Our True Selves: Lying About Domestic Violence
*
We know that nothing can exist entirely in a vacuum, that even the darkest spaces, the wildest forgeries, and the deepest lies have their material properties, their own internal contradictions...
They waterboarded Zubayda - a torture technique intended to simulate drowning - beat him, threatened him with execution, deprived him of sleep, and blasted him with continuous noise and bright lights. Zubryda began describing scores of terrorist plots - against banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, and apartment buildings - none of which could be independently verified.
The CIA, for what it was worth, was in control.
Torture Taxi: On The Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights.
They lied and they lied and they lied, that's what got him. The evil promotion of public hysteria over domestic violence blossomed during the Howard years. Former Prime Minister John Howard was too gutless, too much of a coward, too greedy for votes and too uncaring of the ordinary people he was supposed to represent to stand up to the feminist bureaucracy and just say no. Instead we were inflicted with the skin crawlingly dishonest Australia Says No To Violence Against Women campaign. People by their millions squirmed in their lounge rooms. Boys who looked like they'd rather kiss each other than be on TV "admitted" they had hit a woman. A voice over told them it was a crime.
And as a few lone voices pointed out at the time: there wasn't a shred of evidence in the world that these sorts of campaigns reduced the level of interpersonal conflict in the community. Indeed, with the promotion of public hysteria and the ever broadening definition of what constitutes domestic violence it was far more likely the rates of reporting would increase, not decrease. The hard earnt millions ripped from the taxpayers for yet another supposedly noble cause emboldened the anti-male bigots who festooned the bureaucracy. Advertising and television companies took our money without complaint.
The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics report on the subject, the first to actually include men and to not be solely funded by the Office for the Status of Women, shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women. Older men three times, younger men twice. Oh, right, so that's why the old fashioned left wing Rudd government has created the National Council for the Reduction of Violence Against Women and Children. What we want to know is, when does a boy child get to the age when you no longer care about him? When does he go from child to perpetrator in your lunar lexicon?
And now we have the government minister responsible for this particularly appalling piece of bureaucratic baggage, the Minister for Women Tanya Plibersek, going around claiming that one in three women are victims of domestic violence. Despite the fact the oft quoted one in three figure has been roundly discredited by academics around the world. Despite the fact that if you ask men the same questions as you ask women to get to the one in three figure - have you ever experienced any controlling or abusive behaviour from a partner or person at any time in your life - then you get exactly the same figure for men: one in three. It doesn't mean that one in three women are victims of abuse.
We are inflicted with these campaigns, and now these new bureaucracies,despite the fact that it's common knowledge in the community, and common sense, that one in three women are not battered. Our jails and our police stations would be full to the rafters if that was the case. But no one says a word. Internationally academics have questioned the truth of the feminist hysteria; but in Australia, where are the journalists brave enough to question the orthodoxies? Our supposedly enlightened intellectual class talks endlessly about open mindedness, diversity, thinking outside the square. Try disagreeing with them about over their sacred shibboleths, such as all men are violent bastards, and see what reaction you get.
One in three women are not victims of domestic violence, but that's the untruth our politicians are peddling. Are they so thick they don't even know they're telling lies? Or are they deliberately peddling this hoary old feminist lie in order to vilify men and erode the traditional family, as critics argue. It has been a long term feminist project to erode marriage. Painting the institution as a dangerous place for women and children to be has always been part of the project.
It's not difficult to understand why a bunch of battle hardened feminist bureaucrats would peddle the lie. It is difficult to understand why a taxpayer funded minister of the crown would be so irresponsible and so dishonest as to peddle the same lies and the same false impressions. Surely, in the age of the internet, it's not possible that they believe this nonsense. A simple Google search male victims domestic violence throws up a world of doubt for the ideologues. Serious academic inquiry throws up even more. And as for common sense.... Well, clearly we lost that long ago and have entered a world run by useful fools, as Marx called them.
Useful fools spreading the message and deconstructing the nuclear family; as they lie and lie and lie.
THE BIGGER STORY:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/keating-delivers-a-blow-to-pms-pitch-for-regional-unity/2008/06/05/1212259007048.html
PAUL KEATING has launched his first public criticism of Kevin Rudd since he became Prime Minister, describing his proposal to create an Asia-Pacific community as "a very difficult task and not necessarily an appropriate one".
The previous Labor prime minister critiqued the proposal by the new Labor Prime Minister in an article which made clear that he thinks Mr Rudd's idea is politically impossible.
As the Opposition attacked the idea as an ill-conceived stunt, the Herald learnt that Mr Rudd's special envoy for the project, the former diplomat Richard Woolcott, found out about the proposal only two hours before it was announced on Wednesday night.
At the same time, another of Mr Rudd's pet ideas was condemned by one of the Federal Government's key economic advisory agencies.
