ts. Think Responsibly

The Right Shouldn’t Defund NPR, It Should Work...

rich_cromwell

April 18 2024 at 02:20 pm

Let’s turn it up to 11 For the first time in its 54-year history, NPR is enjoyable. The entertainment is not coming from the programming, though, but from the fallout from Uri Berliner’s whistleblower report at the Free Press about the ideological silo that is the broadcaster. Once Berliner got people’s attention, the extremely public record of insane proclamations from NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher came to light. That’s when the fun really began. Maher, as Matt Taibbi noted at Racket News, has no background in journalism. What she does have a background in – beyond a hodgepodge of perches at liberal organizations like the World Economic Forum, Wikimedia, the Council of Foreign Relations, and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Labs – is fundraising. At Wikimedia, she grew its annual haul from $77 million per year in 2016 to $140 million in 2021. That’s a lot of free tote bags. She’s also the living embodiment of every stereotype of a modern progressive. She cried for Hillary while also chiding the candidate for using the words “boy” and “girl,” because doing so cancels non-binary people. She hates Trump. She’s avoiding motherhood because of climate change. She decries her own white privilege. She thinks the hippies were a little too patriarchal, racist, and misogynist. She is NPR. Hiring her as CEO was a no-brainer. Keeping her is a little trickier now that videos of her complaining about how the First Amendment is an obstacle to truth and that truth itself is also an obstacle to “getting things done” have surfaced. If she truly believes all she espouses or is instead merely a well-trained parrot is debatable. Either way, she’s a product of the system. Berliner, on the other hand, apparently missed a few crucial lessons about loving Big Brother and remains a little too committed to journalism. The truths Berliner highlighted about NPR’s lack of ideological diversity aren’t new. It’s been referred to as National Pinko Radio since the 1980s. Timing is everything, though, and for that, we have to thank him for choosing such a perfect moment. Berliner caught the wind and invited us along for the ride. Which is why Maher isn’t the enemy, but a gift. She can rally conservatives, who prefer to cede territory in a hopeless attempt at containment, into action. Alas, now is not the time for a really stupid and futile gesture, but something actually meaningful. Nonetheless, we’re just the guys to do it, especially since what I’m proposing will be even more entertaining than the current fracas. Apply for jobs in the most dreadful institutions in the land. Sue for discrimination when we don’t get them, because two can play at that game. Go to work for the government, which, I get it, but war is never easy. Land a gig in academia. Find your way inside an NGO. Once we’re in, we can start to wake up the woke, which seems difficult, but not being a depressed statist in a constant panic about the end of humanity will help. Most people want to flourish, not spend their days worrying about the end times. They also don’t want to follow all the stupid, contradictory, and ever-changing rules that the system imposes on them. We’ve all got that liberal friend who relaxes in our presence and stops sticking with the script, even mocking it a little. So, have fun with it. Go into enemy territory and follow their edicts, but turn everything up to 11. Make everyone both an oppressor and a victim, inventing new privileged classes and reasons to be aggrieved. Turn them all against one another. Help the ouroboros finish swallowing its own tail. It’s quickly slithering in that direction already, but we can expedite the process. For now is the time to stop worrying about defunding NPR or stopping various NGOs, about toppling the Mahers and combating their biases against us. Instead, it’s the time to start dreaming about building new structures atop of the rubble on which they once stood.

