제안 블랙잭 용어_제안 euro88 먹튀_무료 등록 해외축구중계방송 https://www.google.com//beb Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:05:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.1 /beb/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cropped-TDC-thumbnail-32x32.jpg https://www.google.com//beb 32 32 Can porn tax help build the Wall? https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/22/can-porn-tax-help-build-wall/ Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:05:41 +0000 /beb/?p=6488 Put this is the “possibly good idea but it will never happen” file: Here’s a?genius idea from the state of Arizona for how to end our nation*s border standoff and …

The post Can porn tax help build the Wall? appeared first on .

]]>
Put this is the “possibly good idea but it will never happen” file:

Here’s a?genius idea from the state of Arizona for how to end our nation*s border standoff and free the 800,000 federal hostages who are wondering how to pay next month*s rent.

Just tax porn.

No, really.

Republican state Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, wants to charge you $20 to look at pornography on the internet.

House Bill 2444?would require companies that make or sell electronic devices in Arizona to install software that blocks porn.

To remove the block, all you*d have to do is prove you are 18 and plunk down $20, payable to the Arizona Commerce Authority.

The money would go into a newly created account?called the John McCain Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Fund, with the proceeds to be used for one of 10 things.

No. 1 on that list: ※Build a border wall between Mexico and this state or fund border security.§

Twenty dollars might be a bit steep but the heart is in the right place. Of course the slogans just write themselves:

“Help Us Erect The Wall”

“You’re Just Another Prick in the Wall”

“Wank 4 Wall”

“Mexican Porn, Si – Mexican People, No”

“If You Cum, He Will Build It”

“The Wall – Give Us a Hand”

But just in case Rep Griffin can pull it off (no pun intended), you know what you need to do, patriots.

The post Can porn tax help build the Wall? appeared first on .

]]>
Davos’ false dichotomies https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/21/davos-false-dichotomies/ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:44:44 +0000 /beb/?p=6485 I’m a globalist, you are a globalist, everyone’s a globalist (the term I don’t particularly rate, since like “neo-conservative” in the last decade, it has become a little more than …

The post Davos’ false dichotomies appeared first on .

]]>
I’m a globalist, you are a globalist, everyone’s a globalist (the term I don’t particularly rate, since like “neo-conservative” in the last decade, it has become a little more than an all-purpose term of abuse):

Maybe populist political movements don’t have as much support as often presumed.

The global public favours cooperation between nations, thinks immigration is a good thing and believes climate scientists, according to a poll of 10,000 people in every region of the world.

The poll was commissioned by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and will be discussed at panels at this year’s meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

People in South-east Asia and Africa were the strongest believers in countries working together, with 88 per cent saying it’s extremely or very important.

The least enthusiastic region was Western Europe, where 61 per cent held that view. In North America, the figure was 70 per cent. Worldwide, it?was 76 per cent.

A global majority of 57 per cent said immigrants were “mostly good” for their new country, but only 40 per cent of Eastern Europeans thought so. Despite the continuing stand-off in the United States?over building a wall along the Mexican border, 66 per cent of North Americans had a positive view of migrants.

One theme where there’s less optimism?is social mobility, with only 20 per cent of Western Europeans and 34 per cent of Americans saying it is common to be born poor and become rich.

Across the world, 54 per cent have trust in climate scientists. But in North America, only 17 per cent do.

Populist political movements might or might not have as much support as often presumed – and it’s clear that the Davos crowd sincerely hope it’s the latter – but contrary to the media reporting above or the WEF’s own spin, you won’t learn much either way from this poll.

Yes, “globalism” is overall quite popular around the world, but there is a clear (though not uniform and consistent) divide between the developed world and the rest, with the rest being more positive, probably because the rest is on the rise and sees itself as a clear beneficiary, whereas the situation in the more mature economies is more ambiguous – the impact of globalisation mixed while the standards of living stagnate.

Secondly, the polling sets up a contrast of “globalism” with rather extreme positions that don’t actually accurately reflect the concerns people do have about the direction of their societies and economies.

For instance, majorities everywhere but for Eastern and Western Europe agree that “new immigrants are mostly good for [my] country” – including 66 per cent in North America. But there are different types of immigration: humanitarian and economic, legal and illegal, high and low, and so on. There are few people who would want zero immigration, but that does not mean that a great majority conversely supports an “open borders” free-for-all. Most people in the developed world, which is the preferred immigration destination, want migration that is legal, orderly and in the national interest, i.e. of a kind that benefits their country socially and economically and does not impose too onerous costs. To argue in favour of such policies is not populism or anti-globalisation – until not so long ago it used to be a matter of common sense. The situation is of course different throughout the developing world, which exports rather than imports people; needless to say people of Africa or South Asia would love to see a borderless world since it gives them more opportunities to go where life is easier and more rewarding.

