Sunday, September 25, 2016


The pill and Massey Ferguson

The great moral questioning of the '60s is normally attributed to the contraceptive pill, which became generally available at that time.  The pill did what conventional morality had long done: remove the risk of ex-nuptial births.  So conventional morality lost its authority among the young.  Whether any sexual restraint of any kind was warranted became questionable.  So sexual promiscuity probably reached its peak at that time.  I was there and was a cautious participant in the mood of the times.

And ALL morality, not only sexual morality, came into question at that time.  There was a collapse of values and standards across the board at that time.  If sexual restraint had become irrelevant, might not all forms of restraint be old-fashioned and irrelevant?  So practices that had evolved over millennia for the guidance of society lost their authority and there was nothing to replace them.  People were cast adrift from all guidance and had to figure out entirely from new how to live the good life.  Nobody knew any longer what was wise.

Fortunately, however, Christians in particular kept the old moral thinking alive and showed by results that it gave a better balanced life.  I was myself a fundamentalist Protestant throughout my teens (late '50's to early '60s) and that gave me a great set of rules to live by.  I did not have to invent my own rules. I had the wisdom of the ages on my side.

So I got though my teens with no trauma at all and much happiness.  I took no mind altering substances so was not damaged by them.  I did not drink alcohol so avoided all the risks associated with that.  I had friends who drank who died while drunk driving but I did not.  I was celibate so avoided some nasty diseases. I kept clear of crime.  So I arrived undamaged at adulthood and mental maturity.

And at around age 20 (1963) I became an atheist.  But my teen-aged experience of a very puritanical lifestyle gave me strong habits of restraint so I participated in the sexual revolution from that time on only as part of affectionate relationships. A lot of my old Christian values stay with me to this day and even in the '60s casual sex had no attractions for me.

So I saw it all in the '60s and was sober enough to remember what I saw.  Many of the people who glorify the life they had in the '60s can't actually remember much detail of what they did. They can't remember what they saw through a blur of drugs and alcohol.

So what I have given so far is a conventional explanation of the great break of the '60s.  But the pill is in fact only half the story.  It's not the whole explanation for that break.  The other half is the Massey Ferguson tractor!  How's that for a strange proposition?  To understand that proposition we have to go back to what was behind the conventional morality of the pre-1960 era.

Conventional morality was heavily influenced by a shortage of food.  In our present era of cheap and abundant food, we find it hard to comprehend that for most of human history, it was a struggle for most families to put enough bread on the table for their children.  Most people were poor and the money often did not stretch far enough to buy all the food that the family wanted.  They often had to make do with the cheapest possible food in order to eat at all.  Oaten porridge was a lifesaver.

So in those circumstances men wanted to be absolutely certain that the children they were feeding were their own. "Cuckoos" were regarded as robbing the man's natural children of what was rightfully theirs.  But the problem was how to tell who was the father of the various children.  Women mostly had a pretty good idea of it but the men did not.  And there is no doubt that both men and women sometimes "stray".  In a moment of passion a woman might easily sleep with someone other than her husband and produce a child from that union.

So there was only one way a man could ensure that his scarce resources were spent on his own children:  He had to convince his wife to sleep only with him.  And all the persuasive resources of society were brought to bear on that need.  Sexual restraint became the highest morality, with everything from ostracism to hellfire deployed to produce it.

And the pill did little to reduce that need.  Sex became less perilous but the man still needed to know which children were his.  So how come a highly functional morality broke down?  Why did not the pill simply drive promiscuity underground?

And that's where we come to Massey Ferguson.  The Massey Ferguson tractor was only one part of a broader phenonenon but it was a very visible one.  The Massey Ferguson was a small, cheap tractor  that was a remarkably tough machine.  I remember seeing lots of them in Australia and I gather that they were equally popular in Britain.  Massey Ferguson have made tractors of all shapes and sizes over the years but those small post-war models had a big impact.



With a Massey Ferguson farmers could pull bigger implements than a horse team could, could pull them for longer and could pull them more cheaply.  A horse team was not cheap to maintain.  You had farrier's bills, veterinary bills and feed bills.  And a  team of big working horses can go though a phenomenal amount of feed every day. For his Massey Ferguson the farmer just had to keep a drum of fuel handy.

