Displaying posts published in

April 2016

The Mainstream Media Spreads Another False ‘Islamophobia’ Story by Raheem Kassam and Liam Deacon

Originally published under the title “Molenbeek Hit And Run: How The Mainstream Media Spread Another False ‘Islamophobia’ Story.”

The journalists and publications which implied the hit and run in Molenbeek borough of Brussels this weekend was a ‘far right’ anti Islam attack had no evidence to suggest that it was as they reported, but they knew what story they wanted to write.

That’s why most hesitantly wrote “during” a “far right demonstration” instead of bluntly labelling the driver a “far right activist” as did the Daily Mail, the first publication to report on the story.

Instead of acknowledging the categorical error, or clearly reporting the truth as it emerged, however, the Mail quietly edited their original article, burying the factual change three quarters of the way down the page, and failing to issue a correction or clarification.

Its headline shifted from “Muslim Women Is Mown Down by Grinning Far-Right Activist” to “by Grinning Driver” (see above) and the critical new details only appeared in the sixth paragraph:

Police later announced that they had arrested two men, believed to have been the car’s driver and passenger, who have been named as Redouane B. and Mohamed B – both of whom are thought to be residents of Molenbeek.

Numerous other articles in the Independent, Express, New York Post, and others have yet to be amended or followed up with the truth. Some, like Evening Standard, only published their misleading story this morning, after all the facts had become widely available.

Journalists who bothered to check with sources in Brussels were able to ascertain the man was not “far right,” but a local Muslim teenager, a fact reported two days ago by those such as Channel 4’s Paraic O’Brien.

When too much really is too much :Yisrael Medad

I wonder: is Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu getting piqued? Is Jordan’s behavior beginning to annoy him? Is the pressure Jordan is applying vis a vis the Temple Mount starting to bother even him? First, despite promises to seek ways to permit Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, he succumbed to the so-called “status quo” (so-called because it is only static as regards Jews).

Second, when it was absolutely clear who was initiating violence and provocations (the Jordanian Waqf by allowing youths to infiltrate the Al-Aqsa Mosque and stay there overnight with firebombs, etc. as well as Sheikh Raad Salah’s Islamic Movement), he only spoke in a general fashion without blaming Jordan.

Third, he didn’t call out Jordan on the violation of Article Nine of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty.

Fourth, he traveled to Amman (and Berlin) to meet US Secretary of State John Kerry and King Abdallah II and bowed to the pressure of installing cameras.

Fifth, he stood idly by for some five months while nothing happens with the camera surveillance scheme.

Sixth, he demurred when the Waqf and Jordan announced that the cameras will not be placed inside the mosque or the Dome of the Rock thus completely undermining Israel’s case to prove Muslim-instigated violence.

And now we read that Jordan is protesting a rabbi storming of Jerusalem mosque :

Jordan Tuesday strongly protested a raid into Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa Mosque compound, led by ultranationalist rabbi Yehuda Glick of the ruling Likud party, and urged Israel, as the occupation power, to stop such provocations.

Pete Mulherin Want Fries With That PhD?

Given the post-grad worth of degrees in gender studies, queer studies and journalism, to name but a few of the modern academy’s taxpayer-subsidised growth areas, it is a monumental injustice to make others underwrite the ongoing exaltation of credentialed irrelevance.
That Australia’s current system of higher education is unsustainable is a fact most are willing to concede. The latest evidence, revealed by the ABC, is of a $13.5 billion debt accrued over four years. This news adds another nail to the coffin of Entitlement Era higher ed and must surely accelerate a large-scale overhaul of the present—pun intended—arrangement.

As a graduate of two-and-a-bit university degrees, I am aware of the doors my tertiary education has opened, and am grateful for the subsidies and deferred payment system through HECS/HELP. That being said, it seems ludicrous my higher education should be paid for by the government taxpayers, including many who did not receive higher education themselves. Despite what our society leads me and fellow Gen Y-ers to believe, we do not have a right to go to university, nor are we entitled to see those studies heavily subsidised.

Speaking for myself, I would have attended university even if required to pay the full fees for my courses—albeit under a deferred-payment scheme— because my interests and professional ambitions lie in academia. On the other hand, I can safely assume that many of my co-students chose to go to university precisely because of the current arrangements. They chose uni because it was the easy option: no upfront fees, Youth Allowance, low-cost courses that might be repaid (or not paid at all, should they go overseas) in the distant future, and — or so they believe — because of better job prospects.

Encouraging this mindset was the uncapping of university places under Labor, as it carried us one step closer to socialist Nirvana: a bachelor’s certificate on every mantelpiece, a gown and mortar board in every wardrobe! All that achieved was to lower the bar. Many university degrees, and here one thinks especially of arts grads, might more appropriately be hung in the garden shed than occupy pride of place in the recent graduate’s hallway. (editor’s note: the declining gradient of Australian journalism matches to a T the rise of “journalism” as a tertiary subject. If you doubt that, note the work-experience children delivering their oracular preconceptions in the guise of “news coverage” via the Fairfax press. )

What I’m getting at is not inspired by elitism; a university graduate is as likely to make a fool of himself as any other person. No, my gripe is twofold and it’s not based on a white-male, CIS-privileged, capitalist conspiracy, despite what you may hear. Firstly, there’s the issue of entitlement, which is raging unchecked among us Gen Y-ers. And secondly, there’s the frustrating notion that suggests: ‘a truly just society must provide—for free if possible—a university degree to everyone.’

