Hong Kong mob protesters rule the streets

Hong Kong mob protesters rule the streets, by Hedley Thomas.

A Hong Kong-based lawyer friend and long-time contact yelled at me on Monday while echoing the sentiments of many here, furious at what they see as “appalling bias” in reporting which has glossed over the violence and vandalism of the protesters.

My friend is a fearless defence lawyer but he won’t go on the ­record. “There’s mob rule and people who speak out against it risk getting their heads kicked in.” …

Teenagers are running away from home to join the protests. Schools are closed and children as young as 10 are joining front lines.

There’s a multitude of catalysts for the mayhem — anger over the number of mainland Chinese coming in and burdening the health system and lengthening the public housing queues; anger among the young that they’re not as prosperous as their parents; anger at the ineptitude and arrogance of the Hong Kong government, a bureaucratic, overly privileged and pale shadow of its former self; and anger that this city is and always was part of China and will one day be completely enveloped with the likely loss of fundamental freedoms.

But the anger has become uncontrolled and dangerous to such an extreme that it threatens to do worse long-term damage.

A mainland Chinese man who had already been beaten up by protesters was splashed with lighter fluid and ignited last week, resulting in horrific burns, for daring to demand the mob put down their weapons and make peace.

The iPhone video of this callous, permanently disfiguring ­attack has been widely shared, but the attacker remains free and the protesters have suffered little damage to their brand.

An elderly man was killed last week by a brick thrown by one of the protesters. But any recriminations over this unlawful killing are drowned out by the protesters’ claims of police brutality. …

The hapless police are in a no-win situation. Molotov cocktails, bricks prised from the pavement, iron bars — anything with the potential to cause injury or death to police — are hurled at police who surround the protesters. …

The masked protesters give placid interviews to international and local journalists and speak of their determination to achieve democracy in Hong Kong. Yet despite their violence and escalating aggression, they’re invariably depicted as brave freedom fighters standing up for democracy. …

Yonden Lhatoo, the South China Morning Post’s chief news editor and a former colleague, wrote bravely: “… The ­reality is there are thousands of youngsters on the streets who have tasted blood and become intoxicated by the success of mob rule. They are supported by a massive demographic that includes lawyers, teachers, doctors and other professionals who constantly gloss over and find excuses for all the outrageous excesses on the front lines of the anti-government movement.” He fears for the police “because you can already see discipline among frontline officers unravelling as they reach the end of their tether”. …

One of the world’s miracle economies and financial centres is reeling. Its well-resourced and highly disciplined police force has been cast by the protesters and influential sections of the local and international media as a public enemy. The protesters are Hong Kong’s enemy right now, but few dare say it.

The Chinese state has vastly superior physical force, and a record of using it. Only their notion of two systems within one country is persuading them not to employ it. Challenging the government with physical force in this day and age is a huge mistake, unless the loyalty of the armed forces in question. In this case it is not. The protestors have made a strategic blunder.

Too often protests that do not gain what they want escalate out of control, to the point where frustrations cause young hotheads and violence to drown out everything else. Clearly Hong Kong has reached that point.

The concept of “keep protesting until you get your way” is increasingly resulting in violence around the world (including leftists in the West). It needs to be tempered by realism.

It’s as if the world is going mad. The successful cultures and arrangements that got us this far are being challenged by craziness. Like the 1930s all over again. It’s as if lot of people have become unrealistically confident of themselves and their causes. Is there something in the water? Smartphones perhaps? (Just kidding.)

It’s not just jail for George Pell, this is torture

It’s not just jail for George Pell, this is torture, by Mirko Bagaric.

Pell has reportedly spent all of the time he has been incarcerated (almost nine months) in solitary confinement at the Melbourne Remand Centre. He is let out of his cell for just an hour a day.

Prisoners are generally placed in isolation or supermax conditions for disciplinary reasons or supposedly for their own protection, as is the case with Pell.

Studies show supermax confinement — particularly isolation of more than 15 days — has long-term detrimental effects on mental health of prisoners, including insomnia, panic, hallucinations, suicidal impulses, feelings of hopelessness and paranoia. The highest rates of prison suicide and self-harm occur among those in solitary confinement.

