The children’s crusade

“In climate change, the left has found an emergency big enough to justify taking control of everything.”

I went along myself yesterday to the demo in Treasury Gardens, and truth to tell, I found it boring. It was so clearly a Marxist, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist network of the kind I had been part of in my long-ago youth, right down to:

What do we want?
Climate change action!
When do we want it?
Now!

Fifty years later, even the lines are the same although the issue is different. Except it’s all so new and exciting for these ignorant and uninformed students who have not an independent or educated thought in their heads – I’d like to see how they’re going in their maths and chemistry courses. Every statement from the podium was a cliche, so much so that within ten minutes the cheers simply evaporated and everyone just got to talking to the people they were with. No one any longer cared what the speakers had to say.

The point I was trying to make yesterday is that it is all very well to be speaking among ourselves on our side of the fence but useless if we cannot force these climate totalitarians to engage in a dialogue. The Conversation – in my view out of weakness and not strength – now seeks to shut down debate on climate change within its confines. There is, of course, nothing that these ignoramuses say that we are unaware of. They, on the other hand, are unaware of every bit of the counter-arguments that have been made on our side. They are certainly unaware of the massive evidence proving that they are almost certainly wrong. This, from Cut and Paste at The Oz yesterday, is typical of the attitude they have:

Climate warrior/worrier Tim Flannery confesses to failure, Guardian Australia website, Tuesday:

Each year the situation becomes more critical. In 2018, global emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 1.7 per cent, while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere jumped by 3.5 parts per million — the largest ever observed increase. No climate report or warning, no political agreement nor technological innovation has altered the ever-upward trajectory of the pollution. This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure … My children, and those of many prominent polluters and climate denialists, will probably live to be part of that grim winnowing — a world that the Alan Joneses and Andrew Bolts of the world have laboured so hard to create … As I have become ever more furious at the polluters and denialists, I have come to understand they are threatening my children’s wellbeing as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child.

The dams are full and he mentions not a world. His failure was to be WRONG!!! And you know who is really “threatening my children’s wellbeing as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child”? And not just my children, but every one of those children all around the world who showed up to show off their ignorant concerns before returning to their comfortable, well-provisioned homes of first-world high consumption. Not only do these cruel and thoughtless airheads jeopardise their own futures, both economically and politically, but do so to an even greater extent for their counterparts in the less prosperous parts of the planet. My disgust at these people, especially for their adult leaders who corral these students into these ignorant jaunts in the park, is almost unbounded.

The question I wanted to raise in my post yesterday is to ask how we can make the climate people engage in dialogue so that everyone can hear both sides of the argument being presented at the same time with rebuttals and replies. How do we have a true Q&A? The ABC is filled with leftwing dolts who pander to their own side and ignore the other. You can have The Outsiders and Andrew Bolt who reflect our views, while also discussing both sides, but only viewed among ourselves.

The Conversation has turned into The Monologue. And they don’t care. Like all pseudo-academics of their kind, they already know the truth so do not have to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees. This decision ought to be seen as a great intellectual scandal, that a website designed for academics to discuss issues amongst themselves has shut down one half of the debate. They are the true terrorists, the actual fascists, the genuine Nazis. They are the people you read about in 1984.

I would say we cannot let them get away with it, except I don’t know what to do so that they do not get away with it. Really, what is to be done?

Judge for yourself

Start with this: A state’s system of justice put on trial, where it says:

Bret Walker SC is an old-fashioned stickler for precise legal language. That is why his clinical evisceration of the judges who ruled against George Pell is so effective.

Without a skerrick of emotion or one wasted word, Walker has torn the guts out of the Court of Appeal majority who rejected the cardinal’s appeal against convictions for sexually assaulting choirboys.

The special leave application drawn up by Walker and barrister Ruth Shann leads to an unstated but obvious conclusion: two of Victoria’s most senior judges utterly botched the cardinal’s case, not just on the facts but on the law.