Similarly, there are majorities in all regions of the world that agree their country “has a responsibility to help other countries in the world”. For most of the world, perhaps, this is a hypothetical question, since they would be the net beneficiaries of help by other (usually richer) countries. But even in the developed world this is a rather loaded question. No one wants to be a “hermit kingdom” like North Korea, not even the North Korean themselves if anyone could ask them and if they could answer truthfully and without fear. Again, there are different types and degrees of help. Most people, I imagine, recognise a humanitarian need to assist victims of catastrophic national disasters; far fewer would agree that helping should entail an unrestricted entry for all “the wretched of the Earth” or a significantly higher foreign aid expenditure (seeing there is preciously little evidence that aid actually helps anyone but the aid industry intermediaries and the local elites).

And when asked?“Generally speaking, do you think that all countries can improve at the same time or that if some countries improve others must become worse off?” even larger majorities agree with the former. Again, this tells us little. All countries can and often do, but not always and not in the same ways or at the same rates.

It’s easy to get the results you want when you posit nice motherhood statements against straw men (or is it straw people these days).

The post Davos’ false dichotomies appeared first on .

]]>
Cossie is not the messiah https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/21/cossie-not-messiah/ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 07:35:45 +0000 /beb/?p=6483 With Kelly O’Dwyer pulling the pin on her federal parliamentary career and vacating the previously ultra-safe but now probably not-so-much seat of Higgins, people are popping up in the media …

The post Cossie is not the messiah appeared first on .

]]>
With Kelly O’Dwyer pulling the pin on her federal parliamentary career and vacating the previously ultra-safe but now probably not-so-much seat of Higgins, people are popping up in the media longing for a comeback by the previous member. Writes Peter Van Onselen in “The Australian”:

If Costello returned at the next election in his old seat of Higgins, he would hold it, staving off a challenge by the Greens. Apparently O*Dwyer was genuinely worried that she might lose the blue ribbon seat. Whoever takes over will be at even greater risk of -losing Higgins.

Were Costello to be installed as Liberal leader for the next election, he would also be capable of retaining seats in Victoria under massive threat since the removal of Malcolm Turnbull.

Costello*s return could see the government revive and muscle up to Bill Shorten. Currently down 45-55 per cent in the polls, the -Coalition has nothing to lose.

Scott Morrison could serve as caretaker prime minister until the election, with Costello the elected Liberal Party leader, much like happened with Campbell Newman in Queensland before his thumping victory. It just takes a little outside-of-the box thinking from a parliamentary team incapable of such thought.

There are very few sitting days scheduled between now and the next election anyway, so an extra-parliamentary leader is a viable option.

The only difference with the Newman comparison is that if elected prime minister, Costello would not implode the way Newman did. He has runs on the board as one half of the successful Howard government, one respected by voters longing for a return to such stability and competence.

While it is far from ideal not -selecting a woman in Higgins, given the Liberals* gender problems, Costello*s return is too necessary to ignore. And he is the type of leader who would genuinely throw himself into cultural reform inside the Liberals to help more women secure parliamentary careers. As well, women pre--selected for marginal Labor-held seats have little or no chance of winning. Under Costello, such candidates* fortunes would blossom considerably.

At 61, Costello is also younger than Turnbull, and Morrison has admitted he is an accidental PM anyway, having been unable to explain to voters why he*s there in the first place. The Liberal Party would finally have a Victorian leader again for the first time in decades.

John Kehoe at “The Australian Financial Review” takes a similar view: “Even though a Costello return is extremely unlikely and he’s repeatedly dismissed the idea in the past, the former treasurer is the best chance an underdog Coalition has to combat Shorten in a presential-style [sic] contest between a businessman and a unionist.”

Costello as the Prime Minister is perhaps the greatest “what if” of Australian political history in the past few decades. Many people had doubts whether he could have translated himself from the hard-nosed role as the Treasurer to that of the PM, which requires more charisma and likability to make it a success. I have no doubt that Cossie would have been great. He was – and is – a genuinely nice, decent, warm and funny person, whose character would have shone through in the top job the way it couldn’t before as the government’s money man. But it was not to be.

There are many “fork in the road”/”sliding door” moments in this story. It would have been great if John Howard retired after ten years as one of the most successful Prime Ministers in Australia’s history. It would have been great if Costello chose to contest the leadership after the 2007 loss, though it’s not difficult to understand the frustration and the exhaustion that led him at that point to the backbench. Perhaps the greatest tragedy is his decision to retire?during the term (I’m almost convinced that MPs should not be able to cause by-elections but for genuine health reasons or other emergencies, though it would be difficult to enforce such rule). In mid-2009, with the controversy over Kevin Rudd’s ETS starting to rear its head, Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt begged Costello to stay in the Parliament, but he remained unconvinced. In fact, if only he had delayed his retirement by a few weeks he would have been the unquestioned candidate against Malcolm Turnbull. Costello would have won more convincingly than Tony Abbott’s one vote, and he would have likely won the 2010 election, saving the country from more Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd as well as from Tony Abbott’s wasted promise and Malcolm Turnbull’s wasted second chance.

But was almost nine years ago and the ship has sailed. Nay, the whole flotilla has.