Masculinity Under Attack

Sadhika Pant

April 24 2024 at 01:04 pm

I was having one of those hypothetical scenario discussions with a friend the other day, when the line between a dystopian possibility and reality became uncomfortably blurred. The hypothetical scenario in question being - what might happen if men began to significantly diminish from public life due to societal transformations. It's concerning how a narrative fueled by animosity towards men is gaining traction in various developed societies, even spreading to more distant ones, such as mine. I recently came across news about a groundbreaking medical procedure allowing women to generate sperm cells from their bone marrow, potentially enabling self-impregnation or impregnation of another woman, the only catch being that the offspring in such a case would always be female. While I'm unsure about the feasibility or legality of such a procedure, especially outside Western countries, what staggered me was the volume of comments that supported the idea of a world without men. Such drastic methods seem to be supported by people who are keen to make men “obsolete” so to speak. I wouldn’t quite say that men can be obsolete, because that would mean that the entire male consciousness can be reduced to a bunch of tasks or roles that could be substituted by women, technology, or rendered unnecessary altogether. I came across a podcast featuring a person known as Teal Swan, who discussed the idea that there is a growing effort to marginalise men by rendering them unnecessary in society. Swan also questioned the impact of a society where women can do everything for themselves, asking what place men would have in such a world, and if women would stop needing them entirely. I don't know much about Teal Swan or her broader beliefs, and I'm not sure how accurate her claims are. While she didn't provide answers, she seems to be asking the right questions. I also have some questions, some of which might be deemed too politically incorrect or controversial to voice openly in modern society. Carl Jung discussed archetypes in his book, Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. If we think of a father, the typical imagery is of a tall, strong figure—a protector, a judge, a disciplinarian, perhaps a hunter or builder. It’s like all the traits of masculinity stack together like a deck of cards. Now consider a mother: the image that often comes to mind is of someone kind, caring, gentle, and soft-spoken, typically holding a baby or child. She's depicted as a feeder, a nurse, a caretaker, the epitome of femininity at its best. What happens when these archetypes become blurred? The traditional roles that men and women have fulfilled in society are vital for raising well-adjusted children. Men have historically provided for and protected their families, disciplined their children and led communities. Women have fed and nurtured their children, cared for sick family members, and maintained the household. It is true that some of these roles, like hunting wild animals or providing physical security, have become less relevant in a society where safety is largely governed by the rule of law. If these roles are outsourced to babysitters, cooks, maids, and robots, what happens to the bond between parents and children? Can children thrive without the active involvement of their parents? If the archetypes of father and mother become diluted to the point where they no longer resemble traditional figures in a child's imagination, what impact will that have on society? Boys might struggle to understand what it means to become a man if the traits typically associated with fatherhood—strength, protection, discipline, and leadership—disappear. Similarly, young girls could find it challenging to understand what it means to be a woman if the nurturing and caring aspects of motherhood become obsolete. In a world where gender boundaries blur, purpose becomes elusive, and family ties weaken, and confusion reigns supreme. Although tasks like providing and protecting can be handled by women or outsourced, and many roles are interchangeable between genders or even replaced by technology, there is more to being a man or a father. The unique male instinct, refined over centuries of survival in the wild, is something that can't be easily replicated or replaced. It is the instinct of the inventor who eased the problem of pain and disease. It's the instinct of the artisan who wielded tools to build infrastructure. It is the instinct of the explorer who drew the maps and established trade routes. It's the instinct of the ruler who established the foundations of societal order. Most importantly, it is the instinct of the father who passed on that legacy to the son.

The Elite Are Captured

Numapepi

April 09 2024 at 04:14 pm

The Elite Are Captured Posted on April 9, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the government can violate our Constitution at will, because the whole government, constitutional and administrative state, has been captured by an ideology. In Federalist papers #10, Madison warned, tyranny would result if two branches were ever controlled by a single faction. If you think about it, it makes sense. The only limit in our “limited” form of government is the infighting between factions. That animosity keeps limits on how far any faction can go. If all the levers of government are controlled by a single faction, the government serves that faction, without restraint. As we see today in the US, Canada and indeed in Europe. The fly in the ointment is our unwillingness to go along. Elections are becoming a real source of concern for the progressive post modernist faction. Today we have all three branches and permanent Washington, captured by an pathological, anti American and Satanic ideology. Post modernist progressivism is nothing more than a mind virus. Our public education system is a primary vector. It’s also passed in the universities and colleges. Only those with the strongest immune systems against such things are able to fight it off. Those who are captured the most are sent to further indoctrination centers, like the World Economic Forum, (WEF) young leaders programs, and voila… the ruling class is of one mind. A diseased mind. As Klaus the varmint Schwab said, they have penetrated most governments… from the rear. The US government is no different. That pain in the derriere, bureaucracy gives you, now you know where it comes from. Post modernist progressivism is an ideology that’s melded communism and fascism into a new malevolence, its adherents are certain will save the world… from us teaming masses. First, control us, then, eliminate the surplus. Playing off people’s sense of justice, to create injustice, manipulating our sympathy, to create a pitiless culture, and it seeks our hearts, to make us heartless. The progressive wallows in unearned self righteousness. Egoistic self righteousness justifies their usurpations, crimes and fraud… since they’re doing it for our own good. Which brings us to hubris and arrogance. For only the arrogant filled with hubris would presume to choose for others. Especially when the egoist’s own life is a total mess. Being liars, corruptocrats and perverts. No wonder censorship is a must. The post modernist progressive faction posted their plans on the Georgia guide stones, for a few decades, before destroying it. Now the plan is in action the memorial’s continued existence would be inconvenient. Soon talk of them will be the stuff of conspiracy theories. Some of the highlights of that former granite obelisk are, reducing the human population by killing 6.5 billion people, global government, and a permanent world totalitarian state… from which there’s no escape. True believers are all in. They see the US, Europe and Russia as the primary impediments, and so, have to go. That’s why migration and world war is so important to them. They achieve two of their primary goals. Reduce the population and obliterates the US, EU and Russia. Opening the way to global utopia. Like in Star Trek. How do we know all three branches and the administrative state are captured by the post modernist progressive faction? By their actions… the DOJ’s selective prosecutions, the court system’s use of standing to avoid their duty, and the passivity of the legislative branch, in the face of aggression by the bureaucracy. We all know the dementia patient isn’t in charge. He’s a rubber stamp to permanent Washington. Why else do they protect the man so? That’s why “our” governments act so brazenly. The elite agree, we need to be tyrannized, then culled. The democratic element is the problem. In the US, mail in has the elite covered, but in the EU, elections are becoming a real issue. Which is why EU elites will soon pervert their elections. So globalists can continue doing whatever the Hell they want. Sincerely, John Pepin

