Losing IT

WASHINGTON, D.C.—According to sources at a DC-area Costco, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked to leave Costco again after repeatedly accusing a lady handing out food samples of being a Russian asset.

It wasn’t clear how Clinton had ended up in the Costco, as she usually has her servants’ servants go to the market for her. Some suggested she wanted to disguise herself and go be among her subjects to see how the other 99% lives.
Whatever the case, the sample lady had apparently offered the failed presidential candidate a small paper cup of orange juice and told her the packs were on sale for $9.49 when the incident occurred.
“Orange… orange like Trump!” Clinton screamed suddenly, frightening the poor food demonstration worker. “You’re in league with him, aren’t you!?” The failed presidential candidate lunged across the cart and attempted to pull off her face mask, certain the lady was actually Vladimir Putin in a skin suit.
When that failed and the woman shooed her off with a plastic glove, Clinton turned for help and began screaming, “Security! Margaret in the frozen foods aisle is a Russian asset! Help, help, our elections are being meddled with!”
Guards arrived but relaxed when they saw it was just Hillary Clinton. “OK, lady, let’s go,” they said, grabbing her by each arm.
“Thank goodness you’re here!” Clinton cried. “Arrest that woman! Can’t someone help me out!?”
“Oh yeah, sure, lady, we’ll help you out,” the guards said, snickering as they dragged her toward the front door.
According to sources at the Costco, this is the third time this has happened this week.

Comments

  1. Happy Monday 😛

  2. I’m back from my camping adventure.

    It got cold overnight, down into the low 30’s / high 20’s. Hard to say, exactly, because I didn’t have any cell reception and neglected to bring a thermometer. But there was frost on the ground both mornings, so there’s that.

    Brought bacon and I have to say that, never in my entire life, have I ever eaten more bland and tasteless bacon. I have no idea what I did wrong, but it was surely a crime against god.

    The girls had a lot of fun. They enjoyed – to an alarming degree – gathering up fallen leaves and throwing them on the fire. They are now pestering me to go again, but I think that’s going to have to wait until spring. According to my watch, I walked 9.4 miles, and I’m definitely feeling it, but there’s no sign of wear and tear on them… oh, to be young again!

    Amongst the various bugs and critters we saw, we found a giant yellow and black spider. Maybe three inches long. I’ve never seen a spider that big other than tarantellas in exhibits. Older daughter wanted to pick it up and keep it as a pet. I nearly let her, but we didn’t have a container I trusted enough, plus my wife probably would have murdered me. Still, Webster, as the girls named it, was a pretty cool spider and would have done a great job killing bugs at my house.

    Speaking of arachnids, I got a tick bite. No symptoms, obviously, but Lymes is rampant up here, and people are telling me to go on antibiotics just in case. I think that’s a bit silly, but who knows?

    We made hobo potatoes, roasted corn, s’mores (of course!), pancakes, awful bacon, and hot chocolate (extra marshmallows). They also roasted apples and went through two full bag of gummy worms.

    I woke up before them on Saturday. I have to say, sipping coffee next to a roaring fire, under the (ridiculously) bright stars.. there was also a meteor shower… Anyway, that’s how life is meant to be lived.

    All-in-all, a great success. Thanks for all the advice!

    • All snug in their animal-themed (super warm) PJ’s..

      • Good job dad! That could be my grands sitting there…same ages. They are expert campers already. Both are very good fisherkids too, with several each under their belts. Cheap bacon! Never buy cheap bacon. That’s against the camping rules. Keep at it with them. That’s memories they’ll never forget.

        • That could be my grands sitting there…same ages. They are expert campers already.

          Mine are total amateurs. Not that I’m any great woodsman, myself.

          (How does Mathius make a fire? He brings starter logs and a butane lighter!)

          I packed so much stuff, it took the entire trunk of my large SUV. I went early and set everything up for them so that by the time my wife dropped them off, they were good to just enjoy the fun parts. It was far closer to “glamping” than I would have liked, but you have to ease them into it, I guess.

          I figure I’ll keep taking them, but each time give them a bit more and more to do, and bring a bit less and less until we all just have our packs until they’re experts, too. I can’t wait until I can sit by the fire while they set up the tent.

          Suggestions more than welcome!

          Cheap bacon! Never buy cheap bacon. That’s against the camping rules

          It wasn’t cheap bacon.. it was, in fact, rather expensive bacon!

          I swear!

          That’s memories they’ll never forget.

          The wife refused to stay overnight, but came back late the next morning. She asked them what their favorite part was, to which they both responded “the candy!” When pressed for a different answer, they both said “the marshmallows!”

          So I’m not entirely confident what “memories” I”m forming at this point, but I’ll keep at it.

          —————-

          Oh, and a lot of people brought their dogs. I’d love to bring mine, but she’s… well… special. And I’m not sure how she’d handle being out in nature. With the wife refusing to go, I don’t know that I can handle 2 young kids and a profoundly stupid dog at the same time. But once the girls are a bit more self-sufficient.. could be fun.

          I believe this nicely captures the spirit of my dog:
          http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2011/04/wild-animal-simple-dog-goes-for-joy.html

      • That is supper sweet, memories you will cherish.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Following your footsteps next weekend – taking the kids as part of our local Scout Council annual Fall Camporee – and yes my daughter is now a Cub Scout.

      • That’s awesome! I’d love to get my kids into the scouts.. when civilization collapses, those skills are going to be super valuable.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Welcome aboard! The next generation at my house has started. Both grand kid Nicholas and his older cousin are in teh program another to follow next year!

    • Ok……

      A) I normally never get emotional over these things.. but this one got me… damn you… the way he just launches himself into his dad… it’s too early in the morning for this!

      B) Why was he blindfolded? Who trains blindfolded? Was this some Mr. Miyagi thing?

      C) Kid’s form needs major work. I get that he’s blindfolded, but he needs to tuck those elbows, raise his hands to protect the face, pivot off the back foot to put some power behind the punches, and get some discipline into those wide swings. I’ll make allowances for the wide shots, overbalancing, questionable footwork, etc, because, you know, blindfolded, but come on! What are they even teaching kids these days!?!

  3. Anyone have any experience with dog training?

    My dog – again, profoundly stupid – is very sweet, but only really obeys adults. As my kids are getting older, I want her to listen to them, too. But she’ll only do it if/when they’re holding food. And, even then, in a sort of desultory way.

    I think she sees herself as higher ranking in the pack than them, and therefore should not have to listen to those upstarts.

    How does one train a dog that she has to obey kids who she thinks she out-ranks?

    • Not a dog trainer but in my experience it’s the children who tend to convey, by their actions That the dog is the boss. My nephews always back up if Jake is trying to great them by jumping on them. I found once they stand their ground and use their hands to b!ock him while forcefully saying No, he minds them.

      • Or in other words, you need to teach the children how to be alpha, not the dog.

        • Thanks.. that’s what I was trying to get at… how do I teach them to do that…?

          I can give them treats and just have them make the dog do tricks until she gets it through her thick skull to listen.. but what’s the secret of “changing the pack order”?

          • No quick fix that I know of. Just watch how your children interact with the dog and tell them what their doing wrong.

        • Canine Weapon says:

          I want you to know, I find this all very offensive.

  4. JAC,

    Thoughts on Mulvaney’s (sp?) press conference the other day?

    I watched the relevant section and, while it’s not as bad as the selective snippets make it out to be, it sure seems to be bad.

    I’d be interested in your take.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      I agree that he did not do or say what “they” are portraying. I caught his intent right when it happens. As I took it he was trying to explain why the reported 2016 election involvement by Ukrainians was an example and part of the broader issue of corruption in Ukraine. All of these sub issues are mashed together in the larger issue of Ukrainian corruption. Which is what the Europeans were also howling about.

      My thought is that this is what happens when you do not practice dealing with the media. The constant hammering of a theme in their questions no matter what you say has to be taken head on. You can’t just keep going and you certainly cannot run ideas together by going to fast. Like him or not Donald Rumsfeld was the MASTER at dealing with Press badgering.

      I see it as another UNFORCED fumble that is rhetorical in nature.

      So the net result is that it is BAD only for those who have already decided to “lynch” POTUS and it is nothing for the rest. The list of those wanting to “lynch” him include some on the R side. That is why you are now seeing some of them come forward with criticism and weak support for “possibly” impeaching. They think the public opinion has moved enough to give them cover. It is these weak kneed types who are also using the Mulvaney interview as some kind of revelation.

      • My thought is that this is what happens when you do not practice dealing with the media.

        I’m sure you didn’t watch The West Wing, but it was a great show. In one episode, the press secretary had a root canal and the deputy communications director figured “well, how hard can it be.” The press corp ate him alive.. rather hilariously.

        Which led to…

        President Bartlet : Okay, before we go on – [Press Secretary] C.J., if blood is gushing from the head wound you just received from a stampeding herd of bison, you’ll do the press briefing from now on.

        I see it as another UNFORCED fumble that is rhetorical in nature.

        I – GENERALLY – agree.

        I do… I generally agree with your interpretation of his comments and “what he meant” or “what he was trying to say” and the unforced error in the way he said it.

        So the net result is that it is BAD only for those who have already decided to “lynch” POTUS and it is nothing for the rest.

        However, this is MY interpretation. That it happens to jive with yours is convenient, but it IS a question of you and me throwing out the words he spoke and replacing them with the words we THINK he meant to speak.

        Why is our opinion of what he meant more valid than the words he actually spoke?

        If a man is on trial for murder and he trips over his own mouth and “admits” to killing the victim, as jurors, we should consider the context of that admission.. but it is a question of us “finding fact”… that is the job of the jury, after all. If a different jury might find differently, then why are we “right” and they “wrong”?

        … if any of that makes sense…?

        That is why you are now seeing some of them come forward with criticism and weak support for “possibly” impeaching.

        That might be the crack in the dam…

        Remember, I’ve been saying all along that the President is completely impervious to any and all consequences of his actions so long as he enjoys the political support of the Republicans in congress. He will enjoy that as long as his base backs him the way they do.

        He is absolutely correct that he could shoot someone in Times Square with impunity (not that he would ever use such a big word).

        But if that support crumbles, then cracks begin to appear.

        And then he is vulnerable.

        And THEN he can be beaten.

        (by the way, not that I’d want this, but it’d be absolutely hysterical if the Blue Team finally manages to kick him out of office in mid-to-late 2020 only to have him win reelection a few months later and be reinstated)

        They think the public opinion has moved enough to give them cover.

        You have this backwards.

        The way you say it supposes they have an agenda and/or principles and that the only reason they haven’t been doing what they want is for fear of voter backlash.

        That is, ass-backward.

        The people you’re talking about are completely nihilistic. They backed Trump because their voter’s opinions made that the beneficial thing to do.

        If they turn on him, it won’t be because they can now do what they wanted to all along.. that is, because opinion gives them “cover.” That supposes they have any semblance of principles (even “bad” or “wrong” principles). No, if they turn on him, it will be because they think that’s what the voters want… that is, they think that turning on him would give them the best chance of gaining re-election.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I expected you to come back with this one: “Why is our opinion of what he meant more valid than the words he actually spoke?”

          My response is based on what I heard, in context with the entire discussion. So I don’t think I am really interpreting him through my lense, I think I am simply taking what he said in context. The Quid Pro Quo for example. He was discussing the larger corruption issue, someone asks “isn’t’ that quid pro quo”, he answers yes, and govt.s do that all the time. He was discussing the larger corruption issue, so it is obvious to me what he was saying.

          The only reason to be confused is the way the press asks the question and then they way they reported it afterwards. “MULVANEY ADMITS TO QUID PRO QUO” was the headline later that same day.

          Otherwise, you have a very valid point. It is hard to know for sure when a message is so muddled. Even sometimes when they are not and you see differing “interpretations” of what is said can be frustrating. I think all we can do is WORK hard at keeping the emotion out of our judgment and then trying to be objective as possible. I also think it helps if you do some research in the topic. I have found that the more I understand the more likely I am to think I know what is being said, because it seems to fit what I have learned.

          On the Ukraine thing I did as much research as time would allow. This included reading the accounts of those who testified, their accounts and not the Dems or Press. I think there is no basis for going after Trump over this issue, and I do not think he as fishing for dirt and holding back money to get it. It is just a fact of life that if dirt were found it might benefit him. Although more likely it would benefit another Democrat and not Mr. Trump.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I do not have the R’s backwards. Sorry but I have been closer to this game than you. Your opinion may hold for some but you won’t hear from them. The vocal ones….let me make this clear………..DID NOT SUPPORT TRUMP. They found themselves in a situation where they had to hold their water or maybe lose an election. So yes, they will turn when they think his popularity has faded because then it will be safe to return to their anti Trump mode.

          Besides, you are giving far to much honor to these miscreants if you think they vote because that is what they think their constituents want.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          P.S. I watched West Wing every week for several years. Then it got to preachy and stale. Same for Madam Secretary. Although we also gave up network TV a few years back so that impacted it as well. Caught my first show of MS in several years Sunday. Not to my surprise she is now POTUS and of course she has been accused of soliciting help from some foreign country to get elected.

          Also, I just realized that the reason I interpret what public figures are saying to the press differently than others in part because I used to have to do the same thing. It is hard, and maybe I am more sympathetic to how a reporter can twist and interview to suit their preconceived notions about something. This is why I sometimes defended Obama or some of his minions. While they were wrong I could understand how they were being taken out of context…………… especially by the likes of Sean Hannity.

  5. Thoughts?

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/tech/russia-instagram-accounts-2020-election/index.html

    The short version: Facebook just shut down 50+ accounts of Russian origin. The accounts were set up to appear to be “middle American” on both the left and right. The accounts on the “left” attacked Trump and supported leftist causes. The accounts on the “right” attacked Harris/Warren/AOC and supported conservative causes.

    But they were largely unanimous in attacking Biden.

    The accounts collectively had 250,000+ followers and 70,000+ posts.

    Per the article:

    The Russian trolls who used social media to interfere in the 2016 election employed a similar tactic, going after Hillary Clinton from the right and also trying to spread a perception on the left that Clinton was not liberal enough and that liberals and African Americans especially shouldn’t bother voting for her.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      I trust these guys?

      When will they shut down the Ukrainian sites? Seems like they might have been busier last time out.

      • None of us have anything close to the “full story.”

        I have a Facebook muckity-muck in my regular poker game, so I’ll have to ask him about it, not that he’ll give me the full story, either.

        But it is interesting that, of the 50 accounts, they were pretending to be left and right.. but generally united in attacking Biden.. from the left that’s he’s not liberal enough and from the right that he’s too liberal.. sounds like a page straight out of 2016…

        • I think it has all been way overblown. If Russia puts out 10 sites and 5 each are for the respective sides, who the hell is really going to know the difference if the Left and the Rights puts out similar stuff. Probably, only morons, just sayin 😛

          • You know, I often hear conservatives/Republicans saying we need voter ID laws, because of the sanctity of the ballot box and how even a single illegal vote is so terrible….