Panama Bernie Bernie Sanders’s politics produced the Panama Papers. By Daniel Henninger

Bernie Sanders caused the Panama Papers. Bernie of Vermont didn’t do it by himself, of course. The world’s most famous socialist, and Hillary Clinton’s albatross, had a lot of help. Spare me the crocodile tears over the immorality of tax avoidance. Panama is an indictment of government greed.

After World War II, the governments of the West established tax regimes to support the reconstruction of their nations. Six decades later, that tax machinery, which runs the social-welfare states in the countries Bernie Sanders cites in every campaign stop as a model for America, has run totally amok—an unaccountable, devouring monster. Billionaires aren’t the only ones who run from it.

Most governments, including ours, overtax their citizens to feed their own insatiable need for money. Then the legal thieves running the government and their cronies, unwilling to abide the tax levels they created, move their wealth offshore to places like Panama. Arguably, all the world’s people should be able to move their assets “offshore” to escape governments that are smothering economic life and growth, which has stalled in the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Speaking of crocodile tears, Barack Obama spent Tuesday bragging that corporate tax inversions are akin to Panama Papers’ tax avoidance. Mr. Obama said “corporations,” another swearword invoked by Bernie Sanders at every stop, are “gaming the system.” CONTINUE AT SITE

An Overheated Climate Alarm The White House launches a scary campaign about deadly heat. Guess what: Cold kills more people. By Bjorn Lomborg

The Obama administration released a new report this week that paints a stark picture of how climate change will affect human health. Higher temperatures, we’re told, will be deadly—killing “thousands to tens of thousands” of Americans. The report is subtitled “A Scientific Assessment,” presumably to underscore its reliability. But the report reads as a political sledgehammer that hypes the bad and skips over the good. It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat.

Climate change is a genuine problem that will eventually be a net detriment to society. Gradually rising temperatures across decades will increase the number of hot days and heat waves. If humans make no attempts whatsoever to adapt—a curious assumption that the report inexplicably relies on almost throughout—the total number of heat-related deaths will rise. But correspondingly, climate change will also reduce the number of cold days and cold spells. That will cut the total number of cold-related deaths.
Consider a rigorous study published last year in the journal Lancet that examined temperature-related mortality around the globe. The researchers looked at data on more than 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 areas: cold countries like Canada and Sweden, temperate nations like Spain, South Korea and Australia, and subtropical and tropical ones like Brazil and Thailand.The Lancet researchers found that about 0.5%—half a percent—of all deaths are associated with heat, not only from acute problems like heat stroke, but also increased mortality from cardiac events and dehydration. But more than 7% of deaths are related to cold—counting hypothermia, as well as increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack that results when the body restricts blood flow in response to frigid temperatures. In the U.S. about 9,000 people die from heat each year but 144,000 die from cold. CONTINUE AT SITE

They Want Your IRA The White House pushes investors toward government accounts.

President Obama’s regulators aren’t slowing down, alas. And on Wednesday they unveiled another part of their plan to push Americans out of private investment accounts and into government-run plans.

The Department of Labor says its so-called fiduciary rule will make financial advisers act in the best interests of clients. What Labor doesn’t say is that the rule carries such enormous potential legal liability and demands such a high standard of care that many advisers will shun non-affluent accounts. Middle-income investors may be forced to look elsewhere for financial advice even as Team Obama is enabling a raft of new government-run competitors for retirement savings. This is no coincidence.

Labor’s new rule will start biting in January as the President is leaving office. Under the rule, financial firms advising workers moving money out of company 401(k) plans into Individual Retirement Accounts will have to follow the new higher standards. But Labor has already proposed waivers from the federal Erisa law so new state-run retirement plans don’t have the same regulatory burden as private employers do.

This competitive advantage could be significant. Last month the board of California’s new “Secure Choice” retirement plan wrote to state legislators about their “exciting win” in Washington. They reported that employers enrolling workers in the new government-run plan “would have no liability or fiduciary duty for the plan.” Score! The California bureaucrats added that “we have been given the green light to auto-enroll workers into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).”

Meanwhile, there are only losses for private competitors. The final rule Labor Secretary Tom Perez unveiled Wednesday is being marketed as less onerous than an earlier draft. Thus much of the financial industry is going to take a few weeks to decide on its response. But the main question is exactly how many billions of dollars in costs and lost opportunities will be visited upon investors. And how big the incentive will be to seek government options.

The White House claims it is solving a $17 billion problem for consumers who suffer from “conflicted advice,” but the investment advisory industry is already among the most regulated. The $17 billion figure was assembled from a variety of data sets, many of which weren’t measuring the alleged problem that Team Obama says it can solve, and some of which were generated by people who don’t endorse the White House analysis. In any case government-run plans will have their own conflicts of interest—politicians want the money—and will be expensive. CONTINUE AT SITE