From what I can gather from people who have been speaking to Costello recently, he has no intention of getting back into the political fray. But even if he had, I remain sceptical about the viability of political come-backs in general. John Howard’s story is truly exceptional; when he returned to lead the party in 1995 he has not in the meantime left the parliament after his previous stint in 1987.?Over the eight years in the opposition wilderness,?he has watched all his competitors fall by the wayside until he was literally the last man standing, with Costello himself opting to gain more valuable experience as the deputy instead. It’s been twelve years since the end of the Howard government and twelve years is an awfully long time in general; in politics it’s almost an eternity. There is a whole new generation of voters out there who don’t really remember Costello as the Treasurer. I suspect that even those who do, think of it as very much a closed chapter, a glorious one for many to be sure, but?only a few?(and certainly none who have ever been married) believe that golden ages can be so easily resurrected.

Sadly, there is no easy and painless way out of the mess that the Liberal Party created for itself over the past two terms. There are no messiahs (remember John Elliott and Bronwyn Bishop in the early 90s?), only bad boys and girls. This is why I thought that Turnbull should have been left as the Prime Minister to own the coming disaster instead of being able to create the “stab in the back” legend. Absent that, let Morrison go down with the HMS “Liberal”. Longing for Costello as the political saviour is a tacit acknowledgment that the current crop of senior men and women at or near the top are shit and incapable of changing the fate of the party. This is arguably yet another reason to let the voters make their harsh judgment in May, even if inevitably the harvest of resentment will carry some good and decent up-and-comers together with lots of dead wood.

May he live a long and happy life, but Costello is politically dead. Like all dearly departed, I miss him, but he’s gone. The Liberal Party doesn’t need an Ouija board; it needs a cold hard dose of reality and enough time to digest it and reinvent itself again. Sure, Australia will suffer with Bill Shorten as the PM. Maybe it’s the (bad) Catholic in me, but he’s the penance – like Atilla, “the Scourge of God” – we all deserve. May the Lord have mercy and make it short.

costello

The post Cossie is not the messiah appeared first on .

]]>
What will be the classics of today? https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/21/will-classics-today/ Sun, 20 Jan 2019 22:54:52 +0000 /beb/?p=6479 Just the other day I was again browsing at Lifeline Bookfest, the twice-yearly largest charity book sale in the world, which takes place – of all places – in Brisbane, …

The post What will be the classics of today? appeared first on .

]]>
Just the other day I was again browsing at Lifeline Bookfest, the twice-yearly largest charity book sale in the world, which takes place – of all places – in Brisbane, Australia. One of my favourite sections is “Rare and Collectible”. Sometimes I manage to pick an obscure first edition (this time it was the American hardback of the controversial and prophetic 1974 French bestseller “The Camp of the Saints”) but even if I don’t, I enjoy looking at what publishers were printing and what the book-buying public was buying a hundred or fifty years ago.?Old books are an interesting time capsule. For starters, people used to read a lot more theology and religious commentary. As for the fiction, virtually none of the names that pop up would be recognisable to even the better-read members of today’s public.

This is why this recent piece by Kyle Smith resonates with me, talking as it does about the passing – and unpredictable – nature of cultural contributions:

These days, in a cultural sense, the only two pre-1960 singers who still linger in the memory are Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. Bing Crosby, as Terry Teachout recently pointed out in?Commentary, has more or less disappeared. A case could be made that, in addition to being one of his era*s most popular singers, Crosby is the single most popular movie star in Hollywood history. Certainly he is in the top ten. Today he survives in the memory of specialists and historians and suchlike boffins. To the broader populace, the words ※Bing Crosby§ no longer have meaning.

Looking back on his four decades as a movie critic, John Podhoretz points out that even if you go back only to the 1980s, hardly anything survives. People still talk about?Back to the Future?and?Raiders of the Lost Ark?and?The Princess Bride?(but not?E.T., the biggest hit of the decade).?Rain Man?not only swept the Academy Awards in 1988 but was the biggest hit of that year, selling the equivalent of $380 million in tickets in today*s dollars. Bring up that movie in a classroom today and I suspect the reaction will be the same as if you brought up Mickey Rooney or Shirley Temple. Step forward, 1990s movies, and report to the vaporization facility. You*ve got a few years left, but only a few.

As the Who suit up for what I suppose will be their final tour (※Who*s Left§?), Chuck Klosterman points out in his book?But What if We*re Wrong??that whole?forms?die out. He compares rock to 19th-century marching music: nothing left of the latter except John Philip Sousa. That*s it. And Sousa himself is barely remembered. In 100 years rock might be gone too, Klosterman guesses. Maybe we*ll remember one rock act. Who will it be? Maybe none of the obvious answers. It certainly wasn*t obvious at the time of Fitzgerald*s death that?The Great Gatsby?would be the best-remembered novel he or anyone else wrote in the first half of the 20th century. As for the novels of the second half of the 20th century, the clock is ticking on them.?The?Catcher in the Rye?is moribund. Generation X was the last to revere that book. Teaching it to young people today would get you ridiculed.?To Kill a Mockingbird? It had a good run but it*s now being labeled a ※white savior§ story by the grandchildren of those who revered it. Soon schools and teachers will be shunning it.

