?

And I love the “This AFRICAN-AMERICAN man is threatening me!” part. Really scared people don’t yell PC-compliant descriptive like that. They scream “HELP! A man is threatening me!” or perhaps “This black guy is after me!” People under stress often lose adjectives and adverbs, forget PC-compliant ones.

For once, a white person is actually the bad one. Let it go.

* If that dog lady lied in her police call, she should do jail time. Every woman who makes a false police report should, at the very least, be booked for the crime. Sure, the jails would be overflowing for a while, but eventually they would learn their lesson and the culture would change for the better.

* Charlotte Allen: This is where I get off the Steve train.

I live in Washington DC and for the past 18 years in a neighborhood that is half gentrified and half 100 percent black housing projects. One of the things you quickly learn for your own safety on the sidewalks and on the Metro is how to distinguish ordinary black men minding their business (which is most of them) from thugs. If you can’t do that, you’re a hysterical fool like Amy Cooper who couldn’t tell the difference in broad daylight and thus shouldn’t be living in a city. The thugs are uniformly young (teens to 25 or so), loud, usually traveling in groups, and of distinctly gangsta appearance: locs, tattoos, pant waists down below the boxer shorts, in the summer often no shirt. Those black males are to be avoided at all costs–which is something that respectable black people do. If she had run screaming for the police from one or more (usually more) of that type, and he had turned out to be a Rhodes scholar, that would have been a “false positive.”

I’m glad that Franklin Templeton fired her. My husband and I have some of our savings in Franklin Templeton, and I don’t want my money managed by a 42-year-old single woman in NYC who: 1) calls herself a “dog mom” and the dogs she owns her “babies”; 2) wears a coronavirus mask while walking on a virtually unpopulated trail in the early morning; 3) has so little social awareness that she can’t tell the difference between a thug and some middle-aged black guy in a T-shirt; 4) disregards the leash law on an environmentally fragile trail because “fur baby” is so precious; 5) obviously calls the police without provocation while remembering to be oh-so-politically correct (she says “African-American”? C’mon!); and 6) gets so emotionally wrought up that she tortures the dog in the process (I could scarcely watch that prolonged strangling on the video as she repeatedly dragged the choking animal by its collar).

Sorry, but I feel zero sympathy for this woman. She needs to get out of money management.

* …her use of the term African-American man, and her emphasis and repeated use of that term, was her fatal error.

She’s just a overly confident, entitled, U of Chicago MBA, AWFL bitch who thinks she’s all that because she has some high-powered job as a money-shifter. This type abounds in NYC, DC, Boston, et al.

Personally I’m super reluctant to get into any squabble with a stranger over any issue, but especially with an AWFL because I know how petty and vindictive they can be. That is a losing battle for someone like me if the cops are called (“This man was acting aggressively and I felt threatened…”). Undoubtedly she’s pulled variations of this shit before and been successful with these AWFL tactics. But this time the entitled AWFL bitch crap didn’t work against a successful Harvard-educated, gay, birdwatching-nerd black man.

I see this whole incident as less of a race issue and more of an AWFL bitch getting her comeuppance. Having encountered this type before, a lot, I’m feeling a little pep-in-my-step schadenfreude over it.

* If someone in a public space points out to you that your dog has to be on a leash, and particularly if you already know that you’re required to leash your dog but you simply decide to ignore this regulation, then the only appropriate response is to put Fluffy on a leash.

I’m sure that it annoyed her to be filmed during this encounter, but being annoyed isn’t a reason to call the police, and claiming that her life was being threatened simply isn’t convincing. Had she really felt that her life was in danger, rather than standing there and jawing with the guy, she would would have been hauling ass out of there, with or without her little dog.

* As a former investigator I was often shocked by the crap some guys have to go through— seemingly unjust stuff— and how stoically many of them handled it. A lot of them black and Hispanic. These are the 95% who try to do the right thing even when dealt BS from law enforcement and the courts. Their stories are never heard because they’re not newsworthy. Reading trending stories on social media or MSM or featured by Paul Kersey would give you a very distorted view of how things actually are. It would be good if people went to their local courthouse and perused the docket and sat in on some court cases.

There are a lot of horrible women out there and if you happen to be the man who involves with them you will have a rollercoaster life at best and most likely will be emotionally, mentally, and physically damaged if not destroyed. And law enforcement and the courts are totally on the side of the woman. Often law enforcement will apologize to the male involved in a 911 call before telling them that their (LEO’s) hands are tied and the male must be arrested and booked. In a domestic situation, or civil divorce/child custody case, law enforcement and the courts act as women’s advocates.