When inmates are placed in isolation or supermax units, they are also at risk of physical harm. Lack of exposure to sunlight can cause vitamin D deficiency, making inmates more susceptible to falls and fractures. The near total absence of movement and exercise exacerbates conditions such heart disease, diabetes and arthritis. The physical harm caused by solitary confinement often results in long-term disabilities and additional longer-term healthcare costs. This is especially the case with elderly prisoners. Pell is 78. …

It is likely the circumstances of Pell’s confinement have already caused him significant psychological and physical harm. The extent of his suffering is likely to be exacerbated the longer he remains in isolation. That harm is probably irreversible.

Don’t cross the Australian Deep State… is this what we are being told?

‘Frankenstein Hack Job’: 19-Year-Old Regrets His Transgender Surgery

‘Frankenstein Hack Job’: 19-Year-Old Regrets His Transgender Surgery, by Tyler O’Neil.

This week, de-transitioner Walt Heyer shared the harrowing story of a 19-year-old man who thought he was a woman and described his new “female” anatomy in revealing terms.

Less than a year after receiving “bottom surgery” — removing his male genitals and replacing them with a simulated female version — 19-year-old Nathaniel deeply regrets his decision.

“Now that I’m all healed from the surgeries, I regret them,” he wrote to Heyer. “The result of the bottom surgery looks like a Frankenstein hack job at best, and that got me thinking critically about myself. I had turned myself into a plastic-surgery facsimile of a woman, but I knew I still wasn’t one. I became (and to an extent, still feel) deeply depressed.”

In his letter to Heyer, Nathaniel recalled how the other boys bullied him in elementary school because he was sensitive and preferred playing girl games. When he was older, he discovered internet pornography, heard about transgenderism, and became convinced “that’s what I was.” He started seeing a doctor a week after turning fifteen.

“From then on, I slowly detached from everything until I was just staying home, playing video games, and going on the internet all day. I stopped reading, drawing, riding my bicycle. I surrounded myself in an echo chamber that supported and validated my poor decisions, because the others were also, unfortunately, stuck in that pit, too,” the boy wrote.

Too much propaganda, then he lost his manhood, literally. Not much support for men and boys out there, just a never ending acclamation of girls and women. Can’t go on forever, but I can’t recall a time in my life when it wasn’t going on — and older men than me have said the same.

Crazy ideology that medicalizes psychological traumas:

[Heyer”] “The unpopular truth, which Nathaniel unfortunately learned the hard way at a young age, is a man is not a woman and can’t ever become a woman, even with surgically refashioned genitals and feminizing facial surgery,” Heyer wrote. “Nathaniel is a bright young man who never had the benefit of sound, effective counseling, which would have prevented this horrible mistake from happening. He will deal with it for the rest of his life.” …

In the ten years or so that I’ve worked with people, 100 percent — every single last one of them — has had some kind of event — traumatic, painful, horrible, some sexual, some physical, some emotional — happen to them, sometime between the ages of 4 and 15, that caused them to not want to be who they are,” Heyer told PJ Media last year. In Heyer’s case, his grandmother dressed him up as a girl when he was four and he also became a victim of sexual abuse at that age. …

A thin girl who sees herself as fat is not helped by dieting. A man who identifies as an amputee but has two perfectly healthy legs is not helped by getting a leg cut off to confirm his identity. Similarly, a biological man is not helped by having his healthy genitals removed and replaced in a “Frankenstein hack job.”

These people need counseling, community, and confirmation of their biological sex.

So sexual dysfunction and encouragement of alternative sexualities is creating ever more of the same? Where will it ever stop?

No Dissent Allowed on China, even if You’re Australian

No Dissent Allowed on China, even if You’re Australian. By Terry Barnes.

It seems that two prominent Liberal MPs, James Paterson and Andrew Hastie, have blotted their copybooks with the panda panjandrums of the Chinese Communist Party.

By standing up for the freedom of speech of Chinese students on Australian campuses, questioning Red China’s government’s contemptible human rights record, being part of a government that denies dodgy Chinese claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea and — not least — by supporting the protest movement challenging Chinese authority in in the supposedly autonomous zone of Hong Kong, Paterson and Hastie so frighten the party that brought you the Cultural Revolution … that they have been denied visas to join a privately-organised study tour of China.

The Chinese embassy in Canberra made the Peking regime’s acute displeasure, and its attitude to any foreigners who dare question its political, social and moral legitimacy, perfectly clear.

