Why Millennials Are Lonely: Loneliness has gone viral.

Why Millennials Are Lonely: Loneliness has gone viral. By Caroline Beaton.

First, incredibly, loneliness is contagious. … People who aren’t lonely tend to … become lonelier if they’re around people who are.

Why? Lonely people are less able to pick up on positive social stimuli, like others’ attention and commitment signals, so they withdraw prematurely – in many cases before they’re actually socially isolated. Their inexplicable withdrawal may, in turn, make their close connections feel lonely too. … One lonely person can “destabilize an entire social network,” like a single thread unraveling a sweater …

The second reason for millennial loneliness is the Internet makes it viral. … Ironically, we use the Internet to alleviate our loneliness. Social connection no longer requires a car, phone call, or plan – just a click. …

The breakdown of community and civic society has almost certainly gotten worse. Today, going to a bowling alley alone, Putnam’s central symbol of “social capital deficit,” would actually be definitively social. Instead, we’re “bowling” — and a host of other pseudo-social acts — online.

One reason the Internet makes us lonely is we attempt to substitute real relationships with online relationships. Though we temporarily feel better when we engage others virtually, these connections tend to be superficial and ultimately dissatisfying. Online social contacts are “not an effective alternative for offline social interactions,” sums one study. …

The more isolated we feel, the more we retreat online, forging a virtual escape from loneliness. This is particularly true for my generation, who learned to self-soothe with technology from a young age. It will only become more true as we flock to freelancing and other means of working alone.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

Democrats Pick Establishment Leader To Head Up The Party.

Democrats Pick Establishment Leader To Head Up The Party, by Den Shapiro.


The Democratic Party has no intention of working with President Trump. Perez’s first words after winning: “Someday, they’re going to study this era of American history. They’re going to ask the question of all of us: Where were you in 2017 when we had the worst president in the history of the United States? We will be able to say that the Democratic Party led the resistance and made sure this was a one-term president.” …

Perez is a utopian socialist:

J. Christian Adams, a lawyer who worked with Perez, says that Perez is a “utopian. I’ve sat in rooms with him listening to his progressive vision of a future free from everything he dislikes. He is a true believer that the government can force the transformation of a culture and a society for good.”

And an open-borders fanatic:

Here’s Adams again: Perez served “many years as a board member and president of the Soros-funded open-borders pusher, Casa de Maryland…[he also served for] two years as “immigration advisor” and special counsel to the late Ted Kennedy, the chief architect of the disastrous immigration system we have today.”

Race-based politics are his thing:

According to the Wall Street Journal, Perez is a “champion of disparate-impact theory, which purports to prove racial discrimination by examining statistics rather than intent or specific cases.” Under Perez’s tenure at the DOJ, he attempted to threaten lawsuits against a series of banks not by proving racism, but by showing that a disproportionate number of minorities had been denied loans.

Perez was the moderate in the race, because the other candidate was Ellison.

A reader comments: Perez’s  goal is to “Make America Mexico Again”. He is a globalist in the extreme, and is all about Agenda 21. He prays to the God’s Soros and his son, Obama….. This is where the US would have been headed under Hillary Clinton. The Orwellian Left is still fooling the remnants of what was once the great Democratic Party in the USA.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

Donald Trump supporters to boycott Oscars in protest against ‘Limousine Liberals’

Donald Trump supporters to boycott Oscars in protest against ‘Limousine Liberals’, by David Millward.

[Trump’s] supporters have already made it clear that they will have no truck with people they regard as “Limousine Liberals”.

A Facebook post originated by Republicans in Arizona has called on the “backbone and decent people of America” to stand up against the “bitter people of the entertainment industry”.

The group hopes its supporters will hit the television ratings by voting with their remote controls should Mr Trump come under attack during the acceptance speeches. The political sympathies of nearly all the nominees suggest that this is possible.

Accepting a Film Independent Spirit award on Saturday night, Casey Affleck, who has been nominated at the Academy Awards for his performance in Manchester by the Sea, said: “The policies of this administration are abhorrent and will not last.” …

The scene for the latest round of the president versus Hollywood’s liberal aristocracy was set at last month’s Golden Globes awards when Meryl Streep rounded on Mr Trump. Characteristically he used Twitter to hit back, describing her as “overrated”. …

It’s going to be the most political Oscars for a number of years. When people were talking about it a few months ago, they thought it would be a race issue,” said one Hollywood insider. “Now agents are unleashing their stars to say what they will. They are telling their clients they are not going to lose anything.”