Don't Bring Your Politics on a Date

Sadhika Pant

April 03 2024 at 11:24 am

A few weeks back, I made the mistake of joining my boyfriend on a double date with another couple, a friend and her partner. As the evening unfolded, it became clear why this arrangement was ill-advised – modern times seem to have little tolerance for traditional acts of chivalry. My boyfriend takes it upon himself to open car doors for me. He bears the weight of heavy shopping bags, and ensures my comfort by pulling out my chair whenever we dine out, a habit he maintains almost without fail. When descending stairs, he often leads the way, extending a helping hand, particularly if I'm wearing heels. He readily allows me to lean on his arm when fatigue sets in after a long day. Even on hiking excursions, where my experience exceeds his, he offers assistance. Despite my playful teasing about his tendency to drive below the speed limit, he becomes even more cautious when I'm in the car. When crossing roads, he consistently positions himself between me and oncoming traffic, even if it means crossing over to the other side on divided highways. On cold evenings, he takes off his coat and offers it to me. It’s probably not just him. I saw my father doing similar things for my mother. I recall my frail grandfather, despite his failing eyesight, extending his hand (albeit in the wrong direction) to assist my grandmother down the stairs. It's evident that this sense of chivalry is deeply ingrained, likely passed down through generations. However, in a more modern social context, such displays of consideration and deference may not always be met with the same appreciation they once were, particularly among certain circles of friends. Returning to the unfortunate date, discomfort only surfaced when it was time to settle the bill, a point of contention for those who struggle to keep politics separate from romance. Typically, my boyfriend handles the bill during our outings, while I take care of expenses on trips away from home. We have a system. As the men headed to the parking lot, my friend took the chance to voice her thoughts to me. "Did it bother you that your boyfriend paid the bill without even checking if you wanted to split it?" she asked. "Well, not really. Why is it such a big deal?" I responded, bracing myself for a potentially awkward discussion. "I would have been offended if my partner did that!" she exclaimed. "It's like they think I'm incapable of paying for myself!" "I don't think it implied anything like that," I countered. "On a first date, my expectation is typically for the man to cover the bill. However, I do prefer to choose a more modest setting, like a coffee shop, to keep expenses reasonable. After that initial date, I usually suggest splitting the bill until I feel more at ease with the person. Now that we've been together for years, we tend to handle expenses jointly without keeping tabs on who paid for what." She was silent for a minute, and then went on to say, “And don’t you mind when he opens the car door for you, as if you’re incapable of doing that for yourself?” I chuckled. “No, I see it as a considerate gesture. Sure, I'm perfectly capable of opening my own car door, pulling out my own chair, or crossing the road independently, and there are times when he forgets too. But it's not about proving my ability to do so, especially when he's simply trying to be attentive and caring during a date. I enjoy cooking for him and taking care of him; why not allow him the same pleasure of taking care of me on a date?” "But you're strong and independent. Surely, you should make that clear to him," she suggested, her tone hesitant. “But if I truly am all those things, why should I feel the need to constantly assert it? I like being independent, but I also don’t want to think so much before depending on my loved ones for the smallest of things.” "But why not?" she pressed. “It kills the romance.” Image Source: It Happened One Night (1934)

