POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH

A good 4th July for Trump



*********************************************

Identical twins separated at birth have near-identical IQs

This is an old, old finding, yet another confirmation of what is known. It always emerges when you study twin IQs

Identical Chinese twins separated at birth by the nation's draconian one-child policy grew up to have almost identical IQs, a fascinating study reveals.

The research, led by Dr Nancy Segal an expert in psychology from the University of California, considered one of the world's leading experts on twins, examined the intelligence scores of 15 pairs of identical twins adopted by different families.

Fourteen pairs of twins were female due to Chinese culture traditionally favouring male children, a bias which led to female children, including twins, being abandoned by parents during China's one-child policy which ran from 1980 to 2016.

These genetically identical twins were separated and raised in different environments — and sometimes even in different countries.

This provided scientists with the rare opportunity to test if nature or nurture was the most important factor for IQ.

The twins underwent IQ tests twice, once when they were, on average, 11-years-old and then again, after some years had passed, when they had an average age of 14.

Comparing the results between the twin pairs over time the researchers discovered their scores were nearly identical.

Publishing their results in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, the authors wrote: 'Despite their different homes, educational experiences, and (in some cases) residences in different countries, the twins appear to have interacted with their environments in ways that aligned with their genetic propensities.

'This supports the notion that environments do not act randomly in fashioning developmental outcomes — rather, individuals behave selectively and actively with respect to the people, places and events that engage and challenge them.'

Dr Segal said that the older twins got the more their IQ scores seemed to align in the long term.

'As genetic factors kick in, the environment drops out. So they become more alike with time,' she told The Times.

She based this finding off another aspect of the study which examined data from nine pairs of Danish identical twins who underwent similar IQ tests as adults.

While the data on this group of twins was more limited that the Chinese cohort, it similarly showed that twin pairs tended to match each other for changes in IQ between the two tests.

Concluding their study the authors said the results suggest that 'twins can be expected to achieve similar results on school tests, whereas unrelated siblings can be expected to achieve different outcomes.'

They continued: 'Knowing this will help parents and educators tailor their treatment, resource provision, and expectations of different children within families.

IQ stands for intelligence quotient and it is used to measure mental ability.

The score is achieved by dividing a person's mental age, obtained with an intelligence test, by their age.

Test questions focus on abilities such as mathematical skills, memory, spatial perception, and language abilities.

The resulting fraction is then multiplied by 100 to obtain an IQ score.

An IQ of 100 has long been considered the median, or most often achieved, score.

Because of the way the test results are scaled, a person with an IQ of 60 is not necessarily half as intelligent as someone with an IQ of 120.

Although the accuracy of intelligence tests is somewhat disputed, they are still widely used.

To be accepted into Mensa, the 'high-IQ society', a person by score in the top two per cent of the general population.

This currently means having an IQ of at least 132.

Dr Segal and the other authors acknowledged an obvious limitation of their study is the overall small number of participants, a somewhat unavoidable factor given the rarity of identical twins being separated at birth.

As such they say the results should be interpreted with caution.

Dr Segal added: 'Should parents and educators throw their hands up in despair?

'Absolutely not. Everybody can become smarter. But we’re not going to all be the same.'

While the latest study suggested separated twins has similar IQs some case examples have shown the opposite.

Dr Segal has previously reported the remarkable case of two identical Korean twins separated in 1976, one raised in South Korea the other in the US after they went missing.

Tracked down 40 years later, they showed remarkably similar personality traits but differed when it came to IQ with the American twin 16 points behind her genetically identical sibling.

It bears mentioning the American twin had suffered three concussions in life that her South Korean counterpart hadn't, and this may have influenced the results.

Measuring IQ and equating it to 'intelligence' in real life has proved controversial.

For example, some experts highlight that people can score highly on IQ tests which measure logic, abstract reasoning, learning ability and memory, but struggle to apply these day to day.

Identical twins are those born from the same fertilized eggs which then splits into two genetical identical embryos.

They differ from non-identical twins which happen when two separate eggs are released and then fertilised at the same time.

Identical twins have been linked to various have been linked to various shared behaviours before.

Some studies have found twins are likely to share nail biting habits, and reports have emerged that some twins share cancer symptoms even if only one of them is suffering the disease.

Perhaps the most starting twin stories come from pairs who were separated at birth but share remarkedly similar lives.

One of the most famous examples of this are the 'Jim twins' Jim Lewis and Jim Springer who were separated at birth.

Dr Segal, who has written about their case, said that despite being raised in different environments the pair both suffered tension headaches, bit their fingernails, smoked the same cigarette brand, both enjoyed woodworking, and even vacationed on the same Florida beach.

The leading expert on twins also worked with another pair separated at birth Ann Hunt and Elizabeth Hamel who were only reunited at the age of 78.

Ann from Aldershot, Hampshire, didn’t even know she had a sibling until her daughter Samantha Stacey discovered Elizabeth while tracing their family tree.

Whereas Elizabeth always knew she had a twin but had given up hope of ever finding her, and had moved to Portland, Oregon, USA.

They have earned a place in the Guinness Book Of World Records as the longest time apart for reunited twins after their emotional reunion in Los Angeles, California.

The girls were born out of wedlock in 1936 in Aldershot and their mother Alice Patience Lamb couldn’t cope and both were to be adopted.

But domestic servant Alice couldn’t find anyone to adopt Elizabeth, because she had a curvature of the spine so only gave Ann up.

When the pair finally made contact, they both learned they had married men named Jim.

Dr Segal who funded their trip to be reunited said at the time: 'Fascinating work on separated twins shows that here are twins growing up in totally different families, sometimes even totally different cultures, and yet they bring with them similar types of attitudes - in politics, religion, social behaviour.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13587493/IQ-intelligence-Identical-twins-separated-birth-study.html

*******************************************

Thank Walmart, not Biden or Trump, for Lower Insulin Prices

With election season upon us and polling data showing that affordable health care remains a top voter concern, President Biden and former President Donald Trump, his presumptive opponent, are both taking credit for capping insulin prices.

The back-and-forth began when Fox News’ John Roberts stated that then-President Trump had signed an executive order in 2020 to lower the price of insulin to $35 a month. Biden-Harris HQ called the statement “a blatant lie,” insisting that “Trump did not cap insulin costs, President Biden did for seniors through the Inflation Reduction Act.”

Mr. Trump struck back on Truth Social, claiming that “Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by ... Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it.”

So who deserves credit: Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump?

The answer is, neither. Rather, Walmart deserves most of the credit.

Mr. Trump’s 2020 Executive Order 13937 would have capped out-of-pocket insulin prices at $35 per month. But the executive order applied only to individuals enrolled in some 1,700 Medicare Part-D prescription drug plans administered through a small group of health services centers. Of the more than 18 million Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, 8 million, at most, would have been affected.

The executive order, however, wasn’t scheduled to take effect until January 2021. By then, the Trump administration was history. Mr. Biden could have allowed the order to stand, but he balked.

The story doesn’t end there. In August 2022, Mr. Biden signed the mammoth catchall spending bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act, which, according to a Department of Health and Human Services summary, capped out-of-pocket insulin spending “at $35 per month’s supply of each insulin product covered under a Medicare Part D plan, with similar limits for out-of-pocket costs for insulin supplied under [Medicare] Part B.” The caps went into effect in January and July 2023, respectively.

So, the basic facts are these: If Mr. Biden hadn’t short-circuited the Trump executive order, many older Americans would have seen their insulin costs capped at $35 a month starting in January 2021, some 3½ years ago. Under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, more seniors became eligible for price-controlled insulin in January and July of last year.

But there’s also an important backstory, which involves two political falsehoods: First, that large numbers of diabetics were paying outrageously high prices for needed insulin, and second, that the solution to this (largely nonexistent) “life-and-death” problem required Washington to step in and save the day.

Mr. Biden described his heroics at a campaign event this past spring: “It [insulin] was costing 400 bucks a month on average. It now costs $35 a month.” But as fact-checkers at PolitiFact pointed out, “One government estimate for out-of-pocket insulin costs found that people with diabetes enrolled in Medicare or private insurance paid an average of $452 a year—not a month.”

Even the HHS summary touting the Inflation Reduction Act insulin provisions conceded that there was no cost crisis: “Nationally,” HHS says, “the average out-of-pocket cost was $58 per insulin fill.”

This is where Walmart enters the picture.

The ubiquitous retailer has sold inexpensive products for people with diabetes, including its house brand insulin, ReliOn (manufactured by Novo Nordisk), for over 20 years. One formulation still costs less than $25 a vial.

This and other older insulins lack many features that more modern insulin products provide, but they are effective for many diabetics and have helped keep the price of newer insulins in check—as did the arrival, in 2019, of Eli Lilly’s Lispro, a generic insulin. Several other generics are also available.

Millions of Americans with diabetes had access to reasonably priced insulin without presidential grandstanding.

