Which Barbie Would Ken Fuck?

Mattel are free to make as many “plus size” Barbies as they want, but I think we can all guess what the marketing department’s response will be. Who the fuck is going to buy a fat Barbie? And no-one else can make one because of trademark.

More importantly, which Barbie is Ken going to want to fuck? Not the one who looks like an ageing Diana Dors, that’s for sure.

I’m told that fat chicks are more grateful, so perhaps a “plus size” Barbie may indulge some of Ken’s more outré requests, such as A2M. However, I think it more likely she’d end up having a couple of drunken one night stands with his friends before descending into a life of alcoholism.

Barbie might think that she has Ken’s cock and balls in a cute little, Swarovski crystal covered jewellery box on her dresser, but Ken can rebel, as this episode of Life InThe Dreamhouse shows. I was thinking the episodes Oh, How Campy and Closet Princess may show Ken rebelling even further, but Barbie is clearly doing enough to keep Ken’s eye from wandering. Actually, I suspect Barbie would go off like a firecracker if Ken stuck his tongue up her arse.

A lot of people bag Ken, but Barbie obviously likes him, so he must be doing something right. I’m pretty sure Ken would rather shag the current, slim Barbie than a big, fat chick. In fact, he confirmed this the other day while we were having a few beers and watching Mana Mamau.

Plus Size Modeling’s Facebook campaign is a good example of the entry into the middle class majority of one of the most destructive inventions of the modern left: identity politics. “We’re being discriminated against as a group! Let’s get together and fight for our right to assert our identity as people of colour / women / LGBTIQ / people with disabilities / plus sized women …!”

Taking a characteristic which society uses to categorise people, then using it as an active grouping mechanism may get many of those groups some gains, but overall it makes society more fractious and creates enmity, as well as influencing people to see one another in more one dimensional, less human terms.

People will always be judged on their behaviour and being fat is primarily the result of behaviour.

You can be as fat as you like, as long as you pay your own medical bills. You can walk around telling everyone you’re just as sexy as any other woman, as long as you don’t bung on an act when you get laughed at, or claim your human rights have been violated through being vilified on the basis of your body shape.

The problem here is that an essentially middle class group has appropriated the left wing ideology of trying to force corporations / governments / society to behave in a certain way in order to validate their “identity”. It doesn’t matter that said identity is merely one of many facets of the person. This is how I construct myself and if you don’t accept my position without question, that’s discrimination! Society’s values and preferences must be re-engineered so that I don’t have less successful outcomes than those outside my constructed group.

Well, if you’re fat, you will find you’re less likely to get a fuck. That’s because less people are attracted to the overweight. BBW sites are fetish, not mainstream.

You’ll also find you’re less likely to get a job, good service and respect in general.

Why?

There are known genetic factors in differences in natural body weight within animal populations. However, aside from pathologies such as brain lesions, there are two causes of obesity: gluttony and sloth.

A significant majority of overweight people want to lose weight and confess they would be happier if they could. Yet they don’t. Genetic differences make it significantly harder for some people to lose weight than others, however the human body is not a nuclear reactor. It is not even a very efficient metaboliser. The reason why most people are fat even though it depresses them is that they lack the discipline and commitment required to lose the weight and keep it off.

People know this. Thus, if you’re a great big blubber and you see a thinner (but equally or less qualified) person get the job you want, it’s because your potential employer has formed the impression that you lack discipline, give up easily or lack sufficient self respect. If you find you’re getting poor service, it’s because the person doesn’t respect you, for these same reasons.

Because they aren’t fat and wouldn’t ever want to be fat, they automatically assume you don’t want to be fat either. Thus, you must be fat due to character flaws.

No amount of social engineering is going to change this widely held view. That’s because it’s in large part correct. Being fat is not like being black or being gay.

Fat women are in general judged more harshly than fat men. That is because some fat men are strong, much fitter than they appear and gain respect on that basis eg. front row forwards. Fat, flabby, unfit men are not respected. Even in the case of fat men who are powerful, their power is respected, but they are still objects of satire or ridicule and referred to as fat cunts eg. Clive Palmer.

Like an alcoholic, drug addict or unsuccessful gambler, you have to work at being fat. No-one becomes an enormous porker overnight. No-one becomes a drunk or a drug addict overnight. Some people are far more susceptible than others, however no-one sleep walks into it and everyone can get out of it with sufficient discipline and willpower, despite the chemical changes in the brain and endocrine system which take place in obese people or addicts.