I don’t say this as someone who’s ever been arrested or divorced. I say this as someone who’s spent a lot of time in courthouses and interviewing people. I saw how getting involved with the wrong woman could potentially be life-destroying and I therefore saw to it that I never get involved with such a woman. I.e., a woman who possessed any of the behaviors or displayed any of the warning signs of a bitch or nag or unstable woman. As a young man I dated all the above. I went for looks and T & A. And in every one of those relationships, I — as an opinionated, temperamental, stubborn, and argumentative guy— was miserable and the relationship quickly devolved into drama and bitter fights and temporary break-ups. I never had a premarital relationship last longer than 1.5-2 years.

So when it came to looking for a wife I was methodical in choosing the right one. I waited for one with all the right character traits. I found her. So now in my first and only marriage I have gone decades with only a few mild arguments (which were quickly resolved the same day). Involving with the wrong woman can be a soul-crushing hell. Being married to the right woman is a source of constant happiness and joy, heavenly.

* I don’t see him as a prick. He says he is trying to protect the bird habitat. She was clearly doing something wrong and not just technically wrong- it would damage the bird habitat. He says he has found people put their dogs back on leash when he starts giving them treats. A pretty clever solution.

Posted in Blacks, New York | Comments Off on NYT: White Woman Calls Police on Black Bird Watcher in Central Park

Facebook & Google Ban Unz.com

Ron Unz writes:

After several months of record-breaking traffic our alternative media webzine suffered a sharp blow when it was suddenly purged by Facebook at the end of April. Not only was our rudimentary Facebook page eliminated, but all subsequent attempts by readers to post our articles to the world’s largest social network produced an error message describing the content as “abusive.” Our entire website had been banned.

Facebook publishes a monthly report cataloging its actions to eliminate “improper content,” and although our publication was probably one of the largest and most popular ever so proscribed, the explanation provided was remarkably cursory, with our name mentioned in only two scattered sentences across the 47 page document.


Our investigation linked this network to VDARE, a website known for posting anti-immigration content, and individuals associated with a similar website The Unz Review.


Although the people behind this operation attempted to conceal their coordination, our investigation linked this network to VDARE, a website known for posting anti-immigration content, and to individuals associated with a similar website The Unz Review.

As I’ve previously discussed, characterizing our alternative media publication as an “anti-immigration” website “similar” to VDare seemed utterly bizarre considering that only about 0.2% of our 2020 content was republished from that source and many months had elapsed since we had last featured a piece on immigration. So I strongly suspected that the claim merely served as an excuse.

I don’t use Facebook or other social networks myself, and noticed little reduction in our daily traffic following that purge, which seemed to underscore our lack of reliance upon social media. But a week later, this abruptly changed, and our regular daily readership dropped by a significant 15-20%, hardly a crippling blow but quite distressing, setting us back many months of previous growth.

This puzzled me. Why would the Facebook ban have had such limited initial impact but then suddenly become so much more serious? Eventually I discovered that a second even more powerful Internet giant had also banned us, which explained the sharp drop. Our entire website and all its many millions of pages of serious content had been silently deranked by Google, thus eliminating nearly all our incoming traffic from search results. A few quick checks confirmed this unfortunate situation, best illustrated by a particularly striking example.

Just over a decade ago, I had published an important article entitled The Myth of Hispanic Crime, and for ten years it had always placed extremely high in Google searches, generally being ranked #2 across the 52,000,000 results for “Hispanic crime” and also #2 among the 139,000,000 results for “Latino crime.” The impact of my analysis on the heated public debate had also been quite considerable, and a few years ago a leading academic specialist even asked me to blurb his book on that subject. But my article had now vanished from all such Google searches.