Though $35 a vial may be less than many were paying, there’s a hidden cost in what Mr. Trump attempted and Mr. Biden achieved: When politicians dictate prices, whether for a vial of insulin or any other product, economic liberty and the competitive market economy are eroded.

The best way to control prices is by encouraging competition and consumer choice. Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are fighting to get credit for something that never should have been done.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14972

***********************************************

Single happy photo of freed Jarryd Hayne posing with his wife and lawyers sparks a furious war of words - as his high-profile barrister staunchly defends her client

I am glad to see a high profile defence of the man. Ever since the Barry Mannix case in 1984, I have always taken a particular interest in miscarriages of justice and false accusations. I have previously argued that Hayne was a victim of a false rape accusation:

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com/2024/06/was-footballer-jarryd-hayne-victim-of.html

Jarryd Hayne's barrister has become embroiled in a furious LinkedIn row where she launched an extraordinary attack on his rape accuser and defended the rugby league star's character.

Margaret Cunneen SC shared a celebratory image of Hayne, 36, with his wife Amellia Bonnici and solicitor Lauren McDougall to LinkedIn last week, with the group posing in front of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

In her caption, Ms Cunneen celebrated 'justice at last' - after the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal quashed his rape conviction - and described the freed former Parramatta Eels star as a 'fine and decent man'.

But that did not go down well among some members of Ms Cunneen's professional network, with another senior lawyer, former barrister Michael McDonald, furiously objecting to the veteran barrister's characterisation of Hayne.

Mr McDonald said that he was pleased Hayne's 'appeal has been upheld and hope the persecution of him is finally over.'

But, he added: 'Respectfully, 'fine and decent' men do not engage in the type of conduct in which Jarryd Hayne engaged.'

Ms Cunneen fired back: 'You don't know what happened'.

She then went on to claim the footballer's trousers were unopened during his ill-fated encounter with his female accuser at New Lambton, in Newcastle, in 2018.

Mr McDonald was referring to Hayne's conduct on the night which resulted in his being charged with rape.

Hayne's criminal trials were told that he paid a taxi driver $550 to wait 46 minutes while he went into a house to have sex with a young woman.

The encounter resulted in three rape trials, two convictions and 23 months' jail time. Both convictions were eventually overturned, the latest last month.

One of the three NSW Criminal Court of Appeal judges who heard Hayne's appeal, Justice Deborah Sweeney, was opposed to putting the case before another jury, arguing a fourth trial 'would not be in the interests of justice'.

The DPP decided against running a fourth trial on June 25.

Ms Cunneen specifically thanked Justice Sweeney in her photo, saying Hayne was celebrating 'justice at last'.

But she took a different tone with Mr McDonald. 'You have not seen (the accuser's) fingernails - filed to points more than a bishop's mitre. Total 2 years? Please.'

During Hayne's trials it was alleged the woman was left bleeding after the sexual encounter, and when she complained via text she was 'hurting really badly', Hayne texted back 'go doctor tomorrow'.

Mr McDonald then replied, 'my comment comprises two sentences, let me reverse their order'.

'To be clear, his prosecution has been an absolute travesty and, like in the late Cardinal Pell's case, I was confident that he would eventually be cleared on appeal.

'However, in my humble opinion, a 'fine and decent man'; especially when he is married, and a father, would not have placed himself and his relationship with his wife and children in the place that Jarryd did.'

Hayne was not married to Amellia Bonnici in September 2018 when the 26-year-old woman who accused him of the Newcastle rape claimed she had been sexually assaulted. They were, however, already a couple.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/article-13594441/jarryd-hayne-linkedin-row-margaret-cunneen.html

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

Social Media Does Not Cause Harm to Children, Meta VP Claims

I am inclined to agree with this. I let my son play computer games to his heart's content in his childhood and he now has a highly-paid job using advanced computer skills

Meta Vice President and Global Head of Safety Antigone Davis says she does not believe social media has “done harm to our children.”

At a recent social media inquiry, Nationals MP Andrew Wallace raised the issue with Ms. Davis, who on several occasions, rejected claims that digital platforms such as Facebook and Instagram hurt young individuals.

Some of the harms discussed by MPs included mental health problems, online bullying, and fostering improper perceptions of what is a healthy body.

Mr. Wallace asked whether Ms. Davis would stand by her previous statements.

In response, the Meta vice president once again said she did not think that social media had caused harm.

“I don’t think that social media has done harm to our children,” the VP said.

“I think that social media has provided tremendous benefits,” she said, noting that teenagers have used social to build community, stay connected to friends and pursue their interests.

“I think that issues of teen mental health are complex and multifactorial.

“I think that it is our responsibility as a company to ensure that teens can be able to take advantage of those benefits of social media in a safe and positive environment.”

Meta Claims It Is Providing Safe, Positive Experiences

At the same time, Ms. Davis said Meta was committed to providing a safe and positive experience for children.

Using the example of teenagers struggling with an eating disorder, she said her company had implemented a number of measures to ensure that it was not exacerbating teenagers’ problem.

“For example, we have a policy against diet ads for teens. We do not allow the promotion of eating disorder content on our platform. We’ve built classifiers to remove it,” Ms. Davis said.

“If a teen searches for that type of content on our platform, we actually provide resources. We pop up resources to redirect them.

“We make efforts to try to support people who may be having those types of issues and ensure that we are not contributing to those issues that that individual may be dealing with.”

However, Mr. Wallace was not satisfied with Ms. Davis’s answer.

“I’ve got to say, dealing with Meta is like dealing with big tobacco in the 1960s and the 1970s. You can’t be taken seriously,” he said.

Despite Ms. Davis’s claims, a 2023 study by The University of Sydney indicated that adolescents were subject to a wide range of negative experiences.

Specifically, 54 percent of the respondents said they felt they were wasting time when using social media, while 37 percent thought they overused social media apps.

In addition, 27 percent suffered from sleep deprivation and 17 percent experienced online bullying.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/social-media-does-not-cause-harm-to-children-meta-vice-president-claims-5678055

************************************************

‘Limiting ultra-processed foods may not always result in healthy diet’

Limiting ultra-processed foods (UPFs) may not always result in a healthy and nutritious diet, experts have said.

UPFs are widely viewed as unhealthy because they contain high amounts of saturated fat, sugars and salt.

But scientists said cutting down on UPFs may not necessarily lead to a healthier diet – because the system used to label foods based on the level of processing, known as Nova, does not look at nutritional values.

For example, some packaged foods such as unsweetened apple sauce, filtered milk, liquid egg whites, and some brands of raisins and canned tomatoes can be classed as ultra-processed, even though these are “nutrient dense”, the team said.

The researchers also found certain foods that are labelled as minimally processed by Nova can be more expensive, have a shorter shelf life, and provide a poor diet.

Presenting the findings at the American Society for Nutrition conference in Chicago, Dr Julie Hess, a research nutritionist at the United States Department of Agriculture (Usda), said: “This study indicates that it is possible to eat a low-quality diet even when choosing mostly minimally processed foods.

“It also shows that more-processed and less-processed diets can be equally nutritious (or non-nutritious), but the more-processed diet may have a longer shelf life and be less costly.”

For the study, the researchers created two breakfast menus, both containing jam on toast and eggs cooked in different ways.

The “less-processed” menu, which featured homemade jam and bread and poached egg with bacon, derived 20% of its calories from UPFs.

The “more-processed” breakfast, which contained shop-bought jam and bread, egg toast made with ham, and hash browns, derived 67% of its calories from ultra-processed foods.

Both meals received a “low” score of about 43-44 out of 100 in the Healthy Eating Index, a tool used to measure diet quality based on how well it aligns with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

But the less processed menu was more than twice as expensive and reached its expiry date over three times faster without delivering any additional nutritional value, the researchers said.

Dr Hess said: “The results of this study indicate that building a nutritious diet involves more than a consideration of food processing as defined by Nova.

“The concepts of ‘ultra-processed’ foods and ‘less-processed’ foods need to be better characterised by the nutrition research community.”

Commenting on the research, Dr Hilda Mulrooney, a reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said the study “illustrates a major problem many dietitians and nutritionists have with the Nova classification system, namely that it distinguishes foods only on the basis of their degree of processing and not on their nutritional value”.

She said that “rejecting foods on the basis of their degree of processing would risk removing many foods which could add considerable nutritional value to diets”.

Dr Mulrooney said that, in the UK, that many foods classified by the Nova system as ultra processed, such as some breakfast cereals and high-street breads, make “important contributions” to a person’s dietary intake.

She added: “Without them, there is a risk that some groups might not meet the recommended intakes of key nutrients.”

Dr Mulrooney also said cost is also “a really important consideration” when it comes to choosing what foods to eat.

