A new study has found that drivers of flashy vehicles are less likely to stop and allow pedestrians to cross the road — with the likelihood they’ll slow down decreasing by 3% for every extra $1,000 that their vehicle is worth.
Researchers from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas speculated that the expensive car owners “felt a sense of superiority over other road users” and were less able to empathize with lowly sidewalk-dwellers.
They came to this conclusion after asking volunteers to cross a sidewalk hundreds of times, filming and analyzing the responses by car drivers.
Researchers used one white and one black man, and one white and one black woman — also finding that cars were more likely to yield for the white and female participants. Vehicles stopped 31% of the time for both women and white participants, compared with 24% of the time for men and 25% of the time for black volunteers.
But the best predictor of whether a car would stop was its cost, researchers discovered. …
Helsinki University’s Jan-Erik Lönnqvist … set out to discover what kind of person is more likely to buy an expensive car, creating a personality test of Finnish car owners.
“The answers were unambiguous: self-centred men who are argumentative, stubborn, disagreeable and unempathetic are much more likely to own a high-status car such as an Audi, BMW or Mercedes,” the press release states.
“These personality traits explain the desire to own high-status products, and the same traits also explain why such people break traffic regulations more frequently than others,” Lönnqvist added.
His study cited previous research that indicated drivers behind the wheel of a costly vehicle are more likely to flout traffic regulations or drive recklessly.
But he also found people with “conscientious” characters seek out pricey models, too.
“People with this type of personality are, as a rule, respectable, ambitious, reliable and well-organised,” the statement said. “They take care of themselves and their health and often perform well at work.”
Every time I hear about Weinstein’s predations, I wonder how many waitresses, real estate agents and housewives in Los Angeles might be celebrated actresses today, except that when Weinstein barged out of the bathroom stark naked and lunged at them, they fled the room and didn’t look back.
Our media are so infantile. Can’t we agree that Weinstein is a psychopathic scumbag without calling the witnesses against him “heroes”?
The true heroes are the girls whose names we don’t know — not the ones who were grossed out by the pig, but had sex with him anyway, then sent him emoji-filled, suck-up emails because they wanted to be “stars.”
How many actresses — whom we’re supposed to envy and read about their skin care regimes and Hollywood Hills homes and how they were ugly ducklings as children (they all say that) — are really no different from the average L.A. waitress, except they were willing to have sex with Harvey Weinstein or some similarly hideous beast?
Definitely keep getting your political opinions from them, America. …
White men still play by “the rules”:
In light of the plague of white men, it’s notable that the majority demographic on the Weinstein jury was this hated group. The jury was composed of two white women, two black women, one black/Hispanic woman; one black man; and seven white men.
Despite Weinstein’s repulsiveness, the case was far from a slam-dunk. Luckily, white men have not yet adopted the modern propensity to view the world as an Identity Group cage match. I would wager that it never occurred to a single white man on the jury to think: We can’t send a white man to prison!
Brad Pitt comes off as a hero for telling Weinstein that if he made his girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow uncomfortable again he’d kill him. The rest of Hollywood, who do so much to steer our culture, not so much.
The Harvard epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch is exacting in his diction, even for an epidemiologist. Twice in our conversation he started to say something, then paused and said, “Actually, let me start again.” So it’s striking when one of the points he wanted to get exactly right was this: “I think the likely outcome is that it will ultimately not be containable.” …
Even with the ideal containment, the virus’s spread may have been inevitable. Testing people who are already extremely sick is an imperfect strategy if people can spread the virus without even feeling bad enough to stay home from work.
Lipsitch predicts that within the coming year, some 40 to 70 percent of people around the world will be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. But, he clarifies emphatically, this does not mean that all will have severe illnesses. “It’s likely that many will have mild disease, or may be asymptomatic,” he said. As with influenza, which is often life-threatening to people with chronic health conditions and of older age, most cases pass without medical care. (Overall, about 14 percent of people with influenza have no symptoms.)
