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

Police treat UKIP as extremist, leave Greens alone

IMAGINE IF THEY TREATED THE GREENS THIS WAY: Hampshire school calls police after pupil looks at UKIP website.

School staff called police when a pupil looked at a UKIP website and an English Defence League video in class.

Mick Taylor said his 15-year-old son was asked by police whether he was a UKIP activist, and has described police action as inappropriate.

The procedure left him feeling “like a terrorist”, Mr Taylor added.

Most of UKIP ideas were conventional and mainstream a generation or two previously; most Green ideas have never before been mainstream. The Greens would be seen as more extremist than the UKIP, except that the media root for the Greens.

Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected

DEMOCRACY — NOW THE CORRUPT AND STUPID POLITICAL CLASS SITS UP AND TAKES NOTICE: Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected, by Peggy Noonan.

The protected [“elite”] are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.

It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people [an elite] who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

Trump staffer rants against Rubio

TRUMP STAFFER RANTS AGAINST RUBIO:

First of all, let’s remember the warning of Rush Limbaugh, who said if Rubio is president, within 12 to 18 months, the entirely of the donor class agenda will be implemented.

He described that agenda in detail as:

Mass immigration, open borders, amnesty, TPP [Trans-Pacific Trade partnership] and even more globalist trade deals, and the destruction of U.S. sovereignty.

Understand, everyone listening today: There is a point of no return. It is not far away. It is right in front of you. And if you cross it, there is no going back.

Marco Rubio’s career has been a career of deception for the singular purpose of advancing his own ambition and financial standing and campaign fundraising in order to put him in a position to end forever the existence of the United States as a country with sovereign, protected, secure, defined, certain boundaries.

And then he goes on TV and in Spanish says he won’t eliminate Obama’s executive amnesty? His unconstitutional, executive amnesty right away? And then he pretends he didn’t say that later, when he’s talking in English?

This is the legacy of a man who is committed to an ideology of globalism so extreme it defies explanation.

 

Germany reports disappearance of 130,000 asylum seekers

WHAT COULD GO WRONG? Germany reports disappearance of 130,000 asylum seekers. This being from the BBC, the article omits the obvious problems and states their case yet again:

Germany’s main business associations are due to voice their concern over a potential collapse of the EU’s border-free Schengen system at a meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday in Munich.

They are expected to repeat their argument that migration can be a useful tool to replenish Germany’s shrinking workforce.

Really? Replace Germans with whom? These migrants can be trained to be as industrious and productive as German men?