On Saturday it issued a statement saying … “The colonial days of Western powers are long gone … China will never yield to colonisation of ideas and values.” …

As long as the people concerned genuinely repent and redress their mistakes, view China with objectivity and reason … the door of dialogue and exchanges will always remain open”

In other words, grovel to Peking and the Party and all will be forgiven. To their great credit, both Paterson and Hastie have not kowtowed, and have no plans to grow pigtails to show their obeisance to the communist Chinese emperor in all but name, Xi Xinping. They have called out the bullying and neo-colonialist lords of the Chinese Communist Party, who seek to denigrate and slap down anyone not agreeing with their grandiose self-image and neo-imperialist vision of their destiny. …

Stupid China:

If the Chinese communist authorities had any political and propaganda nous, and any real understanding of how they and their thuggish heavy-handedness are perceived in the West, they would welcome Paterson and Hastie with open arms, show them the very best of China and put their regime in the best possible light, lavish them with twenty course banquets in the Great Hall of the People and effectively show them, and Australians, that the CCP’s shoulders are broad and their skins are thick. Demonstrating by their own hospitality that criticisms like Paterson and Hastie’s are water off a duck’s back would be the mark of a mature, confident regime.

Instead, the reaction from the Red Chinese to the comments of two, in the overall scheme of things, insignificant Australian backbench MPs, proved exactly the opposite. It overreacted because it knows those criticisms are legitimate. Like a fat, overgrown playground bully, the CCP’s sole concept of how to respond to any criticism is to throw its weight around, hopefully breaking noses, bones and spirits as they do so. Not just those of individual MPs, but whole countries.

Good old leftist nudge policy, backed by force. No dissent allowed, even if you’re Australian.

Chick-fil-A Caves After Sustained LGBTQ Hate Campaign, Abandons Christian Charities

Chick-fil-A Caves After Sustained LGBTQ Hate Campaign, Abandons Christian Charities. By Megan Fox.

Every Christian’s favorite fast-food chain, Chick-fil-A, has finally folded to the LGBTQ hate campaign that has plagued them for years, causing protests and shutdowns of business across the nation. …

Chick-fil-A’s Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos has made the decision to cut ties with charitable outlets like the Salvation Army, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home because they have been targeted by LGBTQ activists for not supporting the activist’s preferred gay causes. …

Chick-fil-A has been, for years, a beacon of sanity in this SJW-guided corporate world and a company that stood by its principles despite terrible opposition, refusing to capitulate to the minority of troublemakers. What changed is unknown. Starting next year, Chick-fil-A will focus its charitable giving on “approved” charities like homelessness and education. You can bet your salary that whatever charitable organizations they choose will be LGBTQ-approved.

Bad news from the US, where freedom to express non-left views keeps diminishing. The LGBTQ mob kept protesting until they got their way. No doubt, like every force, they will keep pushing for more until they are stopped.

Be a Man

Be a Man, by Spencer Klavan.

In the late 500s BC, the military dictator Aristodemus took over the Greek colony of Cumae. He slaughtered his enemies en masse and undertook to ensure that no Cumaean man would ever be more than his slave.

Here is how he did it, according to the essayist Dionysius of Halicarnassus. “To ensure that no noble or manly aspiration would arise in any of the citizens, he decided to feminize every young man by means of his upbringing in the city’s schools.”

Aristodemus had the boys of Cumae wear long hair and embroidered gowns; he made them listen to soft music and keep out of the sun; he starved them of adult male guidance. This was so none of them would ever grow up strong enough to stand against him (Roman Antiquities 7.9).

Don’t want real men challenging your rule, eh global elitists?

21st century culture war:

What a paranoid and oppressive autocrat did to the sons of his subjugated people, American mental health professionals now propose we do to ourselves. …

Professional ideologues … are making their best efforts to train biological males out of their natural impulses toward strength, endurance, physical courage, and emotional self-control. …

What conservatives typically emphasize in response is that biological sex does matter, that men’s yearnings to be manly are indeed authentic and spontaneous. This is entirely true. But it misses something, something that Aristodemus knew: there is also a part of gender which is learned and taught. We experience certain natural ambitions, but then we build societies and traditions which honor and channel those ambitions. Most boys are born with an interest in fighting and competing, but no boy is born knowing how to play football or hold a gun. We school one another, generation to generation, in the ways of manhood.