Posted in Ron Unz | Comments Off on Facebook & Google Ban Unz.com

Who Killed Channel 9?: The Death of Kerry Packer’s Mighty TV Dream Machine

Here are some highlights from this 2008 book by Gerald Stone about Australia’s formerly dominant TV network:

* The Golden Age of Australian television. You could say it began the first moment viewers spotted the rich yellow hue glinting in their TV screens. With the introduction of colour transmission in March, 1975, audiences blossomed and advertising skyrocketed, bringing the nation’s three commercial networks an unexpected windfall, more than enough to happily share around. Seven and Ten duly proceeded to maximise their soaring profits and minimise their expenditures, as properly run companies do. Kerry Packer, though, had not the slightest interest in sharing anything. His natural instincts told him to break free of the pack and set out to be first and best whatever the price. The profits might be a lot less to begin with, but if he could establish Nine as the industry’s undisputed leader, advertisers would flock to his door begging for air time, willing, even, to pay a handsome premium on top of the prevailing ad rates. Let us be the one. That was where the real riches lay. Kerry took charge of the network, then consisting of TCN 9 in Sydney and GTV 9 in Melbourne, upon the death of his father, Sir Frank, in May, 1974. He knew little about the visual medium – his older brother Clyde had run the TV side of the business while Kerry focused on magazines. Clyde, though, was gone from the scene, off to make his own fortune by the time Kerry took over. He struggled for a year or so to attune his instincts to the special magic of the small screen…

* This, then, was Kerry Packer’s unbeatable dream machine, dominating an era when 85 per cent of Australian living rooms were lit by the flickering glow of a TV set and sewer levels rose measurably with the end of the Sunday night movie.

* The visual medium…was more about feelings than facts: resistant to the kind of detailed explanation that might appear in a newspaper feature page. Television was at its powerful best as a visceral experience, strumming the emotional chords, stimulating the senses, encouraging those watching to come to their own instinctual conclusions about the right or wrong of any situation. The difference between viewers and readers could be summed up in five words. Don’t tell me. Show me.

* Exactly what could one expect from an ACA going ‘upmarket’, as the Park Street executive demanded? Would audiences who tuned in to see cellulite cures and quarrelling neighbours stick around for a fact-filled inquiry into foreign trade kickbacks? That was no mere theoretical question. The producers of both ACA and Today Tonight were able to analyse each evening’s ratings minute by minute, and the evidence was inescapable. Any segment involving a more cerebral type of journalism – a political interview or in-depth investigation – was met with an instant turn-off. Far from ‘dumbing down’, then, the two current affairs shows were being as smart as free-to-air television can get – keeping in close touch with the changing nature of the available audience, giving the great majority of viewers precisely what they wanted. With mums cooking dinner, the kids playing up, the father coming home grumpy after a tough day at work, the last thing they needed at 6.30 at night was a TV show that demanded extra concentration. In an increasingly complicated world, they sought information immediately relevant to their own lifestyles and they were perfectly happy to look at a program filled with useful shopping tips or stories about families very much like themselves embroiled in the same kinds of problems they were struggling to get through. Meakin, then, foresaw a ratings disaster if ACA began straying too far from its tabloid roots, surrendering more and more air time to ‘worthier’ topics that might suit an ABC viewer but threatened to send its traditional audience rushing to change channels.

* ‘I don’t know any other way to manage people than through fear, to scare the fucking shit out of them,’ [Kerry Packer] admitted.

* first-hand knowledge gained by putting together hundreds of newscaff programs and, within those programs, many thousands of different stories. Each effort leaves behind a precious grain of residual knowledge to draw upon in the unending quest for more effective coverage. Was the shot of the weeping woman held a second too long, should the camera have moved in for a tighter close-up; was the poignancy of the moment spoiled by a grab of commentary when silence would have delivered greater impact? Those are some of the fine points a production team might debate in preparing a report that attempts to convey a certain mood: for example, a community’s grief over a tragic car accident. The art of presenting hard facts to a general audience can be even more exacting, particularly when dealing with complex political or economic developments. How can we make this story relevant to the everyday experiences of the typical viewer? If there are statistics that must be mentioned, what’s the best way to enable people to visualise them?

Back in the 1990s Peter Meakin pushed for the introduction of a new lifestyle show, Money, that – in theory – seemed far too dry and cerebral for commercial TV. When sceptical program executives demanded to know who would care enough to watch, the newscaff chief had a ready answer for them. ‘More people have hip pockets than backyards,’ he pointed out, drawing a parallel with Don Burke’s popular series. The key to such a concept was in making every segment, whether about comparing credit card fees or obtaining bank loans, as easily digestible as possible.

