It’s Getting Deep

Comments

  1. I took a picture of the color of the sunset on a big pine tree yesterday. The fires out West have affected the color even here in PA.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      You ain’t seen nothin yet. BIG SMOKE headed east. Passing through here as of yesterday. Today visibility down to about a mile by the PM.

      Cough, hack, cough, cough!

      Comon T-Ray, turn off the damn fan.

  2. First try at making beef jerky today. Hope it comes out good.

    • Good luck!

    • Now we’re talking! A dehydrator is on my wishlist now as well as a small coffee grinder. Jerky for sure, but I’m also interested in dehydrating onions and garlic, then send em through the grinder for instant onion and garlic powder. Wish I’d have known that years ago. Simple.

  3. Gretchen can’t seem to stop digging. She’s bought into the Woodward bs about downplaying the severity of the virus. Called him the biggest enemy of the state, and his “failure to act” cost many lives and sent the state economy into a tailspin. Boy oh boy! I haven’t seen someone take such a beating in a comment section in a long time. On top of that, I see ALL KINDS of Trump signs around. Both my kids went to northern Michigan over the weekend, different areas, and they both sent pics of Trump signs or flags where they were. Michigan for Trump..2020! YES!

    • There isn’t anything that Woodward has said that Trump hasnt already said in the past. But the Crat strategy is to attack him, even if it lies. Intelligent people have this figured out and it will fail like all other attempts. It’s the gullible goobers that fall for the lies. The MSM has exposed the idiots in our society.

  4. Old Fart,

    Yokel,

    Colonel,

    You have always given comedians a special leeway under the disguise that it is comedy……</b.

    It's not a "disguise." It's comedy.

    That's what it is.

    For example, “if we discuss [person] in a way no reasonable person could strew as factual, we can say whatever the fuck we like!”

    Oh Jesus… I need a few minutes to recover after that video…

    ::several minutes later::

    Ok… and we’re back!

    do you think these settlements (and their are 6 left) are going to have an effect on what and how you can say or criticize?

    No idea. This is literally the first I’ve heard of any such settlements.

    ::several minutes later::

    Ohhhhh…..! I remember this guy!

    Feels like a decade ago…

    CNN: “The settlement will allow the newspaper to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial.”

    Well.. ok… so what happened here…

    A) a video appears with some kid with a seemingly-smug expression and a punchable-looking face appeared to be taunting a bunch of native Americans while wearing a MAGA hat.
    B) it goes viral and news outlets reported on it because, of course they did.
    C) additional video came to light, adding context, and overturning that narrative.
    D) some outlets were quick to publish retractions. Some just “moved on.”
    E) Sandmann sues.
    F) Judge throws it out. Then un-throws it out, narrowing the scope.
    G) WaPo settles

    Did I get all that about right?

    Ok, so……. if so, I just want to clarify one distinction, and I want you to explicitly agree or disagree with it: (A) Being wrong is ok. (B) Being deceptive or lying is not ok. (C) Being cavalier or willfully negligent about trying to be right and truthful is not a defense for being wrong.

    That is, if a newspaper reports something it “reasonably” believes to be true, and that turns out to be wrong, then they have done nothing wrong.

    They SHOULD, thereafter, retract their errors. (I couldn’t find it, but the NYT printed a retraction on the day of the moon landing, acknowledging their error, ~70 years earlier, where they had asserted that manned flight was impossible)

    do you think these settlements (and their are 6 left) are going to have an effect on what and how you can say or criticize?

    Ok, so let’s try this again.

    Of course.

    How much and to what extent…. ::shrug::

    This is one of the major issues I have with the US legal system. The whole damned thing (except for Lousiana) is set up with a dual system of “book law” and “case law.” Book law is whatever the lawmakers say (eg congressional “laws”). Case law is a lot more hand-waivey and flexible and convoluted and relies on a series of precedents and a hierarchical judicial system. Having allowed this case into court, having reached a settlement, it’s now a precedent. And, being a precedent, it has some effect on the system of case law.

    But nothing stops the next CNN or Sandmann to decline to settle, then hash it out, and set a new (and stronger) precedent.

    My guess is that this won’t have much of an effect at all, and that anyone settling is just settling to make the case go away. That Sandmann has been even that successful suggests that there’s a significant financial backing to his case (maybe family money… maybe GOP interests)… but a case like this can take years and cost millions (on both sides) to try… I don’t think there’s going to end up being much legal precedent here (some, certainly, but not much)… I won’t call this a SLAPP suit… but I won’t call it “not a SLAPP suit,” either. The papers are just paying to make it go away.

    Do you think that simply “parroting” a view point that has been proven wrong, is going to have an effect on what people say that is considered disparaging and over the line?

    As you put it, “proven wrong” is a matter of objective fact.

    Had it been “proven” wrong at the time? I have no idea.

    And even if it had, did the author know that it had been proven at the time?

    I think a media outlet has a burden of “reasonable care” such that they are obligated to have a reasonable belief in the things they say.

    If – IF – the author reasonably believed what he was saying when he said it, then he is protected in saying it. And he SHOULD BE. If he exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth (I think that’s actually the legal terminology), then he is not protected. And he SHOULDN’T BE.

    People say “wrong” things all the time.

    There’s one week each month when, according to my wife, literally everything that comes out of my mouth is wrong.

    It’s ok to be wrong. It’s not ok to lie or to be reckless about the truth.

    Do you think that simply “parroting” a view point that has been proven wrong, is going to have an effect on what people say that is considered disparaging and over the line?

    So, I don’t know… I dislike mindless “parroting” of anything. But I get it. There’s a narrative afoot, and you want to capitalize on it by grabbing page clicks, so you just glom on, don’t bother with the fact, and repeat the story in new words.

    “Never let facts stand in the way of a good story” – Mark Twain (maybe? I forget and I’m too lazy to look it up.)

    I think if you are presenting “fact,” then you should take care to be – actually be – factual to the best of your ability. If you are presenting opinion, then you should take care to ensure that your consumers know that they are consuming opinion rather than fact. If you are presenting tabloid trash to capitalize on a viral story where the facts are still in dispute or emerging, you should take care to ensure that your consumers know that you are talking out of your ass.

    I think the big problem comes from confusion among these sources.

    WaPo bills itself as a serious and legitimate paper. Which, for 99% of its content, it is. But the 1% (which tends to grab the most attention – and drive sales!!!), it’s a trash rag. And because there’s no clear demarcation between the two, a tabloidal piece of clickbait can be construed as an assertion of hard news fact. And that’s where there’s a problem. If the Enquirer says Sandmann’s a secret nazi, there really isn’t any case to be had. Any reasonable consumer knows that they’re just making shit up for entertainment and no reasonable person should believe it or take it seriously. But when WaPo does it, there IS confusion because they couch it within their aura of “serious journalism.” Thus a consumer could easily be confused thinking that this garbage article is, in fact, researched journalism.

    (Likewise, Fox “News” is fine. Fox “Opinion” is garbage. But because the channel “Fox News” doesn’t draw a clear and obvious demarcation between their hard news programming and their infotainment opinion hacks like Tucker Carlson, consumers can be misled.)

    Do you think that simply “parroting” a view point that has been proven wrong, is going to have an effect on what people say that is considered disparaging and over the line?

    But, with all that said…. the simple answer is “no. No I don’t.”

    I think we’re in a brave new world where there are no more “gatekeepers.” The halcyon days of stately editorial boards carefully curating the truth to report objective facts (“just the fact, ma’am”) of reality to their readers (despite never having really existed in the first place) are over.

    We’re in a Twitter-verse now, where any idiot can spout off or post to a blog or submit an article for some rag to pick up. And, by the way, a large and growing number of articles are written and produced by bots(!!) whose sole focus is to drive clicks, and who have no concern whatsoever about concepts of truth or fairness.

    The world moves too fast for the dust to settle on things like this. Anyone waiting for the full truth to emerge will write their story long after the focus has shifted away. And capitalism will murder that company.

    No, I think the economic incentive favors parroting and first-to-publication mentality and attention-grabbing clickbait headlines. Facts are and will remain the victim of this reality.

    Nothing will change from this. It will only get worse.

    • Do you know how long it is going to take me to go through this BF style retort?

      • Do you know how long it is going to take me to go through this

        ~5 minutes to read
        ~5 minutes to watch the video
        ~5 minutes to reply

        Don’t blame me, you knew all about my, err… verbosity… when you asked me this question!

        BF style retort

        You WOUND me!

        BF would be at least 3x as long and would insult your intelligence and honor at least once, somewhere in there. Plus, at no point did I call you a statist.

    • Ok, first…do your homework and read about the incident….the final incident where the media knew they were wrong and they went with the story anyway. Eight media outlets have been sued…and 2 have settled. Two big ones have settled. The suit was about defamation and false reporting of the facts. Far from a nuisance suit because I think this is sending a message and I think a full blown trial would not look good at all. You and I both know that CNN and WAPO have money and can fight anything. It looks like to me they want it to go away because a losing battle would really hamstring the media.

      That is, if a newspaper reports something it “reasonably” believes to be true, and that turns out to be wrong, then they have done nothing wrong. No sir…I cannot agree with you here at all. A newspaper has the OBLIGATION to be correct and to use the excuse to be “reasonably” sure is a subjective statement. It should be held to the same standard as the POTUS and a microphone.

      They SHOULD, thereafter, retract their errors. This is a two part answer. YES…retract….NO, retraction does not absolve them in any way.

      That Sandmann has been even that successful suggests that there’s a significant financial backing to his case (maybe family money… maybe GOP interests) AH AH AH…penalty flag. It suggests nothing of the kind. Nice try at misdirection, of course.

      I won’t call this a SLAPP suit… but I won’t call it “not a SLAPP suit,” either. The papers are just paying to make it go away. I will do it for you. It is NOT a SLAPP suit. WHY are the media wanting it to go away? It is not the cost……so……why?

      As you put it, “proven wrong” is a matter of objective fact. correct

      Had it been “proven” wrong at the time? I have no idea. I can answer this for you. Yes, it was wrong at the time and they (the media) knew it. It was the MAGA hat that was the trigger.

      And even if it had, did the author know that it had been proven at the time? Yes, again. This is not a case of one reporter. This is a case of 8 media outlets jumping on the dog pile.

      ———————————–

      The old Fart’s opinion. When CNN settled, it has pissed off a lot of media types….now with WAPO in a settlement… and both are supposed to be power house reporting…why are they settling? If they are correct, why not go to a court and prove they are correct? I see this as a crack in the armor of journalism….a young kid, that did not retreat and stood up and smiled in the face of adversity……sends a signal. It can be done. What if the other 6 outlets decide to settle?

      I think there is a lot more here than meets the eye but what I am seeing…..and hearing… is this kid had a pretty good defamation case and settling a case to keep a defamation ruling being more narrow…….is the “discretion is the better part of valor” thing.

      Just surmising……so……in comedy…..if an untruth is parroted as comedy…..sue the bastards.

  5. Colonel,

    If I say the following: “Donald Trump is a literal piece of shit” have I committed slander libel?