Lipsitch is far from alone in his belief that this virus will continue to spread widely. The emerging consensus among epidemiologists is that the most likely outcome of this outbreak is a new seasonal disease — a fifth “endemic” coronavirus. With the other four, people are not known to develop long-lasting immunity. If this one follows suit, and if the disease continues to be as severe as it is now, “cold and flu season” could become “cold and flu and COVID-19 season.”
Not really trying:
Originally, doctors in the U.S. were advised not to test people unless they had been to China or had contact with someone who had been diagnosed with the disease. Within the past two weeks, the CDC said it would start screening people in five U.S. cities, in an effort to give some idea of how many cases are actually out there. But tests are still not widely available. As of Friday, the Association of Public Health Laboratories said that only California, Nebraska, and Illinois had the capacity to test people for the virus.
Ok, so if catching COVID-19 is inevitable and really not so bad, as the emerging narrative goes, why are the Chinese reacting so vigorously? What do they know that we don’t?
And somehow any public discussion of closing the borders is completely omitted in the West, even though it is the obvious response and most people (according to some polls) want it.
Australia is going into winter as COVID-19 goes pandemic outside China. So we will get hit harder than the northern hemisphere. But we are also able, almost uniquely, to close our borders. It’s not even being discussed!
Somewhere in the bureaucratic-media-academic complex the decision has been made throughout the West to keep the borders open and live with the virus. No public discussion, the decision has been made. Why? By whom? Who is responsible?
The Australian Government basically admitted yesterday that it was not going to try to stop the virus, maybe not even continuing current travel bans. Instead, they are trying to “ramp up” medical supplies. Who gets the hospital beds if we all catch COVID-19 at once over the coming winter, ministers? You perhaps?
And what is the world to make of the high probability that COV-19 was made in a lab somewhere and and leaked from China’s lab at Wuhan? With a super-infectious HIV-like “mutation” that makes it super infectious? It latches on to the ACE2 receptors of cell membranes, which are most common in the lungs and intestines. These receptors are damaged by smoking and air pollution, and possibly there is a genetic basis for different numbers or types of ACE2 receptors. Or will that information now be suppressed too?
As of sometime right about now, will any talk of closing borders or that it was created in a lab be censored and suppressed in the West as “conspiracy theory” etc?
Maybe it’s already happening. Here’s yesterday’s trending topics on Twitter in the US. Notice that a misspelling of coronavirus is near the top, but “coronavirus” is missing. Odd, yes?
All of the major internet companies are shadowbanning or algorithmically deprecating posts about the virus. We rightly decried the heavy-handed censorship in China, but something very similar is happening in the United States. Instead of the government arresting people for posting about the virus, we have the soft censorship of “private” companies like Twitter hiding posts about the virus from people who aren’t going out of their way to look for them.
Zerohedge got banned from Twitter for even pointing out the amazing coincidence that the source of the virus outbreak is meters from China’s one and only bio-warfare lab for this kind of agent. So don’t expect mainstream sources to mention it.
What is going on? Why have western governments — but apparently not Israel or Singapore — given up on testing and containment? Is there covert bio-warfare going on, which makes containment impossible if agents can deliberately release it? The severe form of the disease causes difficulty breathing and requires hospitalization. It goes severe for between 5 and 17% of those infected — according to the non-Chinese stats. If 10% of the Australian population needs hospitalization sometime in the coming winter, there are going to be people dying in the streets here — like in China! There are numerous reports now of people getting it again, once they have already “recovered”. And our governments are so nonchalant. This does not add up. What is going on??
Imagine if Australia was one of the few places in the world free of coronavirus, and people could visit after a two week quarantine. Might be a real shot in the arm for tourism??
It’s not to late too close the borders. So pass this article on.
UPDATE: Australian policy is being dictated by our public universities, which have recklessly bet on huge numbers of Chinese students. It’s all about money. To preserve their income, our universities are encouraging government to keep the borders open and allow Chinese students in. Which pushes the cost onto the rest of us Australians, many of whom will die unnecessarily as a result.