Style was wanting, but Tony Abbott’s substance is right

Style was wanting, but Tony Abbott’s substance is right, by Jennifer Oriel.

The reflexive rage against former prime minister Tony Abbott blinds the government to his ­constructive ideas.

Tony Abbott

The frontbench has rejected a suite of policy proposals pregnant with potential because Abbott crafted them. If refined, the proposals could propel the government from a sunset state into a period of policy renewal and coherence. …

The Liberals have all but ­ignored Abbott’s policy proposals and focused instead on style over substance. Their collective anger rests on two comments: that many people view the Liberals as “Labor lite”, and the government is drifting towards electoral defeat unless it changes course. It is on the ­second point that Abbott justifies the need for a policy reset. …

The policies Abbott suggested:

The first reform is aimed at making the legislative process more democratic. It is to change section 57 of the constitution so that legislation rejected twice by the Senate three months apart can go to a joint sitting without the need for a double dissolution election.

Subsequent reform proposals are to: freeze the RET; reduce ­immigration rates; avoid all new government spending while eliminating “frivolous” expenditure; withdraw funding for the Human Rights Commission so that responsibility for protecting liberties rests with the parliament, the courts and free press; maintain ­secure borders; promote beneficial free-trade agreements; and strengthen defence.


In the first Newspoll this year support for the government plummeted to its lowest point since Turnbull took the leadership from Abbott in 2015. Labor is ahead of the Liberal coalition 54 to 46 in two-party preferred terms. The Turnbull government’s primary vote sits at 35 per cent. …

The real problem is the record 29 per cent of people polled who would decline to give first preferences to either major party. Given Pauline Hanson’s rising popularity and the Coalition’s sustained decline, it ­appears Liberals are bleeding ­voters on the Right flank.

A game-changing possibility:

It is unlikely the Liberals can recover the New Right, which has a counter-revolutionary outlook, unless they form a coalition with one of the emerging minor parties. Such a coalition might encourage the Liberals to adopt a drain-the-swamp strategy consistent with classical liberalism, which will appeal also to conservatives battling to end neo-Marxist corruption of public institutions.

The times they are a’changin:

The lesson both major parties should learn from their removal of sitting prime ministers is that the party does not know better than the people. Abbott was the right man, but before his time. Turnbull was the right man for the centrist era, but it is drawing to a close. The centre is holding, but it is no longer a centrist enterprise. A new order is emerging. It will be led by ­muscular conservatives, a counter-revolutionary mass, or some combination thereof.

he government should show maturity and give due ­respect to the policy brain that won it office — twice.

Australian Fair Work Commission: Independence versus accountability

Australian Fair Work Commission: Independence versus accountability, by Dean Smith

There is little doubt we are living in a time where distrust of institutions is high, whether that be parliaments and governments, churches or our legal system.

There are a variety of factors driving this disenchantment, but at its core, it’s driven by a belief that these institutions are not doing their jobs.

In the case of Parliament, this perception has not been aided by a seemingly inexorable trend towards relying on independent bodies to make decisions.

“Independence” is a somewhat double-edged sword in this context. It’s generally sold to the public as a virtue, because “independent” means politicians aren’t interfering, and therefore the outcomes or decisions are not political.

It sounds wonderful, in theory.

However, the problem is that “independent” is also means “unelected”, and therefore “unaccountable”. Worse still, it doesn’t always mean the outcomes are non-political.

The Fair Work Commission is unelected but sets many wages in Australia:

The Fair Work Commission has been around in various guises since 1904, but the Rudd/Gillard Labor government turned it into a behemoth.

It has the ability to determine minimum wages, decide who should be paid penalty rates and at what rate, approve or limit the contents of awards, resolve workplace disputes, approve or not approve enterprise agreements, allow or disallow strikes, grant right of entry permits to workplaces and regulate trade unions and employer organisations.

Its rigid structure is ruled over by a top-heavy establishment of deputy presidents and commissioners, all of whom are entitled to “the same protection and immunity as a justice of the High Court”. Once appointed, they are entitled to remain on the commission until the age of 65 – and their decisions about minimum standards are final, and not subject to review.

In other words, our democratically elected Parliament has virtually surrendered its legislative powers in critical policy matters to an unelected, unaccountable, little-known group of enormously privileged individuals who have guaranteed job tenure, and are subject to little scrutiny.