    Can / should Trump be able to sue me for defamation because he is not a “literal” piece of shit? (only a figurative piece of shit)

    I have said something about him that is false. Objectively, empirically, factually, false. And I knew it at the time of publication – as I write this, I know that Trump is not, actually, LITERALLY a pile of excrement. But I said it and I am going to hit “Post Comment” in a moment.

    So… have I defamed him? Should he sue me? If you were the judge / jury, would you grant him damages?

    • Mathius, put the grog away and go sleep it off.

    • If you do it publicly with the intent to do harm, then yes. And, if you go on any media outlet and you make that statement….it is intended to disparage and do harm….even if no harm was committed.

      NOW….to the answer above…there are about one billion counter points…..BUT…..this old fart and yokel will attempt to answer them.

      • If you do it publicly with the intent to do harm, then yes

        So “intent to harm” is a requisite?

        • Ohhhhh…….now…you really think I will fall into that trap? The old “when did you last beat your wife” thing?

          Rephrase, sir…..

          • Rephrase, sir…..

            No, YOU rephrase, sir.

            It’s your assertion: If you do it publicly with the INTENT to do harm, then yes.

            Those are your words, not mine.

            • You did use the term requisite………

              So……***pondering***…………………..checking first amendment……..more pondering…….wheels turning………gears gnashing……………..looking AT Mathius’ trap……..ok……will still stand by my original statement,,,,,,,

              Mathius’ smiles……..pulls lever on trap………………………………….

              • ::gleefully pulls lever::

                SO!

                If “intent to harm” is requisite, then if I don’t intend to harm, then I cannot have committed the crime. (disclaimer, this is not true in all cases. See earlier comment.)

                Ergo, it’s legal as long as I believe it.

                Or, in any event, as long as you can’t prove that I didn’t believe it. Because the onus is on you to make your case, not me to defend.

                Therefore, unless Sandmann can prove that the reporters knew the truth and intended to lie, he has no case. So… does he have their search history? A camera in their heads? Did they email their boss “hey, this isn’t true, but let’s run it anyway”? If the reporter just shrugs and says “I thought I was right at the time..” then there can be no malicious intent. And, as you say, intent to harm is a requisite.

                QED.

                ————-

                Repeated Disclaimer: harmful intent is NOT the accurate requirement in all cases. See earlier comment (“a basic primer”) for more details.

              • Mathius is wondering why the trap did not work…….He looks at the lever and he looks where the Colonel was but……………..nothing…..and…….could the old fart have tricked him?

                What he forgot to see was that the reporters that made the filming actually saw what was happening prior to the filming….actually, they were part of it. They knew, beyond a doubt, that this group of kids did not walk up to this faux Indian……………….this faux Indian walked up to them and starts beating a drum. The kids did not walk away and, instead, stood their ground and grinned at the drum beating idiot. The reporters SAW, prior to the altercation, a a hate group harassing the students simply because they were wearing a red MAGA hat. They actually filmed it and cut it. But, the Red MAGA hat and the smirking grin was what was put on the news.

                So, the reporters knew it was a false narrative and cut the harassing of the kids, changed the story to show to give the perception that it was the kid’s fault and portrayed the Catholic group as a racist group. The truth was altered and cut. THAT is intent to do harm. It is slander and the way the articles were slanted caused the students to undergo more harassment and death threats and if was simply untruthful. It was a blatant omission of truth….intentionally left out.

                The kid stood his ground and did nothing wrong. Some say he should have walked away to avoid any confrontation, some say he should not have worn a MAGA hat….some say that standing his ground with a smirk is racist….no one said the truth.

                Now, I firmly believe that if this thing goes to court and the evidence is presented properly, there is no defense to say “I believed it because I thought it was truth.” And, for a news organization to not properly search out the truth and to “parrot” something because they are in the brotherhood…..makes them equally liable. There is a reason beyond cost that they are settling the case. No one knows the exact settlement figure but it has leaked out that it is millions. I believe they just want this to go away because a real trial would be damning on the whole industry. I also believe that the others will settle and no one wants the real truth to come out.

  6. Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

    Thoughts?

  7. Sir Mathius…..one of today’s headlines and I am picking on Fox News just for you…..

    ” Retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key impeachment witness against President Trump, was the “original source” of the Trump-Russia collusion push, not the whistleblower, Fox News contributor Byron York said Wednesday. ”

    Now, this is a great example of what I would call intent to do harm if it is not true. If this turns out to not be true, then I suggest that he should be called down on it and a defamation suit brought forward. The above is a direct statement….and, if is a false statement even though he thinks it is true,,,,,does not absolve him from defamation.

    • Mr. The Colonel,

      I do believe your understanding of First Amendment law is tenuous at best.

      Either that, or you are speaking “aspirationally” here in the sense of “this ought to be the way things are” rather than “this IS the way things are.”

      Either that, or MY understanding of First Amendment law is tenuous at best.

      But, since I don’t want that to be the case, we’ll just have to agree that it’s you who is wrong.

      • Ok…then….and please correct me here……Your position is that the first amendment allows you to say anything. If that is the case, then I think your understanding is tenuous…..however, this is what makes lawyers rich, doncha know.

        • Ok… a basic primer, with the understanding that Mathius is not – in actual fact – a Constitutional lawyer.

          ———-

          My understanding is that you can say anything TRUE. Full stop. The Truth is an absolute defense against slander/libel.

          Thereafter, you can say anything you like if it’s an OPINION. Libel and/or slander refer only to facts – actual demonstrable factual-facts. Not “Dr. Pepper is gross.” Maybe you disagree, maybe the manufacturer is angry with me, maybe I hurt their sales. But tough shit. I’m entitled to my opinion. And I’m entitled to share it.

          Thereafter, you can say anything you BELIEVE to be TRUE.

          That’s where it starts to get a little wishy washy. I know you hate this, but I don’t make the laws – unlike AG Paxton of Texas. The rules are, generally, as follows: the more public a person is, the less protection they have against slander/libel. The more private a person, the more protection they have. Generally speaking, to defame a private person requires only negligence, but to defame a public person requires intent.

          The press gets to say whatever it wants as long as the author reasonably believes it’s true at the time he or she wrote it. They get the benefit of both Free Speech and Free Press. If a reporter is writing about a private citizen, he has to be more sure. If he’s writing about a President or celebrity, he can say pretty much anything. If he’s writing about a private citizen, such as Sandmann, who has been dragged into the public sphere, it gets a little grayer.

          This is why tabloids are a thing that exist.

          Like it or hate it, we all know that tabloids are filled to the brim with absolute bullshit. But because they aim at public people, as long as they don’t KNOW (or can’t be proved to know) that they’re publishing something untrue, then they’re protected. Even then, you would have to prove that they intended it to be taken seriously. If they contend that they were just trying to be humorous or satiric, that might be a defense as well. This is why I can say Trump is a literal turd and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop me.

          Other forms of protected speech include parody. So long as no reasonable person would construe your words as factual, they can’t be defamatory. (Parody, by the way, also can generally breach copyright/trademarks.) I can’t really conveying misinformation about someone if you, the listener, know that I mean it in jest. If I called Trump a turd, there’s no way you’re going to hear that and be convinced that this is true… so how could I be defaming him?

          Now, “libel per se” is a slightly different animal. Libel per say does NOT require intent. To clarify. Regular-flavored-libel requires malicious intent when against a public figure. You have to know what you’re saying isn’t true or have shown a reckless disregard for the truth. Libel per se, however, presupposes malicious intent because the statement itself is intrinsically harmful (such as accusing someone of a crime). Because the harm is so baked in, there is an imposed obligation to ensure that you’re right when you say it. This is why the media is so damned careful to only ever say “suspected murderer” even when the person is obviously guilty. Because if they call him guilty and he gets off, they’ve committed liber per se.

          Pay attention next time you watch a Fox opinion show. They will NEVER accuse a specific person of a specific crime without a modifier such as “accused” or “suspected” or “I believe.” They will never say “Obama committed a crime.” but they will say “some believe that Obama did…”

          Now, watch as I commit a crime: I attest that I personally witnessed Donald J. Trump steal a lollypop from a baby last Wednesday at 3 PM.

          I have made a factual assertion accusing a specific person of a specific crime. As this is (probably) false, I have defamed him. I did it with malice and, at minimum, reckless disregard for the truth. Public person or not, I have MY obligations under the 1st Amendment. He could, if he were so inclined, track me down and sue me for defamation.

          He probably would win the case.

          Of course, even so, damages would be all of $0.01.

  8. A federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday that the state’s system of verifying signatures on mail-in ballots was unconstitutional and should be immediately corrected in advance of Election Day in November. Judge Orlando Garcia, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, ruled that the existing procedure involving verifying whether a signature on a mail-in ballot matches the one required across the flap of the carrier-envelope “plainly violates certain voters’ constitutional rights.” Though early voting election officials could compare signatures on file with the county clerk or voter registrar made within the last six years, the existing procedure did not provide voters whose ballots may be rejected due to a potential signature mismatch the opportunity to “verify his or her identity, demonstrate that he or she did indeed sign the relevant documents, or otherwise challenge a signature verification determination.” Garcia, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the state’s procedure was creating a “severe” burden on voters and failed to give “meaningful pre-rejection notice.”

    The Texas Ag says: Sorry, if the signatures do not match, it will be thrown out. We do not intend to call each and every one to verify their signature. It is pretty simple from our perspective, he says……if they do not match…..it is disqualified.

    • Let me fix that for you….

      Texas AG, Ken Paxton, says: “We don’t believe in the rule of law. We are going to do whatever we want irrespective of what the courts rule, even though it’s the court’s job to interpret the law, not mine. I didn’t like that, so I, personally, have made the decision to usurp the power of the courts and will act in open defiance of the rule of law because I have granted myself the authority to unilaterally interpret that same law. I can’t break the law if I’m the one in charge of deciding what the law actually is!”

      AG Paxton, taking a big swig of Doctor Pepper, and visibly groggy then continued “in fact [hic] any laws I don’t like, I’ll just strike down. There! All [hic] better! And I’ll add a few new ones of my own to boot. Whose gon-[hic] gonna [hic] whose gonna stop be? I AM the [hic] law! Anyone who says otherwise is guilty of CRIME!” Paxton teetered ominously on the edge of the bar stool for a moment while reporters wondered why the Attorneys General used a bar stool instead of a more traditional swivel chair in his office.

      Holding the nearly empty glass of Doctor Pepper tenuously, while pointing accusingly in the general direction of the reporters, he concluded, “and furthermore, I don’t think Houston should be allowed to vote anymore. I don’t trust ’em! Bunch a liber-[hic] liber-[hic] liber-[hic] LEFTISTS!. In fact, voting in Houston now requires twelve forms of photo-ID and an affidavit written in blood and notarized by Donald Trump himself (hallowed be his name!).” Taking a final swig, AG Paxton hurtled his now-empty glass in at the CNN reporter, but missed by several feet and struck a taxidermied bear instead. The AG rose to apologize to the bear, but collapse and was last seen snoring peacefully on his office floor, drooling into the shag carpet.