            But then I hear you saying “who cares if Russia is trying to influence the election so long as we are also trying to influence the election even more so.”

            Do you see how I might find these two positions at odds?

            • Maybe because I don’t see how any of this could actually affect how people vote. Anyone could just as easily put a commercial on TV, as a PAC and be run by a foreigner. As far as the voter ID issue, it would keep these same foreigners from actually voting, which would be a problem.

              If it were me, all paper ballots sent in or collected would have a photo copy of an ID attached.

              I also don’t engage in social media. I also know how the US has tried to influence foreign elections, so the hypocrisy is a bit blaring.

              • If it were me, all paper ballots sent in or collected would have a photo copy of an ID attached.

                There’s no way THAT could be abused…..

                I also don’t engage in social media.

                Then maybe you don’t have the necessary perspective on this.

                These accounts have posted 70,000 times. To 250,000 people in their network.

                It’s not as straight forward as 70k x 250k, but that should give you some perspective.

                There are effectively TV ads or PAC ads or print adds.. except that they’re delivered to targeted individuals by fake people who purport to be allies.

                So, instead of a print ad saying “Biden is too liberal” where you know this is a paid ad by a party whose interests are explicitly anti-Biden and therefor probably pro-Warren / pro-Sanders / pro-Trump, and where your jaundiced eye automatically considers this as an attempt to sway you, you get a post.. a harmless random thought.. from someone who claims to be your political ally nudging you into the anti-Biden camp. “Yes, I’m just like you, I like Trump.. but Biden is really awful, isn’t he? That’s why I think it’s so important we turn out at the polls.” Or “yes, I’m just like you, I hate Trump, but Biden isn’t really any better, I don’t think it’s worth going to the polls”.. And this goes on and on.. It can help shift opinions, shift the narrative, increase or suppress voter turnout.

                You KNOW it’s effective, because if it weren’t then they wouldn’t be bothering to do it. Russia is taking a fairly significant risk by engaging in this kind of activity – so you know someone has done the calculation and determined it’s worth the risk. Just like print ads have to work or they wouldn’t pay for them.

                It’s.. insidious.. it doesn’t look or act like an ad, so you’re less critical of it. It comes from “your side,” it comes from someone “local,” and it slips past your defenses. And, in a swing state, it doesn’t take that much to flip the state.

                When your social media is full of seemingly friendly allies.. and they’re saying all the right things.. and also bashing Biden… it starts to feel like that’s the consensus opinion.. it starts to shape YOUR opinion.

                That’s how this kind of thing works.

                I also know how the US has tried to influence foreign elections,

                Yes.

                so the hypocrisy is a bit blaring.

                ABSOLUTELY!

                But (A) I am not, personally, the US government, so it’s not hypocritical for me to call out Russian interference so long as I also acknowledge and condemn (which I do) US interference in foreign elections and (B) TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!!!

              • I doubt that anyone could tell the difference from an anti-Republican ad/page/PAC owned by the Russians, the Italians, the Venezuelans or the Democrats and the same would go for anti-Democrat stuff. That’s my main point. Each exists, who makes them don’t makes one lick of difference when it comes to voters, because nobody can actually tell WHO made/owns such stuff. For Crats to say that some Russian Facebook Ad that was pro Trump made a difference (because the Crat ones were that useless) is utterly and totally ridiculous.

                Now, I will agree that political ad’s should state who is buying the ad time/space and be truthful. I would go along with not being honest in this aspect should be a crime.

                Now to ask a question. If an ad bought by Vlad Putin was pro Clinton and stated as such, would it really matter one wit with voters?

              • Each exists, who makes them don’t makes one lick of difference when it comes to voters, because nobody can actually tell WHO made/owns such stuff.

                But it still means MORE of the relevant pages/ads, no?

                It’s like saying “sure, the Russians are buying and running pro-Trump ads during on TV, but it doesn’t matter because Trump is also running pro-Trump ads on TV. Who cares if there are even more ads?

                For Crats to say that some Russian Facebook Ad that was pro Trump made a difference (because the Crat ones were that useless) is utterly and totally ridiculous.

                Let me ask.. if it doesn’t make a difference, why would Russia bother to do it? Why take the risk of pissing us off? What’s in it for them?

                If an ad bought by Vlad Putin was pro Clinton and stated as such, would it really matter one wit with voters?

                Maybe… but it’s worth noting that these ads are disguised as grass-roots.

                It’s not “Putin says Biden is bad,” but “seemingly normal liberals in my area with my shared interests and values [who are actually secretly Vladmir Putin] are advocating not voting because Biden isn’t really a liberal.”

                Do you see the distinction?

                I probably wouldn’t care too much what Putin thinks I should do.. but that later group could affect my thinking, maybe. And, if not me-me, at least some people’s.. and it’s not like it takes too many people to throw a swing state.

              • but it’s worth noting that these ads are disguised as grass-roots.

                Thank You, this is my exact point. They appear to be typical political ad’s. Have you actually seen any of these 2016 ad’s that we have heard about? The one’s on Facebook?

                Who cares if there are even more ads? As many ad’s that there are during the election cycle, we would never know the difference if one group or another stopped buying the time. I don’t know of any Russian TV ad’s during 2016, just Facebook and not a huge amount.

                My point is that anything the Russians have done is basically overblown and irrelevant.

                The Crats and the media keep talking about it like it’s made some kind of difference. My belief is that Russia didn’t do anything that reaches the level that the media and Politicians are squawking about. It’s all just an excuse the Crats can conveniently use to hide the fact their policies suck 😛

              • Have you actually seen any of these 2016 ad’s that we have heard about? The one’s on Facebook?

                I religiously avoid Facebook.

                The only time I ever use it is when my wife posts a picture of my kids and I want to “like” it or comment on it.

                Sometimes, rarely, if I’m having an protracted visit to the bathroom, I might scroll through the feed. But I have very few “friends” as I’ve aggressively culled my list and subscribe to no pages / groups.

                But many people practically live on FB or Instagram.

                My point is that anything the Russians have done is basically overblown and irrelevant.

                Maybe.

                But you keep ignoring the question of why, then, would they bother taking the risk of meddling in US election if there’s nothing to be gained?

                My point is that anything the Russians have done is basically overblown and irrelevant.

                Maybe.

                But you keep ignoring the question of whether you would feel the same way if the Russians took out adds on TV? If you were watching the Super Bowl and saw a pro-Biden ad paid for by the Kremlin, would you think “golly, gee, that’s just fine.. I mean, what’s one more ad?”

                The Crats and the media keep talking about it like it’s made some kind of difference.

                Maybe it did?

                A lot of Democrats got it in their head that Clinton was “just as bad” as Trump… a narrative heavily pushed by the Russian bots.

                Did they maybe manage to keep a few thousand people home who might otherwise have voted for Clinton? That’s all it would have taken.. Trump won Michigan by ~13k votes… NE2 by 6k.. NH by 2,701 votes.

                My belief is that Russia didn’t do anything that reaches the level that the media and Politicians are squawking about.

                That’s great that that’s YOUR opinion.

                But your guy won.

                At least in part because of the actions of these Russian troll-farms, fake accounts, and fake grassroots movements.

                Well golly gee, I see no harm at all in the fact that this covert effort led by a foreign govenment targeted my oponent’s voters in an effort to convince them to stay home. I mean, it’s just a little extra noise in the already noisy election cycle. And, anyway, the good guy won, so no harm!

                Are you capable of seeing this from the other perspective?

                Maybe you would have won anyway. Maybe. Maybe not. It’s hard to say, but the margin of victory was very thin in some places.

                But even if it made no difference, I find it wildly hypocritical that you’re so adamant about voter ID laws to keep the extraordinarily rare instances of in-person voter fraud out.. even when this might disenfranchize a bunch of Blue voters.. but you think it’s no biggie that Vlad sent an army of trolls onto American sites to manipulate voters.

              • even when this might disenfranchize a bunch of Blue voters.

                This is the biggest line of unsubstantiated bullshit you have posted in awhile. Of course it’s the talking point, but those who can’t get ID’s (which I also think is bullshit) aren’t always Blue. That’s an assumption, not based on a single fact!

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Good ole Rod Rosenstein, no friend of TRUMP assured us that not a single VOTE was affected. That is about teh only truth he has told so far.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The Russian Govt. is supposed to be behind all this. It is supposed to be having an impact on our elections. Which means that keeping the identity secret is important. So one of the most secretive and effective clandestine govts in the world keeps leaving fingerprints all over all this electioneering stuff.

      Which leads me to answer Mathius’ question to Gman, regarding if it weren’t effective why to they keep trying, with a question to Mathius.

      If it is so important then why to they keep getting caught?????

  6. WASHINGTON, D.C.—According to sources close to Hillary Clinton, the failed presidential candidate was gently returned to her padded cell disguised as the Oval Office over the weekend.

    After the failed presidential candidate had escaped from the premises again and accused thousands of people of being Russian agents, orderlies were finally able to catch her and guide her back to her cell. She had escaped through the ventilation ducts, apparently, and quickly gave deranged interviews in which she seemed not to understand that she hadn’t won the 2016 election. She also found a smartphone and tweeted troubling things, causing asylum personnel to put out a call for her safe return.
    “If anyone sees a crazy-looking old woman running around saying she’s the president, do not approach her. She is very dangerous,” the mental institution said in a statement. “Please phone the authorities right away so we can get her back to safety.”
    Finally, someone spotted her screaming at a Costco sample lady, accusing the poor woman of being a Russian asset, and authorities arrived to haul her back to her cell.
    “Come on, Hill, right this way,” said one medical assistant, tenderly guiding her down a hallway to her custom cell. “Time to go back to your ce—err, your office.”
    Clinton tried to resist, insisting that she couldn’t go back to the Oval Office right now as she had a trip scheduled to meet with some foreign leaders. “Yes, OK, dear, that’s fine. That’s just great. Why don’t we have a little nap and then we’ll meet with the foreign delegates later, OK, hon?”

  7. Colonel,

    Maybe I’m missing something in our conversation.

    With regards to what we’ve been talking about, what do YOU think the First Amendment’s means by “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech”?

  8. Just because:

  9. VH,

    Are you familiar with the Trolley Problem?

    The general form of the problem is this:

    You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the main track. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:

    A) Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
    B) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

    Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

    In the general form, the question is: Is it “more right” to take action and kill one person or take no action and allow five to be killed?

    In the former, you DID something, you CAUSED a death that would not have happened.

    In the later, you did NOTHING, but five people died whose deaths you could have PREVENTED.

    At its heart is a conflict between utilitarian ethics (greatest good) and deontological ethics (actions matter, not consequences).

    Which is right? Do you pull the lever?

    • I’d pull the lever. Now you tell me since this is supposedly about the political greater good theory, what policy does this thought experiment actually justify?

      • I’d pull the lever.

        I, too, would pull the lever.

        Or, at least, I think I would.. it’s hard to know for sure until you’re in those shoes.

        Now you tell me since this is supposedly about the political greater good theory, what policy does this thought experiment actually justify?

        Our conversation yesterday, re sex change surgery, of course.

        By pulling that lever, you show that it’s not “the act” but “the outcome” which matters.

        That is, you’ve placed yourself firmly in the utilitarian camp of ethics. MY camp, as it happens.

        So it’s not about “did I pump my kid full of drugs and do a major life-altering surgery on him/her?” Because the actual act, the deontological subject, is not what matters.

        Rather, it’s about the outcome. Where before, the outcome is, “fewer people got run over by the trolley” – and that is what makes that choice the “better” choice. So, here, that outcome is contingent on what you – as the parent – believe their long-term identity will be. It’s not about “I did this harm,” but “what choice is most likely to cause a net-benefit.”

        (A) If you believe that the gender dysphoria is a phase, that it will go away in adulthood, then the best outcome is for the child to remain male. A male who is fully biologically male and fully intact.

        (B) If you believe that the gender dysphoria is not a phase, that it is a core part of their identity, then the best outcome is for the child to begin sex reassignment surgery before puberty.* Before permanent and irreversible changes start taking hold. This outcome is: a female is as biologically female as medical science can make her.

        Conversely, there are bad outcomes of being wrong: (C) Do nothing, but it wasn’t a phases and (D) do something, but it was a phase.

        (C) Where you did nothing, but it wasn’t a phase, the child goes through puberty. His/Her height increased, develops an Adam’s apple, voice drops, lots of extra hair, larger body, larger frame, different musculature, etc. By the time she gets old enough to make her own medical choices, she can only make so much progress at becoming physically more “female.” Here, your inaction has doomed her to an inferior outcome: a life as not-quite the correct gender.

        (D) This is the nightmare scenario for the parent. Here, you committed to the change, but it was just a phase, and now they’re as close to female as possible, but that’s the wrong gender. Now they’re sterile, in the wrong body, and can begin late hormone therapy, but that will also have the bad outcome: a life as not-quite the correct gender.

        Notice that the bad outcomes are a result of “being wrong,” not “act / don’t act.”

        We can look at it as a payoff calculation:

        The best outcome is always to “be right and act accordingly.”

        So you need to know your child, consider carefully, really make a serious and extended and concerted effort to understand which left-hand category they’re in. Only then can you choose the appropriate top-category. Because “not acting” is still a choice and still results in landing in one of those squares whether you like it or not.

        But if you believe – firmly believe – that it’s not just a phase, that it’s who they are, and who they will remain, then CHOOSING to do nothing put you at a worse outcome than CHOOSING to do something. So you should CHOOSE the option which will yield the best outcome for your child given your best understanding of who they are.

        It’s a hard choice, but the question is: what decision gives my child the best outcome.

        ——————-

        *Perhaps even earlier – I’m not a doctor – there could be a medical advantage to starting earlier, but I might consider it outweighed by the risk of being wrong. That is, by waiting, I can be more confident that I’ve chosen the right path, so the marginal gain in being “more transitioned” might be a reasonable sacrifice in exchange for not doing it at all if it was just a phase.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Interesting how you “utilitarians” use this same thought experiment to rationalize so many different things. While ignoring the underlying NON utilitarian values that might have driven the answer. For example, the moral nature of risking 5 vs. 1 person along with perceived probabilities of avoiding any death.

          It is a rigged experiment and thus not an experiment at all.

          I would have pulled the lever, and pushed it, and pulled it and DERAILED the CAR. Or how about yelling at the people on the track to get their attention to move?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        Make no mistake this exercise is to justify the killing of a few to save the many. Utilitarian ethics amounts to doing math alone. It ignores the underlying reasons or the source of those reasons.

        So…… when AOC decides that certain people must go to save the planet, those people will be gone, eliminated, or the opposite of WOKE.

        • Make no mistake this exercise is to justify the killing of a few to save the many.

          Precisely.