This is why Labor’s caterwauling about last week’s penalty rates decision is a bit rich. The commission operates according to rules Labor wrote, and its bench is heavily stacked with its appointees. Perhaps Labor is finally conceding that Julia Gillard’s massive re-regulation of Australia’s workplace relations system in 2009 was poorly conceived.

The other main “independent” body of price-fixing bureaucrats is the central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, which sets interest rates. Their mismanagement (and that of their unelected brethren at the US Fed, Bank of England, etc.) led to the artificial boom from the 1980s to 2008, the GFC, stagnation, and now ridiculously low and non-market interest rates that have made many retiree’s life savings unable to earn a decent income. And there are those who want bureaucrats to run even more of the economy, instead of the market!

Independence is supposed to guard against corruption, not to deprive the public of control and deliver outcomes for which there is no direct accountability. It’s now time we examined some of our “independent” bodies through that lens.

Hear hear!

Trump Plans to Skip White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

Trump Plans to Skip White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, by Michael Grynbaum.

The president has blasted the news media as the “opposition party” and on Friday delivered his most slashing broadside yet, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference that major news outlets were “the enemy of the people.” Later, his press secretary barred journalists from CNN, The New York Times and other organizations from a briefing at the White House.

The level of tension seemed incongruous with a black-tie event that is typically a jocular, if occasionally sharp-edged evening. The dinner, which has attracted A-list celebrities in recent years, features a presidential roast of reporters and a comic routine by a notable entertainer. Presidents are expected to be self-deprecating, which Mr. Trump is decidedly not.

It’s a cultural event of the PC class. PC types revel in making PC jokes, and deplorables are not present. Obama loved these dinners, and they loved him. The last few such dinners have mocked Trump, and he became a running joke. The mainstream news don’t mention that there is a cultural war and this is one of its high-points in the US.

The people at this event for the last few years never saw Trump coming — they said he was a joke candidate, and that he would not win the Republican nomination or the Presidency. They do not understand why anyone voted for him, because they do not personally know any such people (well maybe they do, but such voters aren’t going to tell a PC person).

University of Western Australia asks white male students to fill out a questionnaire ‘to understand why they are privileged’

University of Western Australia asks white male students to fill out a questionnaire ‘to understand why they are privileged’, by Nic White.

University students were handed a 29-point ‘male privilege checklist’ during diversity workshops on orientation week.

The checklist detailed ways in which males were perceived to have advantages over females in careers, sexuality, personal safety, child rearing, and even clothing.


The University of Western Australia in Perth confirmed the checklist was part of ‘Diversity Dialogue’ workshops last week, along with material on race and sexuality.

The questions are loaded with misinformation, so it has become a form of push-polling for PC. One example that caught my eye was:

‘My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favour,’ the first point read.

I find that funny because as it happens I am an engineer and in every job I have ever applied for female candidates, especially black female candidates, are greatly favored over me (I am white and male) because of diversity. Especially when I worked in the US, where affirmative action is enforced. I have won several government IT contracts picking up the pieces after it was initially awarded to a female because they were female — and the project failed and she had to be sacked, and the project restarted. If the previous contractor had been chosen on the basis of ability rather than sex, they wouldn’t have failed.

Students discussing them on school leaver social media groups were outraged at being ‘forced’ to sit through the workshops.

‘That’s just wrong,’ one student wrote, while another commented ‘you have got to be joking’. A third even wrote an eight-point ‘female privilege checklist’.

A young woman said though men did have advantages over women, the checklist was ‘dumb’ and ignored the women also had privileges.

This is the ugly end of identity politics, where people are regarded as a blend of the various identity group stereotypes rather than as individuals. The Enlightenment, modernism, and a thousand years of cultural progress towards equal rights for individuals is being swept aside so leftist politicians can stay in power. Amazing.

Australian army promoting diversity over fighting ability, alienating its warriors, and stamping out the male “Anglo Saxon” warrior culture

Australian army promoting diversity over fighting ability, alienating its warriors, and stamping out the male “Anglo Saxon” warrior culture, by Miranda Devine.

Five years after the former Army chief and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick launched a social engineering experiment aimed at stamping out the male “Anglo Saxon” warrior culture, the troops are unimpressed.

The top brass might have drunk the feminist Koolaid of “Pathway to Change” and its mutant offshoots, but most of the people they command are sceptical about gender fluidity, appeasement of radical Islam, and promotion by chromosome as payback for 116 years of military patriarchy.

“People just think it’s crap,” said one young officer.