      A federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday that the state’s system of verifying signatures on mail-in ballots was unconstitutional and should be immediately corrected in advance of Election Day in November.

      Hmm….

      Or… put another way…

      • Nope…you did not do that correctly. Paxton says: A Federal Judge issued an opinion that that comparing signatures violated the Constitution. The Federal Judge issued his opinion that the signatures did not have to match…and, he made this ruling suspiciously just before early balloting is to get started even though he has had this case for over a year. Paxton takes a looooooong swig of the Dr Pepper, slams down a freshly baked cinnamon covered Churro and continues on. The judge did not cite any passage about matching signatures violating the law and where the law is silent, past practice takes precedent. Paxton observes that his is a Clinton appointed Hispanic judge that has ties to Hispanic organizations (LULAC) and is appointed in a totally Red District. The judge only issued a statement of hardship but offered no explanation of how. So, it is logical that the signature on the envelope containing the ballot must match the signature ON the ballot. If it does not, there is no benefit of doubt….it is false.

        Paxton sits down and muses that until the judge can cite the reasons for his decision, naming the portions of the constitution that is violated, and citing the exact hardships….nothing will change. Being a lawyer himself, Paxton also understands that where the law is silent, past practice prevails…..especially since the judge issued an opinion with no back up.

        Reaching for a second Dr Pepper (NOT doctor Pepper and there is no period behind Dr), he further muses that Texas has a law that says the signatures must match and has been in effect since the victory at San Jacinto,…he says that in the absence of a Federal Law covering this instance and the fact that the Constitution certainly does not cover this situation and that just because a Federal Judge says otherwise, does not make it sacrosanct. He grabs another Churro completing his sugar high……and observes all is well. You will still have to show your picture ID and if the signatures do not match on the requested absentee forms……it will not be counted.

        Off in the distance, as Paxton rocks on his porch watching the sunset….there is the faint tune of ” The stars at night are big and bright…….deep in the heart of Texas “……
        Not on my watch he says…..not on my watch. And Greg Abbott smiles.

        • Paxton sits down and muses that until the judge can cite the reasons for his decision, naming the portions of the constitution that is violated, and citing the exact hardships….nothing will change.

          Translated: Paxton decides to ignore a LAWFUL order by a sitting JUDGE based on his own opinions. He decides not to listen to it until the judge meets his personal demands despite having no standing to issue such demands.

          Rulings, apparently, have no force of law unless AG Paxton agrees with them and feels that they have been sufficiently supported.

          Being a lawyer himself, Paxton also understands that where the law is silent, past practice prevails…..especially since the judge issued an opinion with no back up.

          Translated: I have decided that the judges’ ruling needs backup. I have decided this unilaterally and, rather than appeal through the judicial system, I will simply assume the authority of the judiciary and reject the ruling myself.

          (NOT doctor Pepper and there is no period behind Dr)

          Maybe that’s why he fell off his bar stool….?

          he further muses that Texas has a law that says the signatures must match and has been in effect since the victory at San Jacinto,…he says that in the absence of a Federal Law covering this instance and the fact that the Constitution certainly does not cover this situation and that just because a Federal Judge says otherwise, does not make it sacrosanct.

          Translated: Ignoring the fact that Texas is – like it or not – a state within the United States of America and, consequently, governed by the Constitution of the United States of America, AG Paxton has decided that he doesn’t have to listen to rulings by the judiciary branch of the United States of America if he doesn’t like what it says. He has the power to rearrange the system of legal governance in the country to place himself and Texas above the judiciary.

          Not on my watch he says…..not on my watch. And Greg Abbott smiles.

          A few yards off, the pair gaze into a small bonfire, fueled by burning banners and signs which proclaimed the Republicans to be the party of “law and order.”

          “Yup,” says Abbot, taking another sip of his DOCTOR Pepper, “we sure won’t be needing those anymore.”

          “I am the law,” AG Paxton replies.

      • BTW……you picture is wrong……the blue is starting on the southern part of Texas from Laredo to Brownsville and extends to San Antonio……..Austin has a blue tint to it as does Houston……Dallas is a New York wannabe and does not count for anything but is blue. red everywhere else. ESPECIALLY West Texas……

        Oops….forgot…..El Paso is whatever blue and Red make……50/50 right now.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        I do not either. Not if the rule of law conflicts with common sense. Certainly if one has had a physical incident, injury or stroke changing the signature, Provisions should be made in ADVANCE of the election to submit a new signature sample. NOT AFTER!

        This demonstrates just how insane this whole thing is going to be.

        • I do not either. Not if the rule of law conflicts with common sense.

          Don’t like it, change the law.

          But don’t sit there and act like the “left” are a bunch of lawless hooligans and anarchist rioters while you cheer on AG Paxton openly defying a legal court ruling.

          This demonstrates just how insane this whole thing is going to be.

          Insane is right… I agree with you that this is going to be a wild few months…

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            I think it fairly obvious that when a court legislates something it is constitutionally prohibited from doing, it has given up its legitimacy. The problem simply is that no one till now and maybe till Texas has been willing to call out judges like this.

            My sixth grade history book did an interesting series of comparisons on types of governments which has stuck with me some 62 years. An oligarchy is a group of unelected people acting together to run a nation. The analogy was for certain Greek City States. The chapter section was actually based on types of governments in Greek City States of the classical period. Obviously interesting enough to me.

            Now the next question you might ask is “well, the courts deny that”. My answer is , “well who in the hell gets to rule on that except the very people we accuse of doing it?” No checks or balances! The Constitution starts, “WE THE PEOPLE”. We, the people have abrogated our say in these matters for way too long. If the AG has gone too far, recall him…or vote him out. That is the way it is supposed to be.

        • I agree SKT. My wife has palsy so her signature does not look anything like what it use to. I am sure they would reject it if she voted.

          There is no time left to even properly appeal this ruling. It violates commonsense and common practice. Specifically what statute in law or the constitution does this violate. If none were quoted then I would agree with the AG, it is just one man’s opinion. Violate the ruling and sort it out afterwards. I doubt they would disenfranchise the entire state.

          This ruling 2 months before a major election is too late to make any changes to the process. The judge leaves only 2 solutions, 1) accept all ballots thus opening the door to massive fraud, 2) allow no mail in ballots thus potentially disenfranchising shut-ins. So the AG has a choice, either disobey or take door number 2.

          So under this ruling, are signatures on checks, contracts, and other legal documents no longer constitutionally valid? We are going to toss out a few hundred years of precedent?

  9. Rulings, apparently, have no force of law unless AG Paxton agrees with them and feels that they have been sufficiently supported. Isn’t this what an AG is supposed to do?

    I have decided that the judges’ ruling needs backup. I have decided this unilaterally and, rather than appeal through the judicial system, I will simply assume the authority of the judiciary and reject the ruling myself. Isn’t this wjat an AG is supposed to do? BTW, the ruling has been appealed to the 5th Circuit and no injunction was issued by the Federal Judge. You do not LEGISLATE from the bench. A Federal Judge needs to cite the violation of the Constitution. He did not other than it violated the first amendment, which is totally silent on this.

    Ignoring the fact that Texas is – like it or not – a state within the United States of America and, consequently, governed by the Constitution of the United States of America, AG Paxton has decided that he doesn’t have to listen to rulings by the judiciary branch of the United States of America if he doesn’t like what it says. He has the power to rearrange the system of legal governance in the country to place himself and Texas above the judiciary. Isn’t this what an AG is supposed to do? An AG is supposed to protect his state. Besides, kick us out. We would like to be our own Republic anyway.

    A few yards off, the pair gaze into a small bonfire, fueled by burning banners and signs which proclaimed the Republicans to be the party of “law and order.” Almost correct…..almost. Sometimes, you have to stand up to a bully. The bully being……legislating from the bench and not interpreting the law. Texas has stood up to bullies before…..and will continue. Sometimes our nose got bloodied and other times it did not. We simply do not bow and slide of silently in the night. The appeals court will figure this out…..the 5th circuit will…..and if the AG does not like that one…..he will appeal to the Supreme Court. If the SCOTUS rules against him , then, and only then, should Texas acquiesce. In the meantime, it is a State’s right to set an enact laws that do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution and the first amendment are silent on this.

    In the meantime, Texas will exercise is rights to govern itself according to the Constitution of the United States and State Law. In this particular case and like the voter ID, there has been no injunction from either judge.

    Now a question for Mathius……..Sir, why would YOU allow non matching signatures in violation to State Law. In Texas, you apply for an absentee ballot. There is a set procedure that has been in existence for over a century. Forget the judge and forget Paxton……does citizen Mathius agree or think that signatures should not match on an absentee ballot?

    • Isn’t this what an AG is supposed to do?

      No.

      The AG is supposed to enforce the law. Not interpret it. That is the job of the judiciary.

      The AG is supposed to UPHOLD the law. He does not get to decide “I think the courts are wrong, so I’ll do it my way.” That’s called “being the king.”

      BTW, the ruling has been appealed to the 5th Circuit and no injunction was issued by the Federal Judge.

      So Supreme Leader Paxton, having failed to receive an injunction by the duly appointed and Constitutionally enshrined judiciary branch, proceeds to issue an injunction of his own.

      A Federal Judge needs to cite the violation of the Constitution. He did not other than it violated the first amendment, which is totally silent on this.

      That’s YOUR opinion.

      But, and know this is confusing, YOUR opinion doesn’t get to decide things like this.

      Do you know whose opinion does count?

      That’s right! Judges!

      I have lots of opinions. But none of them have the force of law because I’m not a judge responsible for interpreting those laws.

      For example, I think Ogberfell is a bad ruling. I agree that what it does is the moral thing, but it’s a bad legal ruling. Were I a judge, I would (regretfully) overturn it if I could. Yet, I am not a judge, so then I don’t get to overturn it. Se how that works?

      Paxton doesn’t get to demand jack shit from the judiciary. He is not empowered to issue demands and refuse compliance until his demands are met. That’s not how this works. He gets to try cases and the courts get to decide.

      Making this a far simpler example, if he tries someone for murder and the court dismisses the case on a technicality, Paxton doesn’t get to then go and lock the guy up anyway. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it’s just NOT his call to make. That belongs to the courts. And, even if he is right, and even if the courts are wrong, and even if there is a fatal flaw or a lack of justification or or or… it doesn’t matter. Paxton has to abide by the court’s ruling.

      Isn’t this what an AG is supposed to do? An AG is supposed to protect his state.

      No.

      No it isn’t.

      He is supposed to be the “People’s Lawyer.”

      His job is to prosecute criminals, oversee civil trials, advocate on behalf of the citizenry, and uphold the law. If, for example, there is a law requiring signatures and someone is suing to get this overturned, he may – at his discretion – defend the law. If he wins, the law stands. If he loses (and I know this is hard to accept), then the law if thrown out. If he doesn’t like that he lost, he can appeal. He can appeal allll the way up to the Supreme Court. But, again, I know this is tough, what the courts say is what goes.