There is the argument that materially different body shapes are the norm of attractiveness in other cultures both today and historically, so Western society’s preference against fat people is merely an artefact of our culture and has no inherent biological driver. Therefore we could change our society’s views so that fat people were no longer considered unattractive. Then they would not feel pressure to lose weight and would no longer suffer from higher rates of depression and low self esteem.

It’s a lot easier to join with other overweight people and tell each other that you’re beautiful just the way you are and it’s society which is the problem. Maybe they should all join the SPK.

The “fat identity” validators’ reasoning is fallacious. Western society knows a great deal more about medicine and the human body than all of these other cultures. Anyone believing otherwise is deluded. Asian medicine is often posited as an attempted counter to the claim of Western medical superiority. However, despite some demonstrably effective elements such as acupuncture, Asian medicine largely argues by metaphor and is thus still rooted in mysticism.

There is clear scientific evidence that being fat both shortens lifespan and decreases overall quality of health. There is a known, healthy range of body weight as a function of age, sex and height. Being outside it is demonstrably bad for your health.

Thus, given Western society’s medical knowledge, being obese is like being a pack a day smoker or someone who gets drunk every night. There’s a subculture which attempts to validate each of these behaviours, but most people see them as character flaws and wonder why “those people” don’t make more of an effort to stop harming their health.

This post is not intended as advocating a campaign of fat shaming, “nudging” or any form of social engineering beyond appropriate taxation of certain foods and beverages which contribute to health problems. I do however, want to strongly encourage people not to be sucked into pandering to the identity politics of the League of Fatties and their own attempts at social engineering.

I have posited an explanation of why fat people in Western societies have statistically less successful social outcomes and why it’s not going to change any time soon. It’s why we shouldn’t pander to the new fat identity politics. Don’t feel guilty if you think fat people are lazy and undisciplined: they are. That’s why they’re fat.

At the same time, let’s not allow fat control to become a new goal for the nanny staters. The politically pious already have more than enough at which to tut-tut. “You can’t become obese eating organically grown quinoa as part of a socially responsible, vegetarian diet.” “How terrible it is that Westerners eat so much more than they need when all those black and brown people are starving.”

If a person is fat and happy, prefers the joys of gluttony to a longer life and doesn’t care what other people think, they should be free to make that choice, as long as they accept (and can pay for) the consequences. As for fat people who are stung by receiving criticism, less respect or being considered less attractive, no amount of delusion will change that … and attempts to co-opt the left wing ideology of identity politics will fail, because being fat really is ultimately a combination of character flaws and lifestyle choice.

No they aren't ... but they are more grateful.

Not Every KO Is A King Hit

There seems to have been a recent spate of serious injuries and even deaths ensuing from street violence. In politicians’ indecent haste to pander to the bleating classes, each incident is portrayed in black and white. The injured party is an innocent victim of a “king hit”, while the other party is a thug who should be presumed guilty and denied bail. The media’s tendency to oversimplify and sensationalise renders it complicit in reinforcing the hysteria, as opposed to devising a well thought out policy response.

People have died after being punched in a range of circumstances, from vicious, unprovoked assaults to punches thrown in self defence. Every case is different and must be examined on its own merits. We need to make a clear distinction between outright thuggery and a fair fight. We need to be far clearer about what constitutes self defence and not cast the first stone when someone makes a physical response to provocation.

Firstly, not every punch which knocks a person out is a king hit. A king hit is when someone is punched or hit with an object without any warning, often while they are not looking and usually in the head. It is an extremely low act and generally contains strong elements of intent to cause serious injury and recklessness as to the possibility of killing the victim.

We’ve seen genuine king hits of late, for example the killing of Thomas Kelly by Kieran Loveridge.

Now look at the definition of murder and manslaughter in S18(1) of the NSW Crimes Act.

Depending on the relative size and strength of the punched and puncher, prosecution for murder may be appropriate and may succeed, for example if a fit, strong, young man king hit a 70 year old. Even if the prosecution didn’t feel they could convince a judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances of the single punch contained the elements required for murder, a manslaughter conviction allows for up to 25 years’ jail.

The fact that most king hits don’t result in death is not per se a defence to murder. That’s why the element of recklessness is in the definition: it is not necessary to intend to kill the victim; rather that a reasonable person would or should understand a material probability of death as a result. However, juries are often swayed by the absence of direct intent. Allowing police the scope to add circumstances of aggravation to a manslaughter charge in such instances would place the offence at the upper end of the scale, with a sentence approximately equivalent to what would have been handed down for murder in such circumstances. This would probably have been the correct outcome in the Kieran Loveridge matter.