Therefore if you train impressionable boys to disassociate themselves from their sex, they will indeed lose the sense of grounding and orientation that comes with proper instruction — they will indeed become “feminized” like the children of Cumae.

That is why the efforts to degender our society are often focused on children. …

There is nothing harmful in exhorting a boy to “be a man.” If he is not yet — and no boy is — he will be told by activists and perhaps his teachers that he does not need to be. But the longings of his heart will tell him that he should, that he can. It is the business of gender theory to extinguish those longings. It should be our business to defend them at all costs.

hat-tip Mark

Why are Andrew Bolt’s Antifa Attackers still Unpunished?

Why are Andrew Bolt’s Antifa Attackers still Unpunished? By Lucas Rosas.

It is now two and a half years since Australia’s most prominent conservative journalist Andrew Bolt was attacked in the street by masked Antifa thugs. Despite the entire incident being captured by two separate cameras the assailants who squirted chemicals in the elderly columnist’s eyes (before coming off second best in the ensuring brawl) remain unidentified. …

This lack of identification is despite the fact that the cameraman who (despite his denials) clearly came along with the attackers was identified shortly afterwards as Nathan Coote. Mr Coote told the Age newspaper that he had nothing to do with the “protesters” and had just magically happened to be there at the time. This is despite Mr Coote’s Instagram showing him photographing black masked anarchists and attending numerous rallies organised by the extreme left.  …

I don’t think any reasonable person can believe Coote’s protestations of innocence. I believe that Nathan Coote went along with some friends to film what they all assumed would be the public humiliation of a man for the crime of disagreeing with them politically. Yet there has been no follow up. No witch hunt. No prosecution. No arrest. It’s unclear if Mr Coote was even interviewed by police despite telling his extremely dodgy story to a major newspaper.

And of course, to state the bleeding obvious:

If noted left wing journalist David Marr had been attacked in the street by masked thugs two years ago and the police had not even made the slightest attempt to find his attackers I’m pretty certain the uproar, outrage and gnashing of teeth from the establishment would be deafening. …

Those same journalists would probably have laughed after Bolt was attacked. After all he’s not one of them. He’s not one of the special people with the correct opinions. Those outside the cathedral of the left don’t really seem human to those inside; and far left violence against almost anyone in Victoria rarely if ever gets punished. …


A few months after the Bolt assault in October 2015 right wing activist Blair Cottrell was a part of a peaceful political protest involving a mock beheading as part of an ongoing campaign against the proposed Bendigo mosque. The state of Victoria has spent millions of dollars prosecuting the case and during the appeals process this week assigned over half a dozen lawyers to defend the conviction. Millions of dollars of effort to defend a $2000 fine. …

It’s not a matter of resources. It’s a matter of politics.

Political thuggery by the left while the deep state looks the other way.

Everyone Is Smart, Except Donald Trump

Everyone Is Smart, Except Donald Trump, by Rabbi Dov Fischer.

Putin is a bad guy. A really bad guy. He is better than Lenin. Better than Stalin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Mao. But he is a really bad guy.

Here’s the thing: Putin is a dictator. He answers to no one. He does whatever he wants. If there arises an opponent, that guy dies. Maybe the opponent gets poked with a poisoned umbrella. Maybe he gets shot on the street. … But, one way or another, the opponent dies.

Trump knows this about Putin. And here is what that means: If you insult Putin in public, like by telling the news media just before or after meeting with him that he is the Butcher of Crimea, and he messed with our elections and is an overall jerk — then you will get nothing behind closed doors from Putin. Putin will decide “To heck with you, and to heck with the relationship we just forged.” Putin will get even, will take intense personal revenge, even if it is bad for Russia — even if it is bad for Putin. Because there are no institutional reins on him.

But if you go in public and tell everyone that Putin is a nice guy (y’know, just like Kim Jong Un) and that Putin intensely maintains that he did not mess with elections — not sweet little Putey Wutey (even though he apparently did) — then you next can maintain the momentum established beforehand in the private room. You can proceed to remind Putin what you told him privately: that this garbage has to stop —or else. That if he messes in Syria, we will do “X.” If he messes with our Iran boycott, we will do “Y.” We will generate so much oil from hydraulic fracturing and from ANWR and from all our sources that we will glut the market — if not tomorrow, then a year from now. We will send even more lethal offensive military weapons to Ukraine. We can restore the promised shield to Eastern Europe that Obama withdrew. And even if we cannot mess with Russian elections (because they have no elections), they do have computers — and, so help us, we will mess with their technology in a way they cannot imagine. …

That is why Trump talks about him that way. And that is the only possible way to do it when negotiating with a tyrant who has no checks and balances on him. If you embarrass the tyrant publicly, then the tyrant never will make concessions because he will fear that people will say he was intimidated and backed down. And that he never will do. Meanwhile, Trump has expelled 60 Russians from America, reversed Obama policy and sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, and is pressing Germany severely on its pipeline project with Russia.