So a farmer's productivity was at least doubled when he bought a Massey Ferguson. And what does a farmer's productivity add up to?  Food.  Along with other agricultural advances of the postwar era, the Massey Ferguson steadily drove down the price of food.  In t
he USA it was probably John Deere who provided most of the tractors but the result was the same.

So by the time the '60s hit, feeding your family was a difficulty only for the very unfortunate.  So it was no longer a tragedy if a man fed a child who was not his own.  His other children were not deprived thereby.  So the great need for the sexual control of women largely fell away.  Conventional morality had lost its main function.

So the Massey Ferguson is at least as important as the pill as an explanation of the '60s moral revolution -- JR

Saturday, September 24, 2016


Men and women should wear the same sort of clothes (?)



FANS are up in arms over the first pictures to emerge from the new Jumanji reboot, starring Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, Jack Black, Karen Gillan and Kevin Hart, with many branding the movie “sexist”.

Hart took to Instagram to rave about how great the chemistry is between the stars in the remake of Robin Williams’ 1995 original movie, but ended up attracting major backlash over the difference between the men’s outfits and Gillan’s.

In the on-set picture, the males are seen in commando-style outdoor wear, while Gillan is wearing wildly impractical short-shorts, a crop top, and knee-high boots — hardly sensible for running through the jungle.

Johnson quickly jumped into the commentary underneath Hart’s picture, explaining that it’s not how it looks. “Her jungle wardrobe will make sense when you know the plot,” he wrote. “Trust me.”

But fans were still up in arms, with some even threatening to boycott the movie.

“All the guys are dressed for the jungle,” one person commented. “Except the girl who’s dressed like she’s in the beginning of an adult film. If the girl’s going to dress like that, pass. I have two young girls.”

SOURCE

Note that the black guy is also wearing shorts.  Doesn't he count?


Racism and freedom of thought

I am a racist -- as the Left define that term.  I think that there are different races and that some (not all) of the differences between those races matter.  Aside from the fanatic Left, most people would concede that there are differences between people and that some of those differences can matter so why deny that groups of people can be different too?  I suppose an answer to that is possible but I have yet to hear one.

The reason the Left get such a charge out of the "racist" accusation is that it puts people in mind of the deeds of the unforgotten Uncle Adolf.  Adolf was for a time seen as a kindly uncle by most Germans.  So Leftists exploit that memory to imply that anybody who mentions race at all must be only a hairsbreadth away from being a genocidal maniac.  I suppose most people can see that such an inference is too sweeping but I want to show that it is very sweeping indeed.

And I intend to use myself to show how incorrect that inference is.  Although I am a racist, one of the people I most admire is David P.  To my mind he is worth more to humanity than a whole skyscraper full of bureaucrats.  David runs a small cafe where I often have brunch.  He takes orders, he makes coffees, he delivers orders to the tables, he clears away dirty dishes and wipes down tables.  And he has got a ready smile for everyone all the time.

And all those things are needed. They are things that people voluntarily seek out and pay money for.  And the benefit of them is totally clear and uncontrovertible -- unlike the dubious "services" provided by bureaucrats in skyscrapers.  I certainly enjoy my excellent brunches from David but when has any bureaucrat given me pleasure?  If a skyscraper full of bureaucrats vanished overnight, few people would notice.  But if David did not come in one morning, there would be a lot of people milling around and feeling very deprived.

David is Vietnamese.  He grew up in Australia but his parents  were "boat people": People who fled Communism in small boats to get to a safer place.  So what sort of racist am I when I admire immensely a brownish man of unambiguously Asian appearance?  I will tell you what sort I am.  I think the Vietnamese are a fine race who pull their weight more than most.  I am racially pro-Vietnamese.  Not all of them are as good as David but Vietnamese have been in Australia for a long time now and I have been observing them for a long time.  And a lot of them are as good as David P.

I could go on with other examples of people I admire.  I could mention Pavan, who is Indian and also the most good humoured man I know.  I could mention Les, who is one of the manliest men I know but who, like a lot of Kiwis, has both English and Maori ancestors.  And so on.  And more broadly, I could mention how much I admire the Japanese and Chinese for their unusual intelligence.  I am in fact a Sinophile of sorts.  I admire the Han.

So, you see, it is possible to be a racist without thinking ill of people, let alone wishing to harm them.