“Foods that last and are affordable are not only likely to be more attractive options to many, but to be the only options for some,” she said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nova-chicago-london-metropolitan-university-b2571476.html

**********************************************

A Religious Freedom Case for "YIGBY"

Some churches want to use their properties to get around local-government barriers to housing construction

I recently wrote about the "YIGBY" ("Yes in God's Backyard") movement, which seeks to empower churches and other religious organizations build housing on their property that would otherwise be banned by zoning restrictions. Notre Dame law Prof. Patrick Reidy (who is also a Catholic priest) recently published an article in the Yale Law Journal arguing that YIGBYism is required by constitutional and statutory laws protecting religious liberty. Here 's the abstract:

In recent years, faith communities across the United States have begun to create affordable housing on church property, inspired by sincerely held religious beliefs. Some are building microhomes behind their houses of worship. Others are converting residences once used by religious ministers—from rectories to abbeys to convents—into units for seniors and low-income families. Still others are repurposing their vacant schools, church parking lots, and undeveloped parcels of land for denser multifamily structures, from townhouses to apartment buildings. Within housing-advocacy circles and among faith communities, these continent-wide efforts to create affordable housing on church property have manifested an affirmative declaration: "Yes, In God's Backyard."

Legal scholarship and popular media have extensively documented the affordable-housing crisis. In particular, scholars and commentators have underscored the pernicious role of exclusionary zoning in strangling housing production, ultimately sending regional housing prices skyward. When faith communities create affordable housing on church property, much of which is located in residentially zoned areas, they seek something other than fair market value. Some might call it "charity" (tzedakah) or "discipleship," a commitment to "welcome the stranger" or to "love your neighbor as yourself."

Faith communities seek theologically and morally sound uses for their underutilized property, but often struggle to overcome the regulatory and financial hurdles of adaptive reuse. Local governments can incentivize redevelopment that benefits the wider community, growing their affordable housing supply. But their mutual benefit does not exempt faith communities from challenge when they choose to redevelop church property for affordable housing. Neighbors may seek to thwart faith communities from introducing denser, multifamily residential structures in their backyard, relying on land-use restrictions designed to prohibit less costly forms of housing. When they succeed, these challenges from NIMBY ("Not In My Backyard") neighbors can limit both housing supply and the free exercise of religion.

This Feature thus proposes a novel response to exclusionary zoning: religious liberty. Where sincerely held religious beliefs inspire faith communities' efforts to create affordable housing, these communities can assert constitutional and statutory free exercise protections against land-use decisions that obstruct denser, less expensive, multifamily developments on church land. This Feature also explores municipal and state legislative reforms that lower the barrier where faith communities struggle to overcome the regulatory and financial hurdles of adaptive reuse and demonstrates the breadth of potential for affordable housing on church property, drawing on public sources and a novel data set to map parcels owned by Roman Catholic dioceses in Chicago, Illinois and Oakland, California across municipal zones.

Regardless of how faith communities came to own property within their limits, or why faith communities seek to repurpose property within their limits, most local governments need property within their limits to create affordable housing. And faith communities are willing partners in their endeavor.

I am not an expert on the relevant religious liberty issues. But his argument strikes me as compelling and persuasive.

It's worth noting, however, that its scope is limited. Reidy doesn't argue that religious organizations have a constitutional or statutory religious-liberty right to build whatever housing they want. Rather, they can only do so in cases where the relevant religious property owner considers it a religious duty (usually a duty to provide for the poor and needy). Thus, they could not use this argument to, e.g., build new luxury condos in order to bring in additional revenue for the church. And that's true even though economists and land-use scholars rightly point out that building new housing for the affluent also helps the poor, by reducing competition for the existing stock of housing and by promoting economic growth. Even where there is a proper religious-freedom rationale for exemption, it could potentially be overridden by a compelling state interest.

In my earlier post, I also noted some other limitations of YIGBYism. It's a valuable step in the right direction, but not a replacement for full-blown NIMBY reforms. Ideally, we should abolish exclusionary zoning across the board, and let both religious and secular property owners build whatever housing they want, subject only to narrowly defined health and safety restrictions. In a forthcoming Texas Law Review article, Josh Braver and I explain how that can be accomplished by stronger judicial enforcement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

But Reidy's religious-liberty defense of YIGBY is an important contribution to legal scholarship, and his argument might end up influencing court decisions on these issues, as well. It seems likely that at least some faith organizations will raise such arguments to challenge zoning restrictions in the short to medium term future.

If YIGBYism continues to spread and becomes an important focus of religious-liberty litigation, it might also help change the political valence of religious liberty exemptions to generally applicable laws. When the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other related laws were enacted by federal and state governments in the 1990s, they enjoyed broad bipartisan support, probably even more on the left than on the right. Indeed, these laws were reactions against the Supreme Court's 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which was authored by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Liberal lions Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall dissented.

The valence of the issue changed as the stereotypical religious-liberty claimant shifted from members of minority faiths seeking to use a banned drug for its religious ceremonies (like the Native American plaintiffs in Smith, who wanted to use pejote), to socially conservative Christians who oppose contraception or refuse to "bake the cake" or provide other services for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

But we now have a new generation of left-coded religious liberty exemption arguments. YIGBY is an example. So too are religious organizations who aid undocumented immigrants in defiance of federal and state laws, and people who argue they have a religious duty to provide abortion services (at least in some situations). As these types of claims become more common and more prominent, perhaps the ideological valence of religious-liberty exemption arguments will shift again.

I am one of the rare people who supports a wide range of both left and right-wing religious-liberty exemptions—despite being an atheist myself! But it's easy for me to say that, given that I'm also a libertarian who supports strong property rights, open borders migration rights, abortion rights, and also the right of business owners to refuse services for a wide range of reasons (include ones I disapprove of on moral grounds, as in the case of opponents of contraception and same-sex marriage). Indeed, I think all of these activities should be legal for people who do them for purely secular reasons, as well as religious ones. I might make a narrow exception for businesses who have a monopoly over vital services, as in the case of public utilities.

People with more conventional left or right-wing views face more difficult trade-offs here. But in considering them, they should be aware that religious-liberty claims cut both ways, and are not limited to one side of the political spectrum.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/30/a-religious-freedom-case-for-yigby/

************************************************

Gender affirmative guidelines just an echo chamber, says UK expert

The British paediatrician who carried out a world-leading review of care models for children with gender distress has criticised trans healthcare guidelines as an “echo chamber” based on weak evidence that show no efficacy in alleviating the psychological distress of young people.

Hilary Cass, who led the landmark review of gender-affirming care that prompted the UK’s Nat­ional Health Service to ban the prescription of puberty blocker hormone drugs for children under 16, said that gender affirmative care guidelines around the world had not followed an evidence-based approach, and “sort of copy and paste off each other” in order to justify their medical approaches.

Dr Cass, a former president of the UK’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, participated in a panel live from the UK on Tuesday night, which was hosted by Australian psychiatrist Phillip Morris, the president of the ­National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, one of the first bodies to call for caution on experimental medical treatments and greater wholistic psychotherapy for young people with gender distress.

Dr Cass criticised the activist World Professional Association for Transgender Healthcare for essentially suppressing evidence that the standards of care it ­devised were not evidence-based and showed no proof of alleviating the distress of children.

These standards are followed by most of Australia’s major children’s hospitals that all frequently prescribe puberty blockers and hormone treatments to children and teenagers. Dr Cass noted in her independent report handed down in April that WPATH had been “highly influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the University of York’s appraisal to lack developmental rigour and transparency”. The Cass report included an appraisal by the University of York that analysed international gender affirmative care guidelines, including those of the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne. The review found the RCH’s guidelines similarly lacked rigour and independence.

“The evidence base is weak … international guidelines have for the most part not followed standard evidence-based approaches,” Dr Cass told the Australian seminar. “And it has influenced most other international guidelines. There is a sort of echo chamber of sort of copying and pasting off each other. The only guidelines that have taken an independent and evidence based ­approach are the Swedish and the Finnish guidelines.”

The Cass independent Review was commissioned following ­patient and whistleblower complaints that prompted the closure of London’s flagship Gender Identity Development Service run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. Dr Cass said that complex clinical presentations including mental health ­issues and autism among children who presented at the GIDS were “overshadowed” when the children presented with gender distress. The pediatrician concluded that puberty blockers rather than acting as a “pause button” allowing children time to explore their identity, seem to lock them into a medicalised treatment pathway.

Dr Cass’s final report endorsed a ­fundamental shift in approach away from medical intervention towards a holistic model that ­addresses other mental health problems the children may have.

The report concluded that children had been let down by a lack of research and “remarkably weak” evidence on medical interventions in gender care. She wrote in the British Medical Journal that gender medicine’s pillars were “built on shaky foundations”, expressing concern at the unknown long-term cognitive and physical impacts of puberty blockers.

Puberty blockers are now only able to prescribed as part of clinical trials in the UK, and several other European countries that have moved to roll back the experimental approach espoused by the trans activist group World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

All of Australia’s children’s hospitals including most of the country’s state health ministers have rejected the relevance of Dr Cass’s report to Australia for reasons that appear spurious given the fact that Dr Cass’s report examined gender affirming care models internationally, and that the deep research carried out by the independent review into puberty blockers is clearly relevant beyond the UK.