In the same category as a king hit is stomping on a defenceless person, such as recently happened to Michael McEwen at Bondi Beach after a night out. Often in such cases, the victim has been picked on and assaulted, often in company. Had Michael McEwen died, the offence should have been treated at least as seriously as Kieran Loveridge’s. Stomping on his head may well have been sufficiently reckless to support a murder charge.

Since, thankfully, Michael McEwen didn’t die, how seriously does the current law allow punishment?

Seriously enough. Grievous bodily harm with intent carries up to 25 years, the same as manslaughter. Even if the intent could not be proven, the assault was in company and the jury (or judge) has the option to find the accused guilty of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. That carries up to 14 years.

So, except for allowing the addition of circumstances of aggravation, the laws already exist to deal with morons bashing and possibly killing people over trivial arguments, or even at random. They just need to be properly prosecuted and enforced by judges.

Jamie Ennis has been arrested in relation to the matter and denied bail. On its own, his lawyer’s argument appears to raise some disturbing issues. Ennis claims he didn’t throw the punch which knocked Michael McEwen down and didn’t stomp on his head. He was arrested on the basis of a fingerprint found on the bus shelter near to where the attack occurred. The prosecution is arguing protection of the community and the judge is making comments about “community concerns regarding alcohol fuelled violence”.

Of itself, the denial of bail on such apparently flimsy evidence would be a travesty. “Community concerns” do not override lack of evidence. However, this is precisely why each case has to be examined carefully and distinctly.

Jamie Ennis was charged with affray, so the police clearly believe they can show he was part of the group which attacked Michael McEwen. Without witnesses, that shouldn’t be sufficient to deny bail. But that’s not why Ennis was denied bail in this matter: he’s already on bail. For what? Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He’s being denied bail due to breach of his existing bail conditions. Fair enough.

No-one else from Ennis’ group has been arrested, including the alleged puncher and stomper. It’s a reasonable guess that Ennis knows who they are. So, one might infer that his denial of bail is also a de facto punishment (perhaps unintended) for hindering the police investigation. Some readers would probably think that well deserved and I do too, however we need to take great care as a society not to finesse the legal machinery to punish people for acts for which they have not been found guilty (or not even charged). If Ennis is hindering the investigation and the police feel confident they will be able to prove this, they should formally charge him and it should be debated in court as an extra element in favour of denial of bail.

Moronic cunts like Ennis and his mates (I understand he’s a coconut as well), getting pissed up and going around taking out their massive chips on the shoulder on innocent people are exactly who the community is talking about when we say: “We’ve had enough of this shit. Increase the penalties.”

We should also increase penalties for lower level, unprovoked assaults, where people are attacked just walking down the street. Update: Here's another one from this New Year's Eve, where a moronic arsehole attacked four smaller strangers for no other reason than he just wanted to punch people. He didn't even have the courage to risk fighting someone who might have been able to fight back. Shaun McNeil is now in a cage, where he belongs.

Conversely, this one is not a king hit. It's young blokes fighting. There was no need for events to escalate that far and without alcohol, they probably wouldn't have. But let's be careful not to add this event into the media's catalogue of unprovoked assaults (compiled as a public service, of course) and let's not automatically assume the person who hit their head is the victim and the other is a moronic thug.

There is no contradiction with Liberalism in advocating severe penalties for the entire spectrum of mindless thuggery.

These people don’t deserve the benefits of a free and open society, since they obviously resent people who are successful within it. People should be able to enjoy themselves without fear of unprovoked attack. People should be able to engage in a minor argument without fear of serious assault. We need meaningful prison reform, but that doesn’t mean moronic thugs shouldn’t be sent there.

However, we need to take great care to examine each violent incident on its own evidence. The media cannot be lazy and simplistic in its reporting, reflexively trotting out catchphrases like “king hit” and “one punch kill” and choosing a victim and thug. Some cases are clear cut, but many are not. If justice is to be done, the police, politicians and judiciary need to distinguish one class of circumstances from the other.

What if the young guy (Ben) in the linked article above had punched his attacker, who had fallen, hit his head and died? What if that was the only punch the police saw? How would the media have reported it then? “King hit death in another night of violence on our streets”? What if we had a blanket “assault occasioning death” law, as in WA?

The media has even globalised skewed, sensationalist reporting. News.com.au has a “One punch kill” headline from Russia, complete with “incredibly shocking footage”. Watch the video. The “victim” is arguing with and shoves a man who appears to be approximately the same age and slightly smaller, who retaliates with a single punch to the head. He was picking a fight and got punched out. He even got back up and tried to carry it on, dying two days later. How is he “the victim”? The other bloke didn’t do anything wrong: he should be entitled to defend himself.