But I don't think highly of all people I meet and I don't think highly of all human groups that I encounter.  It could hardly be clearer that people of Sub-Saharan African ancestry are in general dangerous people to have around and I understand well the "white flight" to the suburbs whereby mainstream Americans seek to avoid them.  Their problem is not their skin color but their aggressive behavior.

And it is that aggressive behaviour that should in my view be focused on, not their racial origin.  As I have long argued, I think it is crazy to catch malefactors and then let them go.  Once someone has been found guilty of some foul deed, it seems crazy to let them go so that they can re-offend.  So how to improve that situation?  We once did deal with it well. Up until the early 19th century, murderers and other grave offenders in England were hanged at Tyburn and similar places.  There was a zero rate of re-offending for them.

There are so many people who commit crimes these days that we can hardly hang them all.  Even in the early 19th century, the British didn't hang everybody.  Petty criminals were, for instance, banished to Australia.  I am descended from two such petty criminals.

It seems to me, however, that recidivists (repeat offenders) are a special case.  It is often said that anybody can make a mistake and that people should be given an opportunity to learn from their mistakes. So a first-offender should be punished but after that let go in the hope that he will not re-offend.  But what if he does reoffend?  I think that shows him as a seriously deficient person who is unlikely to change in response to mercy and forgiveness.

That doesn't mean that we have to hang him but it does mean that he has to be kept permanently out of circulation in the law-abiding community.  Low-cost permanent detention would be one possibility.  Only about 2% of the population commit crimes and only about half of them re-offend so the numbers to be accommodated might not be impossibly costly -- particularly if bare-bones accommodation only were provided.

And a traditional method could be used too:  Exile. Exile goes back to ancient Greek and Roman times and probably earlier.  As a descendant of exiled people, I think it could almost be called humane.  There is no doubt that some poor countries could be paid a small sum to take in exiled Western criminals.  Africa might be particularly receptive.  Afro-Americans would not seem too different from the local population and criminals of Caucasian origin would usually seem positively law-abiding compared to the African locals.

And then there are the Jihadis.  There is no doubt that they are a problem group at the moment. To deal with them I think we have to deny Muslims not only freedom of speech but even freedom of thought.  That is an extraordinary thing to propose but the only other way I can see of protecting ourselves from the insane minority of Muslims is to repatriate all Muslims to their ancestral lands.

So what do I mean by freedom of thought?  I mean that any evidence of Jihadi sympathies among Muslims has to be made illegal so that the person concerned can be caught before he carries out Jihadi deeds. He is then exiled to his ancestral country.

The cooperation of the Muslim population at large would be needed for that to be done effectively but if it is put strongly to them that their permission to stay in Western countries is at stake, I have no doubt that co-operation would be forthcoming.  Very quietly, a lot of co-operation at preventing terrorist acts is already given. There have even been instances of Muslim parents incriminating their radicalized children.

But what about the First Amendment, Americans will say?  I hate to state the obvious here but the First Amendment protects speech only, not thought!  I think a court could find the two to be separable.

So I don't want to harm anyone on the basis of their race but I do believe that we need to use firmer measures to protect ourselves from crime.  And noting the differences between different groups of people can aid that.  The characteristic crimes of each group may benefit from solutions "tailor-made" for that group:   Jihadis need thought monitoring, Africans need Africa.

Thursday, September 22, 2016



British students have uninhibited beginning to university life



Thousands of teenage students took to the streets of Portsmouth as they celebrated the start of their university careers during Fresher's Week. Drunken revellers were photographed lying on the pavement, while scantily-clad girls marched through the city centre.

Some of the youngsters, living away from home for just a few days can be seen vomiting, screaming and collapsing on the street. One group of girls were spotted wearing a figure-hugging leotard printed with the legend: 'Don't Tell Daddy.'

The remains of kebabs were seen smeared all over the side of the pavement as the streets were strewn with rubbish generated during the debaucherous night out.

Security guards, bouncers and police tried to keep the teenagers safe after many over-indulged the special offers available during their first week in college.

Source


New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’(?)

I have commented on this before but now that The Grauniad has got hold of it, I think I should note it again.  The grasses in the Stanford experiment showed little response to enhanced CO2 because the soil in the area was phosphorous deficient -- and that stopped the plants from taking much advantage of the other growth factors. See here.  There is nothing in the experiment to upset the thousands of studies that show high levels of CO2 enhancing growth.