Dr Cass’s report said there was “no evidence” puberty blockers allowed young people “time to think” by delaying the onset of puberty — the original rationale for their use. It found the vast majority of children who began taking puberty blockers progressed to taking cross-sex hormones as they grew older, despite the fact that desistance from trans identification among teenagers was relatively common.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/health/gender-affirmative-guidelines-just-an-echo-chamber-says-uk-expert/news-story/30b36a94baf9f95056a50feab243d5e0

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

Supreme court judgment only partial protection for Trump

Americans have long proclaimed that no one is above the law but one was elevated over the rest of them yesterday (Monday).

The top court had never before been called on to set out “a rule for the ages”, as one conservative justice called it, on the immunity from criminal prosecution enjoyed by the president. In doing so, it advanced the so-called imperial presidency that the country’s founding fathers tried to prevent.

No president had ever faced federal prosecution before but along came Donald Trump and challenged many of the nation’s presumptions, so the Supreme Court had to act.

American folklore sets out how the plucky colonists overthrew the absolutism of George III, which was always a useful myth, to create a republic where “all men are created equal” and treated as such under the law. That was a myth too, in a state originally run on slavery.

Yet as they prepare to celebrate the 248th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the Supreme Court issued a wide-ranging but also inconclusive explication of when a president can act safe in the knowledge of immunity from prosecution.

The core constitutional activities of the president have absolute protection, the court ruled, meaning that Trump’s interactions with the Department of Justice over the election – including threatening to replace those who did not go along with him – fall under its scope.

All other official activities were ruled to have “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution”. Trump’s discussions with his vice-president, Mike Pence, were ruled official acts and it was left up to the prosecution to make an argument that he went beyond the scope of this official relationship.

But the court simply opted out of deciding whether Trump’s pressure on state officials or some of his tweets were official acts and therefore immune, adding that “most of his public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities”.

The court tried to set general rules for the ages which will require much more legal argument to discern in real-world situations. It concluded by asserting that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law.”

But, predictably in a case with implications for this year’s election as well as posterity, the Supreme Court was split with the six conservative judges in favour of the main decision and the three liberals against. This deepens the image of the current court as ideologically driven.

However, the ruling was not as hair-raising as claimed by the most liberal member, Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote: “When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold on to power? Immune.”

This went way too far but she was right to state that it “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding”.

This “law-free” zone exists only for the president’s core official actions, the top court ruled. Now the lower courts have to thrash out what constitutes the core, the official and the unofficial case-by-case.

Sooner or later, in the absence of statute, these parameters of the Oval Office shield were going to have to be set down in black and white instead of simply presumed

The Supreme Court articulated something that has long been apparent – that the US president is not only the most powerful elected office in the world but is also, necessarily, very well protected, not unlike a British monarch of George III’s era.

It is clear that Democrats will now campaign hard on Trump’s alleged capture of the Supreme Court to help him evade prosecution.

But in drawing a distinction between absolute immunity, presumed immunity and legal jeopardy for private acts, the court has only just begun the process of defining the boundaries of criminal liability for the occupant of the White House.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/judgement-on-immunity-is-fit-for-a-king/news-story/4adc49f3a8788e6adc34fe9bd0137076

********************************************

Incredible clash of identities: Hatred of a female black politician from a homosexual man

Julie Burchill

Most people have a soft spot for the first ‘X’ film they legitimately saw as an alleged ‘adult’; mine was Magic, the 1978 film by Richard Attenborough, starring Anthony Hopkins as a mild-mannered ventriloquist who becomes possessed by the spirit of his verbally vicious dummy, leading to awful consequences when a steaming hot and sex-starved Ann-Margret happens by. The creepy plot of Magic came to mind when I saw a clip of the actor David Tennant’s astonishing outburst of spite directed at the Tory MP Kemi Badenoch while he was picking up a prize at something called ‘the British LGBT Awards’:

What Tennant said was mind-bogglingly stupid

‘If I’m honest, I’m a little depressed by the fact that acknowledging that everyone has the right to be who they want to be and live their life how they want to live it – as long as they’re not hurting anyone else – should merit any kind of special award or special mention, because it’s common sense, isn’t it? However, until we wake up and we live in a world where Kemi Badenoch doesn’t exist anymore…I don’t wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up…while we do live in this world, I am honoured to receive this.’

Perhaps Tennant should stick to the day job. Then again, maybe not: when he played Dr Who from 2005 to 2010, Tennant’s acting was so terrible that he often seemed to be mentally unbalanced.

As anyone who has ever hidden behind a sofa as a tot knows, Dr Who is full of fearsome monsters. Did he have a run-in with one of these on set? Has Tennant perchance been taken over by the spirit of the Abzorbaloff, who liked to eat people but leave them somehow alive as polyps on his skin, comparable perhaps to the way social media trends consume people? Or a Judoon, putting nothing before their desire to police wayward opinions and crush nay-sayers?

Then there are the more obvious tin-can tyrants Tennant may have been channeling when he bashed Badenoch; the Cybermen’s catchphrase ‘DELETE!’ could well apply to the way those brainwashed by the Magical Thinking of trans-substantiation seek to extirpate uppity women, or even that classic old Dalek answer-to-everything: ‘EXTERMINATE!’

Mrs Badenoch was, as ever, magnificent in her cold fury:

‘I will not shut up. I will not be silenced by men who prioritise applause from Stonewall over the safety of women and girls. A rich, lefty, white male celebrity so blinded by ideology he can’t see the optics of attacking the only black woman in government by calling publicly for my existence to end. Tennant is one of Labour’s celebrity supporters. This is an early example of what life will be like if they win. Keir Starmer stood by while Rosie Duffield was hounded. He and his supporters will do the same with the country. Do not let the bigots and bullies win.’

We’re used to opinions being called ‘hate speech’ these days; it’s generally used by the Cry-Bullies of Woke to censor those they oppose. Most adults shrug off such accusations, because they know that what they’re saying – women don’t have penises – isn’t hate at all, but Biology 101. As someone who’s never accused anyone of Hate Speech in their life, and never gone complaining to the law about any of the verbal aggression from misrepresentation (the columnist who accused me of writing a love letter to Osama bin Laden comes to mind) to the death threats I’ve received since I was a teenager (never cross a Bay City Rollers’ fan), Tennant’s rant sounds close to the bone.

No wonder Badenoch’s existence makes little men feel even smaller

What Tennant said is also profoundly, mind-bogglingly stupid. Someone could just about get away – the climate of misogyny now being as rabid as it has been since they stopped burning ‘witches’ – with wishing that JK Rowling didn’t exist. But one of the few black women in public life? Can we only imagine the squealing outrage that Owen Jones and his cronies would whip up on X if, say, Laurence Fox had said that he wished Diane Abbott didn’t exist? Yet if one identifies as a Good Guy – as Tennant so laughably does – it’s just another way of being inclusive and caring to wish that a black woman you disagree with could somehow be vaporised.

Like Hate Speech, ‘fascist’ – another word the trans-lobby like to lob at anyone who disagrees with them that testicles can be feminine – is a word I have no truck with beyond what happened in Europe in the twentieth century. It’s too serious a word to toss around like a frisbee in a park. But the road to fascism definitely begins with the desire that those who think differently from you should not exist. Tennant and his ilk might like to portray sex-realists like myself as people who wish to actively do away with transsexuals, but I don’t feel that way at all; as a child, I loved Danny La Rue.

All I want is for men who pretend to be women to keep away from actual women’s hard-won stuff, be they single-sex toilets or sporting trophies. Stop bullying us and telling us it can’t be bullying because you’re one of us: that’s called gaslighting, you gormless great navvies.

Actors often attempt to insert themselves into politics, usually making seven sorts of horse’s asses of themselves along the way. But there’s something particularly pathetic and pitiable about a performer – a person paid to preen and pretend – taking up the trans-cudgels.

Tennant prances around acting as something he’s not – a Scot playing a Cockney, a vicious little lickspittle playing a Nice Guy – just the way his imaginary friends do. We don’t hear the phrase ‘The Politics Of Envy’ much these days. But it doesn’t take a great leap of the imagination to feel the inadequacy of a white man who has spent his life being handsomely rewarded for capering around next to a black woman like Mrs Badenoch, who has made her way in life through sheer hard work: real work, not sitting in a make-up chair memorising lines written by someone with a brain.

Badenoch has made her way in life through sheer hard work

Kemi Badenoch returned to London by herself at the age of 16 – after doing her homework by candle-light in Nigeria – to realise her ambition of completing her education here, enrolling in a modest part-time A-Level course in Morden, south London, and working at McDonald’s; it’s likely that she will be the next leader of the Conservative party. No wonder her existence makes little men feel even smaller.