And then this:

Grave allegations of sexual misconduct against a US Supreme Court justice. Cameron Stewart, The Australian, Monday:

Donald Trump has come out swinging in defence of conservative Sup­reme Court judge Brett Kavanaugh, saying the Justice Department should “come to his rescue” in the face of fresh attacks … The President was responding to a new book by two New York Times reporters that claims to have uncovered more evidence of sexual harassment involving Mr Kav­anaugh when he was a student. The new book, The Education of Brett M. Kavanaugh: An Investigation, examines claims by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Mr Kavanaugh’s, who alleged during his confirmation process that he had exposed himself to her at a party while they were in college.

Everything the left and much of the media touch have the same corrupting effect, it seems.

Iran blows up Saudi oil wells

Saudi Arabia Has ‘No Excuse for Its Military Failures’…
Oil spikes most in history…
OPEC, Russia Hold Off Pumping More…
Trump says USA does not need Middle East oil, but cargoes keep coming…

Is this really a one-day wonder? The story has virtually disappeared from the news. Maybe it’s just a ripple but maybe it’s not. We might soon find out how much we like things without cheap energy.

Of course, there is always this: Iran Dismisses US Claim It Was Behind Saudi Oil Strikes, Says Ready for War. Which might be looked at in the context of this: Pentagon chief blames Iran for ‘unprecedented attack’ on Saudi oil facilities as military considers options.

That’s what blogs are now for, to post the minor stories of the day while the media goes on about idiotic and obviously false claims of sexual harassment by Supreme Court justices by women who cannot even remember any such event.

Fake news, the lamestream media and Donald Trump

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

…the Economy, where there is NO Recession, much to the regret of the LameStream Media! They are working overtime to help the Democrats win in 2020, but that will NEVER HAPPEN, Americans are too smart!

My cat gets tired of it after a while but not the media

From Conservativetreehouse who notes that:

It is a metaphor often used to say President Trump’s tweets and media messages are akin to watching a cat chase a red dot controlled by POTUS….   Apparently President Trump also thought it was funny.

It’s astonishing, and also depressing to find how accurate this metaphor is. Sadly, given that there are still people who read the NYT and WP and believe what they say, you really can fool some of the people all of the time.

If their readers wanted news they wouldn’t read The New York Times

New York Times releases a second edition with a different headline after Twitter backlash and liberals announce they’re canceling subscriptions.

Must not say anything even slightly positive about the President. They live in a sheltered workshop in which exposure to reality will drive them crazy crazier. Taken from here.

They would also have noticed that the story on China can also be read as pro-Trump but they’re not into that kind of thing in the same way.

LET ME ADD THIS: Here are a pair of those who had complained about the original headline.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@AOC

Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1158546596252061696 

Nate Silver

@NateSilver538

Tomorrow’s NYT print edition.

Not sure “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM” is how I would have framed the story.

 

What is the legal and ethical answer?

Let me see if I can put my point in reply this way.

Suppose I start up a blog on some platform and it runs for a few years.

Then suppose whoever runs the blog’s platform decides that they do not like the contents of the blog.

Is it permissible, either legally or ethically, for the platform host to close down the blog and trash all of the blog’s history?

Whether it is or it isn’t, should it be?

If it’s not illegal to say it, it should be illegal not to transmit what is being said

This was from August 26, 2017: It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say. Then by coincidence almost exactly a year later, on August 29, 2018, I wrote this: If it’s not illegal to say it then it should be illegal to prevent it from being said. Then on June 10, 2019, I wrote this: If it’s not illegal to say it then it should be illegal to stop it from being said. On July 29, I wrote another on the same subject, under the title: Twitter too. That was followed two days later with this: There is a constituency on the right for forcing media tech giants to become even-handed.

And now I will say it again. This is the problem. The people who run Facebook, Twitter and Google are some of the most powerful people I know. Although there is no doubt about their sincerity in trying to make a ton of money, more to the point is that there is even less doubt about their relentless efforts in also doing all they can to suppress opinions on the right side of the political divide they do not agree with. It would not make any difference which side of the politics they happened to be on in seeing a fault in their program, but in this case they happen to be on the left, and of their intentions there is not the slightest doubt. As in every institution of the left, if you disagree with what they think, they will do what they can to prevent you from putting your views into the public arena. I am at a loss that anyone who believes in free speech should not see this point. If it is some form of misguided right to private property, then I cannot even begin to see the point. Property is regulated at every turn while suppression of free speech is the primary means to wipe out our freedoms in general.