To say that today’s popularity is no guarantee of tomorrow’s status is an understatement. Most of what our cultural producers produce – whether low or middle or high brow – not only seems pretty forgettable, but it is indeed relatively quickly forgotten by all but a few niche aficionados. This is arguably happening at a faster pace today because there is so much more new output competing for our dollars, attention and affection. For sure, it was easier to have the cultural staying power in the 18th century. Still, personally I’d rather have the 21st century medical attention than the 18th century literary bestseller status.

What is far more fascinating than the mere observation of our tendency to cultural amnesia – sic transit gloria mundis, as Romans used to say about all sorts of temporal fame and recognition, which was perhaps one reason why it was nice to get deified in those days – is the question why some works of art or, more broadly, creativity survive and thrive while the overwhelming majority doesn’t. On the face of it, this is a somewhat circular argument similar to that concerning evolution and the survival of the fittest: why did some individuals/species survive? Because they were the fittest. Why were they the fittest? Because they survived. Many explanations can be offered for?the classic status of Charles Dickens’ work, for example. But we are speaking with the benefit of the hindsight; are these arguments genuinely enlightening or just?ex post facto rationalisations for the status quo? Why Dickens and not so many of his contemporaries, like Wilkie Collins? Do giants like Dickens genuinely touch on some timeless themes in a way that resonates with our minds and hearts no matter how much they and the objective conditions of life might have changed over time or is there some element of pure chance and accident?

And what will last from today? Bearing in mind Smith’s words above, it’s almost impossible to guess. Some of my younger readers will be in a position to think back from the perspective of 2069 to today and see the answer. But who among them will still remember The Daily Chrenk asking it in the first place?

The post What will be the classics of today? appeared first on .

]]>
X, Y, Z of the civilisational decline https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/18/x-y-z-civilisational-decline/ Fri, 18 Jan 2019 11:41:17 +0000 /beb/?p=6475 The children are coming home to roost: No longer the new kids on the block, Millennials have moved firmly into their 20s and 30s, and a new generation is coming …

The post X, Y, Z of the civilisational decline appeared first on .

]]>
The children are coming home to roost:

No longer the new kids on the block, Millennials have moved firmly into their 20s and 30s, and a new generation is coming into focus.?Generation Z?每 diverse and on track to be the most well-educated generation yet 每 is moving toward adulthood with a liberal set of attitudes and an openness to emerging social trends.

On a range of issues, from Donald Trump*s presidency to the role of government to racial equality and climate change, the views of Gen Z 每 those ages 13 to 21 in 2018 每 mirror those of Millennials.?In each of these realms, the two younger generations hold views that differ significantly from those of their older counterparts. In most cases, members of the Silent Generation are at the opposite end, and Baby Boomers and Gen Xers fall in between.

z

They are like the Millennials, only even more so, which is a scary thing indeed for the future. Scary but not unexpected; this is what happens when the left enjoys a near complete stranglehold over all levels of education as well as culture and entertainment. Culture wars matter. Too many people on the right don’t want to know about it or get involved. But as Trotsky once said, you might not be interested in war but war is most certainly interested in you. And your children.

It’s also true that Gen Z was growing up not just with the left in schools and in the media but also in politics. They are the children of Obama in the United States, of Blair and Brown in the United Kingdom, and of Rudd and Gillard in Australia. They are too young to remember much specific about the Global Financial Crisis, except perhaps that it scared their parents and therefore it unsettled them too; from everywhere else they have learned that capitalism was the culprit and government the solution and the saviour.

All this doesn’t just make more of today’s under-21s left wing than those older than them – it also makes those under-21s who identify themselves as on the right more left than the rest of the right:

Among Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party, the generational divides are even starker. Roughly half (52%) of Gen Z Republicans say they think the government should be doing more to solve problems, compared with 38% of Millennial Republicans and 29% of Gen Xers. About a quarter of Republican Baby Boomers (23%) and fewer GOP Silents (12%) believe the government should be doing more.

Among Democrats, however, these generational divides largely disappear. Roughly eight-in-ten Gen Z (81%) and Millennial Democrats (79%) say the government should do more to solve problems, as do about seven-in-ten Democratic Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.

(Nota bene, it still doesn’t make sense to me that Gen Y, born between 1981 and 1996, are called the Millennials,?instead of Gen Z, who were actually born on each side of the turn of the millennium.)

The deadliest of the Mexican cartels, Los Zetas (the Zs), which is made up of the former special forces, army, security and police personnel, supposedly owns it name to the fact that “nothing comes after Z”. If Gen Z keeps going the woke way it’s going, I dread to think what comes after, if anything.

The post X, Y, Z of the civilisational decline appeared first on .

]]>
No meat and two veg https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/17/no-meat-two-veg/ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:28:10 +0000 /beb/?p=6472 As the social mediaverse keeps discussing pros and cons of Gillette’s new ad, here comes PETA with the creepiest possible collection of men proudly waving their genitalia around in public …

The post No meat and two veg appeared first on .