The universities cynically suggest their Chinese students get around the ban on travel from China by holidaying in Thailand for two weeks before coming to Australia. As a result, there are many Chinese in Thailand — and the Israeli Government has now banned travel from Thailand. How long before countries ban travel from Australia?
Awesome own goal.
If the death rate for coronavirus (on a population with no immunity from prior experience) is 1%, as suggested by non-Chinese stats, then the number of Australians who die from letting in the virus will be around 250,000 (1% of 25 million).
If the death rate is only 0.15% as it is for ‘flu, then about 37 thousand Australians will die. Given the way the Chinese reacted, it’s not this low.
These deaths are entirely predictable. Australia won’t close its borders because it may endanger the income to our universities? How many dead Australians is that worth?
Then these deaths are on you, Australian universities. Dumb, greedy, PC, arrogant academics and administrators.
A virus engineered to attack only public servants would be worth chipping in for.
For some reason, Democrats think of nine-year-olds as sexual beings who not only need to know more sexual knowledge than debauched Roman emperors by the time they get out of kindergarten, but they also think they should be identifying as “gay” or “trans” or “drag” as early as possible. Pete Buttigieg decided it was a good idea to have a nine-year-old child join him on stage at a campaign event in Denver on Saturday to talk about his sexuality. …
9 year olds don’t know anything about sex. They haven’t gone through puberty. They don’t understand their own feelings. They don’t know who they are yet. Leftists who exploit this confusion for political gain are the scum of the Earth. Truly detestable. Infuriates me. https://t.co/0Vgj26cFiU
This person wants to be leader of the free world. Excruciating.
Nine. This is what the left thinks is a good idea. Sexualizing children. Do you know what I say to my ten-year-old when she tells me she has a crush on a boy? “That’s nice you have a friend, honey,” and then I drop it. I don’t praise her for being heterosexual. I don’t put her on stage and announce to the world that she likes boys.
There’s no longer any real competition between the two major political scandals that emerged following the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Proponents of the first scandal, commonly referred to as “Russiagate,” claim that the man who had just won the election was an undercover agent who took orders straight from Moscow.
The other one that emerged held that Russiagate was always a false construct of the rival Hillary Clinton campaign and its politicized allies within the federal government’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies. This second scandal came to be called “Spygate.”
One of these scandals was indeed fake and the other was very real.
Most of the U.S. media went all-in on the proposition that the fake scandal was real and the real scandal was fake.
However, the scandal that was endlessly promoted by mainstream news outlets turned out to be a hoax, as shown by the investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Meanwhile, the scandal they dismissed as a “wild conspiracy theory” turned out to be real.
That means all the mainstream news media organizations, with their vast budgets and massive manpower, managed to get the major story of the 2016 presidential election exactly backward.
It’s not an exaggeration to say Spygate is a political scandal that dwarfs Watergate …
No admission of error of adherence to truth:
How do mainstream journalists and news broadcasters expect to be taken seriously when they are continuing to push blatant absurdities? They told the country for most of Trump’s first term that the real scandal was Russiagate, and Spygate was just some conspiracy theory cooked up by right-wing zealots.
Think about what an epic walk-back that would be at this point. So they have decided to simply not do any kind of retraction at all and to forge ahead with grim determination.
For these media, it’s incredibly embarrassing that it’s the wrong scandal for which evidence surfaces to support its reality. Many of these reporters and broadcasters simply can’t bring themselves to make this admission publicly. …
Spygate might yet come to public notice:
At present, these media outlets content themselves with predictions that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is leading the DOJ’s investigation into the origins of the Russiagate hoax, won’t really find anything.
The truth is, a fake scandal that was started based on lies, deception, and fraud ended with a whimper with Horowitz’s FISA abuse report.
The real scandal starts when Durham goes public to show the country what he’s found during his months of investigating how the Russiagate fraud was perpetrated upon the entire country.