His proposal for a locally built "green car" was attacked by the Productivity Commission as environmentally unhelpful and economically distorting.
Mr Rudd had said in outlining his "vision for an Asia-Pacific community" that "the European Union of course does not represent an identikit model of what we would seek to develop in the Asia-Pacific. But what we can learn from Europe is this - it is necessary to take the first step".
Mr Keating wrote that "even the basic first step made toward the European community - the European steel plan of the 1950s - would not, I believe, be capable of emulation these days, across East Asia and the subcontinent."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD9141M6G3
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of Hillary Rodham Clinton's biggest backers from New York rallied around Barack Obama Thursday as she signaled her candidacy was ending. The likely Democratic nominee said he won't be hurried into a decision on whether to make her his running mate.
Clinton, in an e-mail to supporters, said she "will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise."
The e-mail was a shift in tone by the former first lady, who announced 17 months ago that she was "in it to win it." Many of her supporters now are pushing for her to be included as the vice presidential candidate, in their minds a "dream ticket" that would bring Obama her enthusiastic legions and broaden his appeal to white and working-class voters.
But Obama indicated he intends to take his time making a decision.
"We're not going to be rushed into it. I don't think Senator Clinton expects a quick decision and I don't even know that she's necessarily interested in that," Obama told NBC in an interview.
Clinton's move to formally declare that she is backing the Illinois senator came after Democratic congressional colleagues made clear they had no stomach for a protracted intraparty battle. Now that Obama has secured the 2,118 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination, Clinton had little choice but to end her quest, and sooner rather than later.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0547098420080605?virtualBrandChannel=10112
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - What does Hillary Clinton want and what will she get -- other than, perhaps, returning to the U.S. Senate where she's a bona fide star?
The answer may emerge soon as the failed Democratic presidential contender gets ready to finally concede defeat -- amid signals she might like to be the vice presidential running mate of presumptive White House nominee Barack Obama.
"The clock is ticking," said Paul Light of New York University's Center for the Study of Congress. He said she must quickly end her presidential campaign or face party backlash.
"But if she withdraws gracefully, she will have an enormous range of opportunities," Light said. "She could eventually become a Senate leader or end up on the Supreme Court."
Others have suggested she might want to be New York governor -- or make another run for the White House in 2012 if Republican John McCain defeats Obama in the general election.
Clinton riled some Democrats by declining to concede when the Illinois senator wrapped up the nomination on Tuesday night. She has since announced she will do so on Saturday.
We know that nothing can exist entirely in a vacuum, that even the darkest spaces, the wildest forgeries, and the deepest lies have their material properties, their own internal contradictions...
They waterboarded Zubayda - a torture technique intended to simulate drowning - beat him, threatened him with execution, deprived him of sleep, and blasted him with continuous noise and bright lights. Zubryda began describing scores of terrorist plots - against banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, and apartment buildings - none of which could be independently verified.
The CIA, for what it was worth, was in control.
Torture Taxi: On The Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights.
They lied and they lied and they lied, that's what got him. The evil promotion of public hysteria over domestic violence blossomed during the Howard years. Former Prime Minister John Howard was too gutless, too much of a coward, too greedy for votes and too uncaring of the ordinary people he was supposed to represent to stand up to the feminist bureaucracy and just say no. Instead we were inflicted with the skin crawlingly dishonest Australia Says No To Violence Against Women campaign. People by their millions squirmed in their lounge rooms. Boys who looked like they'd rather kiss each other than be on TV "admitted" they had hit a woman. A voice over told them it was a crime.
And as a few lone voices pointed out at the time: there wasn't a shred of evidence in the world that these sorts of campaigns reduced the level of interpersonal conflict in the community. Indeed, with the promotion of public hysteria and the ever broadening definition of what constitutes domestic violence it was far more likely the rates of reporting would increase, not decrease. The hard earnt millions ripped from the taxpayers for yet another supposedly noble cause emboldened the anti-male bigots who festooned the bureaucracy. Advertising and television companies took our money without complaint.
The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics report on the subject, the first to actually include men and to not be solely funded by the Office for the Status of Women, shows that men are twice as likely to be victims of violence as women. Older men three times, younger men twice. Oh, right, so that's why the old fashioned left wing Rudd government has created the National Council for the Reduction of Violence Against Women and Children. What we want to know is, when does a boy child get to the age when you no longer care about him? When does he go from child to perpetrator in your lunar lexicon?
And now we have the government minister responsible for this particularly appalling piece of bureaucratic baggage, the Minister for Women Tanya Plibersek, going around claiming that one in three women are victims of domestic violence. Despite the fact the oft quoted one in three figure has been roundly discredited by academics around the world. Despite the fact that if you ask men the same questions as you ask women to get to the one in three figure - have you ever experienced any controlling or abusive behaviour from a partner or person at any time in your life - then you get exactly the same figure for men: one in three. It doesn't mean that one in three women are victims of abuse.