Stopping Illegal Immigration

Numapepi

March 30 2024 at 03:59 pm

Stopping Illegal Immigration Posted on March 30, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, illegal immigration could be stopped by the Republican controlled House, today, if they had the will. That they don’t, shows they don’t. How? By passing a law forbidding non citizens from accessing any social services. If they come here… they’re on their own. No welfare, no free phone, no free food, no free housing, no free anything… but a ticket home. Turn off the magnet and the filings fall off. They’ll have to find work to survive. Cut off the free stuff and many will simply go home. Most of all, cutting off the free stuff, cuts off the draw for people to come here. It’s common sense, no sane person pays foreigners to invade their country… unless they want their country invaded. So, why doesn’t congress act, instead of holding hearings, following squirrels and grandstanding? In what universe does it make sense to give welfare to illegal aliens? Isn’t that asking to be taken advantage of? No sane poor person anywhere on the planet would turn down that offer. It would be stupid. No wonder people are flooding into the US and EU. Heck… I should go to Mexico, re-enter as an illegal, and put in for welfare. Ride the wagon instead of pull it. The trouble is, laws are for citizens… Rights are for illegal aliens. That’s why they aren’t held to the law… but can carry weapons. Plus given thousands of dollars for showing up. There’s an old saying, “subsidize that which you want more of.” If that’s the case the elite want more illegal aliens. Since they’re so intent on subsidizing a migration to the land of milk and honey. A land being stripped of milk, honey, and prosperity. People are self interested, its a fundamental fact of human nature. Moreover, we seek the fastest way to achieve our self interest. It was necessary when everything was in shortage. In the West, everything is in glut, unless the government regulates it into shortage. Any poor person living in a place without education, infrastructure or opportunity, who is offered free money, housing and free reign of their id, will jump at the chance. It serves their self interest, but more importantly, it’s the easy way to serve their self interest. If this paradigm is maintained long enough, everyone on the planet will come to Europe and the US, to hop on the couch. Only those with eyes to see, will know better than to climb onto an overfilled hammock, swaying over a cliff, held up by a fraying rope. We’re that fraying rope. Congress has the power to reign in the Bureaucracy, that they don’t, shows they don’t want to. Instead of grandstanding, and ejecting a member of their own caucus based on an allegation, while allowing members of the other caucus to stay with actually proven crimes… the republican controlled House could pass legislation, like a budget that’s not a giveaway to the progressives, a border bill, and ban non citizens from receiving any public assistance. You know. Do their job. If republicans sweep into the House and Senate in November, and the democrats don’t blow up the world over it, count on Republicans continuing doing the same… nothing. Because they’re an integral part of the uniparty. Else they would have impeached Biden over the border, passed legislation, and a real budget. The role of Congress is to pass laws and budgets… instead, they hold hearings and grandstand. I suppose grandstanding plays to an audience, while passing meaningful legislation that addresses our societal problems, eliminates a reason to grandstand. Losing a source of publicity without accolade. The Founders would be shocked to learn the legislative branch has given up its legislative authority to the Executive Branch’s bureaucracy. Maybe they’re lazy, stupid, or are traitors who want plausible deniability. For whatever reason, the congress has passed their authority to the courts and bureaucracy, becoming a televised public court instead. A court without authority, and we all understand that a court without authority, is merely theater. How’s a theater unlike congress? In a theater… people act. Sincerely, John Pepin

Major surrogacy conference seeks international...

angelobottone

April 11 2024 at 08:56 am

The Vatican has just released a new document on the topic of human dignity. Among other issues, it addresses the ethical problems of surrogacy—including the commodification of babies and the financial exploitation of low-income women who are contracted to be surrogates. Ireland is in the process of adopting one of the most permissive laws in Europe on the issue, but elsewhere, opposition to the practice is mounting. A major conference advocating for a worldwide ban on surrogacy was held in Rome last weekend. Experts at the conference argued that an international treaty is necessary to halt the practice. Although national bans have some impact, couples and single men may still travel to countries where surrogacy is legal or unregulated. This is why it is crucial for states to unite and establish a system to penalise corporations that serve as intermediaries between surrogate mothers and commissioning parents. Some countries, such as Italy, are in the process of criminalising international surrogacy, punishing Italian citizens who engage in this practice abroad. Such an approach should be adopted by every country, the conference heard. Banks and financial institutions play a pivotal role in the international surrogacy market, positioning them as critical targets in efforts to achieve worldwide abolition of this practice. At the conference, it was proposed that the responsibilities banks currently have in combating terrorism and money laundering should be expanded to include scrutiny of transactions related to surrogacy. The meeting in Rome saw the participation of international experts and activists, including the Italian Minister for Family, a representative from the Holy See, various politicians, and notably, two United Nations officials. The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, and a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Velina Todorova, attended as observers. The politicians represented a broad spectrum of political affiliations, spanning right, centre, and left-wing parties. Similarly, the experts and activists brought a diverse range of ideological viewpoints to the discussion, including feminism, conservatism, and Christian Democracy, among others. This diversity underscored a rare consensus across political and ideological divides on the perils of surrogacy, a consensus that appears to be absent in Ireland. This conference followed the launch of a declaration in Casablanca (Morocco) in March 2023, signed by 100 experts from 75 countries, calling for the universal abolition of surrogacy. The Casablanca Declaration initiative is led by Olivia Maurel, a French/US feminist activist conceived through surrogacy. The 32-year-old mother of three has faced mental health challenges from a young age, only later discovering the truth about her origins. She has since become one of the most vocal opponents of the “womb market.” At the conference, she gave a moving and powerful testimony about how surrogacy has affected her life, describing the commodification of children and women as a new form of slavery. Before the conference, Olivia Maurel had a private audience with Pope Francis, who endorsed the conference’s goals. In January, the Pope had already called for “an effort by the international community to universally prohibit this practice,” a call reiterated in the new document on human dignity. Maurel is keen to stress that that she does not come at the issue from a religious perspective because she is an atheist. The Rome conference continues the commitment of the Casablanca Declaration and aims to promote national and international initiatives, leading to the adoption of an international treaty among states. At present, Ireland is far behind the curve on the matter, lost in the pretence that any ethical problems arising from the practice can easily be dealt with.