* Nine’s finance editor, Michael Pascoe, was well known to viewers of Business Sunday for his droll comments on the foibles of various leaders of the business community. Unfortunately, egg on the face is not a good look for a CBD mover and shaker in his pin-striped Zegna suit. Some of the victims of Pascoe’s distinctive brand of ego-puncturing satire began to complain directly to their contacts in the Park Street hierarchy. Suggestions of censorship are notoriously hard to pin down. No one at Nine was ever ordered in so many words: Tell Pascoe to pull in his claws. However, a familiar phrase began to be heard within PBL’s inner circle with ominous repetition. ‘He’s not taken seriously around the town.’ That evaluation might have been laughable if it hadn’t had such dire implications. If Pascoe had any credibility problem at all, it was in being taken far too seriously by the corporate heavyweights he poked fun at from time to time. The heads of Woolworths, Westfield and Macquarie Bank all felt his barbs but in Pascoe’s own estimation, he probably stretched his luck a bridge too far by taking on Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd, at that particular point in time enjoying a particularly cosy relationship with the Packers. Wherever the critical spark might have come from, the fuse was well and truly lit by late August 2002. Crikey, a gossipy e-mail newsletter avidly read by journalists, carried the first whisper. ‘Pascoe is having his turf stomped all over,’ wrote an arch-rival, Mark Westfield, economics commentator for the ABC’s 7.30 Report, as well as columnist for the Australian. ‘He can’t get a scoop anymore and it’s starting to show in the lack of coverage he’s getting in the Monday newspapers.’ That acerbic observation was clearly a payback for Pascoe’s trenchant criticism of some aspects of business coverage on the ABC. Westfield, however, soon moved on to the nitty-gritty. ‘The other interesting factor in Pascoe’s anger of late is the fact his position is uncertain. His job is being offered around. I was offered the job a few months ago. Nine no longer wants him, so he’s lashing out at his rivals. Grow up, Michael. You’re on the skids.’

* Broadcasting is not a mass medium in my view. It’s about finding ways to appeal to a myriad of minorities that come together in a mass – minorities which are constantly appearing and disappearing and reclustering, as it were. As a broadcaster you are licensed to serve the environment of a particular area and you have a responsibility to all those people in it. If you are going to be a successful broadcaster, then everybody in your potential area must be looking at you some time or another.

* The free-to-air audience may be in a constant state of flux, with web surfers and cable TV samplers drifting in and out of the picture, but it is still possible to find ways to bring viewers together en masse.

* Sunrise had been around in one form or another since the mid-1990s but its direct confrontation with Nine’s long-running and highly successful Today in the 6 am to 9 am slot began in earnest in October, 2002. It was then that a 27-year-old dynamo named Adam Boland put his distinctive stamp on what had previously been an almost totally news-oriented format. Boland comes across as Seven’s version of Julian Cress and David Barbour rolled into one, a creative hotshot with more steam coming out his ears than Old Faithful. As a producer he had something going for him only a second-place network like Seven could provide – virtually no resources whatsoever. Almost every change he was to introduce into the program’s weary old news-and-views format had to be manufactured out of sheer imagination. In that he was helped immensely by his early beginnings in radio, starting as a journalist at 4BC in Brisbane and moving on to 3AW in Melbourne.

Television is often thought of as an ‘intimate’ medium, with the audience able to see a presenter’s face; but the truth is, radio, at its best, relates to its listeners in a way TV is rarely capable of matching. ‘Radio taught me a sense of immediacy,’ Boland says, ‘but most of all, it taught me how to interact with the audience, because whether it’s AM or FM, they are all driven now by listening to their audience. I never understood why TV couldn’t get that. Well, we do get that now, and that’s what Sunrise does. It has very much the same focus as radio, our agenda firmly driven by what we think our viewers will like, not what the Canberra gallery perceives as exciting.’

With that unique perspective Boland decided on a format that would set its presenters free to discuss the talking points of the day with absolute spontaneity, very much like the all-in family banter around a breakfast table. The latest news would be read on the half-hour and might become a peg for discussion, but not necessarily – not if there were issues to debate of more relevance to an audience largely made up of switched-on, 40-something women, many of them juggling kids and jobs. In that kind of context, a news item on Brazilian inflation was more than likely to spark some good-natured jibing about the pros and cons of a Brazilian wax.

Boland encouraged his hosts to express whatever opinions popped into their heads and to inject as much of their personal life into the conversation as possible. One of the first and most important of his innovations was to encourage viewers to send in e-mails as well as letters to give his presenters some up-to-the-minute audience reaction to bounce off of. ‘Don’t think twice before you talk,’ was the simple sermon he preached to his on-camera team. Once they stopped to consider their remarks, they would begin to worry about whether some people might be offended – and that could only lead to self-censorship.