“One punch can kill! One punch can kill!” bleat the ovine every time someone gets hurt in a fight. If a strong man punches a pensioner in the head, then yes. But people get punched all the time. Very few die. When they do, it’s misadventure which is the cause of death, not the punch.

Jason Toby’s partner has certainly been indoctrinated. Look at the currently known facts of that matter. Jason Toby and his partner Britt Potter were arguing on a public street in Brisbane’s CBD at 4am. Almost certainly, alcohol was involved at that time of the night and their argument was sufficiently robust for a passer by to stop and intervene. Jason Toby decided to fight him and lost. He subsequently died in hospital.

But Britt Potter is sobbing out the nanny state line of “One punch can kill”. The other bloke probably intervened out of concern for you, love. Now, depending on the police and DPP, he might have to defend himself against serious criminal charges. Someone has been interviewed by police and released without charge 15 hours later. But we don’t even know if that’s the person who was fighting Jason Toby.

The ABC's reporting of the incident is ridiculously incompetent. It is exactly the sort of biased description which must be avoided. Firstly, Jason Toby is described as the victim of "a violent assault". How do we know this? He may have been the aggressor.

The report then states that "a man had been arguing with a woman". Yes, it's been established that was Jason Toby and his partner, Britt Potter. Unbelievably shoddy journalism.

Haven’t we just had a campaign against violence toward women? Now a woman who probably supports its aims seems shocked that defence requires force. If she couldn’t stop her “partner” fighting a bloke who had intervened out of concern, what does that imply about Jason Toby’s volatility and his complicity in his injuries?

Maybe if someone had been around to intervene in Maitland a couple of weeks ago, a woman wouldn’t be dead and a bloke wouldn’t be up on a murder charge. But what if someone had stepped in to defend the woman, then had to defend himself and the aggressor died as a result? Would the third person have been charged? Quite possibly … and if they were, the quality of the lawyer they could afford would be a significant factor in the eventual outcome.

What lies are politicians and the media going to trot out next? Resurrect the dishonest “Real heroes walk away” campaign? Heroes don’t walk away: they defend themselves and others.

But people will think twice about defending others if they believe they can’t trust the state not to prosecute them.

In which society are citizens in more danger: a civil society where citizens are prepared to come to others’ aid, safe in the knowledge they are protected by logical self defence laws, or a nanny state in which citizens abrogate responsibility to “the appropriate authorities” out of fear they may end up facing charges themselves?

Dishonest Journalism And The NBN

There’s journalistic bias, which is an undesirable, but unavoidable part of the media landscape … and then there’s outright dishonesty.

Compare the reporting by The Australian and The Guardian of cost blowouts in the Coalition and Labor’s NBN schemes.

The Australian’s right wing bias is well known. It is evident here in its choice of headline:

Labor's NBN Bill Was Set To Hit $73bn

The main point of the article is Labor’s mismanagement and waste, costing taxpayers an extra $29B in excess of the originally budgeted $44B, plus the fact they had either made substantial efforts to hide the massive cost blowout from the public who are paying for it, or worse, were unaware of its size.

The article’s subsidiary (and justified) anti-Labor point was a description of the predictable overstaffing and public service like arse covering culture at NBNCo:

“The culture and leadership of the organisation was widely viewed as a major problem. … a fear among staff of being blamed for mistakes that generated a lack of willingness to accept responsibility in some functional groups.”

“A committed, motivated, generally capable group of people who want to do important, meaningful work … there were also fears of contradicting senior staff and mistrust in the motives of some leaders. People were reluctant to document decisions for fear of the potential consequences.”

Such organisational dysfunction is not uncommon in the corporate world, however it seems to be more prevalent in government projects and in this case, an entirely foreseeable consequence of Kevin Rudd and modern Labor’s bureaucratic management style.

The Australian’s article does discuss substantial delays and cost overruns in the Coalition’s NBN plan, beginning in paragraph 4, sufficiently close to the beginning for the reader to get the picture that there are problems with both NBN plans.

At least the information required for comparison is presented early in the article:

·         Labor’s cost blowout is 65%, the Coalition’s is 40%.

·         Labor’s plan says it will deliver fibre to 100% of homes, but will cost $32B more and be completed several years after the Coalition’s.