Ridicule and Outrage

Numapepi

Yesterday at 04:42 pm

Ridicule and Outrage Posted on April 28, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the people’s reaction to the absurd Scottish hate crime law… is how it’s done. Soon that nonsensical abuse of thought will be tossed in the rubbish heap. Due to public outrage. Moreover that reaction will cause the elite to think twice before passing another absurd law like that. Outrage is only effective when the outraged tell their representatives though. Seething in quiet does nothing to help anyone. While it may seem safer, holding it in will eventually lead to it’s explosive escape. That’s exactly what the elite want. For us to rise up so they can clamp down. As Van Jones said. Holding our outrage in, will lead to us rising up. If however, were we to vent, the elite would bend in the steam. That’s one way we can straighten out our crooked as a coil elites. Outrage has immense power to change the paradigm. The elite live in constant fear of losing their power. Like chickens with an eye to the sky for birds of prey, the elite are on the lookout for any threat to their prerogative. Vociferous public outrage is the equivalent of a red tailed hawk perched on a post overlooking the chicken yard. Which will drive the elite to doing the right thing… even if it burns. That’s why we need to voice our opinion to our representatives. To vent, so pressure doesn’t build, and to let them know their beloved power is being threatened. If we add ridicule to outrage, we have the perfect weapon, to use against our narcissistic elites. Authority is corroded by ridicule more effectively than acid wears limestone. Because ridicule both defies authority and makes authorities a joke. We’ve been trained to only be outraged at the things the elite want us outraged at… and nothing else. No matter how outrageous it is. The elite have taught us to seek their approval to be outraged. If they’re outraged, then it’s our duty to be, and if they’re not, it’s bad manners to be outraged. We get our orders from the evening news. They tell us what we’re supposed to be afraid of, worry about and be angry at. Then they tell us how to channel that anger. We’re supposed to hate Elon Musk for being anti censorship. The elite want us to demand to be censored. It’s outrageous that you or I could say whatever we want. I demand to be silenced! Or not… depending on if I’m a puppet, or a sovereign human being. Puppets have no need for free speech… or the suffrage for that matter. The sovereign people of Scotland and indeed Britain have added ridicule to their outrage. The reaction to the absurd hate crime law was immediate and overwhelming. That’s how you do it. Immediate and overwhelming outrage directed at the elite. Followed up by round after round of vicious ridicule. You see how the Scottish elites backed down. Especially when the law they passed to tyrannize Scots was used against them. The reputation damage from the ridicule will haunt them for the rest of their lives. As it should be. If we reacted with the same level of outrage, when our elites act despotically, they would cut it out. That, or lose their power, the one thing the elite are terrified of more than anything else. As the elite in Scotland have shown. Outrage and ridicule are a steam chamber for us to assert our power to change the paradigm. If Americans had been outraged at the Waters of America law, it wouldn’t have taken 20 years and millions of dollars in litigation as well as all the harm done… to prove that legislation unconstitutional. Immediate outrage and ridicule would have saved millions in lawyer fees, two decades of lost wealth for American citizens, and kept the elite in line. Instead, we take it, and rely on someone else to go bankrupt to save our Rights. Try being a mature human being, don’t seethe inside, speak, let the elite know how you feel. Ridicule those elites who blurt stupidity, do idiotic things and pass moronic legislation. Threaten their power with ridicule and outrage… and they’ll straighten out. Sincerely, John Pepin

RTE’s hopelessly unbalanced review of...