* During the mid-1970s, Channel 9 in Sydney bore the brunt of an embarrassing scandal exposing the way commercial TV managements misused their news departments to curry favour with important important advertisers. Until then, stations not only routinely banned coverage that might offend a sponsor but made sure there was always a pleasing little item to promote a department store fashion parade or opening of a shopping mall. The issue came to a head in August, 1974, over what should have been a big news story involving the inflated cost of laundry detergents, a major item on most grocery lists. A federal parliamentary inquiry accused leading soap manufacturers of cynically exploiting Australian housewives by bumping up their prices to pay for saturation TV ads that were both misleading and nonsensical – claims, for example, that ‘Rinso gets things whiter’ when it was made from the same basic formula as a competing product like ‘lemon charged’ Fab. Citing one reason or another, however, none of Sydney’s commercial TV stations saw fit to give air time to the parliamentary finding. A Channel 9 journalist, furious that the story he filed had been dropped after intervention by the sales director (who then happened to be Sam Chisholm), showed up on the ABC a few nights later to blow the whistle on the whole sordid affair. He was promptly sacked by an enraged Kerry Packer who had just taken charge of the network after his father’s death. In a subsequent investigation, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal warned that TV stations could be stripped of their government-issued licences if found guilty of meddling in the editorial freedom of their news departments to further their own commercial interests.

* As Jamie became James [Packer], going through his late teens and into manhood, their obsessive competitiveness became a kind of bonding ritual, acted out in many different ways – sometimes including their good-natured vying for the favours of the same young woman.

* When it comes to the electronic media, however, the number of frequencies that can be used for radio or TV broadcasts is severely limited. Governments quite properly reserve the right to issue licences for use of the airwaves within their jurisdiction and in so doing, they set forth certain ‘community standards’ that the applicant for a licence must meet in order to maintain his right to broadcast. In the licence hearings that preceded the introduction of television in 1956, transcripts are filled with sanctimonious testimony as to how the applicants hoped to serve up a steady diet of religious, artistic and other uplifting programs fit for a nation of saints and scholars. No one took such pretensions seriously, of course, but the one pledge that remained open to enforcement – as verified by the Soap Powder Inquiry referred to earlier in this book – was the duty to keep viewers properly informed with news of genuine public interest, undistorted by self-serving biases. Television stations not only paid a sizeable fee for their licences, they had the added responsibility of guaranteeing impartial and accurate reporting of any issue or event that could be seen as having significant impact on the community as a whole. If the corporation that controlled the TV station happened to get into trouble with stock exchange regulators, that fact was to be reported as comprehensively and scrupulously as any other.

* Since its inception in 1981 Sunday had established itself as a welcome sanctuary within the commercial TV landscape – a place of leisurely contemplation and enlightenment far removed from the crassness and hype of most mass audience programming. Its two-hour format offered a stimulating potpourri of news, political interviews and commentary, expertly crafted feature stories, in-depth investigations, movie reviews and an occasional sampling of the performing arts. No other commercial network would have ever dared to attempt a program like it, considering the limited audience for such cerebral content; and the ABC could never have afforded the cost of such a quality production even in prime time, let alone at the unlikely hour of 9 am. The program was there only because Kerry ordained it to be so, perhaps encouraged by Bruce Gyngell’s dictum that broadcasting was all about appealing to ‘a myriad of minorities’, bringing together as many different segments of the audience as possible. The show went on to build a surprisingly large following for that time of the morning, and for much of its life even managed to rake in a modest profit from advertisers keen to reach an elite section of wealthier, better educated viewers.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on Who Killed Channel 9?: The Death of Kerry Packer’s Mighty TV Dream Machine

Forward: Defying the governor but heeding the President, a Los Angeles synagogue opens its doors

About 99% of synagogues in California remain closed.

Louis Keene writes:

Mere hours after President Donald Trump called on governors to open places of worship, calling the institutions “essential,” one Los Angeles congregation pounced on the opportunity. In defiance of a California state ban on religious gatherings due to the potential spread of coronavirus, it opened for Friday night services.

Members of Congregation Etz Chaim, an Orthodox congregation of about 70 families that meets in a house in Hancock Park, received an email on Friday announcing “with great pleasure and joy” that Sabbath services would convene again beginning this evening.