          Ceterus paribus, it’s better that fewer people get run over by the trolley.

          Utilitarian ethics amounts to doing math alone. It ignores the underlying reasons or the source of those reasons.

          No.

          Maybe PURE utilitarian ethics, but that way madness lies.

          That way, we should kill half the population to feed them to the other half, and have more resources for the survivors, etc. We should sacrifice random people and harvest their organs because each kill can save several other lives, etc.

          But I don’t know anyone who doesn’t temper their utilitarianism with at least a modicum of deonotlogy.

          Likewise, or perhaps, conversely, pure deontology can also lead to madness. At it’s purest, you wouldn’t steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. I don’t know any human being who doesn’t temper their deontology with at least a modicum of utilitarianism.

          Maybe Black Flag, but does he actually qualify as a “human being.”

        • I am aware of the dangers of this way of thinking.

  10. Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    October 22, 2019 at 2:42 pm (Edit)
    The drug companies, pharmacies and distributors who are settling with cities and towns on the Opioid thing are fools.
    It is not that they don’t have a responsibility here. It is that the settlements are NOT going to anybody affected, not to distraught parents, children or spouses, not to people physically injured but to towns and cities to balance their damned books!

    I would like to know what actual standing the govt has? They are not the victims.

    • I would like to know what actual standing the govt has? They are not the victims.

      It’s a fair question.. but let me ask a follow-up.. if not the “government” prosecuting this, then who?

      It’s not like “you” can go up against Pfizer.

      Maybe a class action?

      Without having dug too deeply into this particular settlement, I know that SOME settlements have been over breaches in the law such as illegal kickback and adverse incentive schemes. Those would be crimes which can be prosecuted rather than torts wherein they might lack the appropriate standing.

      While, again, I’m pretty well versed, I’m not an actual lawyer – I just have a family tree full of ’em – so I could be wrong. Still, I’d bet I’m on the right general track here.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        How about a class action or, or, let the government sue on behalf of the victims. The money SHOULD NOT be used to fill potholes or pockets of pot hole fillers and their pol pals!

        “Potholes or pockets of pot hole fillers and their pol pals” By Jove, I like that! Or as Teddy would say, “Bully”.

  11. V.H. says:
    October 22, 2019 at 12:16 pm (Edit)
    https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/22/texas-jury-father-cant-stop-chemical-castration-gender-change-seven-year-old-son/
    This is so wrong, I just want to SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is child abuse. Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness for Pete’s sake. You treat it with therapy. This child will probably commit suicide before he can vote legally.

    • Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness for Pete’s sake. You treat it with therapy.

      Is that so?

      Well then, let’s check in with Psychiatry.org:

      Treatment options for gender dysphoria include counseling, cross-sex hormones, puberty suppression and gender reassignment surgery.

      What’s that last one there?

      This is child abuse.

      Gman: Treating kids for a medical condition in line with the consensus psychiatric opinion with the consent of her mother is child abused… because I SAY SO!

      This child will probably commit suicide before he can vote legally.

      Maybe.. trans people in general have higher rates of suicide than the general population.

      Of course, Mathius wonders how much of that is intrinsic to the mental issues they naturally suffer and how much of that is due to things like having a father who needs a court order in order to be prevented from calling you by the wrong name/gender?

      • It’s Ok to be wrong Mathius, which you are, but for now, we can just disagree on this subject.
        But I will ask, would you let your daughter have any of the following: cross-sex hormones, puberty suppression and/or gender reassignment surgery.

        • At present, no.

          As her father, as her medical proxy (in conjunction with my wife), I would not.

          If she told me she was a boy, spent years fixated on the idea, got depressed when I told her she had to wear a dress or have long hair, demanded I called her Gary… at some point, it tips the scale from “phase” to “identity.”

          I would – SURELY – try everything I reasonably could first. Because this is a non-reversible decision.

          I don’t know why you’d need to do it at 7 as there is no sexual dimorphism at that age, so I’d probably want to wait until 10 or 11.. just before puberty… push out the deadline to the last possible minute for irreversible actions.

          But I’d cave on other aspects long before then. I’d accept her his name change, wardrobe change, hair change once it became clear that this wasn’t “just a phase.”

          I’d have him in therapy for years by this point, trying to work out any underlying issues. But I’d also be KIND and UNDERSTANDING and RESPECTFUL.

          And, if it’s not a phase, when puberty loomed too near, I’d have to make a choice.

          Let her go through puberty and never actually be able to get as close to physically male as she otherwise could. .. as he otherwise could. To force her into that life.

          Or start artificial hormones and related surgeries.. commit… accept that the identity isn’t a phase, and focus on giving him the best life I can give him in light of who he is.

          I wouldn’t be happy about this. But I’d keep that to my damned self.

          ———–

          It’s worth noting that when my older daughter was.. 2-3-ish… she went through a phase where she insisted she was a boy. It lasted a few months. This is a thing that actually happened and scared the bejesus out of my wife and me. (obviously, I’m not nearly so enlightened as a I preach, so feel free to make your accusations of hypocrisy here).

          We clamped down on that shit… hard.

          And she wasn’t happy about it… at all.

          I think it’s the only time I’ve ever seen my wife actually threaten serious punishments.

          And my daughter is still a bit.. tom boy-ish… dislikes pink.. into dragons..

          But she knows she’s a girl… she’ll wear dresses.. has long hair.. I haven’t heard a peep about it from her in years. I think having a sister helped.

          I’m not overly proud of what we did. I still don’t know if it’s the right decision or if it’ll resurface with depression and suicidal ideation in years.. But as her father, I wanted the best life I could provide for my child. Trans is a hard life. It’s an uncomfortable life. It involves issues not only of social identity and social acceptance but fertility and a lifetime of hormonal issues and medications. My wife and I felt that the best thing we could do would be to kabash that impulse then and there while it was nascent in the hopes that it could be kabashed and that, by not feeding into it, that it would not become a core aspect of her personality wherein these things would be issues later on.

          Again, I don’t know if I was right. I hope so.

          But if she came up to me today demanding the name change and took it seriously and wouldn’t let it go for years despite my efforts… ? I can’t firmly say how things would go after several years, when she was 10 or 11.

          I want what’s right for my child. If she he wanted – really wanted to be male.. if he felt it deep in his bones that that’s who he was, and it wasn’t just a passing phase that he’d later regret….. I’d want to give him the best shot he could at a truly male body. Refusing to act is still a decision.. as a parent, I cannot hide behind inaction.

          Of course… that’s easy to say.. harder to actually stand by.

          • Your kids will be fine, they have two great parents. Not all kids today have that pleasure.

            • I appreciate that.. but it’s not all in the parents.

              There’s a lot more to it.

              There’s society and friends and social media and so on. There’s the whole nature component – who knows what’s lurking in their genome and brain chemistry.

              People often ask me if I want another kid.. to try for a third.. maybe have a boy to go with my two girls. I tell them I feel like I survived two rounds of Russian Roulette. I have two happy and healthy and smart and sweet little girls with no serious issues medical or otherwise. Why would I pull the trigger again? Why would I risk that? How can I risk that?

              But the truth is that those first two rounds aren’t “over”… I didn’t “win” them.. I just haven’t “lost” them either. That bullet could still fire at any time for any reason in any way. They could fall of the swing set and break their necks, they could develop a mental illness, they could get cancer, they could be struck by lightning. As teens, they could have a car accident or commit suicide, or.. who knows?

              I wish I could believe, comfort myself, with the platitude “they will be fine,” but I just can’t back that up any confidence.

              It is not within my power to guarantee “they’ll be fine.” I wish that it were but.. it’s just not. I live beneath the Sword of Damocles, and just have to make my peace with that fact.

              At best, I can say, so far, they’re fine. Hopefully, it stays this way.

              • Test

              • Test complete, now onto Parenthood…….it is not easy. I have a son and a daughter and we did not have any identity issues…..I bought a gym set for the backyard, knowing full well it was good for some broken bones….and it was. I remember taking the training wheels off bikes knowing full well there would be scrapes and bruises and there were.

                My son was encouraged in sports as was my daughter and they both played sports. If my son wanted to play football, I said sure, knowing full well the injuries that could happen. My daughter wanted to play soccer, knowing full well the injuries that could happen. We did not restrict them but we did warn them. My son started football when he was 6 years old and my daughter started soccer at 5.

                That was then….and now is….well, my son and I see things differently. He has become, what I term, a helicopter parent. He hovers constantly over his son and says he will not play violent sports. My daughter is the exact opposite. She has two girls that are athletic and play sports and do gymnastics and things…It is tough to sit back and watch but I am just the grand parent.

                ——————-

                Now, you, on the other hand, have a house full of estrogen. You stand no chance of survival. You will have no say, in a couple more years, even though you will THINK you have control…………………………and, if I am still around, will giggle quietly in the background. There is no way that I could raise a child in this day and time.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Logical Fallacy called: Appeal to Authority

        “Treatment options for gender dysphoria include counseling, cross-sex hormones, puberty suppression and gender reassignment surgery.”

        No questioning of the lack of morality or ethics in the professions latest treatment options. A false assumption easily identified by replacing gender dysphoria with animal dysphoria.

        In reality the treatment options reveal how far down the slippery slope we have already PROGRESSED.

        • Logical Fallacy called: Appeal to Authority

          OBJECTION!

          Per our friends at LogicallyFallacious.com:

          Exception: Be very careful not to confuse “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally.

          I accept that I am not an expert in the field, but the best understanding I can offer is the consensus opinion of experts.

          I cannot vouch that they are 100% correct, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests that I am better off relying on them than on Gman’s opinion. He asserts, sans evidence, that it is treated by therapy. I assert that, relying on experts, the more likely answer is that it is treated with therapy.. or sex change.

          I do not rely on the experts to assert an absolute truth, nor to build a logical argument. Rather, I defer to the topic authorities.

          Conversely, Gman, who rejects the authorities and substitutes instead his own opinion without pertinent support, is, per the above, committing “a fallacy […] in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism.”

          No questioning of the lack of morality or ethics in the professions latest treatment options. A false assumption easily identified by replacing gender dysphoria with animal dysphoria.

          I think we all want the same thing here.. to do what’s best for the kid.

          The issue is that Gman has substituted his opinion for that of the consensus medical opinion of relevant experts.

          He asserts, again, sans evidence, that it is child abuse. I assert, with reasoning (albeit orthogonal reasoning to yours) that the outcome is the key determinant in whether such treatment is appropriate.. that is, the payoff table I so artfully drew in MS paint above.

          In reality the treatment options reveal how far down the slippery slope we have already PROGRESSED.

          Perhaps.

          Perhaps.

          But slippery slope is also a logical fallacy! Hoo-boy, we’re on a roll here today!

          I don’t see any harm in whether a person is a male or a female or wants to be the other… there IS harm when fertility is lost. There is potential harm when irreversible changes are made or permitted to occur through inaction.

          If you could flip a switch and simply toggle back and forth between genders at will, there would be nothing bad or wrong or immoral about that.

          If you want to cut off your own anatomy and replace it with something else, there is nothing wrong with that.

          If you want to shoot yourself full of hormones to emulate another anatomical configuration, there is nothing wrong with that.

          The problems comes when you are too young to make the decision for yourself, yet irreversible changes will occur naturally (through inaction) before you are competent to serve as your own medical proxy. In fact, before it is likely that you will be able to make a life-long commitment of this nature in all but a small minority of cases. THIS is the sticky wicket. A choice has to be made.. choosing not to act is still choosing. So the best outcome is to choose correctly.

          • My opinion is that a 7 year old is not capable of consenting to anything medical concerning a sex change. Therapy is not harmful in the same way. The mother of the child should be in jail for child abuse, not chemically castrating the child. This shouldn’t even be an argument. Next thing it will be ok for a 7 year old to have sex, smoke cigarettes, drink liquor and beer and drive, just because they want to.

            • My opinion is that a 7 year old is not capable of consenting to anything medical concerning a sex change.

              Correct.

              Which is why the decision is made by the parent.

              Therapy is not harmful in the same way.

              Generally correct.

              he mother of the child should be in jail for child abuse, not chemically castrating the child.

              The mother was doing what she believed to be in the long-term best interests of her child. Her decision was backed by doctors, psychiatrists, (almost certainly) a medical ethics board, and a court.

              Yet you feel entiitled, without knowing the specifics of the case, the child, the mother, anything.. you feel entitled to overrule all of them and supplant your opinion that it’s abuse?

              Man, I thought I had a big ego..

              This shouldn’t even be an argument.

              You’re right. Everyone should butt the hell out of this family’s private medical issues.

              Next thing it will be ok for a 7 year old to have sex, smoke cigarettes, drink liquor and beer and drive, just because they want to.

              Again, it’s not up to the kid, it’s up to the parent. And that’s backed by doctors and courts.

              If a parent takes their kid to the doctor and the doctor determines he has a rare medical disorder that can be treated by smoking, and the medical literature supports that, a judge rules in favor of allowing it, a hospital agrees to do radical surgery related to it, and gets the procedure through their ethics review… yea, I’m going to be ok with that kid having sex, smoking cigarettes, drinking liquor, and beer, or driving, or whatever else all those experts say is necessary… is in the long-term interests of the child.

              I defer to the experts because they are… wait for it… experts.

              It doesn’t mean they’re DEFINITELY right. They could be wrong.

              But they’re more likely to be right than I am when I have zero expertise, don’t know the kid, and have almost none of the pertinent facts of the case.

  12. Trump said he’s being Lynched, OH MY! The Left must think they own that word. Kamala Harris said Smolette was lynched….no problem. Frankly, the Crats are acting like a lynch mob. Trump is right, they are trying to lynch him.

  13. Message Guidance:
    1. When discussing Trump’s actions, keep the language simple, direct and values-based: President Trump abused his power and put himself above the law when he asked the Ukrainian President to interfere in the U.S. election.
    2. Emphasize the core value that no one is above the law. Incumbent members who support the inquiry are simply working to uphold the rule of law and Republicans who oppose the inquiry are failing to fulfill their oath of office.
    3. The whistleblower did the right thing by coming forward – members of Congress have a duty to protect this person, and Trump is wrong to threaten this person and impugn their character or motives.
    4. Demonstrate your constant focus on the biggest issues facing families in the country, specifically health care and wages. These issues continue to out-rank impeachment as priorities for voters, especially swing voters. By focusing on these and local issues, you can show voters that you know how to focus on their top priorities, while also navigating the impeachment inquiry.

    Here’s the puppet masters words to the puppets.

  14. ATLANTA, GA—Strapped for cash and failing in ratings, CNN has discovered an innovative new way to cut costs: simply rerunning articles from a year or two ago and replacing the phrase “Russian collusion” with an updated term, “Ukrainian scandal.”