At the weekend, I was at the LET WOMEN SPEAK rally in Brighton where a crowd of masked, black-clad men – the trans-allies known as the ‘Black Pampers’ due to their extreme youth and their verbal incontinence – told us that we were Nazis for believing that women should be permitted to hold on to our rights, making so much racket with various noisy toys that the women’s voices were all but drowned.

I have no doubt that, could they make it so, they would arrange it so that we didn’t exist either. The Starmer government seems sensible and dull, but in the area of women’s rights, they sing from the same page as these strange, sick creatures; they too have been infected with the trans-madness, the strange danse macabre which sees common sense and women’s rights as the enemy of all good people.

Still, it’s good that – unlike the Black Pampers – David Tennant has shown his true colours. Maybe he’ll regenerate as a decent human being one day. We can but hope. Until then, shame on him, for this vile attack on this exceptional woman.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/the-trouble-with-david-tennant/

********************************************

Emergency Exposes Folly of DEI in Medicine

If you want to know why prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion in medical schools is a bad idea, consider your priorities in a medical emergency.

Early this month, my youngest son came howling and holding his left arm. My wife thought it was broken. When he turned it, his forearm flopped and rolled like it was made of rubber. Not great.

My wife used a spatula to stabilize his arm and wrap it up. Off we went to the urgent care. His arm was indeed broken, but they didn’t feel comfortable setting it. My wife took him to a pediatric ER. They set it but wanted an orthopedic doctor to check it before putting on a cast. The next day, the orthopedic doctor saw him. He now has a big blue cast and a summer filled with regret that he jumped off the fort his brothers made in the living room.

Throughout the whole ordeal, my wife and I’s only priority was finding someone who could help our son. You know what we didn’t care about? The skin color or sex of the doctors or nurses.

Now, that sounds basic. A decade ago, it would have been so obvious that it wouldn’t have been worth mentioning. My son’s broken bone wasn’t going to throw itself back into alignment if someone with the right skin color or sex walked into the room. What mattered was a doctor’s knowledge and skill.

That’s why medical schools should be looking for the best and brightest. Medicine is hard and the stakes are high. Unfortunately, the medical training field is awash with schools and groups prioritizing how doctors look, not their ability to heal.

Consider the Association of American Medical Colleges. It’s a major player in medical education. It runs the MCAT exam, which helps determine which applicants will make it into medical school. Along with the American Medical Association, it sponsors the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which provides “accreditation of medical education programs.”

The Association of American Medical Colleges has fully embraced leftist dogma. It “works to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles across the continuum of medical education,” it states on its website.

That includes advising medical schools on how to get around the 2023 Supreme Court decision that banned racial preferences in higher education admissions. One recommendation is a “holistic review in admissions.” That “allows admissions committees to consider the whole applicant, rather than disproportionately focusing on any one factor.”

Translated: Don’t put too much focus on test scores. Look at applicants’ skin color.

One medical school that’s been doing that is at UCLA. As The Washington Free Beacon reported last month, the school has been prioritizing race over merit in recent years. The result? In some cohorts, “more than 50 percent of students failed standardized tests on emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics,” The Washington Free Beacon reported. The national failure rate is 5%.

DEI turned a once-elite medical school into a failure factory. The implications are terrifying.

My son received care from a top-notch doctor. If DEI continues to fester in medical schools, doctors with that level of skill will become harder and harder to find.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/26/emergency-exposes-folly-of-dei-in-medicine/

************************************************

Another problem prosecutor in Australia

In the ACT, Shane Drumgold created still ongoing problems for many people by prosecuting Bruce Lehrmann against police advice. He took the feminist "believe the woman" approach instead of a proper judicial stance.

It now seems that NSW has a similar problem with prosecutor Sally Dowling. Launching a prosecution against someone can itself be a form of punishment so launching a prosection against someone on flimsy grounds in an extremeny irresponsible and reprehensible act. No wonder that even female judges are critical of her

NSW District Court judge Penelope Wass has taken the extraordinary step of making a formal complaint against chief prosecutor Sally Dowling SC, after Ms Dowling raised secret grievances about her to the court’s chief judge in the middle of a criminal hearing.

Judge Wass told the Taree District Court on Tuesday morning that she had made the complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, telling counsel she was disclosing it in case they thought it was grounds for her to withdraw from any matters before her currently.

The Australian understands the complaint was filed on Friday.

Last month this masthead revealed Ms Dowling made a complaint about Judge Wass during a sexual assault prosecution, alleging the judge was jeopardising the right to a fair trial by directing witnesses to present their phones as evidence, and threatened in correspondence with Chief Judge Sarah Huggett to “take the matter further” if the directions continued. The communications were not disclosed to the defence.

That was interpreted as a “warning” by Judge Wass, who in the past has criticised Ms Dowling’s office for shepherding “incredible and dishonest allegations of sexual assault” through NSW courts amid ongoing tension between Ms Dowling and the state’s judges.

Ms Dowling’s complaint at the time became the latest missile thrown in a war between Ms Dowling and the judiciary, after five judges complained about processes governing rape complaints, with some believing a pattern is emerging in which prosecutors prefer to take a “believe the victim” stance and push a matter before a jury, rather than dropping impossible cases.

Judge Wass disclosed Ms Dowling’s complaint to Judge Huggett the matter in an interlocutory judgment for R v SF, delivered on May 27.

According to the judgment, Ms Dowling emailed Chief Judge Huggett on May 22 “without the knowledge or consent of the other party of the Crown briefed in the trial” to make the complaint about Judge Wass directing witnesses in three separate matters to hand up their phones and, at times, their passcodes.

“The terms of the correspondence, the fact that it came from Ms Dowling who prosecutes on behalf of the Crown, a party to this litigation, the fact that it was sent to the chief judge only days before I was due to give judgment in two of the three cases mentioned, and because it contains an express warning to me, has meant that, at the very least, I am required to disclose it to the parties in those two cases, and I do so now in respect of this case,” she wrote in the interlocutory judgment.

“The content and the timing of the complaint is a relevant matter. The comments made by Ms Dowling were conveyed to me by the chief judge shortly after they were received, as was in my view appropriate. Indeed, the final remarks by Ms Dowling, as they contained a warning to me, made clear that they needed to be conveyed to me forthwith.”

The three matters were R v Chambers in 2021, R v Stenner-Wall in 2023 and R v SF.Judge Wass, in the interlocutory judgment, noted Ms Dowling did not make any complaint or comment in the Chambers or Stenner-Wall cases when the direction was made for a witness to hand up their phone.

Judge Wass, at the time, said she was preparing a sentence for the Stenner-Wall matter.

She said the direction to have a witness hand up their phone “resulted in a proper disclosure being made to both parties (that had not been made to or by the Crown) and the subsequent entry of a plea of guilty to the relevant counts on the indictment”.

In the Chambers matter, she said, the direction stopped a witness taking her phone to the bathroom with her when she sought an unscheduled toilet break during cross-examination.

Judge Wass said Ms Dowling had included a “warning” that she would “consider steps she considers to be properly available to her to seek judicial review should further directions of this nature” be made in the future.“

I regard such a warning of the contemplated judicial review, although delphic as to what form it might take, as extremely serious, particularly as it was delivered during the course of my consideration of two of the three cases at hand and where it sought to have me take that matter into account in my determination of future cases,” she said.

“Had this opinion been conveyed directly to me at any time, but particularly at this time, I would have regarded it as being highly inappropriate, particularly from an experienced Senior Counsel … particularly when I am so obviously part heard. I wish to say no more about that at present.”

The Australian has in recent months revealed Ms Dowling is facing a bitter dispute with sitting judges and members of her own staff, some of whom say her office consistently puts accused rapists on trial for crimes that will never secure a conviction.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/judge-penelope-wass-makes-formal-complaint-against-dpp-sally-dowling/news-story/c851cd31e99226adf5af58d450c2416d

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

Salt Is OK for People With Heart Failure: Review

Not this old scare again. It has long ago been shown that salt is harmless.

I have written previously on the salt phobia here:

http://jonjayray.com/short/salt.html

And here:

http://jonjayray.com/short/salt2.html

And here:

http://jonjayray.com/saltsum.html

Salt restriction, a long-standing recommendation for patients with heart failure, has no proven clinical benefits, according to a review published Wednesday in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

While some studies reported possible improvements in quality of life and functionality, the review author, Dr. Paolo Raggi from the University of Alberta, wrote that there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction reduces mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure.

The review evaluated randomized controlled trials conducted from 2000 to 2023. Most were small, and a single large trial concluded early due to futility.

“Doctors often resist making changes to age-old tenets that have no true scientific basis; however, when new good evidence surfaces, we should make an effort to embrace it,” Dr. Raggi said in a news release.

How Does Salt Affect the Heart?

Heart failure is a chronic condition that occurs when the heart muscles cannot pump enough blood to meet the body’s needs for blood and oxygen.

Reduction in salt intake is recommended for heart failure because salt draws water. More salt in the blood can increase blood volume, thereby increasing blood pressure, which can then cause further damage to blood vessels and the heart.