These platforms arose as a promise to connect people up with each other, so millions across the world signed on. And once millions had signed on, it became like the phone company. The service was then not private and individual, but came with the the promise to connect each customer up to their friends and associates. Nor could there be a multiplicity of such businesses if everyone was to be connected to everyone else. Now these same companies, now that they have connected these vast networks, tell us that they will only connect some people, that if they don’t like what you say – legal though it is to say it – they won’t make the connection. They have thus first broken the law by running a publishing house rather than a platform which forbids them to interfere with the speech of those who use their service, and then second, by lying to their customers by misrepresenting the product they originally offered.

I’ll go back to my first post on this: if it’s not illegal to say it, it should be illegal not to transmit what is said. Speaking for myself, I am happy to see some kind of action finally being taken, and it’s not before time.

If it’s not illegal to say it then it should be illegal to prevent it from being said

The post below is from August 29, 2018. I said it again a year later here. And now I will say it again. This is the problem. The people who run Facebook, Twitter and Google are some of the most powerful people I know, although there is no doubt about their sincerity in trying to make a ton of money, but more to the point, in also doing all they can to suppress opinions on the right they do not agree with. It would not make any difference which side of the political divide they happened to be on in seeing a fault in their program, but in this case they happen to be on the left. As in every institution of the left, if you disagree with what they think, they will prevent you from putting your views into the public arena if they can stop you. I am at a loss that anyone who believes in free speech should not see this point. If the point is instead some form of misguided right to private property, then I cannot even begin to see your point, since property is regulated at every turn. These platforms arose as a promise to connect people up with each other so millions across the world signed on. And once millions sign on, it’s like the phone company. The service is then not private and individual, but the promise to connect each customer up to their friends and associates. Now they tell us that they will only connect some people, and if they don’t like what you say – legal though it is – they won’t make the connection. They have thus first broken the law by running a platform and then second, by lying to their customers by misrepresenting the product they offered. If you want to leave them without government intervention, you will need a much much stronger case than any I have seen so far. The rest is from a year ago.
_____

TRUMP WARNS FACEBOOKGOOGLETWITTER
BIAS, CENSORSHIP FIRESTORM

Trying to find a positive story about PDT that is a week old on Google is often impossible. Sometime Duck Duck Go will allow me to access what I know is there, but sometime not. Google is virtually a certainty to be a dry well. Saying things on Facebook and Twitter that offend the left can get you shut down. From the above story, taken from Drudge:

Trump: Facebook, Twitter, Google are ‘treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful’

  • Trump said in a tweet that Google’s search engine had “rigged” news story search results to show mostly “bad” stories about him and other conservatives. He later criticized Facebook and Twitter.
  • He says Google is prioritizing left-leaning outlets and warns that the situation “will be addressed.”
  • The president’s comments come a week before Google, Facebook and Twitter testify before Congress.
  • Larry Kudlow, Trump’s economic advisor, says the White House is “looking into” whether Google suppresses positive articles about the president.

News stories about Australia are usually findable since Google probably doesn’t care what we read. But they do care about what Americans read and prevent what they can from showing up in those narrow corridors inhabited by the wilfully ignorant. Try this story: China reportedly hacked Hillary Clinton’s home server and read all her emails, FBI agent Peter Strzok yawned. It begins:

This is from the Daily Caller because the mainstream media won’t pick up on it until they can figure out a way to say that China only did this at the behest of Russia and Trump.

Now simply routine for stories not to appear in the mainstream media and to disappear from various search engines in no time flat.

What to do is a hard issue since it is clear that an unbiased media would wipe the left out. The truth may set you free, but where will you find it if bias, distortion and fake news are your bread and butter?

AND NOW THIS: Facebook blocks ad for upcoming Diamond and Silk ‘Dummycrats’ movie ridiculing Pelosi, Waters.

FB&T must reckon they are beyond any chance of being made to play by the rules of being an open platform available to anyone. And they may be right, but they might also be wrong. They are certainly tempting fate.