]]>
As the social mediaverse keeps discussing pros and cons of Gillette’s new ad, here comes PETA with the creepiest possible collection of men proudly waving their genitalia around in public – if that’s not toxic I don’t know what is.

https://twitter.com/peta/status/1085573461315997696

I don’t know if vegans have more stamina in bed than carnivores, but I doubt whether anyone actually wants to find out after watching this video. Come to think of it, I’m not sure whether anyone will actually feel any appetite for their veggies.

Maybe Gillette can have a word with PETA; I’m pretty sure this is not the best the men can get.

The post No meat and two veg appeared first on .

]]>
Trump versus Ocasio-Cortez is the politics we all deserve https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/17/trump-versus-ocasio-cortez-politics-deserve/ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:54:34 +0000 /beb/?p=6468 It’s 2019 and we are sadly in that place in history when the political battle of the titans for the body, heart and soul of the Western world takes place …

The post Trump versus Ocasio-Cortez is the politics we all deserve appeared first on .

]]>
It’s 2019 and we are sadly in that place in history when the political battle of the titans for the body, heart and soul of the Western world takes place between an ageing real estate developer and a young waitress, both coincidentally from New York. In generational terms it’s?the Boomers’ last gasp and the Millennials’ first hurrah. Meanwhile the Xs like me roll our eyes so much that we can now see our spine (it’s still there).

Though just one-in-three voters have a favorable opinion of freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if she were old enough to run for president in 2020, she*d give President Trump a run for his money.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if the 2020 presidential race was between Trump and Ocasio-Cortez, 43% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for Trump, while 40% would vote for Ocasio-Cortez. A sizable 17% are undecided.

In the 1940s we had Roosevelt and Churchill and Hitler and Stalin (not that anyone wants to see the likes of Hitler and Stalin again); in the 1980s we had Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev, Kohl, Mitterand and Pope John Paul II. Meanwhile in the 2010s we can all sit back and confidently enjoy the sterling political leadership of Trump, May, Trudeau, Merkel, Macron and Putin, of whom the last one – unfortunately – seems to be the canniest and the most effective. If in every era we get the politicians we deserve, then we must have been very very bad recently, like drowning kittens and clubbing baby seals bad.

Nearly two years ago I wrote a piece titled “Donald Trump – the president the left deserves, and we all get”, noting that after decades of crying wolf about every mainstream conservative politician, the left has finally got someone who is pretty much a parody and a cliche of all their wildest stereotypes and fears about those on the right of centre:

If all his presidential and congressional predecessors have been bad, he is the Frankenstein monster of the right-wing politics, put together with all the most disgusting pieces of conservatism and capitalism, as imagined by the left: very rich, crooked, dodgy, unethical, bankrupt literally and morally, ugly and grotesque inside and outside, vulgar, uncultured and unsophisticated, materialistic and philistinistic, flashy and ostentatious, ignorant and barely literate, immoral or at least amoral, tabloid family history, arrogant, authoritarian, nationalistic, jingoistic, bigoted, xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic moron. Have I missed anything?

This barbarian at the gate of the progressive establishment then proceeded to behave just like the left said the right does, but until the Coming of Trump never actually did. It’s the case of life follows art and fiction comes to life:

Unlike the Republicans of the past, Trump neither puts up the brave and dignified face nor gets his surrogates to defend and counter-attack on his behalf. Richard Nixon used to rage against all his liberal enemies in the privacy of the White House and his recording system. Not for Trump any secret enemies lists; he has Twitter, which his underlings have not managed to pry from his short fingers. No, Trump gets right into the mud and wrestles with his critics and mockers. He calls them out by name, individually or institutionally, he lays into them, ridicules them, taunts them. And that gets his enemies and his targets even more worked up, sending them into paroxysm of rage and indignation. They*re not used to a Republican 每 a Republican president to that 每 not turning the other cheek. They get drawn back into every argument, every exchange of insults, every fencing match of accusations and counter-accusations, frothing at the mouth and shaking with indignation and disbelief, while Trump has already picked himself up and moved on to start another controversy. He fights, oh yes, he fights, and fights back. That*s what his supporters always loved about him. It*s not classy, and it*s not dignified 每 it*s not I or many others would expect of the occupier of the highest office in the land and the ※Leader of the Free World§ (if such position still exists) 每 but it is mesmerising to watch, like a slow-motion car pile-up or a particularly violent yet funny GIF looping again and again into infinity.

Fish Slap GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

I’m afraid things haven’t changed or gotten any better over the past two years. If anything, Trump has gotten even more Trump, the Trump Derangement Syndrome more deranged, hysterical and unhinged, and the average person even more exasperated and disenchanted with politics. As I’m writing this little rant today, the top two pieces of political news from the United States are Nancy Pelosi’s cancellation of the State of the Union address (ostensibly because the government shutdown means she can’t guarantee the proper level of security in the Congress) and Ocasio-Cortez’s use of an euphemism for a gang-bang to describe her plans to push through her progressive agenda in the next two years (which, if unintentional, was nevertheless very revealing in a Freudian sort of a way – that’s what socialism, after all, does to people and to nations). Living in 2019 is getting slapped on the face by a flying fish forever.