Trump has achieved an awful lot more than this leftist critics:

At the end of the day, Donald Trump is over seventy years old. He has made many mistakes in his life. He still makes some. He is human. But Trump likewise has spent three score and a dozen years learning. He has seen some of his businesses go bankrupt, and he has learned from those experiences to be a billionaire and not let it happen again. No doubt that he has been fooled, outsmarted in years past. And he has learned from life.

Trump is a tough and smart negotiator. He sizes up his opponent, and he knows that the approach that works best for one is not the same as for another. It does not matter what he says publicly about his negotiating opponent. What matters is what results months later.

In his first eighteen months in Washington, this man has turned around the American economy, brought us near full employment, reduced the welfare and food stamp lines, wiped out ISIS in Raqqa, moved America’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem, successfully has launched massive deregulation of the economy, has opened oil exploration in ANWR, is rebuilding the military massively, has walked out of the useless Paris Climate Accords that were negotiated by America’s amateurs who always get snookered, canned the disastrous Iran Deal, exited the bogus United Nations Human Rights Council. He convinced Canada and Mexico that he would walk out of NAFTA if they didn’t negotiate a new and fair trade agreement (they did), and he has the Europeans convinced he would walk out of NATO if they don’t stop being the cheap and lazy parasitic penny-pinchers they are

He has slashed income taxes, expanded legal protections for college students falsely accused of crimes, has taken real steps to protect religious freedoms and liberties promised in the First Amendment, boldly has taken on the Lyme-disease-quality of a legislative mess that he inherited from Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama on immigration, and has appointed a steady line of remarkably brilliant conservative federal judges to sit on the district courts, the circuit appellate courts, and the Supreme Court.

What has Anderson Cooper achieved during that period? Jim Acosta or the editorial staffs of the New York Times and Washington Post? They have not even found the courage and strength to stand up to the coworkers and celebrities within their orbits who abuse sexually or psychologically or emotionally. They have no accomplishments to compare to his. Just their effete opinions, all echoing each other, all echoing, echoing, echoing. They gave us eight years of Nobel Peace Laureate Obama negotiating with the ISIS JV team, calming the rise of the oceans, and healing the planet.

Great dose of common sense there. Read it all.

No wall though.

hat-tip Stephen Harper

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’, by Andrew McCarthy.

We resolve policy disputes by elections, not impeachments.

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page House deposition transcript.

I couldn’t agree more, though, with our experts’ apparent consensus that Moscow is bad, should be challenged on various fronts, and would best be seen as the incorrigible rival it is, not the potential strategic partner some wish it to be — the “some” here known to include the president. Ukraine, for all its deep flaws, is valuable to us as a check on Russia’s aggression, another conclusion about which the president is skeptical.

That is, on the critical matter of America’s interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. …

But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.

And that’s where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him — not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts — in charge of making policy. If we’re to remain a constitutional republic, that’s how it has to stay. …

By contrast, Hillary Clinton ran as the seasoned foreign-relations pro, the very embodiment of the policy community. She was going to be tough on Russia, work in unison with our European allies, and champion multilateralism. … The 2016 election presented the nation with an unusually clear choice between different directions.

And the American people chose Donald Trump. …

The government’s policy community has gotten so political, it has forgotten that its mission is to implement the president’s policies, not undermine them. … Bureaucrats are not free to substitute their judgments for the president’s. If they can’t accept that, the honorable thing is to resign, à la Bolton and Mattis. Remaining in place to countermand the elected chief executive is not an option.

We’ve moved way beyond that, though. Democrats are now scheming with fellow progressives in the policy community to achieve their three-year longing to impeach President Trump. …

Never forget: The coup is driven by policy differences.