Rabbi Chaim Baruch Rubin, who leads the synagogue, said that California permitting some businesses to reopen while prohibiting religious gatherings was a violation of his constitutional right to worship, and thus did not have to be obeyed.

Posted in Los Angeles, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Forward: Defying the governor but heeding the President, a Los Angeles synagogue opens its doors

Steve Sailer: How Many Quality-Adjusted Life Years Is Coronavirus Costing Us?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* If age is a relevant factor in the valuation (and surely it is) then that opens the door to a host of other factors that we’re not allowed to mention.

The upshot and the implication is that some lives actually do matter more than others. Vastly more, in fact, and this offends our sense of equity.

Already in calculations such as those attending compensation for death in plane accidents, potential future earnings are considered.

Maybe some people’s lives are worth 10 or 20 million. But some are approximately nil and some appear to be negative.

* From a strictly economic point of view, the death of 70-90 year olds does not come at a great cost. Definitely not $10 million. These are people long past their earning years and who cost the system a huge amount of money. In fact, think the optimal course of action from an economic point of view would be to pull a Cuomo nationwide and plant COVID-19 patients in every nursing home in the USA, while the rest of us live our lives as normal. Of course, that is ridiculous, but if we really want to discuss whether the “cure is worse than the disease”, we must be honest about what is happening.

* Are Covid-19 death numbers inflated? It’s said that if you have the virus and get hit by a car, you are counted as a coronavirus victim.

And there is apparently a financial incentive for hospitals to do so – they get additional Covid-19 aid money.

Since so many of the deaths are of very old people with underlying health problems, this could be quite an overstatement.

* The vast majority of the people dying are a net drain on the economy. Very old and unhealthy people don’t contribute.

* In the first-cut cost-benefit analysis, the “lost life” for all 330 million Americans during the lockdown should be included.

Of course, then there’s the added costs from the destruction of our economic and social fabric of job losses, bankruptcies, substance-abuse, suicides, ballooning debt, etc.

* YEARS OF POTENTIAL LIFE LOST … the ultimate metric in rational coronavirus analysis

As Winston Churchill allegedly quipped: Keep experts on tap, not on top. The Wall Street Journal runs commentary (5/14, behind WSJ paywall) on how the good Dr. Fauci’s expertise is narrow, and that he’s unequipped to consider societal costs outside his disease-control focus, and freely admits that.

From the very start of this madness, the metric years of potential life lost (PYLL) should have been the critical consideration, but unfortunately wasn’t. Has Dr Fauci or his colleagues at the CDC or WHO even uttered these words in public?

The JUST FACTS website of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) features articles judiciously using the YPLL metric to evaluate the wisdom of the COVID-19 shutdown:
Comparing the PYLLs of a projected Coronavirus death toll in the United States of 240,000 with other ‘everyday tragedies’, such as the flu, accidents and suicides (4/8, comparison chart below), and
On the casualties from the drastic government-mandated shutdown, FEE projects that the anxiety from reactions to COVID-19 will destroy at least seven times more years of life than can be saved by lockdowns (5/4).
Meanwhile, ABC News recently ran a story citing that the people with coronavirus are dying an average of 10+ years earlier than they would have naturally (5/10), based on a study by the University of Glasgow (lots of detailed data presented). As the median age of COVID-19 deaths is near 80, the average PYLLs are inflated by inclusion of deaths of people much younger, and this surely is impacted somewhat by the accounting of dying with, rather than dying from, COVID-19.

Although our personal lockdowns may have some charms, it could be suggested that every American has ‘life lost’ in this ongoing collective adventure … let’s put the average PYLL number at a conservative 0.3 years. With about 331 million Americans, that equates to about 100 million PYLL. Taking FEE’s wildly inflated US death toll of 240K from COVID-19 with an average PYLL of 10 years, that equates to only 2.4 million PYLL.

Therefore, with the lockdown, the overall years of potential life lost of the general American population is almost 42X more than the most grievous COVID-19 impact case … and this is BEFORE the fallout casualties that FEE highlights.

* It seems to me that the most obvious way for a government to calculate the value of a social policy is pretty simple: tax revenue versus tax expenditures. Closing off sources of tax revenue and delaying tax collection while shelling out trillions in stimulus and prolonging social security payments and increasing Medicare payments is incredibly bad for the government’s bottom line.