To overcome such common sense thinking, diversity experts have designed a $30,000 program effectively to brainwash young leaders in the Army to become “champions of change” and stamp out the “white Anglo-Saxon male” culture they are told no longer has a place in the military.

In October, a handpicked group was taken to Sydney and Canberra for the “Junior Leaders Shaping Future Army”, and subjected to five-days of diversity indoctrination.

On day one was a three-hour session from an imam explaining his “Islamic conversion testimony” and proselytising the benefits of Islam, according to one participant who took detailed notes.

The lecture went down so badly that a planned mosque visit on the schedule the next day was cancelled without explanation. Gender diversity expert Professor Robert Wood introduced the latest politically correct inanity, “unconscious bias”, and criticised the predominance of “Anglo-Saxon males” and the “banter culture” of the Army. …

In one exercise they were asked how they would “inclusively” manage a diversity scenario in which a digger under their command converts to Islam, requiring him to pray five times a day, eat halal food and fast at Ramadan. …

Explicit discrimination:

Since Campbell’s rocket, Defence Force Recruiting has pulled out all stops to entice women into the Army. One whistleblower says they run “female only information sessions, female only fitness assessments, female only job assessment days, have a dedicated female Specialist Recruitment Team… (and) free fitness training.”

Female recruits can ask to be posted with friends and to a location of their choice, and are offered reduced periods of service — one year while men have to serve at least four.

“Defence Force Recruiting has stopped males joining particular jobs which are open only to females,” he says. “Infantry, artillery, key jobs. Where does it stop?” …

Women comprise 12 per cent of the Army, yet Broderick’s goal is 35 per cent of senior positions to be filled by women, so females have a three times better chance of promotion.

That anglo-saxon warrior culture has a great historical record of enabling our culture to survive and thrive. Where would we be without it?

Army hasn’t met recruitment goals for ten years, and the exodus of men disillusioned about their promotion prospects won’t help.

As one former soldier puts it: “They’re messing with our war-fighting DNA” …

Commenter Jeff:

Liberalism is a sickness, a disease which is driving the long, slow suicide of the West. Unfortunately it is now all pervasive and has become entrenched in all the significant public institutions: schools, universities, local councils, and now it would seem, the army. At its core sits the apparent desire to rid us of the white, Anglo-Celtic male: the very person that hacked this civilisation out of a wilderness and fought every battle that needed to be fought. Women and LGBT on the frontline…ha ha ha, good luck with that!

In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!

In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! a book review of Ann Coulter’s book with that title at Lynnes Likes. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 10, entitled “Islam’s PR Agency: The American Media”:

One thing the guys who planned 9/11 never expected was that Muslims would become a protected class in America. They must have thought, ‘Boy are we going to be hated!’ Instead, since that attack, we’ve admitted another two million Muslims, we almost built a mosque at Ground Zero, colleges are teaching classes on ‘Islamophobia’ (defined as” “believing what they clearly say”), and the US State Department tells Muslim countries, “We are pleased to present you with this check for 100 mosques.” Why, thank you!

Importing millions of immigrants whose religion teaches them we are Satan — when we don’t have to take any — is the new Selma [the imperative and long over-due voting and civil rights movement of the 1960s]. We were supposed to accept that Islamic terrorism — something hat never existed in this country  before Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act — was just part of life, a wonderful slice of the vibrant fabric of America. If you disagree, you were a racist.

Says Lynne:

It is vintage, caustic, uproarious Coulter, who (alone among American commentators) has been fiercely defending Trump since the start of his presidential campaign, while contradicting and correcting the mainstream and conservative press regularly. …

From 2001, some two million Muslims have entered the country legally. Coulter and Trump have their fingers squarely on the pulse of that vast part of the American nation that, rationally, does not want so many invited Muslims living inside the US borders. Superficially, it may sound racist to not want unlimited Muslim immigration, but Coulter — who is no more racist than Harper Lee — explains it this way: “Billions of people don’t live in America. We can admit them or not admit them for any reason we choose.”

Feigning offence at such ideas, the Washington Post’s Philip Bump once intoned: there is, “in fact, no reliable evidence that a large percentage of Muslims in the United States… support doing harm to the country or plan to commit acts of violence”. Retorts Coulter: “There’s evidence that some of them do. Why do we need to take that risk?… We want remarkable immigrants, not immigrants whose main selling point is ‘hasn’t gunned down fifty people in a gay nightclub yet.’ Anyone with a brain cell could see that admitting Muslim refugees increased the odds of a terrorist attack in a way that admitting white Western Europeans would not.” …

Trump Isn’t Sounding Like a Russian Mole

Trump Isn’t Sounding Like a Russian Mole, by Walter Russell Mead.