Severe reductions in salt intake can also cause a drastic decrease in blood volume, which can be harmful.

Scientists cannot agree on how much salt should be reduced, and this discrepancy is due to differences in data interpretation, Dr. Raggi wrote.

It has also been difficult to conduct a proper study evaluating the long-term effects of salt restriction since low-salt diets are challenging for patients to adhere to, and salt intake is hard to measure.

Several prominent health organizations, including the American Heart Association (AHA), recommend that patients with heart failure consume under 2 grams (about half a teaspoon) of salt daily. The author said that this recommendation likely arose from the conclusions of several trials, including the famous DASH-sodium trial, which found that people who consumed less than 1.5 grams of salt daily had lower blood pressure.

While proponents of the DASH-sodium trial support its findings and recommendations, dissidents argue it was too short and that such salt restrictions are unlikely to be sustainable.

Dr. Raggi wrote that moderating salt intake would benefit people consuming high levels of salt. However, just how much salt should be reduced is unknown. Quality of life does improve with lower salt intake; however, there is no clinical evidence that it results in fewer cardiovascular events and deaths.

While salt restriction clearly lowers blood pressure, especially in hypertension patients, the effect appears to wane with time.

“It has been estimated that tens of thousands of patients (the numbers varying depending on the baseline risk profile of the population enrolled) would have to be followed for 5 to 10years [sic] to prove that a strict sodium intake is associated with a 15% reduction in cardiovascular events. Such a proposition seems unlikely to materialize,” the author wrote.

Even the Cochrane review, seen as the gold standard in research, yielded an inconclusive result.

“The Cochrane review concluded that there was insufficient power to show an effect on mortality, although there might be a reduction in cardiovascular events with sodium restriction,” Dr. Raggi wrote.

He noted that none of the studies included in the Cochrane review and the many studies before it advised that salt intake should be as low as authorities such as the AHA suggested. Therefore, he concluded that questions about appropriate salt intake remain unanswered.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/salt-is-ok-for-people-with-heart-failure-review-5674916?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=health-large-0

************************************************

Thai Farm Workers Returning to Israel May Boost Struggling Agriculture

Thailand’s labor ministry announced on June 24 that it would resume sending workers to Israel, potentially offering a boost to the country’s agricultural sector, which was hard hit by the Oct. 7, 2023, attack.

Almost 30,000 foreigners—including 10,000 Thais and about 10,000 to 12,000 Palestinians—worked on Israel’s farms until the Hamas attack. Some were killed, others were taken hostage, and most of the remainder fled.

Thailand said it hoped to have more than 10,000 return by the end of the year.

The attack devastated Israel’s agriculture, hitting as it did Israel’s fertile zone east of the Gaza Strip.

Many farmers fled. Those who didn’t, or who came back to tend their fields, found their hands tied by a lack of laborers to weed, prune, and otherwise tend crops.

Many were called up into the military reserves.

The Thais return is critical, Ayal Kimhi, professor of agricultural economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Israeli farmers generally regard them as their best foreign farm workers.

Palestinians who lived in Gaza or the West Bank and commuted to jobs in Israel are no longer allowed in the country.

The Thai government’s agreement is essential because the two governments have a formal labor agreement to avoid Thai workers being exploited by private manpower companies, Mr. Kimhi said.

The war’s damage to Israel’s farms has been pervasive.

The border areas in the north and south account for a quarter of Israel’s farm production and much of its fruit and vegetable production.

A southern farmer, Asher Tamsut, took The Epoch Times for a tour of one of his tomato greenhouses in Moshav Ami'oz in March.

Across six acres, the plants were bedraggled due to a lack of pruning and bore few tomatoes. The rows were overgrown with weeds. The plants, normally 15 feet tall, had been topped to make them less work to tend for the few workers he had remaining, he said.

The field normally produces 250 tons of tomatoes in a harvest, but its crop planted just before Oct. 7 yielded only three tons, he said.

He had already lost about $1.6 million.

According to the World Bank, agriculture, forestry, and fishing account for 1.3 percent of Israel’s GDP. That percentage has been declining in recent years, as in most advanced countries, Mr. Kimhi said.

Israel’s GDP was about $525 billion in 2022, but lost nearly 20 percent during the 4th quarter of 2023 compared with the previous year.

It was its sharpest decline since its pandemic decline of almost 30 percent during 2020’s 2nd quarter.

Israeli economists saw a recovery in the 1st quarter of 2024, but it had still not caught up with economic performance before the Hamas attack.

In addition, the nation has spent an estimated $80 billion on the war so far, an extra financial strain.

About 33,800 Israelis worked in agriculture, 0.8 percent of its labor force, Mr. Kimhi said, in addition to 15,000 Palestinians and 25,000 other foreigners.

As of 2022, Israel exported about 13 percent of its agricultural production—mostly fruits and vegetables— while importing grains and oils.

Right now, it’s the peak of the peach season in Israel, Mr. Kimhi said.

“The fruits are relatively small because the pruning was not done optimally,” he said. “Also up north the security situation still prevents many farmers [from approaching] their plantations.”

Hezbollah has since Oct. 7, 2023, steadily attacked northern Israel with rockets, anti-tank missiles, and, lately, suicide drones.

That has forced the formal evacuation of 61,000 Israelis from 43 communities within 5 kilometers of the border and the voluntary departure of thousands more, according to the Alma Research and Education Center, a strategic institute specializing in Israel’s northern frontier.

Some farmers return regularly to tend their farms but may expose themselves to attack in areas where people may have only 15 seconds to get to shelter if air-raid sirens sound.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/thai-farm-workers-returning-to-israel-may-boost-struggling-agriculture-5675171

***********************************************

"Tractor Supply" company ends ‘woke’ DEI, climate change policies after boycott campaign

A major farm supply retailer said it will eliminate DEI roles, end its carbon emissions goals and cut ties to an LGBTQ advocacy group following a social media campaign calling for the firm to revoke its “woke” policies.

Tennessee-based Tractor Supply — an 85-year-old company with 2,250 stores — made the decision after conservative commentator Robby Starbuck called for a boycott over the past three weeks on X.

“We have heard from customers that we have disappointed them,” Tractor Supply said in a statement on Thursday. “We have taken this feedback to heart.”

The retail chain — which sells home improvement equipment, livestock, and agricultural supplies for farmers and pet owners — said it will stop sponsoring Pride festivals and cut ties to LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

It will also “eliminate DEI roles and retire our current DEI goals while still ensuring a respectful environment,” the company said.

Instead, Tractor Supply will beef up its support for veteran causes, emergency response agencies, animal shelters, state fairs, rodeos and farmers’ markets, the company said.

Starbuck claimed a victory on X, saying in an eight-minute long video, “We have extracted the largest concessions in the history of boycotts.”

He applauded Tractor Supply for ending its submission of data to the Human Rights Campaign, which Starbuck said “has nothing to do with human rights; it has everything to do with injecting wokeness and the LGBTQ agenda into corporate America.”

Human Rights Campaign said it has worked with Tractor Supply for years to create inclusive policies and slammed the company for pandering to “far right extremists.”

“Tractor Supply Co is turning its back on their own neighbors with this shortsighted decision. LGBTQ+ people live in every Zip code in this country, including rural communities,” Eric Bloem, vice president of corporate advocacy, told the Post. “We are shoppers, farmers, veterans and agriculture students.”

Tractor Supply also said it will eliminate its carbon emissions goals and instead focus on land and water conservation efforts.

The company previously aimed to achieve net zero emissions in operations by 2040, increase people of color at the management level and increase business with diverse suppliers, according to earlier coverage by the Wall Street Journal.

“We will continue to listen to our customers and Team Members,” Tractor Supply said in a statement. “Your trust and confidence in us are of the utmost importance, and we don’t take that lightly.”

The policy pivot is one of the strongest corporate reversals of progressive initiatives yet, but it is not the first time customers have used their buying power in recent years to sway company stakes.

Bud Light sales tanked after the beer company launched an ad with transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney last year.

Target lost $10 billion in market valuation in a 10-day period last year when customers boycotted the company after it launched its Pride collection, which included clothing for children.

A Target shareholder filed a lawsuit last year against the company after their shares lost $20,000 during the Pride collection controversy.

https://nypost.com/2024/06/28/business/tractor-supply-ends-woke-dei-climate-change-policies/

***********************************************

If Trump is elected tariffs will rise

Business strategists and economists watched every Biden stumble in the debate with Donald Trump knowing it signalled substantial curbs to the global free trading system that has dominated the world in recent decades.

The US will become a tariff protected society and the rest of the world will likely follow.

And at the weekend the strong vote for Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Rally, means France is headed to migration policies that have a similarity to those of Donald Trump and there will be less emphasis on Europe and more on France.

Marine Le Pen’s policies are not the same as Trump, but she is heading in a very similar direction and the combination has world implications, especially as both want the Ukraine war to end.

