Someone probably needs to take the role of parent here

My 5 year old son has decided that he’s a girl and, rather than distracting him with a fidget spinner or teaching him how to ride a bike, I’m actively encouraging his fantasies.

This will end well, I’m sure.

Tangentially, I’ve often wondered about the thought process used by those who believe that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”. This explanation of homosexual attraction seems to be in denial of the evidence of, until recently, how godawful that life actually is with those who “choose” it being the victims of ostracism, exclusion, violence and, prior to the 1970s in most countries, jail.

It might be argued that the same observation can be applied to transgenderism.

However, there seems to be a glaring difference between the two situations; in the first example, a person has made an informed choice, post-puberty, to have have sexual relations with people of their same rather than the opposite gender. Until they have reached the age of consent, it actually doesn’t matter much what their sexual desires are or aren’t. Certainly there’s little chance of an irreversible or regrettable physical change being implemented on their body.

In the second example someone has decided that they were born in the wrong body. The current school of thought in the progressive circles of society, including 35 year old “queer” feminist Emma Salklid, is that this is enough proof to commence encouraging this world view and, potentially, seeking hormone treatment and surgery to better-align their physical appearance with their brain’s self-image.

There is a chance that imposing Emma’s political world view on a 3 year old boy (this was the age when he declared himself as a girl) might not be the best course of action in this case. In fact, there is a chance that it might be highly regretted by the child in later life. Perhaps there might come a time when a 20 year old highly-screwed up transgender boy/girl/zirl turns to their mother and asks the following questions;

Mum, please can you explain why the fuck you took the word of a 3 year old and started making decisions that can’t be reversed, such as dressing me in skirts, organising play dates with girls rather than playing war games with other boys, commencing hormone treatment which resulted in my genitals not developing normally and, in fact, making my penis so small that there wasn’t enough material to work with for the gender-reassignment surgery?

Also Mum, why would you be so accepting of a 3 year old’s statement about gender when all the studies show that the suicide rate for transgender people is equivalent to those desperate people in German or Soviet concentration camps AND that this rate doesn’t drop following surgery?

Mum, why the fuck couldn’t you have been a parent rather than a political activist?

Bill’s Opinion

3 year old children say lots of things that don’t make sense. If they are insistent that they are a dog, most parents don’t buy them a lead and kennel.

There seems to be a mental problem at play here which would benefit from intense psychiatric help before hormone treatment and surgery become an option…..

And the 5 year old son should probably see a psychiatrist too.

The Gordian knot of climate modelling

Australian climate scientists have built a computer simulation model to predict sea level rises in a variety of scenarios.

The headline result is a 1.32m rise in mean global sea levels by 2100, if no further progress is made in reducing CO2 emissions.

One of the more frustrating aspects of climate science is the dearth of rational, respectful discussion of predictions such as this. Climate Change has become a hugely-polarising subject, where either side of the debate shout into their respective echo chambers.

To even ask the questions we will pose below is to risk being labeled “anti science” or the deliberately provocative “denier” (provocative because we all know the only other instance that noun is regularly used).

We will pose some questions nonetheless, if for no other reason than to have it on record in the WayBackMachine that there were some who were somewhat sceptical of the accuracy of the computer models.

Questions which might be interesting to learn the answers to;

1. This latest computer model makes a prediction of sea level rises based on the computer models of other climate scientists which predict global temperature rises. Therefore to accept the 1.32m computer prediction, one must also completely accept the results of the other computer model. What has been the track record of the methodology employed by that computer model compared with observations?

2. What has been the long term trend of sea rises (or falls) and is there precedent for such a rapid rise as predicted by the computer model? If so, did this rise precede or follow a rise in atmospheric CO2?

3. What was the observed impact to life on the planet during this previous period of rising sea levels?

4. The conclusion of the report is that a 1.32m sea rise is probable by 2100 if no further improvements are made to reducing global CO2 emissions. Given that the majority of people who are alive today may not be alive by 2100, which is the more logical course of action; hobbling the global economy, particularly nations transitioning from mainly agrarian economic models and thus slowing the rate of relief from desperate poverty for their populations, OR planning for a gradual transition of populations from low-lying coasts?

Bill’s Opinion

To accept the narrative that we must deliberately slow economic growth to protect the environment requires us to believe several, increasingly unlikely propositions in serial, namely;

1. That the climate is changing.

2. That this climate change is predominately due to an increase in atmospheric CO2.

3. The climate change will be catastrophic for the planet.

4. That, by halting or severely reducing CO2 emissions, the change to the climate can be halted or retarded to a “safe” level.