The Left will tell you it’s not — it’s driven by lawlessness. But the Left treats all disagreement with its policy preferences as lawlessness. And when it can’t pull that off, it slanders the dissenters as outlaws. That’s how, with a Supreme Court slot on the line, a widely admired jurist with a peerless record of mentoring his law clerks, mostly women, into high professional achievements somehow becomes a serial rapist.

We don’t have to agree with the president in order to agree that he is president. We can fight against his policies when they are wrongheaded, but we can’t fight against his authority to make policy. That fight is what elections are for . . . not impeachments. Otherwise, American self-government — the accountability of the policy maker to the voters whose lives are affected — collapses.

Well said.

Israeli politics seems crazy because it is run by its deep state gone rogue

Israeli politics seems crazy because it is run by its deep state gone rogue, by John Hinderaker at a conservative conference in the US.

For me, the most eye-opening presentation was Caroline Glick’s. In recent years, I have been puzzled by Israeli politics, with its endless accusations of “corruption” and seeming inability to maintain a functioning government.

Caroline explained it all: Israel is in the hands of its own Deep State. Unelected bureaucrats, led by a rogue Supreme Court that is not restricted to deciding actual cases, as in the U.S., but can issue orders more or less willy-nilly and somehow has gotten the power to name its own successors, dominate over the country’s elected officials.

What is happening is Israel, which seemingly can be countered only by mass political action, should be a warning to Americans as well as Europeans.

How social justice killed Star Wars

How social justice killed Star Wars, by Bill Whittle

Who knew that the Achilles heel of PC fantasies was that they are just too boring? Not real, so not credible enough to be entertaining.

Amazing. Check out the story Bill tells at 21:18. Found this:

Han Solo shoots first killing Greedo Original. This is the original scene where Han Solo shoots first and Greedo doesn’t even shoot…. because he’s dead. It was meant to be the ultimate badass entrance showing Hans true character, there is several shots of him pulling out the gun meaning he was meaning to do it and it was not self defense. In the remake how does Greedo even miss from directly in front of Han anyway. Also, in the remake Han’s head jerks very quickly and impossibly to the right. This is the original, the way it should have stayed.

via Australian Skeptic

TERMINATOR: the GREAT REPLACEMENT — One More Franchise Gets Woke, Goes Broke

TERMINATOR: the GREAT REPLACEMENT — One More Franchise Gets Woke, Goes Broke. By Paul Kersey.

Producer James Cameron and director Tim Miller have, in the latest Terminator epic Terminator: Dark Fate, taken another billion dollar entertainment franchise and driven it into the ground in the name of Social Justice, Hollywood-Style. Here’s how it happened. …

The message of the first two Terminator films is in a line from Judgement Day, sequel to the 1984 original: “There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.” …

Unfortunately, the latest installment of the franchise delivers a less optimistic message: You, white man, are doomed. Indeed, Terminator: Dark Fate might well be called Terminator: The Great Replacement.

The Marvel superhero films have been pushing that message as well, and now the latest Terminator adds its voice. Dark Fate, a direct sequel to James Cameron’s ground-breaking Judgement Day in 1991, literally pretends that the events in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Terminator Salvation, and Terminator Genisys never occurred. What viewers get instead is a myth more in tune with our anti-white, anti-male present

That message still doesn’t work well. Empty theaters and $29 million in receipts greeted the new Terminator’s in its opening weekend. Losses for 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and Skydance Media might exceed $130 million …

My advice: Avoid this bomb, which one would hope kills the franchise before it gets any more preachy and ridiculous. For the record, the first two films and Rise of the Machines are an underrated trilogy. …

Replacement message: White John Connor becomes Mexican Dani Ramos; Schwarzenegger’s white T800 becomes an nearly androgynous white woman. On that note, by the way, Slate.com’s Christina Cauterucci [Tweet her] enthusiastically reported that “when photos from the set of Terminator: Dark Fate showed Mackenzie Davis sporting a fashion bowl cut, grimy tank top, and massive deltoids, lesbian Twitter lost its mind” …

“From the get-go,” one reviewer noted, “this new film is all about diversity: Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor gets to say ‘I’ll be back’; there’s a new politicized trans-human lady Terminator, plus a Latina hero and her Latino Terminator nemesis” …

If white men are responsible for all the world’s evils, John Connor certainly can’t be mankind’s hero. So Terminator Dark Fate savagely murders him.