Why the Left Calls Good People Racist, by Denis Prager, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. After detailing various smears against him by left wing media like Newsweek — such as ‘he said slavery was not bad” in a speech, despite video evidence of the entire speech showing he said nothing remotely like that — Prager lets you know what he really thinks:
So, then, why do left-wing media do this?
There are two major reasons.
First, truth is not a left-wing value. As I have said and written ever since studying communism and the left in graduate school at the Columbia University Russian Institute, truth is a liberal value and a conservative value, but it is not a left-wing value. However, destroying opponents by destroying their reputations is a left-wing value — whether it’s charging Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh with multiple rapes, preoccupying the country with the fake charge that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election, or the charges such as those made against me.
Second, smearing opponents is not only a left-wing value; it is the left’s modus operandi. And the reason for that is: The left does not win through argument. It wins through smear. If you differ with the left, you are, by definition, sexist, racist, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, fascist and/or a hater. The proof? You cannot name a single opponent of the left who has not been so labeled.
Upon reflection, he’s probably correct.
The left call opponents “racist” because it works, and because there are no consequences. Though its power has been waning of late. If all whites are racist and no one else is racist, and the left discriminates blatantly on the basis of race, then what does it even mean to be called a racist? Like “fascist” before it, and “white supremacist” next.
Social media platforms accused of politically biased, selective enforcement policies will be allowed to continue discriminating against conservatives, according to a Wednesday court ruling from the Ninth Circuit court of appeals — which has been heavily criticized for anti-Trump rulings on immigration and other matters.
The court rejected an argument by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager, who claimed that his conservative PragerU videos were receiving unfair treatment by the Silicon Valley behemoth – determining that YouTube, which is owned by Google, is not a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. …
The 9th Circuit also tossed PragerU’s claim of false advertising.
“YouTube’s braggadocio about its commitment to free speech constitutes opinions that are not subject to the Lanham Act,” reads the decision. “Lofty but vague statements like ‘everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories’ … are classic, non-actionable opinions or puffery.”
Whereas bakers must provide their services to all, regardless of their messages. Remember the recent cases where bakers were successfully sued out of existence because they refused to make wedding cakes for gay couples with messaging they thought objectionable?
“One law for thee, another for me,” laughed the lizard-brains on the left, because all they care about is power.
But now that the social media “platforms” are officially not platforms, they are therefore publishers — and therefore legally responsible for their content. Again, the left want it both ways.
Reminds me of this, which also involved the notorious 9th circuit judges:
No candidate, no matter how lefty, is ever truly pure enough for the party of the perpetually woke. Any politician old enough to run for the White House also has a history of believing in things like borders, language, biology, math, law and order, free speech, and any other realities that offend the Wokeratti.
Only a candidate who has done nothing except chastely spout radical nonsense can pass the purity test. … The Democrat presidential primaries have been a long politically correct apology tour. …
There may be 48 years worth of difference between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, but they both have the same amount of experience getting anything done in Washington D.C. The only thing they’ve ever done in his long and her short career is lay out imaginary visions of socialist utopias without having the life skills to change a flat tire, catch a bus, or make their own breakfast. …
The Democrats have become a party divided between the moderates, obsessed with destroying Trump, and the socialists, obsessed with destroying the Democrats. …
But that just meant that the Democrats outsourced policy to the radical fringe that cares about issues.
That’s why the 2020 primaries have seen Democrats endorse gun confiscation (Beto O’Rourke), letting the Boston Marathon bomber vote from prison (Bernie Sanders), eliminating private health insurance (Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren), eliminating free speech on the internet (Warren), and taking away the tax exempt status of churches and synagogues that don’t back gay marriage (O’Rourke).
These are not winning issues.
Most Democrats claim they want electable candidates, but they’re going into 2020 with unelectable policy proposals hanging around their necks that will alienate the average voters they need to win. …
Any political movement that depends on division is inherently fractured. The deeper the divisions become; the harder Democrats hate their common enemy. But underneath that common hatred are a thousand festering hatreds, rivalries and resentments, waiting to break out into internecine warfare.