The very arrival of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez onto the national political scene in itself of course marks a new low. I don’t know whether AOC is the leftist standard-bearer we on the right deserve the same way I have argued the left deserved Trump, but here she is anyway, the Trump era left’s response to Trump the same way that Trump only a couple of years ago was the right’s response to the world created by the left from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama. Not surprisingly for an equal and opposite reaction, Ocasio-Cortez is likewise a collection and an exaggeration of all the traits and stereotypes the right finds so infuriating about the left: an insufferable Millennial, deeply passionate and deeply ignorant about just about everything, a victory of style over substance, the number one fangirl of socialism in a society that increasingly finds socialism attractive again (ironically, probably more than at any previous time) while knowing less and less about what socialism actually is. Hundred per cent renewables, 70 per cent top marginal tax rates, billions mixed with trillions, unicorn money for everyone, all combined with a thin skin, sanctimony, victimhood and a fair dose of tampering with the past in order to give oneself more socialist street cred.

For all the many differences, there are also a few similarities between Trump and the anti-Trump. Both are outsiders who appeal to and mobilise large sections of their bases, which for a long time have felt disenchanted with and ignored (even betrayed) by the mainstream as well as their respective party establishments. Both have no problem with becoming living memes in order to better connect directly with their supporters while going around all the usual communication channels and intermediaries. Both are creatures of an era of reality TV and social media.

And both are now the public faces not only of their political parties but of the broader ideological movements. Adam Smith and Karl Marx must be looking down and up from their respective afterlives and scratching their incorporeal heads.

The post w88 입금Trump versus Ocasio-Cortez is the politics we all deserve appeared first on .

]]>
Hands off my books, Marie https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/16/hands-off-books-marie/ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:48:29 +0000 /beb/?p=6465 Who is this monster and what does she want? Book lovers are not happy about the way organization guru Marie Kondo recommends handling books in her new Netflix series ※Tidying …

The post Hands off my books, Marie appeared first on .

]]>
Who is this monster and what does she want?

Book lovers are not happy about the way organization guru Marie Kondo recommends handling books in her new Netflix series ※Tidying Up.§

Based on Kondo*s?wildly popular book ※The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up,§?released in 2011, ※Tidying Up§ follows Kondo as she helps regular people transform their living spaces through the minimalist organization.

Dubbed?the KonMari method, Kondo*s organization system focuses on tackling categories 〞 books, clothes, papers 〞 rather than rooms.

Kondo instructs cleaners to pick up each item they own and ask themselves if that item sparks joy. If it does, she says, keep it. If it doesn*t, thank it for its service and toss it.

In her book and on the show, Kondo says the value of books lies in the information they contain and that ※there is no meaning in them just being on your shelves.§

If you have a lot of unread books or books you hang onto in the belief you*ll reread them one day, Kondo recommends getting rid of them.

She says that as a result of practicing the KonMari method herself, she owns no more than 30 books. Kondo personally considers that number ideal.

In her book, Kondo writes that she once ripped relevant pages out of books that she found sparked some joy. It was an experiment that ultimately didn’t work for her and resulted in those pages being discarded later.

Well, guess what? My iron, the ironing board, the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner don’t spark any joy in me – and they do take the room which could be better used for something else (like more books) – but I think I’m going to keep them all in any case. Actually, I lied a bit; I love my Dyson; it’s definitely staying.

Listen, I’m all for uncluttered living spaces; no one should die under a collapsing pile of old newspapers they hoard and stack all around their house. Let’s not go to extremes though. Particularly with books. I imagine I have about 150 times Kondo’s ideal number of volumes scattered all around my place, from the garage-cum-library to a special collection in my study (and by that I don’t mean erotica but collectables), and even if I can, and often do, get rid of some of them, by and large she would have to pry any of the books number 31 and higher from my cold dead hands (most likely to be successful after I have died under a collapsing pile of old books I hoard and stack all around my house). Any and all of Kondo’s contentions about books and their value are highly questionable and contestable, from “books-as-information storage devices” to tearing out relevant (“joyful”) pages, the sheer stupidity (if not barbarity) of which she has eventually realised. There are of course myriads of reasons to keep more than 30 books at home, not least because you collect them the way other people collect paintings, samurai swords or butterflies, or because you have a sentimental attachment to them. And while I hate people who buy books by the running metre or select for spine colour, books can be a very nice, not to mention tasteful, decoration – as long as you have actually read them first.

Maybe you do have too much shit at home. Or maybe not. That judgment is largely subjective anyway (what if the clutter as a whole sparks joy because you associate it with the warmth and love of childhood often spent at your grandparents’ place?).??Minimalism might make your house easier to clean but might not meet any of your emotional or aesthetic needs. Let’s remember that the Japanese minimalism in particular comes from a tradition where houses have walls made of paper, people live crammed together like sardines, and space is at such premium that most of it is multi-use (for example, the beds, or rather the thin mattresses are folded away?after use to make room for daytime activities). The problem in Japan has always been too many people, not too many things. Maybe Kondo should declutter Tokyo first.