    “This is a green, Earth-friendly way to recycle news stories,” said a CNN rep. “We have discovered a completely carbon-neutral way to produce indefinitely renewable outrage.”
    CNN technical experts simply searched their website for any article about the Russian collusion hoax and replaced all references to Russia with references to Ukraine.
    Leftists have praised CNN’s move, saying it is the most environmentally conscious way to report news stories. “Other news organizations are spending lots of resources and generating a ton of carbon by actually reporting on things that really happened,” said one climate activist. “But CNN recycles their wild conspiracy theories every couple years, allowing us to reuse our old, beat-up sense of outrage for years to come.”
    CNN spokespeople say they look forward to recycling the stories with whatever new reason for impeachment they drum up well into Trump’s second term.

  15. Thoughts?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      1. CNN has a long history of such things, BUT they are not alone.

      2. There is no shortage these days of talking heads telling us what we are to think about everything. In short and in this case, doing exactly what he is accusing CNN of doing. Note his comments about Bernie being Superman and doing TWICE what anyone else has done by doing 4 rallies a day, on and on.

      3. The media will do what ever is necessary to maintain controversy or public anxiety because they need viewers.

      4. To the underlying accusation. I have no doubt CNN will dump on Bernie because they hate Trump so much they won’t want Bernie mucking up the Dem primary again. Besides, that is what the media does. They build up candidates so they can dump on them later. If there is one definitive trend over the decades that is it.

    • Thoughts? I would tell Kyle that he now knows what we on the Right have known about CNN (and the rest of the Liberal media), they are very dishonest. If Kyle thinks this little stuff is bad, he wished he could even imagine what they have been doing to Trump for the last 3 years.

  16. After all the screaming and whining about Syria, Turkey has agreed to a long term cease fire, possibly permanent. The US will keep a small group of boots on the ground in Syria as well.
    So after the Crats bloviated about Trump’s bad decision, he wins again. But I’m sure that they will still bitch about something, but it will fall on deaf ears (except for the Leftist cult followers who believe anything they say).

    Well done Mr. President. We lost NO blood. Bravo! Bravo! 😛

    • Amazing how fast the issues get resolved when we back away and say it is your problem, you fix it. By far it is the better solution for them to agree on something than for us to dictate the terms.

  17. U.S.—Oops! A social media scheduling error apparently caused Hillary Clinton to post her condolences for Tulsi Gabbard’s suicide one day early.

    This morning, Clinton posted that she felt “great sadness” at hearing that Gabbard had killed herself. In subsequent tweets, she detailed how “tragic” it was that Gabbard had broken her own kneecaps, stuck her feet in concrete, then tossed herself off the docks near a seedy warehouse.
    “It’s just terrible what happened, and though we disagreed, I hope we can all take a few minutes to send thoughts and prayers to the family,” Clinton concluded.
    The post was deleted several hours later after the Clinton team realized it was scheduled for October 23, not October 24 as originally intended.
    At publishing time, Clinton had accidentally posted early condolences for the unfortunate suicide of the social media manager who had OK’d the post and subsequently posted more condolences for the new social media manager, etc.

    • MANCHESTER—Wow! This biological male raced a bunch of women on her bike, and you won’t believe what happened next!

      The inspiring tale began when Rachel McKinnon, a biological male and self-described transgender woman, went to race against biological women. While you’d expect that the competition would be even, since men and women are the same and in no way are there any biological differences between the two genders, this wasn’t the case.
      What happened next will shock you.
      McKinnon crushed all of them. They didn’t stand a chance. It was almost like she had a biological advantage, but we had to rule that out at the start because it disagrees with transgender ideology. So instead it must just be her human spirit and dedication that caused her to win against the women.
      You go, girl!
      The heartwarming tale is teaching men everywhere they can do anything if they believe in themselves and also change genders to beat on the women instead of the much tougher men’s class.
      “It’s just so inspiring to see that when you believe in yourself, follow your dreams, and identify as a woman to make the competition a lot easier, you can do anything,” said one male cyclist. “I’ve been struggling with middling performance, but now I know that if I reach for the stars and stop racing against men and crush the women instead, I can be anything I want to be: even a world champion.”

      • Jesus Christ, this is myopic.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:
          • 1. Stop getting your “news” from Facebook.
            2. Stop getting your “news” from the Blaze via Facebook link.

            ———–

            I love how people who are anti-Trans* love to throw out sports as an example of the ills of trans rights, trans acceptance, whatever.

            It’s bullshit.

            It’s a fucking game.

            You can’t determine whether someone should be allowed to change who they are because some subset of them might compete against other people in a game and have an advantage.

            Here’s another thought, if she had transitioned before puberty, the advantage of her XY chromosomes would be nullified. It’s only because she went through puberty that she gained the large bones, large frame, large lungs, large heart, and striated muscles.

            Don’t want to let biological males compete against biological females? Whatever, I don’t give a shit. Fair, unfair, I don’t care.*** It’s a game.

            What isn’t a game is when someone interjects themselves into the private medical affairs of a third party, without any pertinent expertise, without any of the pertinent facts, and with no personal standing or personal stake in the matter and denounces parents trying to do the right thing for “child abuse.”

            Or when a clerk refuses to issue updated birth certificates.

            Or when assholes deliberately and pointedly insist on using the wrong name and gender.

            Or that trans people suffer catastrophically high rates of suicide, and that some of that is almost certainly attributable to society being awful to them. Not all.. but at least some.

            Or when politicians make it illegal to change genders without sex reassignment surgery, even though that surgery is not wanted by all trans people.

            But nooooooooooooooooooooo!!

            Let’s focus on the woman who won a race.

            Let’s worry about what might happen in the Olympics.

            It doesn’t matter! It’s a sideshow. It’s a unimportant distraction from the real issues these people face. It lets non-trans people be the victims of the trans people when, net-net, they suffer far, far, far more from us than we do from them.

            Nooooo… don’t pay attention to the way we oppress and discriminate against these people… don’t pay attention to the challenges they face.. don’t worry about way they suffer.. or the way media and people and politicians go out of their way to butt into their private lives… no, the real victims are the non-trans athlete who might have to compete against someone with an unfair advantage.

            THAT is why I called this myopic. It's not that it's "wrong".. it's that it focuses on narrow unimportant minutiae, playing the victim, while ignoring everything important we've been talking about for 2-3 days now.

            ——–

            *Mathius makes no claim here whether this specifically includes you or anyone else on this site. It is a general observation and, it should be noted, does not explicitly include all people who are anti-trans, but merely a perceived** significant subset thereof.

            **by me. In my personal and unsubstantiated opinion based on causal observation.

            ***while I don’t care, I’d suggest that anyone who transitioned M->F after puberty should not be able to compete with women. By this point biological differences have emerged and, as such, the playing field is not level. But, whatever.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              A long, long time ago there was the Tulip frenzy, then many centuries later there was the hula hoop frenzy followed by pet rocks, cabbage patch kids and beanie babies. Now, we have the “Trans” frenzy. Fortunately the prior frenzies did not destroy lives.

              Anyone but the most foolish will understand that much of what we now see is merely a frenzy, an overreaction by highly impressionable people to a phenomena which they somehow think will make their confused lives make sense.

              I can assume and could (but won’t) do the research showing that studies were done even prior to the famous Kinsey reports showing the “incidence” of transgender desires among the population. I would again assume that this remained a constant through the much more sexually liberated last half century. Despite this we know that the “movement” has dramatically spiked over the past few years. The spike is an aberration.

              While it is not PC to point out that an entire civilized country went birdshit from 1933 to 1945 it is instructive as to teh ability of large swaths of teh population to fool itself.

            • Always brand sanitary products will no longer bear symbology indicating they are designed for females in an effort to appease ‘trans women.’
              Procter & Gamble (P&G) announced it will soon be removing the ‘Venus’ emblem from packaging for menstrual products after complaints from transgender activists.
              “For over 35 years, Always has championed girls and women, and we will continue to do so,” P&G said in a statement to NBC News. “We’re also committed to diversity and inclusion and are on a continual journey to understand the needs of all of our consumers.”
              “We routinely assess our products, packaging and designs, taking into account consumer feedback, to ensure we are meeting the needs of everyone who uses our products. The change to our pad wrapper design is consistent with that practice.”
              Ben Saunders, an 18-year-old trans activist, has been credited by many as being the first — and perhaps only one of a small handful — to raise the ‘issue.’
              “After having contacted Always back in June about their packaging that discriminated against their transgender customers through its design that featured the female symbol, I’m thrilled to to hear back that they’ve now redesigned the packaging which will be out in December!!” Saunders tweeted, along with a screenshots of an email from Always.

  18. Seattle schools are suggesting that math is a tool of oppression and that standardized testing is…..are you ready for this……racist.

    • Source?

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:
        • Let’s go to the source article, edweek.com.

          Ok… reading… reading…

          Seems like it’s suggesting that, by tying math concepts to things that might interest diversity students, they might take more interest.

          No districtwide—or mandated—math/ethnic studies curriculum is planned, but groups of teachers are working with representatives of local community organizations to write instructional units for teachers to use if they wish

          Did you know that people take more interest in things that relate to things they’re interested in? Did you know that getting students to pay attention and get invested is the surest way to get them to learn the subject matter?

          When too many black and Latino students see no place for themselves in math and science, Castro-Gill said, it’s important to be explicit about how their own cultures contribute to math and how they can use it to make their communities, and the world, better.

          Oh, GASP!, we’re offering up some optional ideas for how teachers might help make math feel more relevant and engaging to minority students.. THE HORROR!!

          Math is a dry subject. Me, I’m a puzzle-solver, I love to untangle things and see how the pieces fit together. I was always great at math. I couldn’t get enough of it. I didn’t start running into issues until Calc 3 or maybe vector analysis. That’s where it started to get a little brain-bending and my interest petered out.. mostly because it was very hard to see how any of it ever related to real life.

          For normal kids, math is too dry, too esoteric, to capture their interests. If a teacher of minority students can OPTIONALLY bring those students into the fold by making math more relevant to their lives, why is that a bad thing?

          Oh, and it’s been around since the ’70’s.

          Ethnomathematics, which studies the intersection of math and culture, took shape in the late 1970s

        • (2nd attempt since SUFA ate my first reply)

          Let’s go to the source article, edweek.com.

          Ok… reading… reading…

          Seems like it’s suggesting that, by tying math concepts to things that might interest diversity students, they might take more interest.

          No districtwide—or mandated—math/ethnic studies curriculum is planned, but groups of teachers are working with representatives of local community organizations to write instructional units for teachers to use if they wish

          Did you know that people take more interest in things that relate to things they’re interested in? Did you know that getting students to pay attention and get invested is the surest way to get them to learn the subject matter?

          When too many black and Latino students see no place for themselves in math and science, Castro-Gill said, it’s important to be explicit about how their own cultures contribute to math and how they can use it to make their communities, and the world, better.

          Oh, GASP!, we’re offering up some optional ideas for how teachers might help make math feel more relevant and engaging to minority students.. THE HORROR!!

          Math is a dry subject. Me, I’m a puzzle-solver, I love to untangle things and see how the pieces fit together. I was always great at math. I couldn’t get enough of it. I didn’t start running into issues until Calc 3 or maybe vector analysis. That’s where it started to get a little brain-bending and my interest petered out.. mostly because it was very hard to see how any of it ever related to real life.

          For normal kids, math is too dry, too esoteric, to capture their interests. If a teacher of minority students can OPTIONALLY bring those students into the fold by making math more relevant to their lives, why is that a bad thing?

          Oh, and it’s been around since the ’70’s.

          Ethnomathematics, which studies the intersection of math and culture, took shape in the late 1970s

          Make the math personal, make it relevant, make it click, THEN they’ll pay attention and learn.

          “Students should be able to see themselves in the curriculum”

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            I knew you would have some excuse. Problem is THERE IS LITTLE ENOUGH TIME to teach. Getting bogged down in this shit is absurd.

            • Perhaps.

              But I remember, as a kid, the teachers were always trying to make it relevant. If you had this many GI Joe’s and I have you that many, how many would you have?

              How’s it any different?

              You’re a reader, and I’m 90% sure we’ve discussed Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything before, yes? Imagine if school were taught like that.. vignettes, anecdotes, interesting things that kids could relate to and be excited by.. that make them feel invested in the subject matter. That make it personal and less boring, less esoteric?

              How much better might they learn?

              If math is “a bunch of boring equations made up by old dead white guys,” how interested might a minority-filled classroom be? You can have all the time in the world, but if you can’t get the kids to engage, you might as well be teaching a brick wall.

              And, remember, all this is completely OPTIONAL anyway.

              What’s the big deal?

              • Actually Mathius, I did not read this in an article……After taking your advice about trying to broaden my scope….I saw it on CNN ( now, I know that CNN is a piece of shit but it is a mouth piece for the left..so I watch it to try to broaden my scope )….Cnn pundits were debating it….and it led into standardized testing was racist because it unfailry discriminates against all minorities.

                I was brought up about Asians on testing and math and the pundits were all against Asians because their culture is different than others…………..YA THINK?

              • Well, kudos to you for broadening your horizon.

                This article and, presumably, the coverage you saw were both crap, however.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                I learned math through little stories of how IT could be used. To build pyramids, to navigate across an ocean.

                Somehow I think this will not be about “if you load 300 slaves on a slave ship and sail across the sea and have a Typhus outbreak which kills 20% how many slaves do you have left to sell in Jamestown?”

                Better to call the Egyptians “Africans” and take if from there.

              • “if you load 300 slaves on a slave ship and sail across the sea and have a Typhus outbreak which kills 20% how many slaves do you have left to sell in Jamestown?”

                240… but you’ll probably have lost a few more to other various maladies. Plus, depending on the date, you may lose a few to taxes and levies. Some won’t be “for sale” but rather, pre-purchased or otherwise assigned or given away as gifts or bribes. Some will be too weak / infirm to sell. As is often the case in an all-cash business, some may also simply “disappear” from the books entirely.

                All in all, on a successful voyage, given your Typhus outbreak, you might wind up with around 200 for sale.

                “if you load 300 slaves on a slave ship and sail across the sea and have a Typhus outbreak which kills 20% how many slaves do you have left to sell in Jamestown?”

                Given the… lameness… of textbook writers, I could easily imagine this being an example. Blech.

                But, if they’re smarter, they might be able to mine the real world a little better. From the first google search result, an Ohio journal from 2015:

                Further examples of ethnomathematics include: the examination of
                ratios, patterns and symmetry in Japanese origami; logic of kin relations (e.g., Warlpiri in Australia); chance and strategy games and puzzles from various Native American tribes; symmetric strip decorations found in Incan and Maori cultures; symmetry and concepts of impermanence in the mandalas of the East; measuring and ratios in traditional quilting
                patterns (Presmeg, 1998); counting and understanding of time-keeping in the pagan Misseri Calendar, which was created by Icelanders who were greatly influenced by their environment (Bjamadottir, 2010); fractals in African design (Eglash, 2007); shapes and design in graffiti from hip-hop culture (Eglash, 2012); and, the khipus or quipus, which are an ancient Incan system of mathematics and accounting that was based on an elaborate system of tying knots in colored cords of cotton or camelid fibers (Urton, 2012). The list, of course, could go on and on. Not surprisingly, math is found nearly everywhere one looks; we just need to find ways of including these alternative viewpoints into our classrooms.