      If the LAW says one thing and “protecting his state” means something else, his JOB is to follow the law.

      Besides, kick us out. We would like to be our own Republic anyway.

      God, I wish!

      You’d be a much better neighbor than roommate.

      And you can build all the fences you want.

      Without you, we’d never have to deal with another Republican President.

      The bully being……legislating from the bench and not interpreting the law

      Don’t like it? Change the law.

      Appeal to a higher court, win your arguments there, and get your way.

      Write a federal law the way you want it, to override the court.

      Write a new law constraining judicial activism or requiring that specific justification litmus test Paxton is demanding. And, when that’s thrown out, make it an Amendment and cram it down the court’s mouth.

      But what you DON’T get to do is simply ignore the legal system.

      The bully being……legislating from the bench and not interpreting the law

      If you’re being bullied in school, the “right” answer is to tell the teacher. If the teacher doesn’t fit it, tell the principle. If the principle doesn’t teach it, convince your parents to complain to the school board. If the school board doesn’t fix it, call your mayor and get an ordinance put in. If that doesn’t work, call the governor. If that doesn’t work, go federal. If that doesn’t work, then accept your fate as a bully-victim or move to a different school.

      Now, don’t get me wrong, the far more EFFECTIVE method is to simply punch the bully in his stupid bully face and then, when he’s down, kick him until you feel confident that the point as been made.

      But that’s not the “right” answer.

      The appeals court will figure this out…..the 5th circuit will…..and if the AG does not like that one…..he will appeal to the Supreme Court. If the SCOTUS rules against him , then, and only then, should Texas acquiesce.

      No.

      You should aquiesse because that’s what the courts said to do when it refused to issue you an injunction.

      Keep appealing if you want, an a blessing on your house, I have no horse in this race and I don’t care what the outcome is one iota.

      But rules are simple – a court’s ruling controls. If no higher court stays that ruling, the lower court’s ruling controls. Not PAXTON controls.

      It’s like saying “yes, I was convicted of murder, but I’m appealing. So I don’t have to go to jail until my appeal is heard.” No. That’s not how this works. If the appeals court doesn’t grant injunctive relief, you go to jail pending your trial. And the fact that you don’t like the ruling doesn’t matter.

      In the meantime, it is a State’s right to set an enact laws that do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution and the first amendment are silent on this.

      Says……….. YOU.

      Says Paxton.

      And as I may have said already, your opinions aren’t work a hill of beans.

      The only opinion that matters is the federal judge.

      If I don’t like the way you run your company, I don’t get to barge in and change things. You know why? Because that’s not my authority to do. I might be right. Maybe my way IS better. Maybe what I want to change is actually better. But it doesn’t matter. Because my opinion doesn’t give me the right to usurp your authority. It’s YOUR business. And you can listen to me or not. And you can be right or not. But it’s still YOUR business to make that decision for, not mine.

      • Without you, we’d never have to deal with another Republican President. This is very true….then you would have your own AG Paxton that would be far worse. We would be just another third world country.

      • If you’re being bullied in school, the “right” answer is to tell the teacher. If the teacher doesn’t fit it, tell the principle. If the principle doesn’t teach it, convince your parents to complain to the school board. If the school board doesn’t fix it, call your mayor and get an ordinance put in. If that doesn’t work, call the governor. If that doesn’t work, go federal. If that doesn’t work, then accept your fate as a bully-victim or move to a different school.

        I am really surprised in you on this. Do you know what you are saying here? I mean, really know what this means? (No, it has nothing to do with rule of law). And I totally disagree with you that it is the “right” way.

        (If I knew how, I would pull up the closing speech in “Scent of a Woman”.)

    • Now a question for Mathius……..Sir, why would YOU allow non matching signatures in violation to State Law.

      No idea.

      I suppose there is an argument for some handicapped people, etc, but I think that could be controlled for somehow.

      I thought one of the reasons had to do with a requirement that changes be made with a certain amount of review and approval and far enough in advance of a vote… ? Something like that? There was also something about a lack of ability to address it if you’re rejected…? I don’t know.

      I’m not a judge. I don’t know, and I don’t care.

      I’m not saying the ruling was right. (Nor am I saying it was wrong.) What I am saying is that the ruling controls and AG Paxton doesn’t get to decide to ignore the ruling – regardless of whether it’s right or wrong.

      In Texas, you apply for an absentee ballot. There is a set procedure that has been in existence for over a century. Forget the judge and forget Paxton……does citizen Mathius agree or think that signatures should not match on an absentee ballot?

      All things being equal, I have no objection to a requirement that signatures match PROVIDED there’s a way to ensure your vote is counted if, by some chance, it does get rejected.

      So if I sign and then hurt my hand and sign again, and it doesn’t match, someone needs to call me up and say “hey, did you cast this vote?” or some other mechanism so that my vote doesn’t just “disappear.”

      I, personally, like a way of vote tracking that would give you (the absentee ballot requestor) the a unique non-personally-identifiable code tied to your ballow and you can enter this code online and it will say “vote counted” – and if you got rejected for some reason, you can call up and say “what gives?”

      • I’m not saying the ruling was right. (Nor am I saying it was wrong.) What I am saying is that the ruling controls and AG Paxton doesn’t get to decide to ignore the ruling – regardless of whether it’s right or wrong.

        DOESN’T GET TO IGNORE THE RULING

        So with that in mind….now do Judge Sullivan in the Gen Flynn case.

        • What did Judge Sullivan do?

          You know what? Doesn’t matter.

          If he was acting within his authority as a judge and made a ruling, I don’t have to agree with it. It stands unless/until reversed by a higher court.

          I can think it’s dead wrong. An act of injustice. Sheer malevlence, cowardice, or evil.

          It won’t change a thing.

          He gets to rule over cases in his court.

          I’m not in charge of his court.

          He is.

          And if he’s terrible at his job, there are mechanisms – legal mechanisms – to sanction and/or remove him and to reverse hear appeals over his rulings. If he was following the law, but it’s a bad law, mechanisms exist to change laws.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            That is absolutely correct but one has to look at the suspicious timing…….Very had to do much if not all you suggest in less than two months isn’t it?

            • Probably.

              I would suggest that if – IF – there is legitimate legal grounds for the ruling, then the AG and the appropriate authorities should have foreseen this loss and started planning for this kind of eventuality months ago. It isn’t reasonable to fault a judge for ruling in an inconvenient way if he’s following the law, nor to expect him to ignore the law because an aggrieved party played political games and will now suffer negative consequences.

              I would – likewise – suggest that if there is NO legitimate legal grounds for this ruling, then a judge is legislating from the bench and should be (A) overturned and (B) censured and (C) smacked with a stick.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Does not the Judge establish a precedent that ANY disqualification would be Un-Constitutional?

        His reason was that the voter would not be allowed to challenge the challenge in time to have their vote counted. The same would hold for any other problems as well.

        I realize this is not the issue you are raising, which carries considerable validity, but it does lend credence to the “nullification” effort of the Texas AG.

        • Does not the Judge establish a precedent that ANY disqualification would be Un-Constitutional?

          A) Maybe. I haven’t read the ruling. All I have seen are some hystrionics over it.

          B) That’s not what I’m talking about however. MY point is that, whether it’s good or bad, right or wrong, is irrelevant. AG Paxton of Texas doesn’t get to simply issue demands for more support and ignore the ruling. The ruling IS the ruling and the law is that he has to follow it. And if Paxton feels the ruling was a miscarriage of justice, then he can appeal. He just can’t simply decide not to follow the ruling.

          His reason was that the voter would not be allowed to challenge the challenge in time to have their vote counted. The same would hold for any other problems as well.

          Could be.

          Again, I haven’t read it. And I’m really not speaking to the rightness or wrongness of this ruling.

          I do find it telling, however, that the appeals court declined to issue an injunction. This is often a leading indicator if the appellate court finds the lower court to be off-base. Since they didn’t do this, it means (probably) that there’s some plausible legal justification.

          Remember, of course, that “legal” is a whole framework of laws and archane laws and case laws all mixed and muddled up, so that “logic” and “ethics” aren’t really what control. The appellate court doesn’t seem to be hearing this case from a starting point of thinking that the lower court was just legislating from the bench without any plausible legal justification.

          I realize this is not the issue you are raising, which carries considerable validity,

          I appreciate that..

          So… in deffernce to taht acknowledgement, I will go look up the ruling and see if I can find a legal basis in it.

          but it does lend credence to the “nullification” effort of the Texas AG.

          I will reserve judgement for the time being.

          • I will go look up the ruling and see if I can find a legal basis in it.

            103 pages.

            I’m just telling you now, I will NOT be reading the whole thing cover-to-cover.

  10. Would someone please get my response to Mathius out of Moderation……

  11. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Another “hit” piece on Trump from the NY Daily News which blasts the Administration while actually mentioning the “cuts” went into effect in 2016, the year BEFORE he took office. Absolutelyeffingamazing!

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-fdny-911-health-program-treasury-20200910-s7yam67j6vhmhbdzg6ordanfdm-story.html?fbclid=IwAR363lJ3UDpi1796Rt_QuKfbiBmyW0mDOXEVZ_mvzAiuV4vP-rqTta0-huk

    The WW 1 cemetery and “losers” piece has collapsed with the editor of the “Atlantic” now acknowledging there were “problems” with the veracity of the story….duh! Looks like the four “witnesses” could not be found.

    Somebody actually suggested today how well it would have gone over if in February the President, took the advice of some of his scientists and started yelling. “2.4 million are going to die! 2.4million are going to die!”

  12. LA County’s public health chief has come under fire after saying that local schools would not reopen until after the 2020 presidential election, prompting criticism that officials are putting politics ahead of science.

    The county’s health director, Barbara Ferrer, recently told local educators that schools would remain shuttered until the beginning of November, repeatedly referring to the upcoming election, according to leaked audio obtained by LA radio station KFI AM 60.

    “We don’t realistically anticipate that we would be moving to either tier 2 or to reopening K-12 schools at least until after the election, in early November,” Ferrer said on the conference call.

    “When we just look at the timing of everything, it seems to us a more realistic approach to this would be to think that we’re going to be where we are now until we are done with the election.”

    The LA County Department of Public Health later elaborated on Ferrer’s remarks in a statement, saying she was referring only to the timeframe for “expanded school reopenings,” though it did not specify a date when classes would resume.

    Despite the attempted clarification, some have taken the leaked recording as an admission that reopening decisions were being based on political considerations, rather than health or science.

  13. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Colonel, calling for pitchforks and torches at Austin. Hot tar and feathers might be a good take along! At eight years old my entire raison de etre was set by Walt Disney with the David Crockett series. Everything I have pretty much done in my life was based on “Be sure you’re right then go ahead”. and now they are telling me to shove it?

    https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/attempt-diminish-heroism-alamo-defenders-shameful-war-history/?fbclid=IwAR0w6CYZfHos2E8s4-CXFyNpQo42kHZZ_CTXABW3usJFaFf3Oy-RgB0GhhQ

    • Yes, they made the attempt….if failed. The same group also wanted to close the Alamo because it made Hispanics….uncomfortable.