angelobottone

April 20 2024 at 11:05 am

At a time when the government is considering a further liberalisation of our already permissive abortion legislation, RTE Investigates this week aired a documentary on “the realities of Ireland’s current abortion services” which was far from being fair and impartial. In fact, we didn’t get to hear from a single pro-life advocate, and it did not tell us that some of the experts we did get to hear from are, in fact, long-time pro-choice advocates. All in all, a very bad day’s work. The documentary, which was aired on Monday night, included several ‘sting operations’, in an attempt to “expose” pro-life agencies that offer support to pregnant women. Three health professionals were introduced in neutral terms and were asked to comment on the advice those agencies were giving. One of them, Mark Murphy, portrayed in the documentary as merely a GP, actually served as the national spokesperson for Together for Yes, the organisation leading the campaign to repeal the 8th amendment during the 2018 referendum. We were not told this. Similarly, psychiatrist Veronica O’Keane featured in the documentary. She responded in shock to some of the advice being offered to pregnant women by the pro-life agencies, but she was a long-time critic of the 8th Amendment. Again, the innocent viewers at home were not informed of this, potentially leading them to perceive those doctors as impartial experts. Yet, the most egregious example involved Dr. Jonathan Lord, who was portrayed in the documentary solely as a “consultant gynaecologist.” In fact, Dr Lord is the Medical Director of MSI Reproductive Choices UK, one of the leading providers of abortion in the UK. This chain of abortion clinics has a history of failings that put women at risk, but we are not told about this either, which is interesting given that the programme was supposed to be partly an exposé of manipulatively emotional practices. In 2016, inspectors from the UK Care Quality Commission found numerous failings at MSI clinics, including staff “bulk signing” consent forms, limited clinical oversight, poorly trained staff, and at least one case in which a vulnerable woman was given a termination despite not understanding what was going on. A further inspection in 2017 found more failings. (You can read the official reports here: https://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/1-102643434/reports ) MSI were also accused of paying their staff performances bonuses for persuading women to have abortions. MSI Reproductive Choices UK used to be called "Marie Stopes UK" but in 2020 they removed the reference to Marie Stopes as she was a racist eugenicist who wanted the "hopelessly rotten and racial diseased" to be sterilised. Inviting a representative from the most fervently pro-abortion sector to offer insight on purported "rogue pro-life agencies" is akin to soliciting commentary on animal cruelty from the CEO of a slaughterhouse corporation. The programme also presented the stories of three women who went to England to have a termination. Their unborn children were diagnosed with some anomaly that would not qualify for abortion here in Ireland as they were expected to live more than 28 days after birth. We were not told what the anomalies were. What life expectancy did the children have? Was it weeks, months or years? Is RTE now effectively campaigning for abortion to take place in Ireland when a foetus is found to have an anomaly that might not result in death for years? Would that include Down Syndrome? We know from British figures that many of the Irish women who still travel to England for abortions (206 according to the last report), do so because their babies have conditions like Down Syndrome. Even though the documentary was about the operation of our abortion law, it signally failed to tell us how the number opting for abortion keeps on increasing, probably far past the point that the average person who voted Yes in 2018 expected. It looks like 10,000 abortions took place here last year. The undercover investigation of the counselling agencies didn’t even reveal very much. For example, one of the Gianna Care counsellors advised the RTE undercover reporter to read online about the possible bad emotional effects of abortion. But shouldn’t pro-choice agencies also do this? Two RTE journalists attended, on false pretenses, a spiritual retreat for women who regret their abortion. It would have been insightful to hear from those women. RTE failed to interview them, or to interview Bernadette Goulding, the organiser of those retreats, who herself regrets her past abortion and dedicates her life to supporting women who have undergone similar experiences. Furthermore, why would a documentary purportedly focused on “the realities of Ireland’s current abortion services” fail to even acknowledge, let alone interview, women who have undergone abortions after being incorrectly told that their baby had a fatal anomaly? The programme set out to review Ireland’s abortion law and services, but the lack of balance in it was so bad, it deserves a review of its own.

Recommendations for 'assisted dying' are wrong...

angelobottone

April 02 2024 at 12:25 pm