* – Not accounting for time lost by the healthy. Incredibly obvious con, but it doesn’t support their predetermined pro-lockdown viewpoint so they arrogantly ignore it.

– They need to subtract lives that would have been lost without the lockdown from lives that were actually lost, not just take the total (eg 120,000 – 100,000 = 20,000). This is unknown.

– Different people value things differently. There is no one formula because these things are unquantifiable and not interchangeable. They pretend to be experts on something they completely made up that is not independently verifiable. Yeah anyone could do that, just need to give them the power and the salary first. And you don’t get that position without supporting the conclusions that the elites want you to reach.

* Considering that the average age of covid related deaths in in the 70’s, and that a significant number of people in their 70’s and older are retired, there is little economic loss because retired people mostly consume resources, they don’t produce them.

In purely analytical terms, the more retired people that expire would appear to be an economic value in itself because resources and productivity are no longer required by them.

* According to analysis by a Nobel prize laureate in chemistry, Covid19 has not caused any excess loss of life in Europe when viewed over a three year average. While surprising, the European all-cause mortality data supports his conclusion. Death is statistically variable. For instance, the flu season 2018-2019 was mild and fewer people died than was projected from the long-term average. The 2019-2020 flu season has been mild too. Then Covid19 came along and killed people who on average should have died over the previous 18 months. He estimates that Covid19 will increase this year’s death toll by the equivalent of 3 weeks normal mortality.

* No matter how you slice and dice the data, CV is a fatal disease primarily (not solely, but primarily) among the elderly. For those who are not elderly, victims usually have some co-morbidity (diabetes, obesity, etc.) For a healthy white person under 60 to die of Covid is extremely rare. It happens now and then, but rarely (i.e. less than 1% of deaths would be among that group).

Everything in America is politicized today so even a public health crisis is seen thru a political filter. If you are confused about the demographics of the victims it is because the media has been doing all that it can to obfuscate the identity of the victims. They did this with AIDs also.

* The VSL is pegged at 10 mil no matter if the death is a healthy 16 year old killed by a drunk driver or a 102 year old cancer patient accidentally killed by a negligent nurse. Why? Federal bureaucrats wanted to adjust the VSL based on age and other factors, but when word leaked out a political firestorm broke out and the ‘crats backed off and just left it at the same cost for everyone. (Episode 991: Lives Vs. The Economy)

* When you add it all up, the lockdown probably isn’t going to have been worth it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was the wrong decision at the time, with the information available (and not available) at that time.

* As bad as the current pandemic is, I think we should look at it as a dry run. It’s a Richter scale 7 and we need to get prepared for the Big One. Looking forward we need to run all kinds of analyses like these and vary the viral assumptions: different fatality rates, different effects on different demographics, different organ systems affected, etc. How would we respond to the next Chinese virus that kills not the old but the young? Or that has a small pox level of fatality? How would we respond to a virus that, like polio, causes muscle paralysis? Or one that causes renal failure so we run out of dialysis machines rather than ventilators? This is why it is so important as Steve has said to keep speech free and to allow unfettered debate and analysis.

* US traffic deaths average roughly 37,000 per year. However, if the age of the average traffic victim is close to the age of the average American, than their life expectancy would be at least 3x to 4x that of the average coronavirus victim. Ergo, our average traffic deaths are equivalent to at least 110,000 to 150,000 coronavirus deaths on the low end. If you factor in quality of life I couldn’t imagine it being any less than 200,000 coronavirus deaths.

* For the AVERAGE 80 year old (who is the average person dying of COVID) life expectancy is around 8 years so you could say that each COVID death costs 8 years of life on average (even saying this is better than assuming that Covid is mostly killing people in the prime of life which is the impression that the media gives). BUT, in fact the 80 year olds who are dying of COVID are not AVERAGE 80 year olds, they are concentrated among the sicker 80 year olds so the average # of years lost is less than 8. How much less I don’t know but I’m pretty sure it’s significantly less than 8. For a significant # of the dead, they were going to die either of their terminal disease or of seasonal flu within a few weeks or months anyway, or if not this winter then next winter.

* Most nursing home residents don’t last 2 years before they pass away. Half the Wahu Flu fatalities were among elderly in assistant living facilities. One thing few have talked about, is that most of them have do not resuscitate orders.

Posted in Covid | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: How Many Quality-Adjusted Life Years Is Coronavirus Costing Us?