      They also want to close the San Jacinto Monument and park for the same reason and change the history to show that Santa Anna did not run and did not wear a privates uniform to escape capture.

      They can try but it will not happen….at least not in my lifetime.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        I’m reading the Jeff Sharra book on the Mexican War right now. You folks have so damn much history of your own, it would take me two lifetimes to even get under the surface. The “stealing” of California and the Southwest is pretty much a myth. One can only imagine the mess that would exist if the eternally corrupt Mexican Government were in charge. As a companion piece I am going to watch The Tom Beringer movie about teh San Patricios , redleg US artillerymen who went over to the Mexican side because of the prejudice against immigrant Irish soldiers in the command structure. Oh, by the way colonel, It’s YOUR fault!

        • I like the Sharra books, read many of them. The Mexican War one does introduce you to many of the characters in the CW including Lee, Grant, Jackson, et. al. The Mexicans resurrected Santa Anna for that war and he proved to be an utter failure as he did in the Texas Revolution. We occupied Mexico City for a year and in the end bought the American SW from Mexico. We could have just taken it w/o compensation. Later we bought the Gadsden Purchase.

          Mexico is country rich in natural resources, gold, oil, etc. There is no good reason for them to be a poor nation other than the political system they have followed. Just look at the contrast between the two sides of the border. It is the same dirt on both sides. In general, the Spanish did a very poor job of governing the peoples of Central and South America. They left a terrible legacy.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Spanish, French, Belgians, all did a lousy job. Dutch, Portuguese slightly better. English best of all!

  14. About one more week of summer. Glad it is over but I do not think the troubles will end.

    My beef jerky came out great. Have to do that again.

    Smoky here all weekend. Had to close up the house yesterday pm and last night. At least it cooled down so we are not sweltering.

    Two cops nearly assassinated in LA county. Rioters were rejoicing. Sick.

    Gov. Newsome blames the fires on climate change. Same old lie.

    Mueller’s team wiped their cell phones. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    Now Trump is guilty of not panicking the public over Covid. I thought the Dems and the MSM did the job quite well. Note the comment on dead soldiers just decayed away.

    More dead in Chicago, but black lives really matter.

    Devin Nunes was talking about some incriminating emails but I did not catch what that was all about. Sure wish Barr and Durham would start perp walking some people. If Trump loses, he needs to have a document dump before Jan. 20. Set the records straight.

    • Yes, he needs to do the Democratic thing……have phones mysteriously disappear, data mistakenly wiped out, computers missing, documents destroyed, and people killed. It is the new progressive way, now.

    • I’ve decided nothing will come of the Durham investigation. There are too many angles to it and while we may get a thorough summary of each angle, no one is willing to connect all the dots. They call it compartmentalizing the evidence. So what! We know this guy was in on spying, that guy was lying to the FISA court, the other guy was busy destroying cell phones and laptops. Durham isn’t even the leader. That would be something Aldenburg(er?). They won’t prosecute because a prosecution would hinder the big picture of exposing and prosecuting the whole coup. Its one big protect the swamp horror show going on. Fine. We may not be able to claim victory on a coup, so they should just give up on the coup angle and just start prosecuting what they can. And FREE FLYNN.

  15. All the hoopla over that Netflix movie “Cuties” shouldn’t be aimed at Netflix, it should be aimed at how a pro Islamic film maker went way over the top to get the message out (that Islam is wonderful for women and other women are tramps). Poor acting, bad story, purposeful sexualization of 11 year old girls just to make the Western world look bad and not worth the time to watch. Peadophiles may like it because they are sick perverts.

    NFL players fixing to do their celebration dances then suddenly realize that nobody was in the stands was entertaining.

    A Biden ad on local channel yesterday claimed Trump’s plan would deplete Social Security by 20?? has been debunked long ago, because Trump hasn’t released a plan on SS yet. They know this but hey, let’s just lie and see how many dumb asses fall for it. Democrats are morally bankrupt.

    Will Biden actually debate?

    • Watched a few minutes of a British soccer match Saturday. Lots of crowd noise but the stands were empty.

    • All I know is the Lions blew a 21 point lead in the 4th. And the Chiefs and Texans got boo’d for locking arms. SMH!

  16. Ray Hawkins says:

    In my back yard (well….almost) –

    “Tear Gas Used on Crowd Protesting Police Shooting, Killing Man in Lancaster”

    https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/tear-gas-deadly-lancaster-police-shooting/2532174/

    Lancaster, PA – An officer responding to a domestic call was attacked by a knife wielding suspect. He shot and killed the guy. This predictably lit the fire of protestors (peaceful?) taking to the streets damaging homes, property and businesses.

    Not funny that the headline reads as it does.

    • I saw the video of the shooting. I would have shot him too. A lunatic with a knife coming at a person needs shot, it’s petty simple.

      What is sad is that 53 people were shot and injured and 10 killed in Chicago over the weekend. No protests or riots. Black lives don’t matter as much as the Left wants everyone to believe.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        G-Man – Same – the video is crystal clear what was happening. Yet the peaceful protestors still went about their business.

  17. Ray Hawkins says:

    Also in my backyard –

    “Philadelphia Police Give Homeless Encampment ‘Final Warning’ To Leave As Stalemate With City Continues”

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/09/12/sources-philadelphia-police-give-homeless-encampment-final-warning-to-leave-as-stalemate-with-city-continues/

    Remember the iconic Rocky scene from the Art Museum steps? In front of the art museum is the Ben Franklin Parkway – an otherwise beautiful, iconic part of the city. The encampment has turned the Parkway into an open air toilet, “peaceful protestors” refusing any measure of help or nudge to get off the streets and use the public services available to them.

    The welfare state should see this as the ultimate POKE IN THE EYE – the leeches of this system now demanding more and better public aid/assistance – the never ending vicious circle of dependency and demand. Now the build is coming to a confrontation with police.

    I don’t even want to grab the popcorn on this one.

  18. Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen and assorted Plutonians and canines…

    I will now attempt to render a legal interpretation of the 103 page ruling by Judge Garcia of the Federal Court of the Western District of Texas.

    Alright….. just the highlights.. here we go…

    1. Suit is brought by League of Women Voters, Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, and a few others on behalf of two voters who previously had their votes rejected due to mismatched signatures.

    2. As there are no FACTS in dispute, a bench trial is appropriate. A bench trial is one where the judge rules as opposed to a jury trial. Juries are the triers of fact. Judges are the arbiters of law. Since there are no facts at question, there’s no need for a jury.

    3. The court rejected 4 montions for summary judgement (asking the court to throw out the case) by the defendants. All denied. But the court DID narrow the scope of the case to just the one order re matching signatures to (A) address the relevant issues and (B) issue its ruling with enough time to allow remedy before the election if necessary.

    4. All the other stuff the Plaintiffs were suing about were put on hold for a hearing follwing November 2020 elections and any appeal of this ruling.

    5. [Pages and pages and pages of yada-yada-yada on legal standing and damages-in-fact]

    6. [Oh my god, we get it! There was an injury and the court can address it. Shut up and move on!]

    7. HAHHAHA nice try Texas! The Secretary of State for Texas tried to assert sovereign immunity. Sorry, Texas, you aren’t a country. SCOTUS allows federal courts to hear suits against states involving Constitutional violations.

    8. The Sec of State also tried to argue that there isn’t “sufficient connection” between himself and the voter-signature-law. The court rejected this with the friendly note: “Unfortunately for the Secretary, the Fifth Circuit has rejected the Secretary’s same argument – twice – in recent months.” (HA!) I love that the italics are actually in the ruling (translated: you lost this argument – stop making it, asshole!)

    9. I assure you that, whatever you may think, “Mathew’s Framework” has nothing to do with me.

    10. “The record demonstrates that Texas counties rejected more than 5,000 ballots on the basis of perceived mismatching signatures during the 2016 and 2018 general elections.” Also, “More importantly, the record contains undisputed evidence that qualified, registered
    voters have had their votes improperly discarded — and have suffered disenfranchisement as a result of the State’s procedures .” (reminder: because this is undisputed, there is no need for a jury to find “fact” – Mathius wonders why the Texans didn’t dispute this in order to draw out the trial for another month)

    11. “Although the existence of even a single improperly rejected ballot demonstrates some risk of erroneous deprivation, the record demonstrates both that (i) the existing signature-comparison procedures pose a significant risk to the fundamental right to vote and (ii) there is probable value in implementing additional procedural safeguards to protect voters’ rights” – this is something of a converse to the Colonel’s position. The Colonel argues, generally, that even a single invalid vote being counted is unacceptable. The court asserts, essentially the opposite: that even a single legitimate vote being rejected is unacceptable.

    Mathius notes that, in the real world, being 100% perfect is nearly impossible and some error will have to exist. Mathius contends, therefore, that the real question is whether that error exists on the side of “over-including” or “under-including” – and it seems that the court has accepted, prima facie, that under-including IS a Constitutional violation, seemingly without stipulating the opposite. That is, they’re concerned with PROTECTING the rights of voters to vote, but aren’t concerned with the problem of illegal voters voting.

    That is, reading into the text a bit. They seem to be coming from the angle: “It’s my job to make sure every voter gets counted. It’s Texas’ job to make sure no one who shouldn’t get counted gets counted. But that’s their problem, not mine, and where the two conflict, legitimate voters are the ones whose Constitutional rights control.”

    12. “Finally, older voters and disabled voters are two categories of voters that are permitted to vote by mail, and the record indicates that — as a general rule — these categories of voters are exactly the type of voters that are most likely to face difficulties matching their signatures.”

    13. “The rejection of ballots based on signature comparison might present less of a risk of erroneous deprivation if there was an effective means to cure an improperly rejected ballot. But in this case, as in the other cases in which courts have found similar processes to violate due process, the improper rejection of a ballot appears to be irremediable for all practical purposes. See Saucedo, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 218 ( citing Zessar, 2006 WL 642646, at * 8-9) (“ It cannot be emphasized enough that the consequence of a moderator’s decision disenfranchisement irremediable.”).

    14. The Texan Sec o’ State asserts that a voter can file for injunctive relief if they believe they have been improperly rejected. But the court rejected this argument because the rules don’t say the voter has to be notified. This gets a big “duh!” from me. Why is anyone going to file for relief if they don’t know they need it? I’d also argue that “filing for injunctive relief” is a pretty big ask for someone to have to do just to get their vote counted. There are miles of legislation that came out of the Jim Crow era which could probably be applied to this in terms of why you can’t make someone jump through ridiculous hoops just to get their balot counted.

    15. “Although the Secretary has sent an advisory to election officials advising them to notify voters of a rejected ballot as soon as possible, the record indicates that even after local officials implemented that advisory voters still generally receive notice ” after the election date.” In other words, “yea, sure, we’ll let them know… but it’ll be too late for them to do anything about it!”