And the authors below are confused.  In their desperation to show corroboration for the badly implemented Stanford study, they quote a study of corn growth in France.  But that study showed an adverse effect of high temperature, not high levels of CO2.  So it corroborates nothing.  All plants do have a temperature range within which they function best so it is no surprise that the corn cultivars mostly used in France were adversely affected by unusually high temperatures.  Corn grows in a lot of quite warm areas in Latin America and India so it is just a matter of choosing the right cultivar for the climate.  In some places the optimum temperature for maize (corn) germination is given as 33 degrees C!  Toasty!

And the prophecy about wheat yields is just modelling, and we know how good Warmist models are. But wheat cultivars vary too so again the only potential challenge posed by a temperature change as small as one degree would be to choose the right cultivar

And in the grand tradition of Green/Left cherry picking, the crooks below ignore the other effects that a temperature rise would bring -- in particular the larger area that would become available for cropping. Canadian wheat farmers are enormously productive despite farming right up to where the cold limits them.  A temperature rise would open up vast new areas of croplands for them -- leading to glut rather than any shortage of grain crops


A new study by scientists at Stanford University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tested whether hotter temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels that we’ll see post-2050 will benefit the kinds of plants that live in California grasslands. They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth, while higher temperatures had a negative effect.

The oversimplified myth of ‘CO2 is plant food’
Those who benefit from the status quo of burning copious amounts of fossil fuels love to argue that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit plant life. It’s a favorite claim of climate contrarians like Matt Ridley and Rupert Murdoch.

It seems like a great counter-argument to the fact that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant – a fact that contrarians often dispute. However, reality is far more complicated than the oversimplification of ‘CO2 is plant food.’ Unlike in the controlled environment of a greenhouse, the increasing greenhouse effect on Earth causes temperatures to rise and the climate to change in various ways that can be bad for plant life. We can’t control all the other variables the way we can in a greenhouse.

So far, as contrarians like Rupert Murdoch love to point out, the plant food effect has won out. Earth has become greener in recent decades (although that trend may now be reversing). The situation is not unlike a human diet – at relatively low calorie levels, more food is beneficial. But as calorie intake continues to rise, at a certain point it’s no longer benefiting the human body. More food is good, but only up to a certain point, as the global obesity epidemic makes clear.

The experiment

The Stanford scientists set up 132 plots of flowers and grass in California and introduced varying levels of carbon dioxide, temperature, water, and nitrogen. The scientists conducted the experiments over 16 growing seasons between 1998 and 2014. They found that only higher nitrogen levels resulted in higher plant productivity, while higher temperatures caused it to decline.

While this experiment was specific to California grasslands, other studies have similarly undermined the ‘more CO2 is great’ myth. For example, a 2012 paper found that higher temperatures are detrimental to French corn yields. While French corn production has increased steadily in recent decades due to a combination of technological improvements and CO2 fertilization (the former far more than the latter), yields have leveled off in recent years, and were particularly low when struck by heat waves.

Another study published in Nature Climate Change last week concluded that higher temperatures will cause wheat production to decline. Just a 1°C rise in global temperature will decrease wheat yields by about 5% (approximately 35 million tons). Climate change is bad news for several of our staple crops.

SOURCE  

Wednesday, September 21, 2016




Arty-farty nitwit



Celebrity photographer Tyler Shields has set fire to a $15,000 Louis Vuitton suitcase for his latest artistic project. Shields, 34, broke the hearts of millions of women around the world when he torched the vintage case in the name of art.

He described the shoot - for his 'Provocateur' series - as being a 'crazy' experience. He added: 'This is one of the last shots I did for my new book. It took me a few years to find the trunk as they are rare and not cheap.'

This is not the first time Shields has destroyed a luxury item for a photo shoot.In 2012, he burned a $100,000 crocodile skin Hermes Birkin along with then girlfriend Francesca Eastwood, daughter of the famous actor and film director Clint Eastwood. He has also wrecked a pair of Christian Louboutin shoes and a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow for his work.