Back to the US, and global central bankers were watching the Biden stumbles knowing that a Trump presidential election victory would almost certainly herald a very different interest rate setting environment.

And in Beijing they also watched the stumbles. China is looking at further refining its plans to adapt to Trump’s plan to impose big tariffs on US imports of Chinese goods.

The Chinese plans would be unveiled in the four day third plenum of the Communist Party’s Central Committee starting in two weeks to map out major economic strategies for the next 5 to 10 years.

China’s top officials, provincial party secretaries, senior generals and heads of state owned enterprises will assemble in Beijing for the third plenum at a time when Trumpism is spreading and there is considerable turmoil in China.

In essence, if elected as President, Trump will impose a 10 per cent tariff on all imports, probably including those from countries where the US has a free trade agreement like Australia.

But the tariff on Chinese exports to the US would be 60 per cent.

Trump has learned from past “mistakes”, so any tariff regime change must be widespread and simple.

In effect he is imposing a GST-type tax but only on imports and he is seriously considering distributing the windfall tariff gains to the community via a reduction or even an elimination of income tax. Many other countries will follow the US lead.

In office, Biden did not abandon all the Trump tariff measures but is not planning a similar action to the 2025 proposed Trump tariffs.

Australia introduced the GST in July 2000 and it caused an immediate rise in prices. The Trump tariffs will have the same impact although the front runner in the US presidential campaign claims that importers will reduce their prices and there will be no significant rise.

Trump will almost certainly be anxious that the Federal Reserve does not increase interest rates in response to the tariffs and likely tax cuts.

Trump has already criticised some of the decisions of the Federal Reserve under chair Jerome Powell. If Trump becomes President he will almost certainly want to have conversations with the Federal Reserve Chair.It would be the start of a potentially less independent US interest rate setting system.

Given the deliberations of the US Federal Reserve impacting interest rates around the globe, this has the potential to be a major change to the way global interest rates are established.

When it comes to company tax Trump plans to lower the rate from 21 to 20 per cent . Biden plans to increase company tax to 28 and plans a wide range of personal tax increases which will not be popular.

The combination of Trump’s lower taxes, the likely investment in new plant to replace imports plus a lower labour availability as a result of the expulsion of immigrants, creates a cocktail for continued inflation even if we set aside the GST-style price rise that will follow the initial tariff introduction.

If the US Federal Reserve ignores any presidential protests there will be high interest rates which will maintain the strength of the American dollar and nullify some of the impacts of the tariff.

In China, the third plenum will tackle the trend in the global supply chain to reduce dependence on China and the fierce competition with the United States and other Western nations.for markets and technology.

China has signalled that it will aim to expand international technology exchanges, attract and retain more overseas talent, and be more active in global technology governance.

A priority will be to build what it calls a “a globally competitive” environment for technological innovations.

We are looking at a China that may respond by attacking Taiwan but may also respond by becoming a globally competitive source of new technology.

Australia will have a number of difficult decisions in that environment including nuclear power where the Chinese have developed technology around molten salt cooled thorium power for use in ships and submarines as well as power stations.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-us-will-become-a-tariff-protected-society-and-the-rest-of-the-world-will-likely-follow-suit/news-story/63d15a14a414b3056852023b7babf809

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

This common drink increases the risk of serious heart condition, study finds

The commentary below is greatly over hyped. The "Results" section of the journal abstract below. We see that all the Hazard Ratios were quite low -- meaning weak effects -- with the results from sugar-sweetened and articially sweetened drinks being virually the same. As usual, income was not controlled for so all we are probably seeng here is that poor people (big drinkers of fizzy drinks) have worse health. Richer and wiser people drink orange juice. Rather amusing, really


During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 9362 incident AF cases were documented. Compared with nonconsumers, individuals who consumed >2 L/wk of SSB or ASB had an increased risk of AF (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01–1.20] and HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10–1.31]) in the multivariable-adjusted model. A negative association was observed between the consumption of ≤1 L/wk of PJ and the risk of AF (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.97]). The highest HRs (95% CIs) of AF were observed for participants at high genetic risk who consumed >2 L/wk of ASB (HR, 3.51 [95% CI, 2.94–4.19]), and the lowest HR were observed for those at low genetic risk who consumed ≤1 L/wk of PJ (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65–0.92]). No significant interactions were observed between the consumption of SSB, ASB, or PJ and genetic predisposition to AF.


Whether you're looking to satisfy a craving with a crisp can of sugary goodness or offset it completely with the refreshing taste of your favourite diet soda, when it comes to selecting a beverage from a drinks menu, we’re spoilt for choice.

But are our ‘healthier’ drink choices really adding much value to our well-being in the long run? According to a new study, they could be having the opposite effect.

Published in the journal Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, the research follows the drinking habits of roughly 202,000 adults aged 37 to 73 in the United Kingdom, examining the results of a 24-hour diet questionnaire.

Specifically, the findings of the study suggest a strong correlation between adults drinking no to low-sugar beverages and their risk of developing atrial fibrillation.

Individuals who reported consuming more than two litres of artificially sweetened drinks in the 24-hour time period were found to have a 20 per cent higher chance of developing the condition (that’s roughly six standard cans).

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious cardiovascular disease defined by having a heartbeat that is too slow, too fast or irregular. Additionally, patients diagnosed with AF report symptoms such as lightheadedness, chest pain, extreme fatigue, and shortness of breath. Most notably, atrial fibrillation has been found to be the leading cause of stroke in the United States.

According to the Heart Foundation, atrial fibrillation is the most common recurring arrhythmia found in clinical practice, prevalent in two to four per cent of the population in developed nations such as Australia.

Additionally, the findings indicated that the individuals who reported consuming beverages with added sugars had an increased risk of the disease by up to ten per cent. On the flip side, consuming unsweetened juices, such as natural orange juice, was associated with a reduced risk of up to eight per cent.

“Our study’s findings cannot definitively conclude that one beverage poses more health risk than another due to the complexity of our diets and because some people may drink more than one type of beverage,” says lead study author Dr Ningjian Wang, a professor at the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.


“However, based on these findings, we recommend that people reduce or even avoid artificially sweetened and sugar-sweetened beverages whenever possible,” Wang added in a statement discussing the study’s findings.

While the results are certainly worth discussing, this is the first study of its kind to examine the correlation between atrial fibrillation and both sugar-sweetened and no-to-low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages, indicating much further research is needed to fully understand the risks associated with each beverage.

So, if diet sodas and ‘no-sugar’ alternatives could be facilitating equally as much damage to our health, what’s the safest drink to turn to? Based on the study’s results, the safest hydration option is plain and simple H2O.

“Do not take it for granted that drinking low-sugar and low-calorie artificially sweetened beverages is healthy, it may pose potential health risks,” warns Wang.

https://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/health/health-news/this-common-drink-increases-the-risk-of-serious-heart-condition-study-finds/image-gallery/c1442ee9ef82a08436afe5a7f4b9558d

***********************************************

Panamanian Court Acquits 28 Defendants In 'Panama Papers' Trial

I had totally forgotten about this issue. Rather amazing that it took 8 years to come to a resolution. A lot of people will be pleased

A Panamanian court on Friday acquitted 28 people charged with money laundering in connection with the now-defunct law firm Mossack Fonseca, the epicenter of the "Panama Papers" international tax evasion scandal.

Among those acquitted were the firm's founders, Jurgen Mossack and Ramon Fonseca, the latter of whom died in May in a Panamanian hospital.

During the trial, which was held in Panama City in April, the prosecution asked for 12 years in prison for the duo, the maximum sentence for money laundering.

However, Judge Baloisa Marquinez acquitted the pair and 26 others after finding that evidence taken from the law firm's servers had not been gathered in line with due process, raising doubts about its "authenticity and integrity," a court statement said.

The judge also ruled that "the rest of the evidence was not sufficient and conclusive to determine the criminal responsibility of the defendants," the court statement said.

Leaked documents from Mossack Fonseca in 2016 revealed how many of the world's wealthy stashed assets in offshore companies, triggering scores of investigations around the globe.

Those implicated included former British premier David Cameron, Russian President Vladimir Putin, football star Lionel Messi, Argentina's then-president Mauricio Macri and Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodovar, to name but a few.

Panamanian prosecutors had alleged that Mossack and Fonseca helped create opaque companies in which executives of the German multinational Siemens deposited millions of euros outside the company's official accounts.

They were also charged with helping divert money from a massive fraud in Argentina.

"Justice has been done, we are extremely satisfied with the ruling handed down by the judge," Guillermina McDonald, lawyer for Mossack and other defendants, told AFP.

However, "we are a little sad because along the way we lost Mr. Ramon Fonseca, and he has not been able to see this result," she added.

The trial began eight years after the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) began publishing the "Panama Papers" on April 3, 2016.