Let us also remember that tidying up, when combined with ruthless cleansing (such as that of larger libraries or wardrobes) merely shifts the problem elsewhere:

While op shops usually welcome unwanted 〞 quality 〞 items, major charities have had to issue reminders they*re not a substitute for the tip, and they don*t want or need your broken or damaged stuff.

They services are run by volunteers who spend their time trawling through the overload of items you*ve purged in your Marie Kondo-verdose.

And what*s worse is Aussie charities are paying $13 million a year to send unusable donations to landfill.

Lifeline says about half its stores across the country can*t accept donations at the moment because they*re at capacity…

Another TV series that had a huge impact, ABC*s?War on Waste, taught us we have a huge problem with waste, not just in Australia but across the world. Australians send 6000kg of clothing to landfill every 10 minutes.

The National Association of Charitable Recycling Organisations estimates 60,000 tonnes of unwanted items are sent to landfill each year, and that was before the Kondo effect took hold.

With charity bins around Australia overflowing, tidying converts have taken to leaving discarded clothing outside donations bins, making them likely to be classified as ※contaminated§ and end up in landfill.

On the second thought, rather than Tokyo, I would love to see Kondo sent to deal with any of our landfills.

The post Hands off my books, Marie appeared first on .

]]>
Is Tim Soutphommasane an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in drag? https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/13/tim-soutphommasane-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-drag/ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:44:12 +0000 /beb/?p=6461 At “The Sydney Morning Herald”, the former race discrimination commissioner Tim Sensitive-About-His-Name sings the praises of one of the new leaders of the opposition to “Orange Man Bad”, “She Guevara”?Alexandra …

The post Is Tim Soutphommasane an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in drag? appeared first on .

]]>
At “The Sydney Morning Herald”, the former race discrimination commissioner Tim Sensitive-About-His-Name sings the praises of one of the new leaders of the opposition to “Orange Man Bad”, “She Guevara”?Alexandra Occasional-Cortex?and her style:

This is the classic expression of millennial progressivism: a politics that combines passionate advocacy, quick wit and personable authenticity. Many find it a welcome antidote to Trumpian populism.

Personable authenticity must be a new euphemism for general ignorance. Could we be so lucky in Australia? asks Tim:

Answer: it*s not likely. Australian politics simply doesn*t open itself up to young talents in the way? the American system can, with its primary contests. To get preselected for a seat in Parliament, you need to first join a political party, do your time, and keep powerbrokers on side. It*s the kind of game that turns off many capable people who might otherwise consider running for office.

And it*s one reason why we have such a narrow professionalisation of politics. Parliamentary ranks are dominated by insiders who live off politics, as much as they live for it. Many enter Parliament already compromised, rather than armed with conviction.

It has perhaps always been this way. But there*s no question our democracy can do with a new injection of diversity and energy. Our political system periodically needs to be shaken up.

This is because social progress rarely happens because elites and the powerful can be counted upon to act in an enlightened way. Reforms are usually only achieved when those affected by injustice agitate for change. It*s no accident that the Trump presidency, with its aggressive sexism and racism 每 and clear anti-democratic tendencies 每 has prompted many American millennials from minority backgrounds to enter politics.

One could of course argue that the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is and was somewhat of an Australian AOC before AOC was the thing, likewise combining passionate advocacy, quick wit and general ignorance. Well, maybe no quick wit. AOC is younger than SHY, and arguably presents better (hey, I don’t care about these things, but the millennials apparently do), but SHY has certainly lost a lot of weight since Queensland’s Larissa Waters has joined her in the Senate a few years back. Who says that the Greens don’t believe in a healthy competition? Anyway, what Tim seems to be alluding to is that the Australian political system needs more people like him – left-wing, minority millennials – but the established parties make it difficult?to get through. When he writes about “a new injection of diversity and energy” to shake up our politics, you can well imagine (though it’s better if you don’t) Tim sitting at his computer with his pants down and typing with one hand. “Elites and the powerful” beware; the guy who spent the last few years on a $400,000 plus salary, courtesy of the racist taxpayers, would love to shake things up on behalf of those like him “affected by injustice”.

The comparison with Australia is interesting. We*ve had systematic failure on climate change. We*ve had a divisive debate about marriage equality. We*ve been confronted with the return of race politics and rise of neo-Nazi extremism. Yet, as far as we can tell, none of this has driven many millennials, or minorities, into joining political parties because they wish to defend or improve the system.

What, then, are the prospects of a reinvigorated progressive political agenda? Are we likely to see one with the likely election of a Shorten Labor government this year? Social democrats are asking.