As predicted, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying has recommended the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Ireland. It claims they will be allowed under only strict conditions and with proper safeguards, but when you read the actual report, some of the conditions and safeguards seem neither strict nor proper. The final report from the Committee, presented last month, includes some criteria to qualify for assisted suicide and euthanasia, but it also recommends a formal review of the legislation after three years of operation, when these criteria could be changed. We all know that they will be changed, as it has happened in other countries. Specifically, the report recommends that so-called “assisted dying” should be offered to adults who are Irish citizens or have been residents here for at least one year. In order to qualify, the person should be “diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition that is: a) both incurable and irreversible; b) advanced, progressive and will cause death; c) expected to cause death within six months (or, in the case of a person with a neurodegenerative disease, illness or condition, within 12 months); and d) causing suffering to the person that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person finds tolerable.” This is objectionable enough, but even on its own terms, the report’s recommendations would not create proper safeguards. For example, take Recommendation 28 of the report. It says: “The Committee recommends that two formal requests for assisted dying must be made, with a set specified interval between. At least one of these requests must be recorded in writing, and before two independent witnesses.” So, two requests have to be made, only one of which in writing and before two witnesses. This is extremely loose wording. It does not tell us whether the two requests must be made to two separate individuals. Could the two requests be made to the same person? We are not told that the person or persons to whom the requests are made should be a doctor. Presumably they ought to be, but we should be told. Then again, should doctors be involved in this at all except to confirm that the person is dying and is within a certain number of months of death? Who would the “independent witnesses” be? Two friends? Two strangers? Two lawyers? Who knows? The report does not clarify who will assess the requests and, specifically, no mental health assessment is recommended. It only says that “the doctors have an obligation to acknowledge receipt of the request and should deliver a response within a specified timeframe.” According to the recommendations, a qualified psychiatrist is required only when there are concerns that the person might not be competent to make an informed decision. The report recommends an interval between the two requests, but it does not specify its length. It could be two weeks or a day. Such intervals are required, in some jurisdictions that permit assisted suicide or euthanasia, as “cooling off” periods that allow the patients to reflect about their decision. There is no requirement in the report that the family of the patients be informed before the procedure. In some jurisdictions, health professionals cannot actively suggest assisted suicide or euthanasia to their patients as an option, but they can only accept requests coming spontaneously from patients. This is a protection against patients being coerced or led towards the procedure. In the Oireachtas report there is no recommendation that would stop doctors mentioning ‘assisted dying’ as an option, which is an appalling oversight, or was it deliberate? The recommended protections for conscientious protection do not go far enough. Medical personnel will not be obliged to take part in ‘assisted dying’ but will have to refer a patient who requests to die in this way to another doctor. This is seen by many doctors as a form of coerced participation. Institutions are offered no protection. This means a hospice, for example, could potentially be forced to allow its patients to die in this way if that is what a patient wants, regardless of its ethos. The final report received approval by nine of the Committee’s fourteen members. Three members voted against it. Notably, the Chair of the Committee, independent Michael Healy Rae, voted against, together with Fianna Fail TD Robert Troy and independent Senator Ronan Mullen. One member of the Committee was absent from the final vote and one, namely Pa Daly from Sinn Fein, abstained. The three members who voted against also presented a minority report, which I will analyse in the future. The 38 recommendations in the report, while extensive, demonstrate a problematic prioritisation of ‘choice’ over the intrinsic value of life and the potential for unintended consequences, especially for the most vulnerable in society. The report ignores the opposition of the main medical organisations in Ireland, particularly of those medical professionals who work in palliative care. The report glosses over the evidence presented by many experts regarding the deeply divisive and contentious outcomes observed in jurisdictions like the Netherlands, and Canada, where the slippery slope of criteria expansion and the blurring lines between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia have been well-documented. Even on their own terms, some of the recommendations of the report are appallingly lax. The final document has been barely analysed by a media distracted by the resignation of Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach, and which tend not to subject euthanasia advocates to proper critical scrutiny anyway. In the greater scheme of things this report, which represents a big step towards euthanasia and assisted suicide, is far more important than the resignation of any given Taoiseach. It beckons us to cross a moral rubicon.