Sourcfe


Fascism in the open



The stranglehold that the Left have on American education strives to ensure that no part of history that might embarrass the Left becomes generally known.  The slogan in the graphic above would never have been used except that a knowledge of Benito Mussolini has been thoroughly anaesthetized.  Mussolini invented the word Fascism to convey exactly what Mrs Clinton is conveying.  He was a scholarly man who knew his history and he knew that the symbol of authority in ancient Rome was a bundle of rods called a Fasces borne by the lictors.  The image was that the bundle was much stronger than any single rod it contains. In historical terms, then, Mrs Clinton is quite explicitly a Fascist. She has chosen as her theme the central message of Italian Fascism.

And in their intolerance of dissent, the Left are getting close to another great Fascist slogan:  Mussolini ha sempre ragione (Mussolini is always right).


Denver mother, 33, is accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy and having two children with him  



A mother of two has been arrested after being accused of sexually assaulting an underage boy and having two children with him.

Alicia Hernandez, 33, from Denver has been charged with sex assault on a child and sex assault after police received a report of an inappropriate relationship from Denver Department of Human Services.

According to court documents, the victim, who is now 18, began the relationship with Hernandez four years ago when he was just 14. Hernandez was 29 at the time, making her 15 years older than him.

According to NBC11, the victim told police he met the 33-year-old at Garfield Park in Denver, and told her he was 18.

After a year of dating, police believe the couple began to have sex, with Hernandez becoming pregnant and giving birth to their first child in June 2013.

Court records also show that Hernandez became pregnant again and their second child was born in January 2015.

Police say she admitted that she did meet the victim at the park and officers believe she conceived their first child in 2012.

The Denver District Attorney confirmed that Hernandez has been released from custody and is on a $50,000 bond.

She's scheduled to appear back in court on October 18. It is unknown who is currently caring for the two children, who are aged one and three.

SOURCE  

Tuesday, September 20, 2016





Britain's chief Leftist nut does it again



Jeremy Corbyn has been ridiculed for saying he doesn't eat biscuits because he is 'anti-sugar' - even though he is famous for his love of jam.

The Labour leader ended up in a tangle after decrying biscuits on 'health grounds' during a question and answer session on Mumsnet.  Mr Corbyn wrote today: 'I'm totally anti-sugar on health grounds, so eat very few biscuits, but if forced to accept one, it's always a pleasure to have a shortbread.'

But users quickly pointed out that his hatred of sugar seemed to contradict his jam-making hobby. The veteran left-winger apparently could not be reached by aides recently during the 'traingate' row because he was busy making jam.




"Ethical Socialism"

I owe the excerpt from Oswald Spengler below to statistician Briggs.  It is indeed interesting.  Spengler was a popular German thinker of the early 20th century.  He thought that European civilization had just about reached its limit and was bound to fall while some other civilization arose.  The gutless reaction to Islamic hostility in the Western world today certainly does bring Spengler to mind.

And it is notable that Spengler identifies socialism as the power-hungry but ultimately nihilistic force that is destroying the countries it dominates.  His diagnosis of socialism as inherently totalitarian has certainly been borne out by subsequent events in Russia and Germany.

But in an indirect way, Spengler was responsible for the rise of Nazism.  He never was a Nazi and rejected its antisemitism but his diagnosis of his own society  as dying from its own weakness and lack of self-confidence did plant in people's minds  the hope that a strong leader would emerge who would restore the national will and self-confidence  -- make it great again --  and thus rescue European civilization from its decline.  And we all know who came along in Germany to offer just that.

Hitler was of course an idol who had feet of clay but it is not unreasonable to hope that a new leader with fewer flaws could arise.  And that seems to be where we are now.  No matter how often Muslim terrorists murder us, our Left-dominated leaders refuse to do anything about it.  And the rise of Trump has exposed the great discontent among the people about the lack of reaction to Islamic supremacism.

Trump is also far from a perfect saviour but he seems to be the only saviour we've got.  A successful American businessman and an undistinguished Austrian artist are very different people so very different things are to be expected from them.  What we get may not be ideal but it may include what we need.