    The court references the two below (again, uncontested) facts:

    Hancock Dep. at 89:3-90:21 (stating that Brazos County’s rejection notices generally go out the day before election day, but that “ the way the mail service is, there’s not really a benefit to mailing it out as soon as possible, because they’re not going to get it prior to election day )

    McAllen 30(b)(6) Dep. at 32:8-33:7 (stating that City elections happen on Saturdays and the
    rejection notices go out on Monday two days after the election)

    16. “the Code expressly permits voters to receive notice of their rejected ballot after the county has conducted its final canvass of election results.” Lookie here! The “remedy” is even explicitly allowed to be no remedy.

    Further: “This timing feature of the required notice is only the first reason why the State’s asserted remedy TexasElectionCode 87.127 is inadequate”

    17. “voters who have had their ballots improperly rejected are notified that they may contact their local election officials and (ii) 87.127 provides the election official with discretion to file a lawsuit if the official determines the ballot was erroneously rejected, the Secretary contends that adequate protections exist.” Do I need to explain why this position is bullshit?

    Well, no need. The court did it for me: “Thus, even assuming that local election officials were required to seek judicial relief on a voter’s behalf following any complaint by a is enfranchised voter, the remedy would still be inadequate for voters who do not receive notice before canvassing has occurred” (emphasis original)

    18. More to the point, as far as this goes as a “remedy,”… “Crucially, the petitioning process in 81.127 is a discretionary process and not a procedural process to which voters are entitled.” (emphasis original)

    The local officials, in this case, testified that they have never utilized the procedure despite receiving complaints from voters about improperly rejected ballots.

    Texas: If you don’t get counted, you can call up and fix it.
    Also Texas: But we’ll ignore you if you do call.

    19. The Secretary also argued that there’s a second remedy: the possibility of an “election contest.” The court rejected this for a number of reasons, but I think the strongest arguement was that “the remedy is available to candidates, not voters..” That is: “Plaintiffs, in
    this case, are not seeking to overturn the results of any election, but instead are solely seeking to protect the fundamental right to vote.”

    20. Finally, the Secretary asserts that the Individual Plaintiffs did not raise their concerns of
    improper rejection to their county election officer” and “therefore cannot demonstrate whether (the procedures available) are effective for remediation.” […] The Secretary’s argument is belied by the factual record, and indeed, perhaps the best indication of the inadequate nature of the existing remedies is the evidence demonstrating that Richardson did try to seek relief from Brazos County election officials following the rejection of ballot (32). […] Rather than taking action to ensure that his vote was properly counted following his complaint Brazos County officials instead wrote a letter to Richardson notifying him that the mistaken rejection of his ballot and his resulting disenfranchisement) was fully in compliance with the election code.

    21. In footnote 33, Mathius learns a new word: “inapposite” (“out of place; inappropriate.”)

    —————

    (That’s a little past the halfway mark, folks! I’ll be back for the other half later!)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      I disagree with your summation of the Colonel’s position: “The Colonel argues, generally, that even a single invalid vote being counted is unacceptable. The court asserts, essentially the opposite: that even a single legitimate vote being rejected is unacceptable.”

      I see his point as being the same on both sides. A SINGLE INVALID Vote can be a vote that should not be counted or one discounted that should be counted. He focused on the bad vote because that was the topic. Fraudulent voting that is.

      I think you nailed the singular important point on the issue of State vs. JUDGES. The courts place themselves in the role of protecting the voter. The States have the role of protecting the integrity of the election process. The problem is that the Judges have gone to far in their role when they started siting lousy academic reports on how certain voters are disenfranchised. Along with inserting personal opinions and bias. But more importantly, the Courts should have BOTH responsibilities not just one. As should the States.

      I also think your sarcastic comments about protections being no protection is misleading. Since ballots only need be postmarked then why can’t challenged disqualifications be handled after the election day. Just as are all the absentee ballots and dual/contingent votes cast due to changes in residency???

      • He focused on the bad vote because that was the topic. Fraudulent voting that is.

        I’m not following your distinction…?

        The courts place themselves in the role of protecting the voter.

        Close.

        The courts ARE PLACED in the role of protecting the voter.

        They don’t place themselves there. The Constitution does that.

        The Constitution enshrines the right to vote and the job of the Judiciary is to interpret and apply the Constitution and, in the process, strike down any offending laws.

        The problem is that the Judges have gone to far in their role when they started siting lousy academic reports on how certain voters are disenfranchised.

        Maybe. That’s your opinion.

        It’s uncontested that 5k+ people were disenfranchised incorrectly in Texas over the last two elections.

        It seems to me that’s a serious concern. That’s 5,000 people who had their Constitutional rights violated. And that many again in 2020 if the law stands.

        (maybe half that number if it’s the same people in both elections).

        The problem is that the Judges have gone to far in their role

        To my original point, “that’s like, your opinion, man!”

        Maybe you’re right, who knows… but to my original point, it doesn’t matter. The court is operating in its capacity and is being logically coherent within the legal framework and, frankly, the state is putting up garbage arguments. Even if I didn’t agree (tentatively) that the court made the right call within this framework, it wouldn’t matter one iota since it’s the COURT’S place to make this call and not mine.

        But more importantly, the Courts should have BOTH responsibilities not just one. As should the States.

        Courts generally DO have both, actually. That’s why the Bill of Rights looks like swiss cheese.

        How many of our “rights” have no limits or exceptions to them? Every single one of those was punched by a court. Every single time, some court looked at the needs of the state and said “yea… just one little exception” and it grew from there.

        To argue “well they should have made an exception here” and weigh the needs of the state as superior to the needs of the voters is to assed to the argument that all the loopholes carved our of our so-called Inalienable Right might be legitimate.

        And perhaps they are. But it hardly seems the “liberal” position to stand on the Constitution and demand the Rights take precedent over the State. That, if anything, is the Conservative (big C) position. And one which, generally, you and I both adamantly support even if we do – periodically – allow for exceptions here and there.

        I also think your sarcastic comments

        Me??? Sarcastic??

        You wound me!

        Since ballots only need be postmarked then why can’t challenged disqualifications be handled after the election day.

        I wondered this. If I’m getting it right, there seems to be a cutoff for final census in Texas whereafter a vote is considered locked and final (absent a legal challenge by the candidates). This occurs some days after the election.

        As such, a personal legal challenge (where even allowed) would often have to be started before election day and that, of course, would require you to know about the rejection which we have demonstrated is not always the case. If they mail your notice T+2, and you receive it T+5 after that, maybe you’re too late to object? That seems to be the position the court is accepting against the state’s position that you can object (that is, you can object, but it’ll be too late to do so in some cases).

        Further, and more egregiously, in many jurisdictions, as shown above, the option to apply for injunctive relief is left to the city which – as shown – has the OPTION of doing so, not the OBLIGATION. (again, uncontested FACT). Insofar as it’s an option and not an obligation, that’s like saying “my rights are absolute… as long as the state decides to mayor decides to protect them for me.” A right which is reliant on a 3rd party to bless and exercise is hardly a strong “right.” If you can’t sue the state on your own behalf when the state violates your rights, do you really have this right?

        • The simple solution is that people vote in person unless there is a legit reason that one can’t. Being lazy isn’t a reason. Not wanting to wait in line is not a reason. Convenience is not a reason. This country has become way to spoiled.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          AS to your questions there at the end. Have I not been saying the same things for the past 10 plus years here? Our RIGHTS are subject to interpretation by many levels of those working in what we call Government.

          The only thing that has helped us has been the numerous levels of said Govt. Thus it is hard for a single layer or two to impose upon us. But when the top layers are corrupt, as they seem to be, we have a real problem.

          As for this Texas case, I think the State has some work to do to clean up their system. Validation of signatures seems to me to be the proper role of the “local” election officials. That SHOULD include the requirement to contact those folks whose signatures are in question. And that the final tally should not be certified until that is done.

          • Have I not been saying the same things for the past 10 plus years here?

            Why, yes, I believe you have!

            Which is why (stop me if I’m putting words in your mouth) it’s so interesting to me that you seem to be coming down on the side of poking holes in the right to vote (for the benefit of the stat’s interest in election security) over the right of people to vote (as enshrined in the Constitution). The JAC I know would always – and adamantly – side with private rights over the rights and needs of the state.

            That SHOULD include the requirement to contact those folks whose signatures are in question. And that the final tally should not be certified until that is done.

            I think the court would have accepted this.

            (if you’d included that the notification be “timely” and allows for remediation)

            I don’t think the court has a problem with signature matching per se… it’s just that people can’t (reliably) do anything about it when it doesn’t work.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You misunderstood the intent of my comments. I pointed out earlier today that protection of one’s vote should carry equally with the responsibility to prevent fraud. Nothing could disenfranchise my vote quicker than a few thousand fraudulent votes for the other side. So I see the Integrity of the System as the paramount priority. Not the sanctity of your vote vs. the State’s responsibility to make sure it is an honest election.

              They are ONE IN THE SAME. They go HAND IN HAND.

              Now if you really want to get to the heart of what has the greatest potential to affect people’s ability to vote it is the number of polling locations and the time those places are open.

              States and local jurisdictions should provide adequate funding to make sure there are enough polling places to deal with the voting population in that area in a timely manner. It is simply nuts to have people lined up around a block late into the evening, waiting to vote.

              • To see if I get this right………….. let’s try it this way……………….

                ———-

                The government owes JAC $1,000.

                If the government, simultaneously prints and distributes 10 trillion dollars to not-JAC and pays JAC his $1,000, the post-inflation value of the money it has given you is now dramatically less than what you were owed.

                That is, while they have, technically, fulfilled your right to be repaid your money, by letting others have an inappropriate and undue inflationary effect on the value of that same money, you have been effectively robbed.

                ———

                LIKEWISE, you have a right to ONE VOTE.

                That is your right and the government “owes” it to you.

                HOWEVER, if the government allows thousands of illicit votes to cause undue inflation, they have “given” you a vote that is worth less than the ONE VOTE which you were owed.

                ———-

                CONSEQUENTLY, to ensure you receive your ONE VOTE, it is the obligation of the government BOTH to ensure that your vote is counted AND that no undue “inflation” occurs.

                How’s that?

    • Preliminary thoughts…

      I think #11 (above) is the heart of this ruling.

      The plaintiffs are suing that they weren’t counted and that the current system allows legitimate voters not to be counted.

      As I go along, I see argument after argument where the state argues this not to be the case, but at the end of the day, it’s just factually wrong.

      SOME people will be disenfranchised by this.

      By UNCONTESTED evidence, 5,000+ legal voters had their votes thrown out in the last two elections. And (at least some) voters who have tried to have this remedied have failed. And many voters receive notification after the final tally… if they receive notice at all. Therefore, it is clear and, I think, incontrovertible, that the rights of these voters – the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of these legal US Citizen voters to vote – have violated.

      This court’s job is not really to “balance” the competing demands of “election security” and “voters’ Constitutional right to vote (and have that vote counted).”

      This court is hearing a case where Bob says “I want to ensure that my Constitutional right is upheld.” And anything and everything contravariance of that right is going to get thrown out.

      It’s not really the Federal Court’s job (I don’t think – and no one on Texas’ side seems to be arguing this) to concern itself with fraud in this case. Rather, the court is concerned with (and Texas is fighting on this point) that the citizens get their Rights upheld.