The Business Of Ukraine

David Reavill

April 29 2024 at 01:30 pm

The American built M1150 exploding mines. ** The Russo-Ukraine War, which began in February 2014, took a dramatic and decisive turn precisely eight years later, on February 24, 2022, when Russian Forces crossed the border into neighboring Ukraine. Since the beginning of this most recent phase of the conflict, the United States has been the principal supplier of Ukrainian military arms and systems. It has presented America with an unrivaled test and assessment of its Military Production Capacity. On paper, this was a mismatch of historical proportions. After all, the US is the world’s most significant arms producer. Of every dollar spent on global military production, the US produces 63 cents. That’s right, nearly two-thirds of all weapons produced worldwide are “made in the USA.” On the other hand, Russia is far down the list of weapons producers, making only a one-ninth-dollar volume of ammunition, systems, and weapons compared to the US. It is inconceivable that Russia could hold a candle to the United States, a country whose annual defense budget approached ten times the Russians’ at the start of the conflict with Ukraine. When asked by a reporter on 60 Minutes if the US could handle the war in Ukraine, along with the conflict in Gaza, President Joe Biden responded: “We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake.” As if to underscore the seeming invincibility of American military might. Unfortunately, as anyone who has followed the Russo-Ukraine Conflict closely will attest, the tide for the American-supported Ukrainians appears to be going out. By any objective measure, captured territory, number of casualties, and available supply of arms, the Russians, not the Americans/Ukrainians, are prevailing. Russia currently controls nearly a quarter of Ukrainian territory. The average age of Ukrainian soldiers is estimated to be 43 years, indicating that Ukraine has been forced to throw a wide net in conscripting new recruits. But most concerning for today’s discussion is that America is running out of supplies to provide Ukraine with ammunition and equipment to continue the conflict. It’s been known for weeks now that the supply of 115mm artillery shells, the workhorse of NATO-designed infantry warfare, is nearly exhausted. How can this be? How has the American Military Colossus run short of such a vital munition? This question should concern every American. At its heart is the basic issue: Is America prepared to stand up to Russia, or much less China, whose arm production is nearly double Russia’s? Is there a severe crack in America’s seeming invincibility? Making matters worse, the 155mm artillery shortage is one of many areas we lack. Just last Friday, the US announced that it could not supply Ukraine with additional Patriot Anti-Aircraft systems. These systems are the pinnacle of US-produced anti-aircraft weapons and are vitally needed to combat Russian fighter jets, drones, and missiles. Without significant anti-air weapons, the Russians have nearly secured complete air supremacy. It has been the key to Russia’s current strategy of destroying Ukraine’s electric grid. The primary reason that several Ukrainian cities and towns are going dark is the US’s inability to provide sufficient air defense. Not only is America falling behind in supplying Ukraine with the quantity of weapons needed to oppose Russia, but many of the American weapons have not been up to standard. The Moscow Arms Show “There’s good news and bad news: Our Abrams and Bradley’s are already in the center of Moscow And the bad one? At the “Trophy Show.” — Alexander Ivanov, on X Each year, Moscow puts on a significant arms show, like the Air, Navy, and Army shows held around the country. It’s an opportunity to show off the latest in military equipment and give citizens a look at the weapons and systems that stand by to protect them. This year, Russia presented several of its most advanced fighter and bomber jets and a mobile launch ICBM. All of them are pretty impressive. A selection of arms captured in Ukraine was added to the list of Russian-produced equipment. As you can imagine, many of the tanks and vehicles on display were produced in the USA. The very latest in American military technology is now in the hands of our Proxy enemy — an unmistakable declaration of Russian victories on the battlefield. The M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle Of all the American “trophies” in Russian hands, the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle is perhaps the most exemplary. It is one of the most technologically advanced pieces of military equipment in the US Army and Marine arsenal. This 40-foot long, 72-ton behemoth uses the same chassis as the vaunted M1 Abrams Tank, the top-of-the-line in American armaments. Utilizing what is essentially a jet engine, the M1150 can generate a whopping 1,500 horsepower and reach a top speed of more than 40 mph. Each Assault Breacher costs $14 million to produce, not counting initial R&D. Five months ago, Ukraine paraded one of its newly acquired M1150s through the streets of Kyiv. Within the last six weeks, two of the M1150s have been captured by the Russians during their surge through the region of Avdievka, a town that has seen some of the most fearsome recent battles. Although this unit was not captured in time to make the Moscow show, there is a video of a Russian soldier reviewing it. The video is here on Sputnik Global, a Russian news site. https://sputnikglobe.com/20240427/russia-seizes-us-made-abrams-type-assault-breacher-vehicle-from-ukrainian-troops-1118139884.html Please watch if you can. One principle I’ve learned in business is that your harshest critic can often provide the best evaluation of your product. In brief, the soldier pointed out that the M1150 was too heavy to fight in Ukraine. While it may have worked wonderfully in the hard sands of the Middle East, it just sank into the black soils of Eastern Europe. Then, he pointed out how the Russian drone could take out the optical sensor, which blinded the unit. At that point, it was utterly vulnerable. He also called the M1150 a powder keg, with explosives stored high in the unit and exposed to arm’s fire. Finally, the Russian Soldier concluded: “At this point, this vehicle is only designed to break up protests against German farmers.” Soldiers around the world have a sense of humor. Developing The M1150 So, let’s put on our analyst caps and review the M1150. We’ll discover that the Russian soldiers’ opinions are not that removed from our Military establishment. Development of this vehicle began sometime in the 1990s. By 2001, the development program (Project Grizzly) was canceled. The Pentagon recognized that it could not support such a complicated, maintenance-heavy vehicle. In hindsight, it’s easy to see how the M1150 was developed: take the engine and chassis from the Abrams, combine some custom armor plates, a custom plow, and some line charges to clear the mines, and just one 50-cal machine gun to save costs. Put it all together and “abracadabra,” a new mine-clearing vehicle. It was a process that undoubtedly cost a couple of billion dollars. But, “ Hold on!” said the Pentagon. Like that Russian soldier, they realized it didn’t work in battle conditions (“too complicated and maintenance-heavy”). But by the time the Pentagon canceled the project, 239 M1150s had already been produced. The US Marines and Army took most of the vehicles, waiting for an opportunity to turn them over to some ally. That’s when Ukraine entered the picture. Lessons for America’s Military Industry Assuming that we’re even half right about the procurement and production of the M1150, the American production of armaments for Ukraine will become a “case study” for years to come. However, for that case study to have a real impact, this government must consider its critics, even the Russians. Unfortunately, I see no indication that this will occur. The fact that the M1150 project proceeded entirely through the development phase without meeting sufficient opposition to stop production indicates that the R&D Process needs to be completely revamped. The President has turned the production of military equipment entirely on its head. Biden, Senator Lindsay Graham, and others repeatedly point to the number of new jobs as the principal reason we must continue sending billions to Ukraine. Weapons To Win Wars, Or A Jobs Program? Throughout the recent debate over sending $61 billion in aid to Ukraine, Biden and Congress argued that this money would increase employment for Americans and that the Defense Industry would use these funds to hire new workers. This is a simple misdirection and a loss of our chief objective, if we have one, in Ukraine. No, Mr. President, the main goal of our Defense Contractors should NOT be to provide jobs. They should instead produce battle-ready arms and equipment that will give our troops or our allies the “winning edge.” This President and most in Congress have turned our most essential military contracts from providing the margin of victory into some kind of social program. Note that the entire debate over the recent military aid package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan centered on how many would be hired and in whose Congressional District. The debate was not on providing the support needed for Ukrainian battlefield victories. This explains how a country like the USA can spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined and yet produce sub-par products. In Washington’s eyes, America’s Defense Industry has become merely a jobs program. Follow me here on ThinkSpot for more stories from the ValueSide.

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

All Thinkers

Search

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Search close

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Cookies on ts.close

Actions Listclose

Please confirm your account

Description

New Stream close

In this stream

Contributors I Follow

Followersclose

AboutClose

thinkspot TERMS OF USEclose

Search

Cookies on ts.

Actions List

New Stream

Followers

About

thinkspot TERMS OF USE