                Still feels… forced.. and hackneyed… just like the “if I have 10 GI Joe’s..” kind of thinking… but I guess it’s something. It’s better to learn a thing and see how math fits into it, then learn that math, than it is to pick the math you want to learn and find suitable examples. But I get that this isn’t how schools function.

                I’m reminded of something the dearly departed Black Flag once said about his daughter.. that she wasn’t interested in math at all, and consequently wasn’t any good at it. But then she took an interest in flying. That interest drove her to learn the concepts she needed to know and underlying math, which she soaked up like a sponge. THAT is how you get kids to learn the best. (of course it didn’t hurt that, being his kid, she’s probably smart).

                But whatever all this is, it’s not the hysteria-inducing absurdity that the original comment and link seemed to paint it as. It’s just an “attempt” at making math more interesting and relatable to minority students. Certainly not “Seattle schools are suggesting that math is a tool of oppression and that standardized testing is…..are you ready for this……racist.” There’s nothing wrong with this.

            • I knew you would have some excuse. Problem is THERE IS LITTLE ENOUGH TIME to teach. Getting bogged down in this shit is absurd.

              Translated: There isn’t enough time to get them interested in the concepts we expect them to learn. Instead, we should force-feed them condensed boring equations they won’t pay attention to and won’t retain.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                I got through the 11th year math curriculum only because the teacher, Bob Bannerman, at Theodore Roosevelt High in the Bronx (summer school) taught us navigation, charts and all. That is Quite different than dissing math as part of the “white power structure”. Geometry was another one where, without going far afield, you could show practical application. Still use A squared plus B squared equals C squared and can calculate quite accurately the cubic yard amount of concrete needed to lay a sidewalk 30 by 20 by four inches deep.

                In case you have not noticed all those dead white, male authors like Shakespeare have been de-emphasized in a whole lot of Urban districts to the detriment of education and something called “knowledge”. Ditto History, ditto civics, ditto geography.

                You are now, have been and always will be a VICTIM of, of course, the White Power Structure! WHOOPS forgot, White Male Power Structure!

  19. AS to the use of the term lynching…..well, I suppose when they lynched cattle rustlers and such….it …..was…….racist?

  20. Canine Weapon says:

    Founders Brewery, a craft brewery in Chicago hired its first African American employee. He was subsequently harassed and called racial slurs by other employees. When he reported the harassment, he was quickly fired.

    The company blamed it on poor performance, he blamed it on racism. He sued.

    The brewery’s defense is… well… something to behold:

    Evans’ Attorney, Jack Schulz: When did you first meet Tracy Evans?

    Founders Manager Dominic Ryan: 2011, 2012. We had mutual friends before working there, so …

    Schulz: OK, So you knew Tracy prior to his employment at Founders?

    Ryan: We met a few times, yes.

    Schulz: OK, are you aware Tracy is Black?

    Ryan: What do you mean by that?

    Schulz: Are you aware Tracy is African-American?

    Ryan: I’m not sure of his lineage so I can’t answer that.

    Schulz: Alright. Are you aware that Tracy is a man of color?

    Ryan: What do you mean by that?

    Schulz: No? Do you know … You don’t know what it means for someone to be a white person or a Black person?

    Ryan: I’m asking for clarification.

    Schulz: You don’t need any. I can promise you that. We’ll keep the record as is. Someone’s skin color. A white …

    Ryan: So that’s what you’re referring to?

    Schulz: Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah.

    Ryan: OK. Yes, I know the difference in skin tone.

    Schulz: Are you able to identify individuals by their skin tone?

    Ryan: What do you mean “identify”?

    Schulz: I mean have you ever looked at Tracy Evans in your entire life? Have you? That’s a … that’s a genuine question.

    Founders Attorney: Objection. Argumentative.

    Judge: You can answer.

    Ryan: Yes.

    Schulz: And did you ever realize that Tracy’s skin [is] Black?

    Ryan: That’s not … I mean, is his skin different from mine? Yes.

    Schulz: How?

    Ryan: What do you mean “how”? It’s a different color.

    Schulz: And what is the difference of that color?

    Ryan: It’s darker.

    Schulz: And that means?

    Founders Attorney: Objection. Vague question.

    Schulz: I mean, we could … This could be a one-sentence answer, you know. So by your … I guess your testimony is you have no idea if Tracy is a minority, if he’s African-American?

    Ryan: I don’t know Tracy’s lineage, so I can’t speculate on whether he’s … if he’s from Africa or not.

    Schulz: What do you mean lineage, from Africa?

    Ryan: No. I mean, like, I don’t know his DNA.

    Schulz: Have you ever met Black people who aren’t from Africa?

    Ryan: Excuse me?

    Schulz: Have you ever met a Black person born in America?

    Ryan: Yes.

    Schulz: And you were able … Have you ever met a Black person who didn’t tell you they were Black?

    Ryan: Can you rephrase that?

    Schulz: Is Barack Obama Black?

    Founders Attorney: Objection.

    Schulz: To your knowledge?

    Ryan: I’ve never met Barack Obama so I don’t …

    Schulz: So you don’t know if Barack Obama is Black? What about Michael Jordan? Do you know if Michael Jordan is Black?

    Founders Attorney: Objection

    Ryan: I’ve never met him.

    Schulz: So you don’t know him? What about Kwame Kilpatrick?

    Ryan: Never met him.

    Schulz: To your knowledge, was Kwame Kilpatrick Black?

    Ryan: I …

    Schulz: You don’t know?

    Ryan: I don’t know.

    People seem to be a mite bit upset over this, but I think it’s a hilarious and brilliant defense… you can’t racially discriminate if you have no idea what race and skin color are..

    ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      The plaintiff’s attorney was a fool and fell into a beautifully constructed trap. My hat goes off to the defendant for being fast enough on his feet to handle an Abbott and Costello, “Who’s on First” examination!

      My happiest days as both a government employee and later a real estate manager were when an overly “smart” attorney had me on the stand and I made mincemeat out of them. My son’s play chess. They always ask why I never did. I told them the game of “life” is so much more interesting and satisfying.

      I wish I had the transcript of my appearance in Federal Court as the witness for the defense when, during the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae follies in ’91, they tried to put my boss in jail on a Rico charge mainly because he refused to take a deal. A good four or five years went by after that when I had a dread that I would suddenly open my mail and find I was audited back to 1962! I have to tell you, the Judge, the Hon. John J. Murphy, enjoyed what was going on as much as I did.

  21. Yes, when I first starting reading this, I was thinking what a wise ass…..then it became clear the prosecuting attorney was getting upset because he was not getting what he wanted. Then it became clear that Ryan was not discriminating in his answers…..he did not know or did not pay attention or just did not care about a persons color. (We all know he knows the difference). But his defense is actually brilliant…..but also in honesty, I do not know who Kwame Kilpatrick is and I know that Barack Obama is not black, he is mulatto….

    I noticed that the prosecuting attorney was trying to differentiate with lineage insinuating that all black people are descendants of Africa…..very stereotypical, I think.

    Anyway, very interesting exchange………..since the early 80’s, statistics are no longer a qualifier on racial discrimination, so it is going to be tough to prove by simply saying no blacks are hired. With the introduction of BFOQ, the affirmative action crap of statistics has been so debunked, it will be difficult.

    • The thing is, he’s not just “talking,” he’s under oath, so it pays to be verrrry careful. I think we actually talked about that here the other day, how it makes sense to be absurdly careful when you’re being interviewed under oath, and how an attorney might prepare you.. Yup.. there it is, two pages ago.. VH was criticizing a Planned Parenthood rep for being evasive and I was trying to make the case that a good lawyer will beat that evasiveness into you for your own good.

      But, yes, of course he knows the guy is black, but if you can’t get him to admit it, then you have a very hard time proving he fired him for his blackness. It’s not that the jury doesn’t know, but a well-instructed jury won’t consider facts not in evidence. Which, of course, is why it’s so important to keep the explicit admission out of evidence.

      To take a more plausible version: I can’t have discriminated against you for being gay if I don’t know that you’re gay.

      …In fact, I don’t know what gay is, what it means, and have never heard the word before in my life. In fact, I don’t know what sexual orientation is.. or sex for that matter.. or even gender.. in fact, what does it even mean to be human? Can you define that for me? I’m sorry, I just don’t understand what this thing is you’re talking about… what is a corporal entity? What is reality? I’ve never heard of such a thing. What a strange concept that you believe in things “existing.” How very odd.

      I, also, did not know who Kwame is, so I googled it. He was the mayor of Detroit, which might be more common knowledge in Chicago than here.

      I noticed that the prosecuting attorney was trying to differentiate with lineage insinuating that all black people are descendants of Africa…..very stereotypical, I think.

      I mean, to be fair, go far enough back and we’re ALL from Africa.

      I noticed that the prosecuting attorney was trying to differentiate with lineage insinuating that all black people are descendants of Africa…..very stereotypical, I think.

      There was also a very interesting case where a white person from South Africa applied to Harvard (?) as an African American. He was, literally, an American.. from Africa. He was accepted and then they realized he was white and shit hit the fan. But I think he won out in the end.

      since the early 80’s, statistics are no longer a qualifier on racial discrimination, so it is going to be tough to prove by simply saying no blacks are hired. With the introduction of BFOQ, the affirmative action crap of statistics has been so debunked, it will be difficult.

      I don’t know this company, the area, or the pertinent laws.

      But if a company with 10 employees has no black people in an area where black people are 10% of the population, that’s just a thing that happens. There are no black people at my firm. But there is an Indian, a Malaysian, a Chinese-American, a Greek, and two Jews… so I think we’re ok in the diversity department.

      But if the company has 40,000 employees across 20 states and 300 cities and employs no black people, I’m going to raise an eyebrow. If, for example, Boeing, just “happened” not to have any black employees, I’m just not going to buy that, and neither would you.

      Somewhere in the middle is the tipping point where it starts to get “difficult to credit” that it’s just a coincidence.

      since the early 80’s, statistics are no longer a qualifier on racial discrimination, so it is going to be tough to prove by simply saying no blacks are hired. With the introduction of BFOQ, the affirmative action crap of statistics has been so debunked, it will be difficult.

      Sure, I guess, but they were calling him slurs, he complained, and then was quickly fired. I don’t know that his case needed any statistics..

      • We all know what happened. My point is that when all this stuff came down in the late 60s and 70s, it has created these problems and not helped them. I went through the era of, by law, you had to hire according to statistics and not according to talent. It created a further divide not a healing one. I know….I was there.

        So, as a result, BFOQs were invented. Strict rules of hiring and they exist today. And, BFOQs have survived the courts. Now, you can make rules so strict, you can fire anybody for anything. The affirmative action movement, while good in theory, created a worse environment today.

        • A couple of examples…..you can exempt GEDs from hiring. You can say, I want a high school degree from an accedited High School. I could set a BFOQ for wanting a janitor to be an MBA……You can set a reading standard so high that it takes a nuclear Physicist to answer….

          You cannot change culture…you cannot change feelings….you cannot change acceptance by the stroke of a pen. You will never eliminate the hate……ever and that is a sad commentary.

  22. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Those of us who can remember back before the Barack Obama presidency can remember a time when the race issue seemed to be healing and well below the simmering, let alone boiling point. As a matter of fact during the “ultra conservative” Reagan Presidency you saw nothing like you see today. One wonders just how Barry O and his minions managed to screw it all up so badly!

    • I recommend Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear. While it is about cherry picking data for global warming, the theme is much deeper as he explains in the epilogue. With the demise of of the CCCP, the media no longer had a narrative to scare the people and sell their product. So they started latching onto other things among them AGW. I am always amazed at how the next storm be it political, natural, or what ever is always the biggest, worst event in history. Reporters can no longer write without using superlatives. One would think that the dangers around us are increasing exponentially while the reality is we are living, longer easier lives than ever before.

      A few years ago Moonbeam convinced the voters in CA to raise taxes on the wealthy. While this worked for a couple of years, a new study has found that revenue collected as a result has returned to what it was before the increase. The money went where it was cheaper and took the wealthy with it.

      NASA has announced the ozone hole continues to shrink and is now the smallest they have recorded.

  23. A couple of nights ago, Hannity played a montage of Trump using the term “they did us a favor” and variations on it. The phase is just part of his lexicon. Did he get this from his mother or father?

  24. Canine Weapon says:

    With all the fun you lot have been having with logical fallacies lately….

    • Disturbing as that is, it’s pretty easy to lead kids in this kind of questioning, so take it with a grain of salt. The dad clearly – clearly – has his own agenda (for right or wrong) that the child remain male. I’m sure I could put together a video like that of my kids to paint any agenda I wanted to push, too.

      Now, I’m not saying he’s wrong.

      I’m not.

      I’m not saying he’s right, either.

      I’m not.

      All I’m saying is that in some select cases, an early sex change may be appropriate.

      Where it’s NOT, it is a mistake or child abuse or something along those lines.

      What I DO know is that I’m not this child’s mother. I’m not in possession of any facts other than a short video by an interested party. I know the court approved. I know the mother – who a different court gave medical control of the child to – thinks it’s right. Presumably psychiatrists have signed off on this. Presumably, a doctor will be needed for the actual procedure, which means a hospital will be involved, which means, almost certainly, that their own internal ethics panel will have to approve.

      That’s a lot of hurdles to get through before this happens.

      Maybe the mom is just nuts. Who knows? It certainly is a thing that happens.

      Is it right for THIS kid? I have absolutely no idea.

      And neither do you.

      That’s my point.

      My point is that, as outsiders, we do not have the facts to decide if this is “child abuse” or “proper”.. it might be either. But it is not a foregone conclusion. It’s far more a decision to be made by a competent mother who knows her child, in conjunction with medical professionals than it is for you and gman and RedState and HotAir and others to parachute into and make that decision for them and pronounce it “wrong” and “child abuse” without the facts at our disposal.

        • Republicans: GoVeRnMeNt NeEdS tO bUtT tHe HeLl OuT!!!!1!

          Also Republicans: The government should intervene in people’s private lives and private medical decisions when we don’t like what they’re doing! (see also Terry Shivo or Lawrence v. Texas or anti gay marriage, etc.)

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            I believe I’ve said this before and you did not answer but if not, What is your opinion on Munchausen by proxy? Do you think that it is possibly relevant to this case? Before irreversible steps are taken, long before they must be taken, do you think it merits further investigation?

            Please review and comment on this and its possible relevance to the above.

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/22/colorado-mother-kelly-renee-turner-make-a-wish

            • believe I’ve said this before and you did not answer but if not, What is your opinion on Munchausen by proxy?