We are inflicted with these campaigns, and now these new bureaucracies,despite the fact that it's common knowledge in the community, and common sense, that one in three women are not battered. Our jails and our police stations would be full to the rafters if that was the case. But no one says a word. Internationally academics have questioned the truth of the feminist hysteria; but in Australia, where are the journalists brave enough to question the orthodoxies? Our supposedly enlightened intellectual class talks endlessly about open mindedness, diversity, thinking outside the square. Try disagreeing with them about over their sacred shibboleths, such as all men are violent bastards, and see what reaction you get.
One in three women are not victims of domestic violence, but that's the untruth our politicians are peddling. Are they so thick they don't even know they're telling lies? Or are they deliberately peddling this hoary old feminist lie in order to vilify men and erode the traditional family, as critics argue. It has been a long term feminist project to erode marriage. Painting the institution as a dangerous place for women and children to be has always been part of the project.
It's not difficult to understand why a bunch of battle hardened feminist bureaucrats would peddle the lie. It is difficult to understand why a taxpayer funded minister of the crown would be so irresponsible and so dishonest as to peddle the same lies and the same false impressions. Surely, in the age of the internet, it's not possible that they believe this nonsense. A simple Google search male victims domestic violence throws up a world of doubt for the ideologues. Serious academic inquiry throws up even more. And as for common sense.... Well, clearly we lost that long ago and have entered a world run by useful fools, as Marx called them.
Useful fools spreading the message and deconstructing the nuclear family; as they lie and lie and lie.
THE BIGGER STORY:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/keating-delivers-a-blow-to-pms-pitch-for-regional-unity/2008/06/05/1212259007048.html
PAUL KEATING has launched his first public criticism of Kevin Rudd since he became Prime Minister, describing his proposal to create an Asia-Pacific community as "a very difficult task and not necessarily an appropriate one".
The previous Labor prime minister critiqued the proposal by the new Labor Prime Minister in an article which made clear that he thinks Mr Rudd's idea is politically impossible.
As the Opposition attacked the idea as an ill-conceived stunt, the Herald learnt that Mr Rudd's special envoy for the project, the former diplomat Richard Woolcott, found out about the proposal only two hours before it was announced on Wednesday night.
At the same time, another of Mr Rudd's pet ideas was condemned by one of the Federal Government's key economic advisory agencies.
His proposal for a locally built "green car" was attacked by the Productivity Commission as environmentally unhelpful and economically distorting.
Mr Rudd had said in outlining his "vision for an Asia-Pacific community" that "the European Union of course does not represent an identikit model of what we would seek to develop in the Asia-Pacific. But what we can learn from Europe is this - it is necessary to take the first step".
Mr Keating wrote that "even the basic first step made toward the European community - the European steel plan of the 1950s - would not, I believe, be capable of emulation these days, across East Asia and the subcontinent."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD9141M6G3
WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of Hillary Rodham Clinton's biggest backers from New York rallied around Barack Obama Thursday as she signaled her candidacy was ending. The likely Democratic nominee said he won't be hurried into a decision on whether to make her his running mate.
Clinton, in an e-mail to supporters, said she "will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise."
The e-mail was a shift in tone by the former first lady, who announced 17 months ago that she was "in it to win it." Many of her supporters now are pushing for her to be included as the vice presidential candidate, in their minds a "dream ticket" that would bring Obama her enthusiastic legions and broaden his appeal to white and working-class voters.
But Obama indicated he intends to take his time making a decision.
"We're not going to be rushed into it. I don't think Senator Clinton expects a quick decision and I don't even know that she's necessarily interested in that," Obama told NBC in an interview.
Clinton's move to formally declare that she is backing the Illinois senator came after Democratic congressional colleagues made clear they had no stomach for a protracted intraparty battle. Now that Obama has secured the 2,118 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination, Clinton had little choice but to end her quest, and sooner rather than later.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0547098420080605?virtualBrandChannel=10112
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - What does Hillary Clinton want and what will she get -- other than, perhaps, returning to the U.S. Senate where she's a bona fide star?
The answer may emerge soon as the failed Democratic presidential contender gets ready to finally concede defeat -- amid signals she might like to be the vice presidential running mate of presumptive White House nominee Barack Obama.
"The clock is ticking," said Paul Light of New York University's Center for the Study of Congress. He said she must quickly end her presidential campaign or face party backlash.
"But if she withdraws gracefully, she will have an enormous range of opportunities," Light said. "She could eventually become a Senate leader or end up on the Supreme Court."
Others have suggested she might want to be New York governor -- or make another run for the White House in 2012 if Republican John McCain defeats Obama in the general election.
Clinton riled some Democrats by declining to concede when the Illinois senator wrapped up the nomination on Tuesday night. She has since announced she will do so on Saturday.
Comments