      No one on Texas’s side seems to be saying “well you need to weigh the needs of the state for election security.” Rather they are saying “we aren’t violating voters’ rights.” And that, really, just isn’t true.

      Not being a lawyer, and not being licensed to practice law in Texas, I ASSUME that the reason Texan lawyers aren’t arguing “what about the needs of the state for election security” is either because (A) I haven’t gotten that section yet or (B) such an argument is DOA and they damned well know it. Given that they keep trying DOA arguments, I’m inclined to the former, but I still have ~50 pages to go. If – IF – however, the only valid legal argument to be presented in this case in defense of the law is “we aren’t really violating their right to vote,” it’s hard to see how any other ruling could be applied.

      ——-

      If “you need to balance the needs of the state” is a legal justification, and if they argued that later in the case, then everything I just wrote may be moot.

      ——-

      Put in an analogy, if you sue because the city tortured a confession out of you, the federal courts aren’t concerned with the consequences of denying the police the authority to torture confessions out of citizens.

      The courts are concerned with “police aren’t allowed to coerce confessions.” And ONLY that.

      “Yea, but criminals might get away” isn’t the problem of the court. It might be a legitimate concern, but the courts aren’t going to accept it as justification for torturing suspects (especially if the state never even makes that argument in the first place). The courts aren’t going to say “yea… ok, well, I guess, in that case you can torture your confessions out of people.”

      That’s not to say Courts aren’t sympathetic to the needs of the state and that they aren’t willing to poke holes in Constitutional rights where needed, but they tend to be very leery of doing so. As you know, a hole once so-opened, only tends to grow.

      But if your defense is to argue (*cough* waterboarding *cought*) “what I did wasn’t torture, so it’s ok,” then you’re just playing a losing hand.

      • Mathius…don’t waste your time reading the second half…it is not going to change things. We will picture ID and we will discard non matching signatures within the guidelines we have always done these past 150 years.

        • Well, it seems to me that (A) the ruling is the official law and (B) the ruling is reasonable in light of the arguments being made therein.

          So where, pray tell, do you get standing to simply ignore it?

          And, if you persist on doing so, I’ll have to ask that you kindly surrender your “party of law and order” badge.

          • Duly noted……One you remove the terminology of “party of law and order” (because you know good and well I aspire to NO party…Republican or Democrat and I have been very clear on this and Texas does not require adherence to any party)…..then I will surrender my law and order badge. I will surrender it based upon the past 12 years because the application of our laws are not consistent….I remember you arguing that “selective enforcement of laws” is within the boundaries of discretion. I see nothing different here.

            Now, remember, you always have asked me questions on when it is acceptable for an Army officer to disobey the orders of a higher officer IF that junior officer sees or feels it is suspect and not lawful.

            I ask that you apply the same principle to Federal Judges and their partisan legislation from the bench on THEIR interpretation of the law where the law is ambiguous or silent. If the AG interprets the law differently and perceives a disparate impact, then he has a duty to fight the legislation until it is endorsed by a higher level of jurisprudence…..Appeals court or SCOTUS.

            And please, no rhetoric about apples to oranges, because it is the same principle.

            Well, it seems to me that (A) the ruling is the official law and (B) the ruling is reasonable in light of the arguments being made therein. This statement is your OPINION…I say this because you cannot base your agreement on anything substantial OTHER than an opinion. The same as this Federal Judge who wants to change STATE LAW……we say he does not have that authority, you say he does. It takes two horses to have a horse race. Just because we are part of the United States…does not mean that we kowtow in humble obedience. Hell, even BF said that Texas is the only state that has an actual argument to independence. It took me three days to get over that. He based it on the fact that Texas is the only State to negotiate its entrance to the United States and retains its autonomy even being part of the United States.

            Remember, we fought on behalf of the Confederacy…not for it. Texas was not going to be part of the Confederacy…it was going to be a Republic, separate and apart from the United States and separate and apart from the Confederacy.

            If you will research, neither the flag of the Army of Virginia nor the Confederate Battle Flag ever flew over units of Texas nor over any state or city during the civil war or afterwards. So, Texas likes its autonomy and will continue to do what is right for Texas.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    I once said that Mr. Trump should stop spouting off about the cause of wildfires.

    The same now should be applied to three western Governors and the Mayors of SF and LA.

    “This is the worst the smoke has ever been, except for three year ago”.. Inslee

    “Oregon has been in 30 years of drought and mismanaged forests”…Brown

    “This prolonged drought and the heavy wet years are due to global warming”… Newsome.

    NOTE: NOT exact quotes. But paraphrasing their comments.

    As for causes…………drought vs. lack of management. ALL IS TRUE.

    • JAC,

      As for causes…………drought vs. lack of management. ALL IS TRUE.

      AGREE!

      That said….

      1) Any thoughts on the allegations that Antifa terrorists are setting the fires?

      2) Any thoughts on the claim(s) that some private citizens have self-deputized and are operating armed checkpoints near the fires?

      https://www.newsweek.com/half-million-people-evacuated-oregon-militia-checkpoints-patrol-1531267

      The reporting on this is somewhat thin and seems to boil down to just a handful of reports with seemingly damning photos that may or may not be what they appear. That said, my 3rd question is:

      3) If – IF – it turns out that Q-Anon or MAGA-nuts or just right-leaning nut jobs are operating these supposed checkpoints, what do you think? Does the answer to that depend on whether Antifa agents are actually setting the fires? What if they try to detain someone and someone gets killed in the process?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        1. I do not know the cause of each fire. I DO KNOW that one of them, maybe not in Oregon, was caused by the pyrotechnics of a “Coming out Party”. How is that for weird??

        2. Law Enforcement is stating that Antifa Arsonists ARE NOT the cause of these fires. They are not running around starting fires. I have not seen the confirmation yet, but suspect the “arson” charges against those who have been posted was arson of buildings during the rioting.

        3. QAnon posted this info but was not the originator. That was someone else and QAnon carried the story to the minions. This should damage any credibility this “person” (lol) might have.

        4. ZERO reports of “armed checkpoints”. I suggest you read the comments to the article you posted. Looks to me like people in the area just watching over their small community when someone spotted strangers snooping around. And that is actually happening all over out here. Kind of started right here in Coeur d’Alene when the national media tried to ridicule our local folks. Instead the idea spread.

        5. The incident Newsweek reports does raise another question. An issue really, that is becoming harder to deal with. That is WHO is REALLY PRESS and who are just people running around with camera phones telling stories. I fear that the Antifa/BLM crowds of Seattle and Portland have created an increasingly dangerous situation. They use the cover of Press, mothers, even LEO to hide themselves. This in turn increases suspicions and destroys public trust in what we think we see.

        We read the Situation Reports here at our house almost daily. Spousal Unit Leader is pretty connected to that crowd still. Although she is once again going to try retiring at the end of this month. If I hear of any news suggesting either of your concerns are true I will pass it on.

        But as of today, BOTH reports look to be distortions of the truth.

        • the pyrotechnics of a “Coming out Party”

          Close. It was a “gender reveal” party.

          I’m sure that’s not an accidental error in terms of what got mentioned to you… making it about gay people is a surefire way to rile up a certain segment of the right-leaning blogosphere.

          But this, shockingly, is an even dumber new trend.

          “Gender reveals” are when a pregnant woman lets everyone know the gender of the fetus. Typically, this is done in more mild ways such as with balloons or a cake, but this couple seems to have thought fireworks in bush country made more sense.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I did not read the report, only a headline. And if what you say is true then it was misleading. Or maybe due to the age we are in “gender reveal” was mistaken for something like a girl revealing she is now a boy.

            I don’t think it was meant to inflame those on the “right”. Simple mistake in interpretation.

            • I don’t think it was meant to inflame those on the “right”. Simple mistake in interpretation.

              Maybe. It’s just one of those “innocent errors” that’s oh, so, convenient in the way it ties [specificly hated out-group] to [bad thing].

              Let me ask you.. if I read a headline on Slate that mistakenly says “Trump supporters commit a lynching” when it was actually a klan rally with no established connection to Trump, would you consider that a “mistake” or would you raise an eyebrow at it and wonder if the author/publisher might have had an ulterior motive?

              Sure, maybe it’s an accident. You can’t prove anything. But would you have the same PRESUMPTION of innocence in your mind?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                You once again misunderstand. It is MY INTERPRETATION that is probably in error.

                Given our modern “times” I probably misread the headline. I have not looked back for it but it probably said “Gender Reveal” and I assumed Girl “coming out” as a Boy.

                Sorry lad, but not a manipulation of right or left. Just an old fella who doesn’t pay attention to the required nuance to speak Millenial.

            • Asked the spousal unit on Gender Reveal……according to her, it is the new thing to get together with friends to announce what the gender of the child is going to be,,….boy or girl….nothing in between.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        One other comment. DANGER of the internet in tense times.

        If there are people stopping and checking other people due to “rumors” of Antifa starting fires and or planning to loot someplace, then is it not similar to the riots which quickly pop up after some shooting of a suspect by police?. No matter how proper the shooting.

        There are people pulling the chains of other people and using the internet to do it. It is becoming more dangerous by the day.

        • I see where you’re coming from… but one is a riot – undirected rage at ::hand-waving:: “them.”

          The other is a group of people proclaiming themselves a militia and setting up armed checkpoint wherein they deliberately play “cop” to their fellow citizens.

          I mean.. .I see how they’re similar flavors… but not really….

          There are people pulling the chains of other people and using the internet to do it.

          So…. who is “pulling the chains” of these anti-antifa folks?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Who is pulling the chains???

            I am guessing here that it covers the gambit. Russia, China, Antifa itself, and the Anarchists, of all stripes, who would love to see the country on fire.

            There are NO CHECKPOINTS Mathius that operate outside the law. So stop going off on something that is not true.

            But for the record, when law enforcement fails then are we supposed to just sit here and shake in fear? Or should we organize and stop strangers and question their motives for being in our neighborhoods?

      • Several of the fires here in NorCal were lightning generated. I sat up several hours one night on fire watch after we had an electrical storm pass directly overhead. They also happened during the hottest 2 weeks of the year. It is now cooler so maybe we can get some of these fires doused.

        We had a five year dry spell a few years back but have had alternating wet and dry winters since. There are a lot of dead trees in the woods due to the past drought plus the wet years generate more brush and grass. Since logging is virtually stopped, the logging roads have become overgrown which limits access for the fire crews into the back country.

        The sad part is it will take a year to do the environmental impact study to decide how to log off the burned timber which is good for only 18 months. Hence, most of it will go to waste. Every dead tree not taken means on live one is taken someplace else. The timber will come out of the woods one way or the other. Either we selectively log and thin the forest or we burn it down.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          T-Ray

          Generally speaking, your conclusion is true. But it ignores one key tool. One that especially applies to parts of California. That is Prescribed Fire.

          The same masses that howled about logging also howl about controlled burning in the off season. To much smoke they say.