              I did answer.

              I think it’s quite possible.

              However, I have no personal information, no connection to the child, no professional experience or knowledge to contribute, etc.

              So, while it “seems” like a possibility to me, I can’t say that it’s what’s happening.

              Do you think that it is possibly relevant to this case?

              Yes.

              But, agian, that’s why the doctors have to agree and the hospital ethics board and the courts.. and … and… and…

              Before irreversible steps are taken, long before they must be taken, do you think it merits further investigation?

              I think that’s what the court is doing. I think that’s what the hospital ethics board will do before consenting to the surgery.

              I think “trial by media” and a politically motivated investigation by the government is inappropriate.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Ah you are now faced with the ultimate dilemma of those crying for more Govt. control via “democracy”, or any other form of Statism.

            Society sets the rules. and the Govt. represents society’s desire for rules. So when something seems offensive to society the Govt gets to step in to make sure it is on the up and up. So in essence, you are saying that Republicans are more responsive to Society’s feelings, wants and desires on these matters.

            Of course there it the fact that the Shaivo case and this one have nothing in common relative to the underlying facts of the case.

            • So in essence, you are saying that Republicans are more responsive to Society’s feelings, wants and desires on these matters.

              Not hardly.

              What I’m saying is that the Democrats are openly statist.

              Whereas the Republicans are hypocritically statist.

              Of course there it the fact that the Shaivo case and this one have nothing in common relative to the underlying facts of the case.

              Just that it’s another example of a private medical decision being made by the medical proxy and then backed by the courts and then disrupted by a “trial by media” and then a Republican-led intervention to try to override the medical proxy’s decision.

              Other than that, there’s nothing in common.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Two different situations that could/could not dictate a different response by Govt. This latest being whether the “personal medical decisions” are appropriate at all.

                Your camouflaged comment is a shallow argument presented as sarcasm.

              • This latest being whether the “personal medical decisions” are appropriate at all.

                Because, yet again, the Republicans* involved are hypocritical in their fanaticism regarding personal freedom, personal liberty, and the non-intervention of the government… right up until the point that someone tries to do something they don’t like, often related in some way to sex and sexuality. THEN it’s suddenly appropriate for government to get involved.

                When Democrats say that “personal medical decisions” do not include having un-secured firearms at your house.. that this is a unacceptable medical risk to children.. the Republicans scream fascism.

                But when a mother thinks a medical procedure is necessary for her child, her doctor agrees, the courts agree, and (presumably) a hospital ethics panel agrees, too bad! Government is just “expressing the will of the people.”

                If there weren’t any kind of review.. if she could just slip off to Mexico and get it done over a weekend without any oversight.. I’d probably agree that an investigation is warranted. But there IS a lot of review. It just keeps coming up in her favor. And the Republicans involved are simply rejecting that, forcing a trial by media and politically motivated government investigation in order to overturn those reviews the way they want. That’s not right.

                More to MY point, as a person with no involvement or special knowledge of the case, it’s none of my damned business to weigh in with a verdict of “child abuse.” Especially in light of the fact that the authorities and experts seem to keep siding with her. In some, specific, rare cases**, this may be the right course of action. It may be the right thing to do. So it’s not right for me to parachute in with pre-conceived verdicts and then to use the force of the government to help enact my verdict.

                She’s not beating the child. She’s doing something the doctors and the courts all seem to agree is best for the child. Who am -I- to jump into that and say “screw all that. I know better! I’ll make this decision for you.” And I grant myself this unilateral authority of judgement, what happens when I decide an elective surgery is necessary for my child?*** Do random strangers on the internet, reading biased blogs, with no expertise in the subject, and who have never met my child get to make the decision for me? Does the governor get to order a politically motivated investigation and turn our lives upside down? And all the while, I can’t do the thing I believe is best for my child?

                ———–

                *yea, yea, not all the Republicans involved, but some of them. And, no, I’m not calling you a Republican. I know better than that.

                **and I make no assertion as to whether this example is or is not included in that.

                ***we did have one. My older daughter had a strabismus surgery. She had to go under general anesthesia and have the muscle of her eye detached and re-attached differently. She could have gone blind. She could have had a reaction to the anesthesia and died. But we judged the (probability-weighted) risks to be appropriate for the reward of avoiding life-long eye-strain and an occasionally wandering eye. What if the media and other busy-body-do-goooders decided to jump on this story and decide for me as the parent whether this kind of surgery is an “appropriate” “personal medical decision” to make for a minor. Who the hell are “they” to make that decision. I decided – me – as a parent. With the advice and consent of her doctors. That’s my JOB as a parent. And the JOB of the doctors / hospital is to “do no harm.”

      • You are arguing about a supposed exception about a subject that already represents a minute minority. You are more worried about physical appearance than all the things you are denying a child, if you are wrong. You somehow think the benefits of looking more feminine or masculine is more important than the negatives of making them a life time patient, denying them children, destroying their sex organs, screwing up their sex drive and also making them less feminine or masculine, not just in appearance but in ability, if you are wrong and who knows what else. I’ve read puberty also effects their brain development. All this crap can also shorten their life span. Supposedly stopping puberty since it effects their sex organs growth, also makes it much harder to make new sex organs, if they want to completely transition. Now I’m not sure how much of all this is true but it seems logical. So no, I don’t really care what all these experts say. They are wrong. Making these Hugh decisions for another human being when they are an impressionable child is wrong. Period.

        • You are arguing about a supposed exception about a subject that already represents a minute minority

          Yes.

          Well… that, and that it’s none of our business since we don’t know the kid, don’t have any of the facts, don’t have any relevant standing, and it seems the mother is getting backing from at least two courts, probably a team of doctors, and most likely a hospital ethics review panel.. it’s hard for me to justify supplanting my personal uninformed opinions for theirs.

          You are more worried about physical appearance than all the things you are denying a child, if you are wrong.

          This is false.

          I do not care one iota about “physical appearance.” I care what is right for the child. And I do not believe the question of determining “what is right for the child” is (A) a one-size-fits-all solution of “never let children transition” or (B) that it’s MY place to make that determination for someone else’s children…. especially, again, when the mother seems to be being backed up by everyone in authority (other than the father) who has the relevant information and expertise.

          all the things you are denying a child, if you are wrong.

          I am worried about this. Being wrong has consequences. They could be detrimental to the child. But just to be clear, I am worried about:

          (A) “all the things they’re denying the child if they’re wrong… by her going through an irreversible process.
          (B) “all the things they’re denying the child if they’re wrong… by doing nothing through inaction and allowing the irreversible process of puberty to transpire.

          You somehow think the benefits of looking more feminine or masculine is more important than the negatives of making them a life time patient, denying them children, destroying their sex organs, screwing up their sex drive and also making them less feminine or masculine, not just in appearance but in ability, if you are wrong and who knows what else.

          That’s a big assertion, so I’ll try to take a step back and try again.

          For a trans person, as I understand it, it is depressing and psychologically painful to “be in the wrong body.” This is why it’s so important for some of them that they’re willing to go to such tremendous lengths to get such dramatic surgeries and commit to a lifetime of hormone medications, etc.

          If – IF – a person is going to have a sex change, it is more “complete” if they do so before puberty. I don’t think you’d argue with that.

          And as a result, the “best” outcome for a person who is going to have a sex change anyway is to have it as early as possible. I don’t think you’d argue with that either.

          The CHALLENGE is determining who is in the category of “going to have a sex change anyway” and who is in a “phase”… especially when they are young and pre-pubescent.

          I don’t claim to know the answers. All I can say is that -I- am not the right person to be making that choice for someone else’s kid, who I’ve never met, and only ever read about in hopelessly biased blog articles. I know that -I- am not the person to make that decision. Neither are you. Neither is gman. The RIGHT person is the mother, with the backing of the courts and the medical community.

          I’ve read puberty also effects their brain development.

          Absolutely it does.

          God, you should only have known how scrambled I was from the ages 12-17…

          All this crap can also shorten their life span.

          ::citation needed::

          All this crap can also shorten their life span.

          Lots of things CAN happen. There are lots of side effects and potential side effects.

          That is why the mother, the court, and the doctors have to weigh carefully the risks and rewards.

          We had a strabismus surgery on my daughter. She could have lost her eye. She could have had a reaction to the anesthesia and died. We weighed the risks, weighed the benefits, we talked to the doctors who agreed. And then we did it. You know who didn’t make that choice? Random strangers on the internet and the Inspector General of Texas.

          Supposedly stopping puberty since it effects their sex organs growth, also makes it much harder to make new sex organs, if they want to completely transition.

          No idea.

          I’m not a doctor. I just play one on TV.

          Presumably, this is a question the child’s doctors considered. Presumably, if they are complying with ethics regulations, they informed the mother. Presumably, they all considered the risks, the benefits, the odds, etc, and reached the same conclusion.

          In fact, everyone involved, it seems, other than the father (who, again, somehow previously lost medical proxy rights to the child), agrees that the rewards outweigh the risks.

          I don’t have the facts. Therefore I can’t weigh in competently.

          You, likewise, don’t have the facts. So you, likewise, shouldn’t be able to render a judgement.

          For what it’s worth, my opinion, ceterus paribus, is that they shouldn’t do it. Just a consideration of the odds alone, makes it more likely – to me – again, without all the salient facts or knowledge, that it’s “safer” to do it as an adult when the child can make up their own mind. But, again, I’m not the parent, the court, or the doctors, so it’s really not my place to weight in.

          So no, I don’t really care what all these experts say. They are wrong.

          Well that’s just denialism.

          You can’t supplant expert opinion with your own unfounded opinions and just pronounce them wrong.

          I think vaccines are beneficial. The doctors who have spent their lives studying them agree. The CDC agrees. Billions of dollars worth of research agrees. But I say they’re wrong!

          Making these Hugh decisions for another human being when they are an impressionable child is wrong. Period.

          I get that.

          Do you get, however, that “doing nothing” is also a decision?

          You pulled that trolley lever.

          You understand that it’s not an ethical excuse to say “I didn’t do it.. I just stood aside and let it happen.. that’s not on me.”

          So if you let puberty happen, that is ALSO making a huge permanent irreversible decision for an impressionable child. And you could be wrong.

          • Had you read the link from earlier, you would have noticed that the court transcripts made it clear that the child DID NOT have the neative psych affects of being uncomfortable in the wrong body.

            Going on memory is said article, the shrinks even admitted this, and this may be the main factor in the govt looking into it.

            That said, there are 2 parys to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and the child was lacking one.

            • Sooo… looking into the link…..

              It wasn’t just a judge, but a jury… 11 out of 12 people who heard the care, heard the arguments, were presented with the relevant facts, sided with the mother.

              In Texas.

              But, yes, it does note that the child is missing the “distress” component.

              I don’t know what to make of that. I’m not a doctor.

              Yet again, I remain “not a doctor.”

              What does it say to you that, other than the father and 1 out of 12 jurors, everyone involved in this case, who has the relevant facts and/or expertise seems to be siding with the mother? At least two judges, 11/12 jurors, at least one psychiatrist, a mother (who is also a pediatrician), and (presumably) a hospital ethics board. All of them seem to agree and support the mother.

              I am still not a doctor.

              But those people, who are doctors, seem to think it’s right.

              It’s not that “experts are always right.” They aren’t.

              But all I know is that I DON’T have all the facts. I DON’T know the kid. I DON’T know the medical science. I DON’T have a psychiatry degree.

              And neither do you.

              But THEY do. And they side with the mother.

              So, while I look at this and say “golly, gee, I’m probably missing something. Given my ignorance, I should refrain from passing judgement,” you are look at this same thing and saying “nope! I know better than everyone else! I’ll decide what it is, and I’m justified in using the government to intervene to get my way.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        You and I do not need to know the facts. We need to only agree on a more fundamental.

        That a parent/guardian should/should not be able to make such a decision for a child. In short, it falls outside the normal bounds of guardianship/trustee relationships.

        Which I believe is the sentiment that V.H. is expressing.

        • That a parent/guardian should/should not be able to make such a decision for a child. In short, it falls outside the normal bounds of guardianship/trustee relationships.

          Which I believe is the sentiment that V.H. is expressing.

          I think that IS what she’s getting at.

          What I’M getting at is that it’s not up to ME to decide the limits of someone else’s parental rights.

          Because this IS outside the “normal bounds,” it has faced (and will continue) to face enhanced scrutiny from the courts and the medical professionals involved.

          What it shouldn’t face is judgement from onlookers without the facts or personal standing.

          What it shouldn’t face is “trial by media.”

          What it shouldn’t face is a politically motivated “investigation.”

          All I’m saying – all I’ve been saying since the beginning – is that it’s not my place to decide if it’s right or if it’s child abuse. And that, in certain very rare instances, it might be the right course of action for the benefit of the child.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Matters of guardian ship are matters of public opinion. The Courts involvement is the public. And if one branch of Govt. is involved then the others cannot be excluded just because.

            What is a “political” motivation if not just the will of certain Citizens being expressed by their Reps.?? Isn’t that what you argue when it comes to things like “impeachment”?

            • What is a “political” motivation if not just the will of certain Citizens being expressed by their Reps.?? Isn’t that what you argue when it comes to things like “impeachment”?

              Actually, I’m pretty sure I’ve been arguing against a politically motivated witch hunt / impeachment…. but maybe I’m confused..

              Investigation.. sure, I guess.. that’s just a think that happens when you’re a politician and do things that are highly questionable.

              Impeachment, no.

              ………

              But I’d also point out that there’s a 50 mile wide gulf between political investigations of politicians and political investigations of private citizens.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Solomon would take the child away from both parents, have him live with a neutral, third party then evaluate the results.

            Solomon would also watch very carefully the reaction of BOTH parents realizing the one who objects most vociferously is probably the liar!

            • I don’t think so…..

              Solomon was, of course, notably wise. He would know that the “cut the baby in half” trick only works well the first time.

              He’s also understand that “taking the child away to live with a neutral 3rd party” is a de facto win for the father. It means that the mother cannot have the surgery done, which is what he wants. It also means that, while he loses visitation, she loses primary custody – a far more significant loss. Thus he would be expecting her to object more.

              I don’t think the biblical precedent applies here… both parents seem to love the child and want what’s best.. it’s just that they disagree on what that is.

              ::puts on Solomon The Wise hat::

              ::cracks knuckles::

              Ok… here we go… I shall take the child away to live with the neutral 3rd party. You, the parents, are barred on pain of death from having any communication with the child or each other.

              ::one year passes::

              I inform the mother that the surgery was, in fact, performed, that the child is miserable, hates his body, cries that he is a boy, and is now chronically depressed, and has tried to commit suicide. I ask her, if she had it to do again, would she do so.

              I inform the father that no surgery was performed, that child hates her body, cries that she is a girl, is now chronically depressed, and has tried to commit suicide. I ask him if he has changed his mind.