The investigation, based on 11.5 million leaked documents from Mossack Fonseca, revealed how personalities from around the world hid properties, companies, assets and profits to evade taxes or launder money.

To do so, they created companies through the firm, opening bank accounts and creating shell foundations in multiple countries to hide money, which in some cases came from illicit activities, according to the investigation.

The scandal led to the closure of Mossack Fonseca and shaped the international image of Panama as an offshore tax haven.

Offshore companies are not in themselves illegal, and there are numerous legitimate reasons for using them. But they can also be used to launder the proceeds of criminal activities or to conceal misappropriated or politically inconvenient wealth.

"Truly there has been a great injustice that has been done," Mossack said after the conclusion of the hearing.

"Both my partner and all the people who have worked with me have been serious, honest and correct people," he added.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/panama-court-acquits-28-people-tied-panama-papers-operation-car-wash-rcna159580

*******************************************

The Supreme Court just ended ‘Chevron.’ What does that mean and how far will its impact reach?

The Supreme Court’s decision to scale back the authority of federal agencies means regulations and rules for the environment, health care, financial services, food safety, transportation and more could be dramatically altered moving forward.

Friday’s decision, ushered by the conservative arm of the court, overturns a 40-year precedent that allowed federal agencies to defer to their own expertise when interpreting ambiguous language, known as the “Chevron deference.”

Now, agencies will have to turn to Congress or the courts for guidance.

Experts are expecting far-reaching repercussions that could cause large delays in implementing rules and regulations since Congress will now have to understand complex issues and decide how to proceed. In the past, the agencies could decide how to handle enforcement or regulatory issues themselves.

Organizations that rely on federal agency’s guidance are warning about the potential for their respective industry.

Environmental

Policies set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at reducing climate change will most likely see a significant rollback under the new standard.

Already, the federal agency has faced difficulties implementing rules to reduce air pollution and cut greenhouse gas emissions in Congress and the courts.

“This is yet another blow to the EPA’s ability to tackle emerging problems like climate change,” Cara Horowtiz, an environmental lawyer, said in a statement.

She added, “By eliminating the duty of federal courts to defer to agencies in areas where the law is ambiguous about how to handle new or emerging threats, the Supreme Court takes more tools out of the toolbox of our federal regulators."

Public health

Healthcare organizations fear that without the protections of Chevron could cause “significant disruptions” to publicly-funded health programs such as Medicare or Medicaid by allowing courts or Congress to decide how those programs are funded or administered.

“Large health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, as well as issues related to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, are extremely complex, so it is key that decisions about how to interpret and implement relevant laws are made by experts at government agencies,” a statement from the American Public Health Association and 17 other groups said.

“Yet today’s majority opinion explicitly ends the use of this sensible doctrine,” the statement continued.

Agencies that have been subject to political controversy like the Centers for Disease Control or Food and Drug Adminstraiton will be forced to listen to Congress when determining what they can or cannot do.

Financial sector

The elimination of Chevron could open the door for a slew of legal challenges to financial regulations set by the Securities Exchange Commission, IRS, Treasury and more.

For example, the decision could lead to challenges in IRS oversight, according to Kiplinger. The new regulations could make IRS tax compliance and enforcement more difficult as the agency will have to seek Congressional guidance on how to handle those issues.

Some financial groups that advocate for a more fiscally conservative agenda welcomed Friday’s decision. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation said in a statement that it would “level the playing field for taxpayers and government agencies.”

“Unreasonable IRS interpretations will no longer automatically win in court, which is as it should be, and reasonable interpretations will still have the force of law,” Joe Bishop-Henchman, vice president of the group, said.

The court’s decision could also make it more difficult for regulatory authorities to quickly enact rules that address timely issues - such as cryptocurrency regulation.

Some financial groups that advocate for a more fiscally conservative agenda welcomed Friday’s decision to limit agency oversight, such as those from the IRS (AP)

Labor unions

Labor boards have relied heavily on Chevron to issue guidance and enact protections for workers.

But under the new ruling, workers’ boards such as the National Labor Relations Board will most likely have to turn to judges to issue case decisions and interpret rules. The American Federation of Teachers, the country’s second-largest educator’s union, blasted the decision.

“The Supreme Court’s shameful decision turns democracy on its head. It fundamentally changes the role of unelected judges from interpreters of law to makers of law—and there is nothing in the Constitution that warrants that. By eliminating deference to public agencies, the court has undermined the ability of experts to set strong rules to protect consumers, workers and the public from corporations and other lawbreakers,” President Randi Weingarten said.

“This decision has real-life consequences for American families. It shifts power away from agencies with public-focused missions toward courtrooms and corporate lawyers adept at poking holes in regulations. It injects legal uncertainty into areas like workplace safety rules, overtime pay policies and collective bargaining rights interpretations—all of which have long relied on agencies’ Chevron-backed expertise. It will make it easier for employers to steal wages from their workers, and it could stop the Department of Health and Human Services from directly negotiating prescription drug prices for Medicare.”

https://au.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-just-ended-chevron-205557210.html

***********************************************************

Trump Commands Stage, Biden Revealed



By Rick Manning

The Trump-Biden debate was at times difficult to watch.

I repeatedly found myself screaming at the television. When I could make out what Biden was saying, I screamed what a bunch of ‘malarkey.’

When I screamed at President Trump, it was because of a missed opportunity. Just one example was the long back and forth on veterans. Rather than argue over who veterans liked the most, Trump should have pointed out that at the end of the Obama-Biden presidency, seriously ill veterans were unable to get appointments with the VA to see a doctor. Why? The career bureaucrats in charge made a decision to put them at the back of the line because they were going to die anyway.

President Trump ended this evil by passing bi-partisan legislation which reformed the VA, and made it possible to fire those VA bureaucrats who didn’t do their job. Vice President Biden left vets on the streets to die, Trump fired the horrible human beings who made the decision to leave them in agony without treatment and put people in charge who made it a priority to take care of sick veterans. It is that simple.

Of course, President Biden glitched at the very beginning of the debate for what was an interminable amount of time, and had at least a couple of other obvious events where he completely lost his place on the script he was force fed over the eleven days he spent preparing for the debate.

But the problem for Democratic operatives is that Biden revealed that he cannot mentally do the job of being president, but didn’t suffer a complete meltdown which could be used to justify removing him from the ticket. Biden likely did just enough to avoid a palace coup leading to his being denied the nomination and removed from the presidency, but not enough to dissuade anyone from the idea that he is not fit to serve for another four years.

And, by the way, if anyone believes Biden has a six handicap, then they probably also think his uncle was eaten by cannibals. Of course, someone who fills his speeches with fairy tales and outright lies about his personal achievements would be exactly the 80 year old golfer who claimed to have a six handicap.

Trump’s strategy in the debate was clear and he stuck to it. Keep pounding on Biden’s border crisis, and throw in the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal as an occasional chaser. This was most effective when he kept reminding viewers about the Biden administration policy of opening up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the millions of illegals they have allowed to stream into the country, while also putting these illegals up in luxury hotels while our veterans sleep on the streets.

As for Biden, he reminded me of an end of career boxer who was just trying to hang on to the final bell. The only thing that was missing was Corn Pop.

In the end, it was a clear win for President Trump. The format that Biden insisted upon helped focus Trump and kept him from taking Biden’s bait on a couple of issues.

I wish President Trump had immediately answered the question on accepting the election result with a cohesive nuanced affirmative, that win or lose, once the election was certified by Congress, he would accept the results, clarifying that investigating various state election procedures was completely in line, to make future elections more secure and honest.

And I wish he had spent more time talking about what the withdrawal from Afghanistan should have looked like, in contrast to Biden’s giving up our secure air base to the Taliban and then trying to evacuate under duress from a commercial airport, leaving American citizens and our best allies behind. This basic failure of leadership by Commander and Chief Biden which led to 13 of our brave servicemembers deaths is reason enough to deny him four more years.

Obviously, there were questions not answered and at times Biden looked childish and petty.

Overall, Trump earned a solid B, while Biden showing clear decline was at best a D+. I am not certain that anyone who supported Trump going in was not supporting him at the end. Those who are voting for Biden because they hate Trump will still vote for Biden while wishing they had a better option. And those undecideds, either became Trump supporters based upon the issues of their economic interests, or moved off of Biden to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is the candidate who is most likely to see a move in his numbers out of formerly Biden voters.

All in all, national Democratic leaders were the biggest losers as Biden did just enough to keep them from denying him the nomination, but not enough to convince anyone that he is capable of doing the job for another four years – purported golf handicap notwithstanding.

Whether the Democrats remove him or not, this was the debate when the American public learned what the rest of the world knows, the American President is capable of doing the job, and every day he remains in office the world gets to be a much more dangerous place.

If polling tells the Democrat hierarchy that Biden is no longer a viable candidate, they will remove him. The question becomes will they use the 25th amendment to the Constitution to end his presidency as someone who is no longer fit to serve.

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/06/trump-commands-stage-biden-revealed/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************