Anyway, the message in the removal of John Connor and his replacement by a Hispanic woman isn’t what one would call subtle. We’re supposed to hear it, loud and clear. …

If you believe Miller isn’t making “any overt political stances,” I have a bridge over the Rio Grande to sell you.

More incredible (literally) PC teachy mush. Not entertaining.

‘Ford v Ferrari’ Review: Exhilarating, Touching, Only-In-America Story

‘Ford v Ferrari’ Review: Exhilarating, Touching, Only-In-America Story, by John Nolte.

After stepping out of my Charlie’s Angels (2019) screening, where I was the only person in the theater, one of the ushers asked me how I liked it. “Dreadful,” I replied, while purchasing my Ford v Ferrari admission. “Hopefully this one features men acting like men as they burn fossil fuels, throw punches, and stick it to the French.”

FVF is even better than I had hoped, better than its mostly glowing reviews. So much better.

The racing scenes are fantastic and feature almost no CGI. Matt Damon and Christian Bale are as appealing as they have been. And while the French do get it stuck to (as does Ferrari), there’s also an entertaining and important streak of anti-corporatism that drives the movie’s theme and plot. This is not so much Ford v Ferrari as much as it’s Two Individualists v Ford’s Corporate Suits. …

This is also the rare, big-budget Hollywood movie that focuses on the importance of fathers, that depicts two masculine men who are stoic rather than confessional, who prefer to communicate with a punch over a rap session, who drive fast and burn fossil fuels… Who do all this without apology, without a bossy harridan demeaning them about their “toy cars” and how it relates to penis size.

There is nothing pretentious about FVF, no buzzkills, no woke, no lectures, no puffed up sense of self-importance. Which doesn’t mean Mangold doesn’t have a message. Of course he does, and it’s a vital message told through character and theme about being your own man, about not getting chewed up in the corporate collective, about sons and fathers and husbands and wives and friends and chasing the impossible…

Real, and therefore credible. And oh so entertaining.

hat-tip Charles

How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results

How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results, by Kirsten Grind.

Every minute, an estimated 3.8 million queries are typed into Google, prompting its algorithms to spit out results for hotel rates or breast-cancer treatments or the latest news about President Trump.

They are arguably the most powerful lines of computer code in the global economy, controlling how much of the world accesses information found on the internet, and the starting point for billions of dollars of commerce.

Twenty years ago, Google founders began building a goliath on the premise that its search algorithms could do a better job combing the web for useful information than humans. Google executives have said repeatedly — in private meetings with outside groups and in congressional testimony — that the algorithms are objective and essentially autonomous, unsullied by human biases or business considerations….

Google went over to the dark side:

Over time, Google has increasingly re-engineered and interfered with search results to a far greater degree than the company and its executives have acknowledged, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found.

Those actions often come in response to pressure from businesses, outside interest groups and governments around the world. They have increased sharply since the 2016 election and the rise of online misinformation, the Journal found. …

Google’s evolving approach marks a shift from its founding philosophy of “organizing the world’s information,” to one that is far more active in deciding how that information should appear.

More than 100 interviews and the Journal’s own testing of Google’s search results reveal:

  • Google made algorithmic changes to its search results that favor big businesses over smaller ones
  • Google engineers regularly make behind-the-scenes adjustments to other information the company is increasingly layering on top of its basic search results. These features include auto-complete suggestions, boxes called “knowledge panels” and “featured snippets,” and news results, which aren’t subject to the same company policies limiting what engineers can remove or change.
  • Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results. These moves are separate from those that block sites as required by U.S. or foreign law, such as those featuring child abuse or with copyright infringement, and from changes designed to demote spam sites, which attempt to game the system to appear higher in results. …
  • To evaluate its search results, Google employs thousands of low-paid contractors whose purpose the company says is to assess the quality of the algorithms’ rankings. Even so, contractors said Google gave feedback to these workers to convey what it considered to be the correct ranking of results, and they revised their assessments accordingly, according to contractors interviewed by the Journal. The contractors’ collective evaluations are then used to adjust algorithms.

Google down-ranked climate skeptics websites from about 2011. When it becomes well known that there is an error in all the climate models that was there right from their inception, that the carbon dioxide theory of global warming is a result of that error, and when the world cools again — what then Google? Google will have caused a great deal of harm to the world by shielding people from evidence that the theory was wrong, so they are culpable. The world will not be pleased at having been tricked and misled.

hat-tip Chris