Why does the Western Australian permanent government hate Ray Mickelburg so much?

Why does the Western Australian permanent government hate Ray Mickelburg so much? Liam Bartlett:

[The] former SAS trooper spent 8½ years incarcerated, mostly in the hellish confines of Fremantle prison, for something he didn’t do. Framed by corrupt cops for the 1982 theft of 68kg of gold bars from the Perth Mint, he and younger brothers Peter and Brian were wrongfully convicted in a saga that shamed the justice system and embarrassed authorities.

In 2008 Ray was awarded $500,000 by the state in compensation, a stingy amount for 8.5 years. Now the Legal Aid Commission is suing him for $145,353.41 in unpaid bills dating back to 1990.

Exactly where the LAC found these ancient invoices is unclear but it’s hard to believe it’s accounting systems are so bad that an amount so big was missed when it received a settlement eight years ago. …

Now [the Mickelbergs] are singled out in an act that reeks of faceless revenge and bad grace. In all other high-profile cases in WA involving a demonstrable miscarriage of justice, no other victim has been asked to repay the LAC.

Women who date sexist men often become sexist themselves

STUDY: Women who date sexist men often become sexist themselves claim psychologists (but men are immune to a woman’s beliefs). As Takimag comments:

A study at the University of Illinois has reached the troubling, disturbing, problematic, and utterly unacceptable conclusion that women who date “sexist” men run the deadly risk of contracting the sexism virus themselves. Purporting to be scientific, the study divided “sexism” into two arbitrary categories—“hostile” (where gangs of frat boys high-five one another while gang-raping women in dark rooms covered in broken glass) and “benevolent” (where men are nice to women and get accused of being sexist anyway). …

[T]he study reveals the foul truth that unsuspecting ladies who fall prey to the seductive wiles of benevolent sexists also become afflicted with the delusion that they are actually happier than they were as single, empowered, independent, man-hating, multiple-cat-owning feminists.

Wikipedia more left leaning than Encyclopedia Britannica

WIKIPEDIA MORE BIASED THAN ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA: Scholars find Wikipedia is more left-leaning. Surprise!

Perhaps the most interesting finding of Zhu and Greenstein’s research is that the more times an article is revised on Wikipedia, the less bias it is likely to show—directly contradicting the theory that ideological groups might self-select over time into increasingly biased camps.

“The data suggests that people are engaging in conversation with each other online, even though they have different points of view,” says Zhu. “The crowd does exhibit some wisdom, so to speak, to self-correct bias.”

The number of revisions required to start showing this effect, however, is quite large—at least 2,000 edits—and the articles most read by users aren’t necessarily those most revised by editors. “To some extent, we are not seeing the scenario where too many cooks spoil the broth, we are mostly seeing an insufficient number of cooks,” says Zhu.

hat-tip Matthew

Oscars: Hollywood hypocrisy on race and guns

OSCARS THIS YEAR DISPLAY HOLLYWOOD HYPOCRISY ON RACE AND GUNS: The Oscars Aren’t Racist – They’re Stuck in the Past, by Patrick T. Brown:

It is true that this year, none of the twenty nominees for Best Actor and Actress in either a lead or supporting role are non-white….

What leaves minority actors out in the cold when it comes to Oscar-nominated roles is not racial bias, but a predisposition in the film industry towards heavy-handed nostalgia. The movie industry can’t stay away from making and honoring self-referential films that celebrate the industry’s past and lament its demise as a cultural institution.

Meanwhile many celebrities will be wearing gun control bracelets while surrounded by massive increase in armed security.

UPDATE: Oscars, RIP, by Nicholas Stix:

The Oscar is the almost-90-year-old award that used to be the greatest honor in the motion picture industry. When, after a series of Affirmative Action nominations and wins, no blacks were nominated for the 2015 acting awards for the second straight year, black crybullies Spike Lee, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Will Smith (Pinkett Smith’s husband), threatened to “boycott” the February 28 Oscar presentation. They simply asserted that a lack of black nominees was proof of “racism.” The Academy immediately prostrated itself, announcing that it would make itself “less male and less white,” in other words, engage in the kind of reverse racism and sexism Americans were promised would not happen if 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act passed.

Purging white men. Hmm. Sounds familiar.

Awaiting America’s political earthquake

AWAITING AMERICA’S POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE, by Salena Zito. Looks like it will be Clinton versus Trump this year:

That means two wealthy New Yorkers, neither particularly well liked in their parties, will conduct ruthless, calculated campaigns aimed at each other’s personal destruction in the hope that the electorate will find both so repulsive that they refuse to vote and only the candidates’ hardcore bases will show up.

That will bring the country back to square one, leaving us still angry, still disrupted, still searching for ways to send a blunt message to the forces of status quo. …

Many Americans feel the government is working against them. … When people feel the gap between the nation’s richest and poorest is widening under this administration’s “recovery,” and that distressed areas are doing worse instead of better, their anger and resentment build. The result is more economic and political polarization and more people feeling left out — which is why you see so many voters looking to shake things up.

Take, for example, last week’s primary results here; most analysts were shocked that Trump won a majority of evangelical voters over Ted Cruz. They didn’t understand (some still don’t) that these are the same voters who supported Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012, and they’re tired of losing. These voters hear Trump shouting about strength and winning — and they run toward the light for the win, ignoring the consequences.

Doublespeak on female genital mutilation

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION undergoes doublespeak treatment as “Doctors” published in the Journal of Medical Ethics unilaterally declare that

“De minimis procedures such as removal of the clitoral hood or a ritual nick on the external female genitalia (Categories 1 and 2) cause little or no functional harm. Therefore, it is difficult to characterize them as unethical or a human rights violation.”

These health professionals prefer to refer to the ritual mutilation of otherwise healthy women, girls and in some cases infants, as female genital alteration.  Like taking up a hem or fixing a pleat in your pants suit.

PC hypocrisy over Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS  claims another victim and shoots the progressive messenger at the same time.

Earlier this month, New York magazine science columnist Jesse Singal wrote an extensively researched piece on the destruction of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto and the “show trial” of its leader, 65-year-old psychologist Kenneth Zucker, who was fired from his job at one of Canada’s largest mental hospitals last December…

What Singal documents in his column is a witch-hunt: a hasty review by people with little scholarly expertise who credited uncorroborated — and in some cases, later disproved — claims of misconduct against Zucker and his staff.

The closure of the Toronto clinic was roundly celebrated in left-of-center media. One might think Singal’s devastating report — coming from a journalist squarely on the progressive side in the culture wars — would be cause for second thoughts. Instead, it led, predictably, to nasty attacks on Singal…

How to best help kids with gender identity issues is an important, complex question. It calls for respectful debate, not dogma and witch-hunts.

“Safe” schools program sex education: two awkward questions

PARENTS ARE THE BEST JUDGE  of their kids’ sex education needs, by Angela Shanahan:

The Safe Schools curriculum … is a radical form of sex education under the guise of an anti-bullying program.

Two problems for the PC. First, why is the material OK for 11 year olds but not parliamentarians:

[T]he following material from a Safe Schools student resource, “OMG I’m Queer”, was incorporated into the original petition. …

The Clerk of the Parliament censored this from the Queensland parliament’s e-petition website because it contained “intemperate” language.

Second, as Sinclair Davidson at Catallaxy points out, if it’s so “safe”

why is a federal government funded school program requiring students to ask their schools to relax firewall protections so that school children can access sexually explicit material on the internet?

h/t Matthew