But the rescue we need is NOT from Islam.  As Spengler foresaw, it is from the ever more powerful Left.  There is no lack of  patriotic pride and civilizational confidence among ordinary Americans.  It is the Left who are keeping a lid on it rather than proclaiming and defending it.  There is nothing wrong with America and Americans.  It is only the Leftist and Left-dominated parasites riding on its back that are the problem.  Reagan neutered them for a while but they have regrouped.  Trump is our best hope of purging their influence and hitting back at Islam


In spite of its foreground appearances, ethical Socialism is not a system of compassion, humanity, peace and kindly care, but one of will-to-power. Any other reading of it is illusory. The Stoic takes the world as he finds it, but the Socialist wants to organize and recast it in form and substance, to fill it with his own spirit. The Stoic adapts himself, the Socialist commands. He would have the whole would take the shape he desires, thus transferring the idea of the Critique of Pure Reason into the ethical field.

This is the ultimate meaning of the Categorical Imperative, which he brings to bear in political, social and economic matters alike—act as thought the maxims that you practise were to become by your will the law for all. And this tyrannical tendency is not absent from even the shallowest phenomena of the time. It is not attitude and mien, but activity that is to be given form. As in China and Egypt, life only counts insofar as it is deed. And it is mechanicalizing of the organic concept of Deed that leads to the concept of work as commonly understood, the civilized form of Faustian effecting.

Apollian man looked back to a Golden Age; this relieved him of the trouble of thinking upon what was still to come. The Socialist feels the Future as his task and aim, and accounts the happiness of the moment as worthless in comparison. The Classical spirit, with its oracles and its omens, wants only to know the future, but the Westerner would shape it. The Third Kingdom is the Germanic ideal. From Joachim of Floris to Nietzsche and Ibsen—arrows of yearning to the other bank, as the Zarathustra says—every great man has linked his life to an eternal morning.

And here Socialism becomes tragic. It is of the deepest significance that Nietzsche, so completely clear and sure in dealing with what should be destroyed, what transvalued, loses himself in nebulous generalities as soon as he comes to discuss the Whither, the Aim. His criticism of decadence is unanswerable, but his theory of the Superman is a castle in the air.

And therein lies a deep necessity; for, from Rousseau onwards, Faustian man has nothing more to hope for in anything pertaining to the grand style of Life. Something has come to an end. The Northern soul has exhausted its inner possibilities, and of the dynamic force and insistence that had exposed itself in world-historical visions of the future—visions of a millennial scope—nothing remains but the mere pressure, the passionate desire to create, the form without the content.

The soul was Will and nothing but Will. It needed an aim for its Columbus-longing; it had to give its inherent activity at least the illusion of a meaning and an object. And so the keener critic will find a trace of Hjalmar Ekdal in all modernity, even its highest phenomena. Ibsen called it the lie of life.

For deep down beneath it all is the gloomy feeling, not to be repressed, that all this hectic zeal is the despairing self-deception of a soul that may not and cannot rest. This is the tragic situation—the inversion of the Hamlet motive—and a thread of it runs through the entire fabric of Socialism, political, economic and ethical, which forces itself to ignore the annihilating seriousness of its own final implications, so as to keep alive the illusion of the historical necessity of its own existence.


Monday, September 19, 2016


Married middle school teacher, 30, arrested after sex with boy, 14



A teacher in Fresno, California was arrested last week and charged with multiple sex crimes after authorities learned that she was having an inappropriate relationship with one of her students.

Justine Nelson, 30, was booked and released on Thursday, and will be facing one count of oral copulation with a minor and two counts of possession of child pornography.

ABC 30 reports that Nelson, who is married, confessed to the police that she and the boy had a relationship after her arrest.

Nelson's relationship with the teenager began last spring while he was a student in her class according to investigators with the Fresno Police Department.

The two allegedly engaged in sexual activity at Tenaya Middle School, where Nelson is a part-time teacher.

She performed a sex act on the boy three times according to police.  Nelson is then accused of sending the boy nude photos over the summer.

The victim is now in high school and no longer attends Tenaya Middle School, where as of now Nelson still has a job.

He posted the photos online, and some of his fellow students saw the naked pictures sent by Nelson, prompting the vice principal of the school to call police.

'The whole thing is sad. Just what she did, totally sad. That victim will be impacted for a long time, it's just ridiculous,' said Lieutenant Joe Gomez of the Fresno Police Department.

Nelson was filmed as she left the police station on Thursday and got into a waiting car that was being drive by an unknown man.

She looked stoic and did not speak as she made her way into the vehicle.