              I evaluate the mother’s response. I evaluate the father’s response. I consider both of these in light of the temporary care-giver’s observations.

              Then I saw the child in half and give them each one of the halves.

              • Sir Mathius,
                The child can grow up and make an informed decision on his own, when older. That takes all the problrms out of this.
                The one thing that no one has bothered to mention, the leading cause of unnatural death is medical mistakes. More than cancer, more than any gun related violence and more than accidents. This is especially true of prescriptions and side affects.
                Solution, let the kid do as he wants. Kerp the doctors far away. It will figure itself out over time. Worst case scenario, the kid waits awhile, but can still dress as he wishes. So what. Better than the worst case stuff.

              • Gman,

                Worst case scenario, the kid waits awhile

                I feel like we’re going around in circles and people are pointedly ignoring the things I’m saying, so this’ll be my final attempt….. until we have this argument again in a few months.

                Can you agree that:
                A) “Doing nothing” is also a “choice”
                B) Going through puberty causes irreversible changes
                C) A person who begins their transition before puberty will, generally speaking, have a more “complete” transition

              • Doing nothing is a choice, yes.
                The latter two you will have to provide some good info, because pre puberty transitions isnt the norm. More info would help.

              • A. No it is not a choice, at least not how you mean it. One has to make a choice to stop a child from going through puberty. No choice is necessary to allow them to go through puberty. It will just happen, no choice, no action necessary.

                B.Denying the natural process of puberty causes irreversible changes, again natural, normal changes.

                C. Friggin irrelevant, Consent, that word you insist on for everything, no definition you have ever relied on includes children having the ability to consent. Not to mention the absolutely evil consequences if mommy dearest, is wrong.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                From what I’ve seen, and heard, The Mom is over the top. Insisting that age 7 is correct is scientifically and medically stupid. I know enough biology to understand that the “outcome” would be a more feminine person if the child is stopped from going through puberty but I do not have any idea if there are any seven year olds out there going through puberty.There is, in her demands a prima facie case for her being nuts. Messing around with the kid now will stunt growth at the very least.

                Solomon’s decision, if you remember, resulted in the truth teller “winning”and the child survived. In a “neutral” environment we can see if the child wants to be a boy or girl, or, something I have NOT seen discussed in this case, a fledgling “transvestite” who enjoys dressing and acting as a girl SOMETIMES. If you have managed to spirit away an early 1960’s abby-normal psychology book from the book burners or read a Harry Benjamin MD book on trans everything, you will see that that particular manifestation occurs early, deals in some gender confusion and by the teen years sorts itself out into, ” I want to stay a boy but have this strange hobby.”

                There was a time, when psychology was really trying to become something akin to a “hard” science. It has, in the past fifty years become closer to voo-doo. Just my professional opinion now.

  25. Watching politicians asking Zuckerberg if Facebook is going to fact check political ads was a headshaking laugher of a time. Especially coming from Mad Maxine Waters. All of them (both sides) acting like the epitome of honesty. What a joke.

    • Speaking of kool-aid drinkers… you should hear what my buddy at FB says about Zuck.. you’d think he was Mother Teresa.

      We were talking about the Portal (basically FB’s version of the Amazon Echo, the Google Home, etc). I said I would sooner trust the KGB than Facebook with a always-on speaker in my house. He was actually offended by the notion that FB might do something dishonorable with my data! Mark (first name basis, apparently) would never do something like that!

  26. JAC,

    What are the “limits” of parental rights over their child?

    • This ought to get someone going…………..none.

      • This ought to get someone going…………..none.

        Hoo-boy!

        Well, saddle up, I guess..

        If your child mouths off at the dinner table, does your parental authority extend to beating him with jumper cables?

        • How un-original…….jumper cables? How about a slap across the offending mouth?

          • Allow me to ask you…..as an observer……..this is an actual event…….

            A young first LT……when he thought that church was a place to be, was attending same with family…..young son wanted to go outside and play on a small bridge with rushing water underneath after a recent rain……Dad says no and continues conversation with adults…young son, no taking no for answer, impatiently but in a louder voice asked again…and, again, the answer was no……the third time, young son said but ‘Dad, others are doing it and it is not fair”….again, I said no and added a little verbage of….do not ask me again…..to which the young son simply spit on me……..

            A short quick reactive back hand across the offending mouth sends the young son flat on his back in the aisle while all the Southern Baptists looked on with an astonishing look….” I looked at my son and asked the question…..”Still want to complain about going out?

            Some would think that was not necessary. Some would think that was over reaction. Some would think it was abuse. Two things happened from that…….My son never back talked nor spit at me again….and (2) the church goers gave me wide berth.

            Hell, do that today, in a church….not only would I be going to hell but I am sure that some agency would be called. Discipline is sometimes necesary….even in public. Dr. Spock and I never agreed on anything. to this very day, my son remembers this….and, to this very day, he says he had it coming.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Well I would think that making decisions for them that cannot be reversed that also carry high chances of negative outcomes, such as VOLUNTARY surgery to change their sex. As you explained, there are pros and cons for both not changing and changing. So if there is a chance of negative affects with changing, then I think the child should make that decision when they become an adult. Not the parents or guardians.

      Voluntary surgery to fix a cleft palate….OK. Voluntary surgery to make a child look like a cat…NOT OK.

      Guardians are required by law to act in the best interest of the ward. This sex change example ya’ll been kicking around can just as easily be claimed to not be in the child’s best interest as it is pretty permanent, will for sure have lasting affects, and the child cannot decide only because of immaturity. Virtually all decisions made for a child’s benefit are pretty obvious if you think about it. This one is not obvious. So much so they had to got to court and bring in all kinds of “experts” to convince a jury to go with the mom.

      Those are mine for the moment. Otherwise I think it ultimately comes down to what the “vast majority” feel or believe is the proper actions. Every now and then we hear of a case where parents or guardians got out of bounds. The out of bounds is ultimately determined by what society deems acceptable.

      Now I would like to point out that the Government has decided that parent/guardian rights DO NOT allow them to NOT TREAT their children if they are sick. They CANNOT rely on God to heal the child……. because they cannot impose their religion on the child. Frankly Mathius, some of these sex change advocates look to me like they are imposing their “belief system” on others and are now targeting children.

      Please don’t wast a bunch of your time getting your tail in a knot. I know there are real psychological and biological issues at play here. I just happen to believe there a lot of people playing on that because that is their cause in life. Our job, as friends, neighbors and fellow citizens is to try and sort it out so this doesn’t become something akin to a witch trial.

    • Interesting.

      I have low BP. My last measure was something like 110/75. Sometimes I get a bit light-headed or have spotty/narrowed vision. It’s a bit annoying, but on balance, better to be low than high.

      ‘Course, that goes up significantly when I’m arguing with the lunatics of SUFA, or when my parents are in town..

      I’ll tell you though, here’s what I’ve never understood about high blood pressure: why treat it with meds? You can lower your BP by losing blood, right*? So just go donate blood periodically. Not only do you get a lower blood pressure without medication, but you can save lives!

      It costs you nothing… sometimes they’ll even pay you.. AND you get a free cookie when you’re done.

      That’s a win all the way around!

      ———-

      *this isn’t actually a question. Losing blood does, absolutely lower your blood pressure.

      • Yes it does, when my husband had a stroke, the first thing they did was take his blood. Taking blood will also make you turn all white in the face and come close to passing out, causing a nurse to SCREAM for help, scaring the crap out of you, because they left the room while actively draining his blood. Causing them to take way to much blood. Bringing temporary thoughts of beating the h*’ll out of them. A nurse screaming for help when your love one is lying in a hospital bed is absolutely terrifying.

        • Yes it does, when my husband had a stroke

          I hope he’s doing better!

          A nurse screaming for help when your love one is lying in a hospital bed is absolutely terrifying.

          Sounds accurate.

          I tend not to get freaked out by things, but that would probably do it.

          Causing them to take way to much blood.

          Knowing the American Medical System, I’d bet they took too much, then gave him fresh blood, and charged him for the taking and the receiving.

          I’d be demanding they just put it back!

  27. WASHINGTON, D.C.—The ancient god Moloch has announced that in lieu of the actual blood sacrifice of your children, you can now simply force your kids to become transgender as an alternative.

    “Honestly, I still prefer killing your kids in ritual sacrifice or aborting them,” he said at a press conference. “I guess I’m old-fashioned like that. But coercing your kids into undergoing harmful surgery and hormone treatments works just as well, I suppose. As long as you’re sacrificing your kid’s future to the progressive, humanistic agenda, it doesn’t matter one way or the other.”
    Moloch said that parents who encourage their young children who haven’t hit puberty yet or started thinking about sexuality at all to think about changing genders will be under the protection and favor of his evilness. “I am appeased by such sacrifice. A child’s life is ruined so that a parent may appear woke in the eyes of her friends—truly a diabolical ritual that I wholly approve of.”

    😀 😀 😛

  28. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Thought for the day:

    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

    No, Donald Trump didn’t say this, Saul Alinsky did in his rules for radicals. Saul’s methodology was instrumental in electing Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and almost Hillary Clinton. Is It not funny how the left does not like it when their own tactics are turned on them?

  29. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/10/24/untitled-n2555337

    I guess will find out whether something will be done sooner than later or if this is just smoke and mirrors

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Clapper the crapper has been saying this is engineered AT THIS TIME to distract from teh impeachment/Ukraine investigation. Hah!

      • Yeah, the words, obstruction of justice will require a brand new definition. And criticizing the FBI and DOJ will be back in vogue. And that rule about doing anything that effects the election to close to the election. I’m sure will only apply to the DOJ not the behind closed doors, while selectively interpreting and leaking, fake impeachment proceedings.

  30. Any thoughts on the roughly 2-dozen Republicans who “stormed” the SCIF room where impeachment hearing was being held. Some, apparently, appeared to actually tweet from inside the room.

    I’m not up to date on all the rules related to sensitive / compartmentalized information and their facilities, but my understanding is that, at the very least, you’d get your clearance revoked and any civilian would almost certainly be arrested for such activities and/or bringing in electronics. My understanding is that the lightest slap on the wrist would be an investigation, serious warnings, and mandatory remedial training.

    If you’re NOT a congressman, and you knowingly barge, without authorization, into a SCIF with your phone, what happens to you?

    Does anyone who knows more (*cough* D13 *cough*) care to weigh in?

    —————–

    The obvious secondary question is, should there be any punishment for the Republicans if they broke the law? Or are they above the law despite flagrantly doing it on camera as a publicity stunt?

    And a reminder – because I somehow suspect it will be necessary – that two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if the hearings are partisan nonsense, even if the Democrats did the same thing, that wouldn’t give the Republicans the right to “storm” the room and bring in electronics if doing so is expressly illegal or otherwise prohibited.

    —————–

    The third question: If the Blue Team grew a pair and prosecuted the Republicans for any violations, would you consider that inappropriate/wrong?

    • I’ll try to take this seriously, as soon as I can stop smiling and cheering. Bad V Bad. He he he, hope they keep doing it, maybe leave their phone’s in the other room. They interrupted the dems. secret, yet leaky, fake impeachment proceedings. Shame, shame shame. Speaking of growing a pair, seems there might actually be a few republicans who have a pair. I had serious doubts. Now go and think about this seriously, not sure I can, not sure I care. I want some justice for 2016, actually before 2016, during 2016 ,and beyond. I am liable to stay in the I don’t want to hear it mode, until I get some. Whether 2 wrongs make a right or not. Rant over, for now. 😁 I feel better!

      • He he he, hope they keep doing it,

        Translated: I think it’s great when MY side breaks the law!

        They interrupted the dems. secret, yet leaky, fake impeachment proceedings.

        It’s ok to break the law when it sticks it to the Democrats.

        Speaking of growing a pair, seems there might actually be a few republicans who have a pair.

        Maybe, but of the ~24 Republicans who “stormed” the room, 12 were already authorized to be in there (though not with phones, of course)… so they stormed a room they were allowed in… that’s… odd.

        As for the other dozen, sure, I guess it’s “balsy” to break the law for a publicity stunt when you know you’ll never be punished because you’re above the law.

        Whether 2 wrongs make a right or not.

        I’ll help you out here: two wrongs DON’T make a right.

        This is one of those things they teach you in kindergarten.

        I feel better!

        Great! Hope you’re mood holds all day! 🙂

        • I believe the democrats call this type of thing, when they do civil disobedience or protesting, or both. 😀

          • when they do it,

          • I believe the democrats call this type of thing, when they do civil disobedience or protesting, or both. 😀

            I believe they might.

            I believe the democrats call this type of thing, when they do civil disobedience or protesting, or both. 😀

            I believe y’all would be calling for their arrests.

            I believe the democrats call this type of thing, when they do civil disobedience or protesting, or both. 😀

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Since the Republicans have never pulled off a Star Chamber, Kangaroo Court like this……Your point is MOOT!

            • Arrest maybe, maybe not but we would certainly be complaining about it.

              • but we would certainly be complaining about it.

                V., I find this hard to believe.

                If a Democrat blatantly broke the law and barged into a secure room on camera with his phone out when he wasn’t authorized to be there.. and then got arrested, SUFA would be cheering to the rafters.

                And I’ll tell you something else: I would be saying pretty much the same thing I am now: “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

                I believe that it is only because they are conservatives / Republicans who are interrupting a hearing which people here view as bad that the consensus is that this is just fine. The rule of law need not apply.

                You can honestly tell me that if Nancy Pelosy did this, people here would be complaining if she got in trouble for it? That they’d be demanding she be let off the hook? It’s just “civil disobedience”? It’s not a “real” SCIF room? It’s just a publicity stunt, don’t pay any attention? Bull, V, folks here would be crying for blood and saying she should lose her seat and a special election should be held to replace her and that she should get the book thrown at her and rot in prison.

              • I was talking about the Republican party, not sufa, and let’s face it all the republicans pretty much ever do is complain, actually doing something, not so much. On Sufa, some would, some wouldn’t.

                Would I- we’ll have to wait and see if the republicans ever have a top secret leakers dream started by a leaker they falsely call a whistleblower as an excuse to start an inquiry, who has now become totally unimportant ,now that he has served his purpose and then laughingly calls it an impeachment proceeding that is being held in secret and by golly people should respect the process- to find out.

        • I’m sure we all like these clowns to grow up and be adults and get back to the business of running the country. This was a publicity stunt designed to get attention from the MSM. It is no different than Pelosi storming out of the WH. It deserves ZERO attention. Unfortunately you seem to have fallen for the MSM line of BS once again.

          70 years go a little girl met three men, one w/o heart, one w/o a brain, one w/o courage. Today the girl would be in Congress.

          • It deserves ZERO attention. Unfortunately you seem to have fallen for the MSM line of BS once again.

            Maybe.

            … but did they barge into a SCIF without authorization* and with cell phones?