5. That this halting of emissions can be achieved by governmental policy.

6. That, despite no historical evidence of any similar agreement and implementation ever occurring before in human history, enough global consensus will be achieved that the previous 5 statements are correct and what the precise mitigating action should be.

Anyone familiar with betting parlance will understand that what we’ve just described above is an accumulator. They will also know why these don’t pay out very often.

Californian shark jumping

Stigmatising someone for a having a disease is clearly not a pleasant or kind thing to do. Of course, historically this would have been a useful self-preservation strategy for deadly, highly contagious diseases.

We’re no longer in the Middle Ages and at imminent risk of contracting the bubonic plague though, so we should be constantly reviewing our attitude to those unfortunate to have caught a life-changing disease.

HIV, for example, is no longer the short and painful death sentence of the 1980s and 90s. With expensive cocktails of pharmaceuticals, the worst effects can now be held at bay for many years.

Much is now known about the HIV, especially it’s relative contagiousness. HIV is, in fact, one of the most avoidable diseases known to man; don’t share intravenous needles or have unprotected sex with a carrier and you’re pretty much guaranteed to never contract it.

The legislators of the great State of California have reviewed the changed landscape of our knowledge and treatment of HIV and have decided that we can do more to remove stigma from those who have contracted HIV. Their solution? Downgrade the punishment for knowingly infecting someone.

Pause for a moment and re-read the seven words in that last sentence. Can you see the problematic one?

Knowingly.

i.e. deliberately, or “with intent”.

In other offences that result in the death of someone, that’s the difference between the definition of manslaughter or murder.

In the words of California State Senator Scott Wiener, “HIV is a public health issue, not a criminal issue“. Senator Wiener’s statement is correct, of course, but the new law is far more than touchy-feely “hug a HIV sufferer” legislation, it’s reducing the penalty for deliberately passing the disease to someone else. A disease, which despite all the mitigating treatments for its symptoms, is still incurable and results in a shortened life, not to mention financially crippling medical expenses.

It should be unnecessary to restate this but, for the sake of clarity, the law has reduced the punishment for intentionally infecting someone with an incurable deadly disease.

Bill’s Opinion

Once again, California leads the world in stupidity. There’s unlikely to be huge spike in the number of HIV infections in the state as a consequence of this legislation, presumably it’s quite a small subset of HIV carriers who are malicious enough to knowingly pass the disease on to others, but for those who are infected by such an evil act, it must be somewhat galling to learn that their attacker will be out of prison within half a year.

There is a clear schism opening up in western society between those who wish for legislation and government policy that is driven by data and logic and those who prefer for emotion, feelings and virtue-signalling to drive the public agenda. Fortunately, the latter group of people have have a Mecca, a promised land, a safe space, to emigrate to; California.

Cooooool.

Image result for jump the shark

The left do nothing but project

Clementine Ford is the gift that keeps on giving. One wonders whether the words “cognitive dissonance” are in her vocabulary?

This week, the most important topic for her scrutiny is the disparity between the allocation of domestic duties and her observation that women have a greater level of internalised anxiety when visitors are in their house.

Not Clementine or any of her friends, you understand, but other, nameless people. Perhaps we could give them a name? Let’s call them Mr and Mrs Strawman.

Mr Strawman is clearly related to “all the men I slept with in my 20s” of whom, “not a single one of them ever apologised for the fact that they were clearly sleeping on sheets that had never been washed and definitely smelled like it”.

Of course, it could be that there were men out there on the singles scene who had clean sheets waiting on the bed when they brought a date home, and it was just some unfortunate coincidence that none of them invited Clementine back to sample them. Hmmm, correlation isn’t causation an’ all that, but it makes one think.

In the Ford household, much angst is expended on presenting a fully-equal division of labour, witness; “We each do our own laundry and often cook or organise our own dinner, both of which stop these jobs from being naturally assumed to be my responsibility”.

Let’s stop for a moment and unpack that statement; you do your own laundry and cook your own dinner?

That’s a very interesting choice of words, isn’t it? One imagines a scenario where Clementine is sifting through the laundry basket to ensure that only her dirty clothes make it into the washing machine and none of her partner’s are cleaned by mistake.

Similarly, does she tuck into a hearty plate of tofu surprise while the poor chap is stuck with instant noodles?

Bill’s Opinion

Clementine Ford is extremely lucky; she is paid to write lengthy Strawman articles where she projects her own insecurities onto general society and then lays the blame at the door of the “patriarchy”.

In the real world, most busy couples manage to find an equilibrium and division of labour that is appropriate to their respective levels of domestic and external activity and contribution which is less about being “gendered” and more about practicality.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the internet

The Australian state government of New South Wales are planning legislation to ban automated software that can rapidly buy multiple tickets for events such as concerts.

At first blush, this would seem a great win for the consumer. Which is presumably why it was announced (not the “great win” part, but the “it would seem” bit).

Why such scepticism here?

Firstly, let’s examine how such legislation might be drafted. It would need to;

  • Define the software by the function it performs.
  • Define the owner or user or beneficiary of the software.
  • Define the operating jurisdiction of the legislation.
  • Explain how to police the legislation for software running from another country (over a VPN, for example) or even another Australian state.
  • Explain how to identify and prosecute the owner of the software.
  • Define when the crime is committed; after just one ticket is bought?

As the title of this post infers, the legislation required for the banning of “bots” suggests the proposer has very little idea of how the internet works.

In addition, it’s yet another government solution where the market could be quite capable of resolving the issue;

If the artists and event organisers really wanted to prevent secondary sales of their tickets, they have many options available to deploy such as using pre-confirmed registered users on a website or ticket collection at the event with a standard form of identification.

Also, consider the consumer; plenty of people are clearly currently happy to pay above face value for tickets. The event organisers are missing a trick here; why not run the ticket sales process as a time-limited auction? This is, in effect, what the”scalpers” are doing and are taking the risk that they won’t sell all the tickets.

Bill’s Opinion

If you really want to fuck something up in a truly expensive and ineffective way, ask a government employee to implement a solution that nobody asked for.

Ignore the relationship between supply and demand at your peril

The Norway Football (soccer) Association has announced that the female and male national players will be paid the same.

Cricket Australia recently made a similar announcement.

This prompts some questions;

  1. Will the ticket prices be set at the same level?
  2. Will the governing bodies negotiate equality of payments and demand equal TV time from media organisations?
  3. Will the governing bodies demand equality of sponsorship rates; i.e. if Heineken wish to sponsor the male sport, they must sponsor the female version at the same rate?

If the answer to those questions is “no”, what does that tell us about the true level of equality between male and female Football and Cricket players?

Bill’s Opinion

Assuming the motivation behind this is a genuine desire for equality, rather than the usual modern disease of virtue signalling, it is inept and incompetent.

Intervening to equalise supply does not result in equalised demand.

It is highly likely that the ticket prices for the female Football and Cricket world cups in 20, 30, 40 years’ time will still sell for a fraction of the price of the male equivalent.

Because people value one higher than the other.

Is “attention-seeking” a personality disorder?

The legacy media ™ newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald, continues its laudable campaign to help people with mental health issues by giving them a public platform to express their issues so that others might better understand the challenges they face.

Well, that’s one way of explaining why they arranged for a lengthy photoshoot to provide multiple “arty” photos for an article about Jess Hodak’s multiple personalities.

Apparently, her other personalities include an 8 year old girl, a middle-aged man and a wolf.

These multiple personalities and their random intrusions into her day to day life, coupled with the heavy medication she is prescribed, means that Jessica is unable to find work or hold down a job.

Presumably, her physical appearance might be a factor in some of those job application rejections too.

It’s interesting to note that, with a plethora of legislation available allowing health authorities and concerned family members to “intervene”, nobody has seen fit to request a restraining order against her preferred tattoo parlour. Also, how does a person with no income afford so much inkwork?

The video of Jessica’s 8 year old personality is particularly interesting. One wonders whether this sketch show character provided partial inspiration;

What do we think; is it more or less likely that her symptoms will reduce following an extensive photo shoot, video and detailed story about her in a nationally-syndicated newspaper?

Bill’s Opinion

Jessica clearly has a lot of issues to deal with, not least of which is an overwhelming desire for attention.

It is not sympathetic to a fragile and distressed individual to glamorise the consequences of their condition by treating it like a fashion show. It’s actually a reprehensible and egregious abuse of power with the sole motivation to drive eyeballs and clicks to their website.

But then, this is the same media outlet that believes President Trump was stigmatising those suffering from dementia by calling the Las Vegas mass-shooter, “deranged”, which makes one wonder what adjective is allowed to be used to describe someone who murders 59 people with no apparent motive?

Bottle-wielding thug gets instant justice

Was the headline English and Australian readers of legacy media ™ weren’t presented with last week.

But it’s a reasonable alternative to the various versions of the same story;

Or this one;

The trouble is, as with all news stories these days, the rush to publish in real time is at the expense of any effort to investigate or analyse.

There’s a clue in the video itself, if one is open to looking for it; a second before the angry ginger-haired cricketer starts swinging haymakers, his “victim” swings his right arm at the person standing next to Stokes. Look at what is in his hand.

A bottle.

Here’s a news flash for everyone who doesn’t understand how physical conflict works; you come at me with a weapon when I don’t have one and, if I manage to get a punch to connect, I will not stop trying to punch you until you are incapable of using that weapon.

And then I’ll call the police.

Put it another way; what is the correct response to an attacker with a bottle in a darkened street with no nearby police?

Interestingly, several versions of the video are in existence. The ones which made it onto the webpages of most media reports have that first, crucial action with the bottle missing. That’s quite telling, isn’t it?

In the meantime, more information has emerged, yet to be corroborated. For example, the bottle-swinger was an ex-army veteran (so presumably not a stranger to a bit of biffo) and that the argument started after he threatened two gay men.

Bill’s Opinion

If you are a famous sportsman and want to avoid street fights and negative headlines on the eve of a major competition, don’t go late night drinking in nightclubs.

Similarly, if you like your facts to be complete, ignore most of what you read or see in the legacy media ™ until about a week after the event.

If voting changed anything, it would be banned immediately

Here’s your proof; Spanish police in violent clashes with voters in Catalan.

In case you’ve not been following the events, the Catalonian regional government called a vote on whether or not Catalonia should become independent from the rest of Spain.

The national government, backed by the courts, declared the vote illegal. The vote has gone ahead to some degree but the police have been instructed to prevent it from happening, consequently there have been violent clashes around the “illegal” polling stations.

There might be one or two confusing elements to this for anyone viewing the events from an “AngloSphere” background with its deep history of Common Law and assertion that rights are derived from God to men and then some are delegated to the state to administer on our behalf.

The European view of the rights of man are heavily-derived from the Napoleonic Code which states that rights are handed to man from the state. A subtle but incredibly important distinction but one that manifests itself in police forces arriving in buses from outside the area to stop people from marking a cross on a piece of paper and putting it in a box.

It must also be remembered that Spain has had a rocky relationship with the concept of democracy; following the brutal civil war, General Franco was dictator from 1939 to 1975 and, following his death, there were a couple of bumps in the road back to the “for the people, by the people” concept, notably the failed military coup in 1981.

If Spain were to suffer a schism again, it is most likely to commence in Catalonia or The Basque Country, the two areas with the fiercest movements for regional autonomy. The national government is particularly sensitive to this, as Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland can attest to after being being disappointed to learn that Spain could not be counted as a supporter of her (since failed) independence movement. “Scotland first, then Catalonia. Erm, no gracias.“, was presumably the Spanish Prime Minister’s thought process.

Regardless of whether or not the Catalonian government’s vote was legal under the Spanish Constitution, it seems unlikely that the national government can keep this genie in the bottle much longer. This month it was a traditional vote using ballot boxes, paper and hosted at sports centres and schools; an activity that can be physically halted, given enough political will and a firm control of the police.

It becomes exponentially harder however to prevent a virtual ballot. Imagine a scenario where the government set up an online survey, perhaps hosted in another jurisdiction, linked to the electoral roll, mailed a one time password to each voter and then opened the website for use? It would require a different kind of police force to shut down and, even if they were successful, there’s little to prevent the same thing from occurring next month and the month after, etc. and suddenly the “Streisland Effect” becomes a political phenomenon as each subsequent denial of democracy hardens the voters to the result the national government are afraid of.

Bill’s Opinion

Democracy only works when when local; the further removed the elected are from those who elected them, the less credible is the claim of freedom and democracy.

The 751 EU MPs, for example, pass laws for 350m eligible voters, or one MP for about half a million voters. The UK, has 650 MPs passing laws for 46m eligible voters, or about one MP for 70,000 voters.

The accountability of a legislator to the electorate is paramount. Without the threat of losing one’s job, an important check and balance has been removed.

The Catalonians might well be one-eyed separatists but physically denying them the chance to vote on this will not change them into federalists either, quite the opposite in fact.