·         The Coalition’s plan will employ a mix of delivery mechanisms, resulting in faster, cheaper deliver of a lower bandwidth service to the majority of users. However, the 30% of customers having their internet service delivered by pay TV cable should find the speed more than adequate. So, it’s really less than half of users who will not get the functionality promised by Labor.

The Guardian’s left wing bias is greater in magnitude than the Australian’s right wing tendency and even more overt. Worse, its brand of lefty politics is the hypocritical, sanctimonious cant of middle class, dilettante lefties: the ones who espouse socialism while living in expensive houses and sending their children to private schools.

So, it’s little surprise that the Guardian’s take on the NBN troubles led with:

Coalition’s NBN to cost $12bn more and take four years longer

Strategic review blames cost blowouts and poor management as government breaks promise to deliver NBN by 2016

The Australian and Guardian are both privately owned, so it’s not unreasonable they would each skew their reporting to the politics of their owners. Readers just need to be aware of what to expect.

The problem with the Guardian’s reporting is its blatant misrepresentation, starting with the subheading. It links “cost blowouts and poor management” with “government breaks promise”. Most readers would naturally infer cause and effect ie. poor management by the government has led to a broken electoral promise. I think the Guardian editors are well aware of this and I suggest that was their intention.

In fact, the cost blowouts and poor management were due to the previous government: this one has only been in power three months.

There is a ranking of seriousness of misdeeds in journalism. There’s bias in the selection of the headline and the order of reporting of the facts. That’s largely unavoidable and at least educated readers can see through this.

Then there is selective omission of facts and information which do not support the editorial agenda. That is worse than the bias of order choice because it is directly misleading.

In a similar vein, linking partial descriptions of facts to convey a false impression is worse than mere bias: it is dishonesty. It renders the article propaganda.

Even if the reader senses the article has been selective in its reporting of facts, it's often difficult and sometimes practically impossible to discover the full context.

The first half of the Guardian’s coverage is devoted almost entirely to the time and cost overruns in the Coalition’s plan. It is not until well into its second half that we find out Labor’s 100% optical fibre plan was not scheduled to be completed until 2024. That’s clear bias, but at least the fact is there.

But when do we discover how much Labor’s plan actually cost? You can find the figure $73B in small print type, in the last row of a table, at the end of the article … with no mention of the fact Labor’s original budget was $44B.

That’s the difference between The Australian and The Guardian’s reportage: the former is predictably biased, whereas the latter is predictably dishonest. And these are the people with whom our government broadcaster wants a closer working relationship.

Surely You Jest, Kim

Kim Kardashian is “mortified” by the public’s reaction to her appearing topless in Kanye West’s video? A shamelessly tacky self promoter who in many people’s opinion contrived to “leak” her own sex tape is “mortified” by the public’s reaction to her getting her tits out?

Are you serious? Being American and not Jewish, she therefore has no sense of irony, so I can only draw the conclusion she IS serious.

It gets better:

“Her sisters Kourtney and Khloe¹ are also said to be stunned at their sibling's decision to bare her chest. They are thought to have questioned how it will affect Kim and Kanye's five-month-old daughter North when she's older.”

Of course, the entire family’s utter lack of class will not pose any problems for the child.

Kim Kardashian didn’t seem too mortified when the world was watching her sucking on a black man’s dick. Yes, she sued, but then took the cash. $5M of it. I wonder what Paris Hilton got for hers. Not a sausage, she claims. At least she put more effort into sucking a cock than Kimmy did.

Then Kimmy gave interviews about the tape. I find it very difficult to believe that in litigious modern America, if she were genuinely aggrieved, a family with that amount of money and legal contacts could not have made life very difficult for Ray J.

It makes me think the mother put her up to it. That woman is seriously fucked in the head. Effectively naming all her daughters after her, she seems to view them as extensions of herself. As far as I can tell, she constantly manipulates her daughters as some form of proxy attention seeking, although she seeks enough attention on her own. Who had the idea to make a show all about their family in the first place?

Wikipedia claims it was Ryan Seacrest, of American Idol fame. But why would he have thought of the Kardashians without some prompting? Keeping Up With The Kardashians was announced in August 2007, first aired in October and the sex tape appeared that February. The series would have taken some planning, even prior to filming and editing. When was the pitch to the studio made? Some time around February 2007, I’d suggest.

Read the synopsis of episode 4 of season 1: Kim’s Playboy shoot. Kris Jenner encourages her to do it and ends up in a shoot herself. Hmm …

Can we let Charles Manson out for a day? Tell him the letter K is evil.

¹ The fat one.