When a reporter approached her asking if she had any comment, the man screamed out the window: 'Maybe get your story right. Get your story right!'  The reporter than asked what the real story was, to which the man again screamed: 'Get your story right!'

The two then drove off from the jail.

Lieutenant Gomez said the department is still investigating to see if there may be moire victims.

The Fresno Unified School District released a statement last week, saying: 'Allegations of this nature are extremely disturbing and do not reflect the high professional standards the district expects from staff.

'In the event these allegations are proven factual, the district will take swift and appropriate action.'

SOURCE  




Plus-size model comes in second in Miss Italy contest - despite cruel trolls who said she's 'too fat' to be a beauty queen



A fashion model launched a body shamming assault on a Miss Italy contestant who came second claiming she is 'too fat' to be a beauty queen.

Contestant Paola Torrente, who is a size 14 wowed fans with her ample figure when she came in second to Rachele Risaliti during the Miss Italy 2016 in Angri, Salerno. The 22-year-old engineering student, who measures up at 5 foot 9 inches, was a hugely popular choice with the audience and fans and was met with thousands of comments of support.

But Croatian model Nina Moric, 40, launched a body shaming assault on her Instagram account claiming Miss Torrente was only chosen because of 'political correctness' and was joined by other online trolls.

Source

Children born with big heads have higher IQs and thus a better chance of a successful future

The connection between larger head size and higher IQ is well-known but is usually given as a correlation around .3.  But in this very careful research it came out at .5, which is a major effect.  Interestingly, autistic people tend to have big heads too, and they often have quite extraordinary abilities in some field.  The study mentioned below was not confined to head size.  It looked at many physical attributes -- and many were intertwined with IQ and achievement.  IQ is a physical reality and an important one.  All men are not equal

Babies with big heads are more likely to be clever and have successful futures, a study has shown. Research carried out by UK Biobank has strongly linked higher intelligence with large head circumferences and brain volume.

Half a million Brits are being monitored by the charity to discover the connection between their genes, their physical and mental health and their path through life.

The latest evidence is the first finding to emerge from the study that aims to break down the relationship between brain function and DNA.

Researchers in a paper published by the Molecular Psychiatry journal said: 'Highly significant associations were observed between the cognitive test scores in the UK Biobank sample and many polygenic profile scores, including . . . intracranial volume, infant head circumference and childhood cognitive ability.'

Professor Ian Deary, of Edinburgh University, who is leading the research, said gene variants were also strongly associated with intelligence, according to The Times.

The new evidence is so accurate that experts claim it could even predict how likely it was that a baby would go to university based on their DNA.

SOURCE

Sunday, September 18, 2016




Rare 1st century gold coin bearing the image of Roman Emperor Nero is found in Jerusalem



Archaeologists in Jerusalem have uncovered a rare gold coin bearing the image of the Roman Emperor Nero. Coins of this type are extremely rare, and are usually only found in private collections where the origin is unknown.

The image of Nero is significant because it shows the presence of the Romans in the area, 14 years before they destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. Nero was born in 37 AD, and became emperor of the Roman Empire after the death of his adoptive father, the Emperor Claudius, in 54 AD.

The coin was discovered by researchers from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who were excavating on Mount Zion in Jerusalem"

Source



An Australian Mona Lisa?



The picture above is of Nikki Gogan being told by the man she loves, that he loves another.

I very rarely watch TV and I certainly did not watch the show from which the above photo came, but it popped up so often in my news feed in recent days that I began to take notice of it.  And something that seems striking about it is that that photo is far more beautiful than any other photo of her.  She is undoubtedly a very attractive woman but in that photo there is an enigmatic beauty about her that is akin to that of the Mona Lisa.

We normally find a smiling face most attractive yet that is essentially an immobile face.  It is not a sad face or a relaxed face.  To me it is a face in waiting:  Hoping for the best but prepared for the worst.  That is probably a rather unusual state to be in so is that why it makes such a strong impression?  That it has made a strong impression is shown by the number of times people have put it up.  I am clearly not alone in finding it a fascinating face.

Another grab of the photo here.  There is also a video of the episode here, which shows her as very gracious even in disappointment.  He missed out on a quality lady there -- as most of Australia seems to think.


Home

eXTReMe Tracker