            Isn’t that a crime or against some kind of rule?

            If you or I did this, would it be excused as a “publicity stunt” or “civil disobedience” or would we be arrested, fined, charged, tried, and hung? And then had our security clearances revoked?

            Is it “BS” that they committed a crime** on camera and will walk away with impunity because they are above the law?

            ————–

            * well, half of them without authorization.. the other half stormed into a room they were allowed in which makes the idea of “storming” it rather odd… still many had cell phones which, whether you’re allowed in or not, are still strictly prohibited.

            ** I think this is a “crime”.. still waiting for the colonel to answer that question for me authoritatively.. won’t be believing anything I hear on that ‘less it comes form his mouth/keyboard.

            • Mathius, maybe if the media you see would tell you that NOTHING classified is going on in these hearings, per Adam Schiff, you could surmise that no laws have been broken. Instead…….

              • While – AGAIN – I am waiting for an authoritative answer from the only colonel I trust on the subject, it is not my understanding that it matters one whit whether there was actually anything classified in the room or not.

                Just knowing what I know about information security, and having worked in finance where “secure rooms” exist, I’ll say that, most likely, just entering without permission is a major sin. Bringing in an electronic device is a cardinal sin. Knowingly doing both is just shy of a capital offense.

                Where I used to work, where we had a secure conference room, I would – absolutely – have been immediately kicked out on my ass if I’d walked in with my phone. If it were an accident, one time, maybe I’d get the riot act instead. But deliberately walking in without permission? Nope, no way. It’s hard for me to imagine that a real SCIF is going to have less-strict rules.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Again, Cell phones do not work in the secret compartmentalized room! The reps said they DID NOT bring them in. Why? Have you seen some things they recorded and released or are you repeating some dem agitprop tovarich Matt?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          They did not break a “LAW”! So you can stop there.

          The SCIF room is not the same as those in the intelligence service. It has been explained that this room in Congress is simply to prevent classified information they are looking at from being exposed to public eyes.

          So, if Schiff is conducting meetings unilaterally they probably don’t contain classified information, since such would be the purview of the entire committee.

          Best headline on this: “Why are the Republicans trying to out childish the Democrats?”

          • Damn JAC, let Mathius believe the lying liberal media and enjoy the show. As long as he continues to believe those asshats, he will make life funny around here. The liberal media don’t report the truth, they make up nonsense and when people repeat it, it says something about………….:P

          • The SCIF room is not the same as those in the intelligence service. It has been explained that this room in Congress is simply to prevent classified information they are looking at from being exposed to public eyes.

            So, if Schiff is conducting meetings unilaterally they probably don’t contain classified information, since such would be the purview of the entire committee.

            Still waiting on the colonel for an answer I will trust on this.

            Best headline on this: “Why are the Republicans trying to out childish the Democrats?”

            Because they’re also a bunch of childish babies.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      It seems to depend on what “source” you listen too. I have heard the word “storm”, I have heard “yelling and screaming” by republicans, I have heard they “tweeted” (an impossibility by the way) and I have heard Republicans who were there say “None of the above is true”. Then again, I have heard those same media sources in lockstep over how the “criminal” investigation into the faux trump-russia hoax is “timed to coincide and offset the impeachment hearings” despite teh fact this is merely an outgrowth of an ongoing investigation that based on those fired/demoted FBI types was gonna go criminal anyway!.

      • It seems to depend on what “source” you listen too. I have heard the word “storm”, I have heard “yelling and screaming” by republicans,

        Storm / barge / wander into / crab-walk.. doesn’t matter. Were they in there?

        “Storming” was a bit of a branding exercise by the Republicans.. one of whom compared themselves to the 300 standing against Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae.. so, you know, there’s that..

        I have heard they “tweeted” (an impossibility by the way) and I have heard Republicans who were there say “None of the above is true”.

        Maybe… then again, there’s video of them with their phones out taking video… so… whether tweeting or recording or cruising for sex on Tinder, it’s still illegal, no?

        Then again, I have heard those same media sources in lockstep over how the “criminal” investigation into the faux trump-russia hoax is “timed to coincide and offset the impeachment hearings” despite teh fact this is merely an outgrowth of an ongoing investigation that based on those fired/demoted FBI types was gonna go criminal anyway!.

        Translation: La-La-La I can’t hear you! Your side is evil and the media is biased and it doesn’t matter that my side did something obviously illegal on camera because I think your side are doing something else that’s wrong and I insist on changing the subject to talk about that instead.

  31. A new poll released yesterday shows that 99% of white evangelicals oppose impeaching Trump.

    Thoughts?

  32. 99% of the people cannot agree on 99% of 99 things 99% of the time.

    • Really, no.

      They don’t.

      Trump has an approval rating of about ~10% amongst Democrats.

      You really only get 99% when there’s some serious group-think.

      • But you still believe that 97% of scientist believe in AGW.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          OUCH, that’s gotta hurt.

          • Uh huh…

            A) I have never asserted a specific number.

            B) scientific consensus is higher than that on pretty much all of Einsteinian or Newtonian physics, plus evolution, plus plus plus plus…. scientific consensus and “opinion” aren’t the same thing and you damned well know it.

  33. ::Summonsing Colonel Texas Longhorn::

    • ****thunder cracking in a loud crescendo warping aluminum*****Bolts of lightning shooting across the sky*****the deppest MOnty Python God Voice rings out….

      You Rang? How may I help you?

      • Ah….sorry, was on the road….and catching up on reading…….stand by.

      • Ah, excellent.. I was just about to add a wall to the southern border to see if that would work better…

        ———————-

        Oh, sage colonel of the Lone Star Republic, reveal to me the answers I seek!

        Tell me about SCIFs. Was the one in Congress a “real” SCIF? Does it make a difference if there was nothing classified going on at the time? What is the penalty for entering without permission and/or bringing in your phone? What should happen to any congress-critters who knowingly engaged in this behavior? What else can you teach me about the subject that might be relevant?

  34. To, Sir Mathius, the bold…………..

    Was the one in Congress a “real” SCIF? Most likely not. A REAL SCIF room would be posted with a guard and sign and be locked from the inside with an additional guard and table checking IDs and security clearance. If Shiff was dealing with actual classified information (meaning classified documents containing information harmful to the United States) he would have been in a different SCIF room that was posted.

    Does it make a difference if there was nothing classified going on at the time? Yes. Basically any room can be called SCIF….HOWEVER, if there is such a room ( and I have been in two of them in the Pentagon ), it is going to depend on the posting of guards and a VERY prominent sign indicating the type of meeting and classification required. On the inside, as I said before, would be a second tier of security. Now, having said this, if a room is cleared for SCIF (meaning scanned twicwe daily for electronic surveillance) but there is NO classified meeting going on….then it is simply another meeting room.

    What is the penalty for entering without permission and/or bringing in your phone? In a true SCIF room, if you somehow got though security with any recording device, you would be in such deep do do……I mean, you would be exiled to the Isle of Argos. This would be a major violation of protocol and your security clearance and job would be in the toilet.

    What should happen to any congress-critters who knowingly engaged in this behavior? If a room is properly posted….there will be a sign that says SCIF on the door and a stand up sign in the middle of the corridor. There would be some human Dobermans standing guard and ANY attempt at entry would be met with………..drawn weapons. Seriously, if the room were a true SCIF….you do not get in……………..alive.
    ———————————————-

    Now, given the antics of the things that I have read and heard (all media provided, of course) this would not have been an SCIF room….not in the real context. I can see Congressmen/Congress women?congress whatevers….claiming that it is a classified room…but absent postings, guards, and such…..it is not.

    Now, I have seen rooms posted with signs that says….NO entry without authorization. But this does not mean or imply classified. It means,,,,,,,knock on the damn door and get authorization to enter….nothing more.
    ———————————————-

    Me thinks that this was a great publicity stunt but any effort to get someone guilty of a breach of security would be far fetched……it might be absent protocol but these interviews are absent protocol already….but…………I hope your questions have been sufficiently answered.

    • Quite frankly, in a real SCIF room…….. NONE SHALL PASS

    • If a room is properly posted….there will be a sign that says SCIF on the door and a stand up sign in the middle of the corridor. There would be some human Dobermans standing guard and ANY attempt at entry would be met with………..drawn weapons. Seriously, if the room were a true SCIF….you do not get in……………..alive.

      You think those human dobermans are going to shoot sitting congressmen inside the capitol? Methinks not.

      • Yes…….Yes I do if they try to pass. They do not report to Congress and they are not hired by Congress……They are Marines……and they will shoot. I would not try it, drunk or sober…..even hyped up on Red Bull.

  35. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Hong Kong is undergoing a period of Civil Disobedience to protest rights that are guaranteed to its citizens being taken away. The 1960’s Civil rights protestors were disobedient to protest rights guaranteed to them which they were not allowed to exercise. The Republican House members are guilty of civil disobedience because rules and norms of the House guaranteed to members of both parties are being denied them. Got it yet?

    • rules and norms of the House guaranteed to members of both parties are being denied them.

      Did you happen to notice that a ~12 of the Republicans who barged in were already permitted in the room?

      Seems to me like the Republican line that they’re being kept out must have been nonsense…

      —-

      Also, not for nothing, to compare the Republicans’ little PR stunt to the Civil Rights protests or what’s going on in Hong Kong is… laughable to the point of absurdity.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Only laughable if you think Constitutional government is laughable. What I really hate about you young folk is you just do not get how big disasters start small. Sort of like community policing and broken windows theory. Demonstrated time and time again that it works wonders yet every time 20 years pass you have to learn (whoops I mean START to learn ) the lesson all over again. I mean why go after the small fry dealers, the people who drink openly and defecate on the streets., the turnstile jumpers, the abandoned car strippers, the crazy or drugged out homeless? All small potatoes, that is until they become part of the Perfect Storm and NY goes back to 2,600 murders a year or becomes Chicago today!

        You will not get it until it comes up and slaps you in the face and maybe not then.

        We have rules, small rules, big rules, if you do not like them, then change them, do not ignore them. If you do, DO NOT be surprised if someone else ups the ante.

        Just to be even more obnoxious here, I can already see you excusing Comey, Brennan and Clapper when the indictments start coming down much the same as Schiff and Nadler started doing yesterday. It must be one of the Alinsky “Rules for radicals” to be sure “To accuses the other guy of exactly what you have been doing”! If not, it should be.

        “A man who accuses another man of doing something wrong, without proof is usually doing it himself”.

        -Nick Trynosky, Master Bartender and Sage

  36. “under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a member of Congress cannot be criminally prosecuted for an action he or she takes as part of the individual’s legislative work.”

    So, it seems, yet again, Congress is above the law.

    In fact, reading this… they can murder people as long as it’s “part of their individual legislative work” in their own opinion… wow… I wish my job gave me that kind of authority.. there’s be a lot of dead vendors out there….

  37. “The House Parliamentarian has ruled that these (Republican) members (who stormed into the secure facility) are in violation of House deposition rules.”

    Sooooooo… slap on the wrist, it seems.

    ::shocked face::

  38. I wonder……just heard a news snipet……do not know if it is true……but the whistle blower has now gone to the Bahamas to avoid subpeona from the Republicans?

    Would this be obstruction of justice?

  39. Finally heard a talking, Chafffetz, mention the fact that the last time the House voted on impeachment it was turned down. So officially the House is on the record not to impeach the president.

  40. Game face on T- Ray !!! Note that this comment is not off topic from the title of this article. 🙂

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    So darn true and so darn sad that it is true.

    https://www.redstate.com/wag/2019/10/26/chip-chip-interviews-rino/

  42. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Two interesting “news” items last night.

    1. On Watters world the guest was one of those professors who believe that math is racist. She insisted she be addressed as “Doctor” as in Frau Docktur (immediately lost all credibility with me right there) and she was white. It has taken her three years to be woke to this disturbing fact. When pressed, she had a hard time explaining just how this works. Apparently, as best as I understand it is not 2 plus 2 that is racist but the USE of math.For example when statistics show a higher percentage of criminal acts are committed by blacks or when IQ scores are apparently lower for blacks, that’s what is racist. Since she danced around the entire issue quite a bit and burnt up valuable time the “solution” was not clear but apparently it does involve ignoring statistics.

    2. On a news program it was pointed out that if we break ties with Turkey, they could hold the nukes we have stationed there hostage. This troubled me big time. I had thought, way back in 1962 that the quid pro quo NOT to blow up the world was that the USSR would remove nukes from Cuba if we removed them from Turkey. Am I the only person in the universe who remembers this? Uncle lying through his teeth again?

    On a side note, if you can find AOC questioning Mark Zukenberg on the secret “conservative” planning meetings he has at Facebook do so. Hilarious.

  43. Happy Sunday morning Patriots pic.twitter.com/Ez9EyD4LLg— Matt Couch 🎙 (@RealMattCouch) October 27, 2019

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  44. Dallas, Texas……..trying to be like New York……New police chief comes in and changes staff….wait, let me go over this again…..New black police chief comes in and changes staff and hires all black staff members and fires the whites and Hispanics (most of them). Institutes new policies for black communities and institutes new gang policies…trying the cooperating and sugar sweet ways ( you know, the old hearts and minds routine )…..gang shootings are up 48%, drive by shootings up 60%, turf wars have extended into previously calm neighborhoods……………and now we have the shooting up of wakes and vigils……to send a message. All in black communities and all within one year….

    Call me racist if you wish….there is a pattern here.

  45. T Ray……………..are you safe from the fires? Still shitting off everyone’s electricity out there? Last I heard it was approaching 1 million people.

    I noticed where one of your commisioners was beginning to raise hell about the reservoirs that were on the drawing board not being built for over ten years now and the fires are mysteriously in those areas where the water would have been available……………got fired for bringing that up.

    I also noticed that your electrical grid was deprived of needed maintenance money and now the population that is moving out of the cities to more outlying areas have no transmission lines and are over loading the existing ones and your governor is blaming PG&E instead of blaming his administration.

    I noticed that Texas is being called backwater and out of touch by your governor because Texas saw the issues coming 45 years ago and built its own power grid separate of that from the National power grid, with its own computer system not tied to the National Grid structure and your governor does not like the fact that Texas now sells its power to surrounding states. He says that selling extra power is not the way it is supposed to work. It is supposed to be shared at no profit.

    So, California has run out of money, has no reserves, has no new reservoirs, and is shutting off power to millions….will not build new reservoirs and fill them with storm runoff and snow melt….will not build alternative power lines to alleviate overload………..but you do have record unemployment, record homeless, record drug addiction, needles in the street, people defacating on the sides of buildings and in alleyways…..tourist industry is beginning to fail (first time in the history of San Fran that the tourist industry is in negative numbers)…..but you have managed to save a friggin’ salamander and a minnow…….seems like there was a person long ago that fiddled while Rome was in flames………………………

    So…..when are you coming here?

%d bloggers like this: