Clint Eastwood: ‘We’re really in a pu**y generation’

He’s right, but he didn’t mention that the pussifying is being deliberately encouraged by authoritarian leftists/feminists as a means of weakening and controlling others

CLINT Eastwood is tired of America being overly sensitive.  “[Donald Trump’s] onto something,” he said in the September issue of Esquire.

“Because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pu**y generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.”

The 86-year-old actor/director went on to explain that the “pu**y generation” is all the people who say, “Oh, you can’t do that, and you can’t do this, and you can’t say that”. He added, “I guess it’s just the times”.

Though Eastwood hasn’t endorsed anyone for president, he revealed that he will probably vote for Trump because he feels Hillary Clinton is following in President Obama’s footsteps. Although, he does say Trump has “said a lot of dumb things”.

“So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody — the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fu**ing get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”

As far as change, the Gran Torino star says he wants everyone to get to work and be more understanding. “Kick ass and take names. And this may be my dad talking, but don’t spend what you don’t have. That’s why we’re in the position we are in right now.”

SOURCE





How the blameless sick are paying the price of this HIV drug

Plans to fund nine life-changing medical treatments have been abandoned by the NHS after it was ordered to provide a controversial HIV treatment.

Officials had been poised to announce approval this week for a range of new devices and breakthrough drugs which would benefit children as young as two.

Toddlers with cystic fibrosis, children born deaf, adults who have lost their legs, and patients with cancer were among those who would have learned that they could receive the treatments for the first time.

But officials have been forced to scrap their plans after the High Court ruled on Tuesday that the NHS is responsible for providing a daily pill to prevent HIV infection among 10,000 gay men.

The revelation threatens to further inflame a fierce row about providing the controversial HIV drug, which critics say will encourage sexual risk taking.

Charities last night accused the NHS of using the row to hide severe funding problems within the Health Service.

A spokesman for the Rarer Cancers Foundation said: ‘It is unacceptable for NHS England to use the figleaf of having to find money for PrEP as an excuse to refuse funding for important cancer treatments.’

But others – who warn that the PrEP drug may give some men a licence to have unprotected sex – have warned that funding such a treatment is a waste of scarce NHS funding.

Many patients are already missing out on funding for other vital treatments. The Daily Mail revealed last week that three-quarters of hospitals now deny life-changing cataract operations to the elderly, a procedure that costs only £800 per eye.

Patients refused the surgery who live alone have become housebound, scared to visit friends in case they fall over and break their hips.

Barbara Hullah has cataracts in both eyes and was told by her optician that her left eye was ready to be operated on.

But following her referral to Harrogate and District NHS foundation trust, the 66-year-old was told that her case was not severe enough and she was not eligible for surgery.

Mrs Hullah, a retired sales assistant who also has osteoporosis, now struggles to read. She also lives in fear of falling over because she finds it hard to make out steps or a carpet edge.

She said: ‘My optician referred me to the hospital. But I got a call from the hospital saying that I wasn’t ready because my other eye only has a small cataract.

‘I’m angry. In the past when getting a cataract operation you didn’t seem to have to wait until you practically couldn’t see. I can’t read and it’s about the only hobby that I have – I can’t do physical activities because I’ve got osteoporosis.’

Mrs Hullah, from Harrogate, North Yorkshire, believes the decision is a ‘false economy’ because she could have a bad fall as a result of her deteriorating sight and have to spend weeks in hospital. 

The NHS is due to appeal against the HIV drug decision but has had to put aside £20million to pay for it in case the judges uphold the ruling.

Yesterday officials said they had decided to postpone funding decisions for 13 specialised treatments.

But the Mail can reveal that officials had decided to approve nine of the 13, a decision now abandoned in case the Health Service can no longer afford them. Officials last night confirmed that they would have announced funding for these treatments if High Court judge Mr Justice Green had agreed with the NHS that it should not have to pay for the HIV treatment.

An NHS England spokesman said: ‘These would have all been funded and we would have announced that yesterday if the judgment had gone the other way.’ Instead, the decision will be postponed for months – and if the NHS loses the appeal, the treatments may never be made available.

More than 500 patients are now left in limbo awaiting the final decision, which is not expected to be delivered until next year.

Many experts are fully in favour of the PrEP drug, which reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 92 per cent and has been described as a ‘game-changer’.

But others have warned that it is a strategy ‘fraught with danger’, allowing men to think they can have sex without condoms, despite being left unprotected against other sexually transmitted diseases.

The treatments now on hold include the first precision medication to help toddlers with cystic fibrosis breathe, high-tech hearing implants for deaf children, and bionic knees for people who have lost their legs.

Other treatments which would have been confirmed include stem cell transplants for a form of blood cancer, a drug for teenagers with sleep disorders, and a pill which will allow chemotherapy to be given for the first time to cancer patients with a rare salt disorder.

The others were a drug to prevent the rare growth hormone disorder acromegaly, one to tackle another hormone disorder called Cushing’s Disease which causes high rates of heart attacks and strokes, and one for a dangerous immune disease that can affect multiple organs at the same time.

Officials have also postponed decisions on four other treatments which were due to be refused, but have asked the drug companies to reduce their prices to be allowed to stay in the running.

Health charities expressed their dismay at the decision.

Among those to lose out are children waiting for ‘auditory brainstem implants’ – high-tech devices which could give the power of hearing to nine deaf children every year.

Sue Archbold, chief executive of the Ear Foundation, said: ‘Society still doesn’t realise the impact that hearing loss has on the individual and society as a whole.’

Some 45 very young children with cystic fibrosis were due to benefit from breakthrough drug Ivacaftor, which costs as much as £180,000 a year but makes a major difference for the 4 per cent of patients who have a certain genetic mutation.

James Barrow, head of external affairs at the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, said: ‘The implications of this decision are concerning as it creates uncertainty around when children will receive access to Ivacaftor.’

But the National Aids Trust accused NHS England of pitting different patient groups against each other.

A spokesman for the charity said: ‘To single just PrEP out as a policy which would be funded at the expense of others is invidious, prejudices NHS England’s position in relation to PrEP and raises serious questions as to the integrity and impartiality of NHS England’s approach.’

SOURCE







The Brazen Demands of Black Lives Matter

Instead of these gripes, how about some real solutions?

As if this election season had not already been enough of a mind-boggling, common sense-defying circus, along come more clowns to add to the antics. We refer to the Black Lives Matter movement, the latest incarnation of the racial grievance cartel, carrying on in the (not so) proud tradition of huckster race pimp Al Sharpton.

Some 60 groups associated with the Black Lives Matter movement have issued a list of policy demands. These demands include reparations for slavery, additional “investment” in education (including free education for life for all blacks), jobs programs, and an end to the death penalty, just to name a few.

On the question of reparations, how exactly do we atone for real injustices against past generations without punishing the innocent and the living? Well, here’s an idea: Since the Democrat Party is the party of slavery (the GOP was founded as an abolition party), and enacted Jim Crow laws, and since the KKK was the militant terror arm of the Democrat Party, perhaps we should confiscate all funds and assets of the Democrat Party and place them in a trust fund from which reparations will be paid.

Furthermore, in states with party registration, perhaps a fee of $25 for anyone registering as a Democrat is in order — the proceeds of which will also be placed in the reparations fund. This will allow the guilty party (or Party, as it were) to pay for its institutional sins, without punishing the innocent.

We will also agree to end the death penalty for innocent blacks, and what blacks are more innocent than the unborn? In the United States, blacks make up 13% of the population but account for a staggering 37% of all abortions. These tiny, defenseless black babies have committed no crime, yet are literally from the womb. In America, there are nearly as many black babies aborted as are born, and in New York City, more black babies are aborted than born.

Of course, for those black children that manage to escape the womb before being killed by a Democrat, there should also be legal protections. The Black Lives Matter movement began following the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Freddie Gray. Martin was killed after he attacked a neighborhood watchman. Brown was shot and killed when, after a convenience store robbery, he attacked officer Darren Wilson and tried to wrestle his gun away. Garner died of a heart attack after resisting arrest. And Freddie Gray was a drug dealer who died while thrashing around in a police van following his arrest. None of these men would have died had they not been engaged in criminal activity.

Yet we must also acknowledge that police don’t always get it right, and in those instances when officers use excessive force, they should be held accountable, including prosecution and imprisonment if the facts of the case warrant such a verdict.

Interestingly, one of the demands of the BLM crowd is an end to the use of body cameras by police. One can only wonder why that might be. After all, if there is truly a war on black men by the police, and innocent young black men are being gunned down without provocation, one would think that BLM would want those atrocities captured on camera, showing for the entire world the veracity of their claims. If they are innocent, why would they not want video of these interactions?

Some of the other demands are simply non-starters.

For example, BLM demands include the end of private education in America, and putting all hiring, firing, curriculum and discipline issues in the hands of “parents, students and community members.” We can look at the absolute most expensive, worst performing school systems in major cities throughout the country, and most of them have one thing in common: They have been run by Democrats for decades. There is no legitimate reason why we should make all of the nation’s schools as bad as those run by Democrats.

Also included is “a guaranteed minimum livable income for all Black people,” to which we offer a counter-proposal of lowering taxes so that all Americans get to keep more of what they earn, thereby making living more affordable for all.

In a summary explanation of the demands, the BLM groups demand reparations for “past and continuing harms to African-Americans.” But rather than fund reparations for ongoing harms, we should enact policies that better the lives of black Americans so that there is no need for reparations.

For example, Democrat policies have utterly destroyed the black family, with nearly 75% of American black children born out of wedlock. Since roughly 85% of men in prison were raised in homes without a father, one of the best things we could do is acknowledge the importance of fathers to the raising of children, and enact policies that encourage marriage before childbirth, and stop paying rewards for unwed pregnancies. Likewise, minimum wages will be irrelevant if we are holding the national education cartel accountable for results, rather than sending these children out into the world completely unprepared to compete in a global economy.

Salvation for blacks in America, and for all Americans, comes not in the form of reparations, or yet another government program. It comes in the form of personal responsibility, morality, civility, education and individual freedom.

But that doesn’t bring money or power to the likes of Al Sharpton and the Black Lives Matter movement, so they aren’t interested. For those of us who truly believe that black lives matter, let’s reject the extortion racket benefiting the few and do what benefits the most.

SOURCE






NO to a racist constitution

Australia's basic law should treat all Australians equally:   No special favours for one race.  Fortunately, controversial referenda are usually lost in Australia.  The 1967 "aboriginal" referendum was unopposed and functioned by REMOVING references to Aborigines.  So blacks and whites are now treated equally.  Let us not backslide

Malcolm Turnbull is facing a fresh outbreak of internal dissent over the proposal to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution before talks about the referendum on Thursday with the Labor leader, Bill Shorten.

The South Australian Liberal senator Cory Bernardi told Guardian Australia on Wednesday “no case had been made” for recognising Indigenous people in the constitution.

Bernardi said years of discussion about recognition had failed to yield a concrete proposal to put to a referendum and as he was a “constitutional conservative ... it’s highly unlikely I’d agree”.

Fellow Liberal senator James Paterson told Sky News on Wednesday he was yet to be convinced constitutional change was the appropriate way to proceed.

“There is no place for race in our constitution,” Paterson said. “There should be no negative references to race, there should be no positive references to race. [The constitution is] the rule book of Australia. I think there is a role for symbolism in public life but I’m yet to be convinced the constitution is the place for that.”

The new bout of restiveness has been triggered by a proposal in Western Australia. The WA branch of the Liberal party’s youth wing wants to bring forward a motion at the state conference next week calling on the federal government to oppose recognition and campaign against constitutional change.

Bernardi told Guardian Australia a binding motion such as the one envisaged in WA would go against the culture of the Liberal party but, with that said, he was not, intrinsically, a supporter of the constitutional recognition proposal.

The prime minister will meet the Labor leader on Thursday to discuss both constitutional recognition and also the marriage equality plebiscite.

Shorten has been flagging a treaty as the next logical step after recognition and a number of Indigenous leaders are no longer interested in the incremental step of recognition.

At the Garma festival over the weekend, Noel Pearson, who is on the referendum council, called for a synthesising of the treaty and constitutional reform arguments.

“If we think they are somehow separate agendas, this whole agenda will fail,” Pearson said. “My synthesis is simply that constitutional recognition provides the hook that enables agreements to be made, and a Makarratta, a national settlement, to be made.”

The Labor senator Pat Dodson, who was a co-chair of the referendum council until he decided to stand as a Labor senator in the recent election, also spoke of a post-recognition settlement. “If there is no preparedness to do that, we are all wasting our time and the tax payers have been dudded,” Dodson said.

On Wednesday the prime minister was asked whether he was worried that the middle ground on this debate was being lost, given members of the government were digging in their heels, and Labor, with the backing of some Indigenous leaders, was already pitching about the next stage.

Turnbull told reporters it was “very hard” to change the constitution. He said he “earnestly” sought to achieve constitutional recognition.

“But there are some important steps that need to be achieved,” the prime minister said.

“Firstly, there needs to be agreement coming from the [referendum] council as to what language they would propose to put into the constitution and then we have to be satisfied, as I believe as all of us are in the parliament, people of goodwill be satisfied, that that language is language that meets the purpose, and of course is capable of winning support in the referendum.

“It is a very, very difficult business. Changing our constitution has proved very challenging and we shouldn’t underestimate the difficulty but we are committed to doing it, but we have to make the first step is to see the proposed language, proposed amendments from the council.”

The referendum council meets again next week.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

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