Looks like somebody has missed the preselection season this election cycle. Which is tragic, because all that Australia needs are more socialists with a radical program that so enthuses Tim: “On climate change, they seek a Green New Deal, based on moving America to 100 per cent renewable energy. On economics, they call for more progressive taxation, including a 70 per cent marginal rate slug on the super-rich. The group also wants the abolition of ICE, the federal government agency that enforces Trump*s hardline immigration policies.” This is a Greens wet dream, but Tim would love Labor to be reinvigorated with this sort of a bizarre, unicorn fart policy. Since Bill Shorten actually wants to win the May election – and almost certainly will, largely by staying away from the cameras so as not to remind people of the biggest drag on Labor’s popularity – it’s just as well that the Tims of this world are not there in the ranks of his candidates, pushing the program that in its original American AOC iteration would cost almost $50 trillion over ten years.? If we raise the top marginal tax rate to 50,000 per cent, I’m sure we can make the “super-rich” to pay for it all.

Alas, we’ll have to wait a bit longer yet to see Tim Sout-Phom-Masane in our parliament. Labor’s union and factional overlords will need to be won over to the idea of a millennial minority socialist tsunami tearing through their fiefdoms. Maybe Tim can dance for them.

The post Is Tim Soutphommasane an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in drag? appeared first on .

]]>
Refugee, yes, but in Australia? (Updated) https://www.google.com//beb/2019/01/11/refugee-yes-australia/ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:16:34 +0000 /beb/?p=6457 The saga continues: A Saudi teenager has claimed she had been granted asylum in Australia after she fled her ※abusive§ family and was detained in Bangkok. Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun captured …

The post Refugee, yes, but in Australia? (Updated) appeared first on .

]]>
The saga continues:

A Saudi teenager has claimed she had been granted asylum in Australia after she fled her ※abusive§ family and was detained in Bangkok.

Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun captured international attention when she posted on social media and pleaded with fellow passengers to hear her case for asylum. The 18-year-old renounced Islam and said she feared she would be killed for such an action if she was returned to Saudi Arabia.

Ms al-Qunun*s case was referred to Australia by the United Nations* High Commission for Refugees who decided she was a genuine refugee.

※They (Australia) accepted me, I am so happy! I will start a new life,§ she told?The Daily Mail?in an interview today.

Ms al-Qunun said she would be departing for her new home ※soon§ and has been assigned an apartment in an unknown town or city. The Australian Government has not confirmed she has or will be granted asylum.

I have no idea about the facts of al-Qunun’s case, whether she is escaping Saudi Arabia because she is an apostate or because her father took away her smart phone. In some ways, it’s irrelevant because any public display of rebelliousness by a young Saudi woman dishonours her manfolk and as such is likely to end badly for her, should she be returned under the parental control – though clearly renouncing Islam is the worst one can possibly do and carries a death penalty. So she quite likely is a refugee, being someone with genuine and well founded fear of the consequences of returning home, and certainly has been by now recognised by such by the UN authorities.

I’m less comfortable, however, with the circumstances that led us to this point. Al-Qunun was on her way to Australia (on a tourist visa) to claim asylum, when she was almost successfully intercepted by the Saudi consular staff with the intention of packing her back on a flight to Saudi Arabia. As much as I sympathise with her plight, this strikes me as the same sort of a destination shopping as the “boat people” engage in by flying from all around the region to Indonesia and paying for an illegal sea passage to Australia. To me – and to many others – the spirit and the intent of the Refugee Convention means that those escaping persecution should claim asylum in the first, most proximate, place it is safe to do so, rather than travel around the world through numerous “safe” jurisdictions in order to arrive at a place, which can both grant them safety and also happens to be a place they would prefer to live in (for cultural or economic or any other reasons). In any case, forcing one’s way to Australia with the benefit of one’s financial and other resources is jumping to the head of the refugee queue, which is full of people who aren’t fortunate and wealthy enough to fly themselves and often their whole family to Australia or near enough Australia to book further passage. I have little doubt that al-Qunun would rather start her new apostate life in Australia rather than in any number of other countries around the world, including Thailand, but so would millions of other people; needless to say only a small fraction of them can, and in the interests of fairness and equity, the system for selecting those lucky few should be transparent and not subject to abuse or easy circumvention. This is why I can’t comprehend the left’s open door policy for the boat arrivals; the same people who absolutely loath the idea that one’s wealth should determine?the access to services (“Education for all, not just the rich” and so on), seemingly have no problem with Australia’s refugee program being gamed by people who can afford to turn up on our doorsteps to the detriment of the poor (both literally and metaphorically) majority. Maybe it’s time that refugees waiting for resettlement in camps from Kenya to Jordan should start holding up banners saying “A chance of resettlement in Australia for all, not just the rich” when Senator Hanson-Young next turns up for a photo-op as part of her million dollar travel spend.

In the meantime, I do wish Rahaf all the best and hope that her new life outside Saudi Arabia will be safe and full of opportunities she would have never had at home (including the opportunity not to believe in Allah without a fear of death), but whether that new life should fairly be in Australia is a different question entirely.

P.S. 12 January 19 And she’s going to Canada after all that.

The post w88 입금 appeared first on .

]]>