Trump’s core global strategy will destroy any illusions in Moscow, or anywhere else, that Russia is a peer competitor of the United States.

A Trump administration is going to be four years of hell for Russia: a massive American doubling down on shale production along with a major military buildup. Trump is, in other words, a nightmare for Putin and a much, much bigger threat to Putin’s goals than President Obama ever was or wanted to be. …

While liberal America may have forgotten recent history, Russia certainly hasn’t: provoking a nuclear arms race with an outclassed, economically weak Soviet Union was Ronald Reagan’s winning strategy in the 1980s. Tech and wealth are two key American advantages over Russia now as they were over the Soviet Union then; Trump’s message here is that he intends to follow in Reagan’s footsteps to use these strengths to advance American power, with the inevitable result of marginalizing one of Russia’s primary sources of power and prestige. Putin’s ramshackle Russia is no more capable of matching an American nuclear buildup than Brezhnev’s sclerotic Soviet Union could keep up with the United States—and Putin knows it. …

Obama’s polices assisted Russian power: he limited fracking, blocked oil pipelines, reduced nuclear arms and did not renew aging US nuclear weapons, cut US military spending, and gave Iran, Russia’s ally, a very favorable deal. And the media never even noticed, or called him a Russian puppet!

The problem always comes back to the media:

The liberal media hate Trump more than they have hated any American politician in a generation, and they do not understand his supporters or the sources of his appeal. They are frantically picking up every available stick to beat him, in the hopes that something, somehow, will Miloize him.

So blind does hatred make them that they cannot understand how their own behavior is driving American public opinion in directions that bode ill for liberals in the future. In the first place, suppose Donald Trump does not in fact turn out to be the second coming of Benedict Arnold. Suppose instead, as is much more likely, that he turns out to be a very hawkish president, one who quite possibly will make George W. Bush look like Jimmy Carter. The media and Democratic Party leaders will have staked huge amounts of credibility on a position that turns out to be laughably untrue. Six months or a year from now, they will have to flip from calling Trump an anti-American traitor and Russian plant to calling him a dangerous, fascistic ultranationalist whose relentless hawkishness is bringing us closer to World War Three. Already there are some days when they mount both attacks at the same time: the hawkish traitor whose Nazi style America First ideology leads him to lick Putin’s boots. The media wants to cast Trump as both Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler; but you can’t give the Sudetenland to yourself. …

Hawk or traitor: you can only pick one. …

America needs an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press to give this president the skeptical and searching scrutiny that he needs. What we are getting instead is something much worse for the health of the republic: a blind instinctive rage that lashes out without wounding, that injures its own credibility more than its target, that discredits the press at just the moment where its contributions are most needed.

Tom Perez Elected Chairman of the US Democratic National Committee

Tom Perez Elected Chairman of the US Democratic National Committee, by Rick Moran.

Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez overcame a stiff challenge from the radical left Muslim, Congressman Keith Ellison, and was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee.


Establishment Democrats breathed a sigh of relief. Electing Ellison would have put the crazies in charge and regular Democrats, recognizing the perilous state of the party, knew that making Ellison the public face of Democrats would have been a disaster of the first order. …

Both Perez and Ellison sought to present themselves as unity candidates, but Perez was widely seen as the candidate representing the Obama-Clinton wing of the party, and Ellison as the candidate of the Bernie Sanders wing.

It was close and had to go to a second round of voting. The losers were furious.

When Perez won, Ellison backers erupted in anger, chanting “Party of the people, not big money!” But that fury turned to relief and big smiles as Ellison took the deputy chair title.

The Democrats dodged a bullet. Of course, that Ellison lost proves Islamophobia must have been in play.

Hundreds of scientists urge Trump to withdraw from U.N. climate-change agency

Hundreds of scientists urge Trump to withdraw from U.N. climate-change agency, by Valerie Richardson.

More than 300 scientists have urged President Trump to withdraw from the U.N.’s climate change agency, warning that its push to curtail carbon dioxide threatens to exacerbate poverty without improving the environment.

In a Thursday letter to the president, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.

“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.

Signers of the attached petition include the U.S. and international atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, physicists, professors and others taking issue with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], which was formed in 1992 to combat “dangerous” climate change.

The 2016 Paris climate accord, which sets nonbinding emissions goals for nations, was drawn up under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

“Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions,” says the petition.

I’m one of the signatories on the list.