          Bottom line. When you allow people to move into the brush and tree covered hills you HAVE TO TREAT THE VEGETATION somehow. All the reservoirs will not stop the fire that will eventually come if the vegetation is not managed to reduce fire hazards.

          Remember……………..HOUSES are now a major “Fuel Type”.

          • Fun fact!

            Woody plants (that is, plants and trees which grow wood) evolved long before anything evolved the capability to decompose wood.

            As a result, for something like 40 million years (number pulled from distant memories) every tree that died simply sat there until the elements wore it away (like rocks-to-sand).

            Day after day, year after year, dead, dried wood piled up and up and up and up. Never rotting.

            Eventually, it compacted and formed enormous, rich coal deposits which we still mine today.

            But one might imagine that, in the interim, there were some truly magnificent forest fires on a sale that positively dwarfs anything we’ve ever seen.

            This is known as the carboniferous period.. so named because, well…. carbon, you know?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I have never read or heard such a thing and frankly, it makes no sense. Given that the microorganisms predated more complex structures, such as plants. Although the early trees were more closely related to very big grass than trees as we know them.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    If this happened I might even watch it. Although my internet probably couldn’t handle it.

    https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/09/14/trump-rogan-biden/

    • I would watch the hell out of that!

      Side note: I loved him on News Radio – he was amazing with Phil Hartman

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I suspect that after the event most Americans would be looking for a third party alternative. The election could result in the lowest vote total for the two major candidates in history.

        • “The results are in… the American people have elected to have you both executed.”

          • Just A Citizen says:

            WHY STOP THERE???????

            • Exactly……I have a whole plethora (yes, Mathius, I used this word in this context on purpose) of Raptors ready and willing to clean house…..we will start with Washington DC and proceed northward and eastward.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                PLEASE ………….. do not ignore the LEFT COAST.

              • Yes, I thought of this movie when I made the statement….you picked up on it….very good……although, it is now said, that this movie is inherent racist and degrading to women.

              • I mean… it was always inherently racist and degrading to women…..

                I haven’t watched it in probably twenty years… but I remember thinking even back then that it was pretty tenuous on a lot of points… but then again, it’s a comedy and a lot of its racism and sexism is an intentional parody.

                You can’t call “Blazing Saddles” racist because they call the sheriff a ::word unintelligible due to the noise of a bell ringing::. Blazing Saddles contained racist elements because the point was to make fun of those elements. Likewise, Three Amigos was clearly mocking sexist and racist attitudes.

                To this day, though… shooting of the invisible man remains one of the funniest things… and refuse to rewatch the scene in case it doesn’t hold up to my hysterical memory of it.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Story on Arsonists………… as usual there can be some truth combined with a whole lot of distortion.

    https://www.koin.com/news/wildfires/oregon-officials-no-truth-to-antifa-wildfire-rumors/

    https://www.koin.com/news/crime/clackamas-county-2-arson-arrests-not-connected-to-wildfires/

    At least four arrested, but not in one location or all in Oregon. Note that two of these are in the photo posted by GMan this morning.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/arrest-four-possible-arson-west-coast

    • The photo had nothing to do with Antifa. Although I have read of those stories.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I did not claim it was. Just pointed out that these stories included two photos of people which were also included in the one you posted.

        The Antifa angle comes from Mathius’ question. Which is a true rumor that is causing all kinds of problems.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      “Conspiracy theories and misinformation take valuable resources away local fire and police agencies working around the clock to bring these fires under control,” an FBI statement said. “Please help our entire community by only sharing validated information from official sources.”

      Officials in Oregon also debunked claims this week of widespread arrests affiliated with the Proud Boys or antifa.

      “Remember when we said to follow official sources only,” the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office posted Thursday. “Remember when we said rumors make this already difficult incident even harder? Rumors spread just like wildfire and now our 9-1-1 dispatchers and professional staff are being overrun with requests for information and inquiries on an UNTRUE rumor that 6 Antifa members have been arrested for setting fires in DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON.”

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Ya gotta wonder, If I set the fire, what is the likelihood I would stand around yelling, “I set the fire”. Maybe when it is all over and calm they can evaluate the causes though my former neighbor, the woodsman, native American expert always told me that the small fires have to be allowed to run their course to prevent the big fires.

      In keeping with Mathius’ “things I vaguely remember learning”. At some point in my casual perusal of info on forestry, I seem to remember reading there are types of pines where the seeds only fall and germinate AFTER a fire. That would seem to indicate that nature’s way is smaller low grade, frequent fires.

      • In keeping with Mathius’ “things I vaguely remember learning”. At some point in my casual perusal of info on forestry, I seem to remember reading there are types of pines where the seeds only fall and germinate AFTER a fire

        Right you are, sir! Lodgepole pines and Eucalyptus!

        I believe the term is “fire activated seeds.”

        That would seem to indicate that nature’s way is smaller low grade, frequent fires.

        This is, generally, nature’s way.

        Bark is naturally flame retardant… but put too much brush and too much eat up against it, it’ll fail and “foosh.”

        That’s why the frequent “mild” burns are no big deal, they just clear out the brush and don’t hurt the trees. But if too much piles up, the trees come into play and they burn hotter and longer, creating bigger, hotter fires which create a positive feedback loop.

        You may also enjoy this video of a controlled burn of pollen – note that it doesn’t even hurt the grass underneath.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        The trees you refer to fall into a category called “serotinous cones”. And smaller low grade fires are not the type which open these cones. Interestingly, the lodgepole pine in the west is one such specie. But not all locations of this specie are heavily serotinous. The Yellowstone area is heavy to this type. Indicating large hot fires in the past. Other places have low numbers of this “type”. Indicating a more frequent and lower intensity fire history.

        Based on the studies and my own observations over the years, large fast moving crown fires or pretty hot understory fires do the trick. After a large hot crown fire I have seen seed fall so heavy it looked like brown snow. The fire moves through fast enough that it kills all the vegetation but does not consume the cones.

        As for the “Yellowstone” ecosystem, we learned long ago that another way to get the seed produced from lodgepole pine was to leave the slash on bare soil after clear cutting. The soil temp has to reach the magic point to get the cones to open. Timing of the harvest and slash piling was critical. The result is some very large areas west of the park filled with trees regenerated this way.

        NOTE: These large clear cut areas were done from the late 60’s to the 80’s in an effort to salvage beetle killed trees and prevent further spread of the bark beetle (Mountain Pine Beetle). The prevention part didn’t work out so good. Couldn’t harvest fast enough given environmental constraints. Thus you may remember the Yellowstone Fires which burned much of the Park and spread east into the surrounding National Forests.

        • Mountain Pine Beetle

          That little bug is one true bastard…

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Oh yes it is, BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE. Western Pine Beetle, Spruce Beetle and the Douglas-fir Beetle are not far behind, not to mention IPS Beetle.

            Sometimes I think it a wonder that we have any forests at all given all the things conspiring to kill them, long before we came along.

            • I’ll always marvel at Bill Bryson’s book A Walk In the Woods (I think), where he talks about all this… he says how horrific how it is that a blight can wipe out an entire species of tree, but how lucky and amazing it is that there’s no blight or beetle (yet) which attacks and kills “all” trees.

              I went looking, but couldn’t find the passage. Sorry.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Unfortunately never got the Forestry merit badge. The great awakening came to me whne I took a piece of ornate stair spindle to my uncle Mike the master carpenter. I needed to know if it could be duplicated. He laughed and said sure but not in the wood I brought. It was chestnut!

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Sorry, but this is every bit as stupid and dangerous as when Pelosi, Schumer and other Dems were making the same claims.

    This guy should be fired for making the comments about the elections.

    As for his comments about scientists undermining Mr. Trump’s goals. I suspect it may be true..But for crying out loud…………. PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE.

    NO EVIDENCE………….Shut the hell up. And YOU ARE FIRED.

  23. At Mathius: Somewhere above you mentioned militia barricades….with the current trend that is now happening….riots…(there are no protests left) …..you better get ready for vigilante groups to sprout up everywhere, especially in neighborhoods disguised as neighborhood watch programs. We patrol our neighbor hood on a regular basis and will follow any suspicious car we see. We do it all the time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. More and more gated communities are hiring armed guards. My Veterans group is almost all hired right now running armed security at schools, churches, malls, etc.

    This is getting very serious. I am hearing plenty of people standing up now and saying that there better not be a confrontation at a restaurant….people will die…and they mean it. Confronting restaurant customers is not a free speech right….and then throwing their food in their face or turning tables over is not a protected right. People are going to get shot here….

    Also, we have had several militia type groups protecting statues and things in town squares and cemeteries. It is getting serious. Very serious.

    What do you propose to stop this? The police cannot handle it….

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh how funny. The Dems in Congress want to investigate the Trump folks for the Republican convention antics on govt. property as a Hatch Act violation.

    While an association of Govt. employees, which includes federal although omitted from the story, buys POLITICAL advertising attacking POTUS.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/516293-naacp-afscme-launch-radio-ad-buy-aimed-at-black-voters-in-swing-states

    • Was it NOT a violation of the Hatch Act?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I do not think so. The Hatch Act was designed to address people basically campaigning at work. It was intended to keep supervisors from coercing subordinates in the work place (govt. work place). I think the D’s howling is overblown. But I also think that Mr. Trump and his people (lawyers) tried to stretch it to the limit. Such as using a National Park as a backdrop to a speech. This had the potential to place Park Service employees in jeopardy of Hatch Act violations, depending on if and how they appeared on camera.

        Given the unprecedented constraints caused by the Governors’ responses to Covid I had no problem with them using the White House grounds or in addressing people from the White House. Remember, Mr. Obama did the same thing, that is making campaign comments from the White House.

        Having had to live under the Hatch Act constraints myself I do not believe that the R Convention violated that Act. Also remember the Act includes exemptions for POTUS and VEEP.

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
        [The president and VP are exempt. Given the state of the pandemic and anarchy, it was probably the safest and cheapest location for the night.]

        In August 2020, President Trump announced that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, and the move of the 2020 Republican National Convention to a largely online format, he would make his speech accepting the Republican Party nomination for the presidential election from the South Lawn of the White House. In response, the OSC sent a letter to President Trump indicating that, while both the President and Vice-President are not covered by the terms of the Hatch Act, White House staffers are, and would therefore not be able to assist with such an address. Moreover, other portions of the Convention included clips recorded at the White House (e.g. an interview with freed hostages, and a naturalization ceremony [55]). While Republicans argued that the South Lawn forms part of the President’s residence, and therefore should not be classed as part of a federal building, legal experts point out that “[i]t’s still illegal under the Hatch Act for any White House staffer to participate in executing a campaign photo op/video segment in the White House”.[56] This could also lead to investigations for staffers that may have aided Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (but not Pompeo himself) in his convention activities as he delivered a speech while on official business in Jerusalem[57].

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    I understand this is political season so all recognition of objectivity is to be ignored, but……. the media and Dems are not being honest in their criticism of Mr. Trump’s comments about Climate Change and the fires. Per this story, Mr. Trump’s comments are far more accurate than the California natural resources fellow. Except maybe the claim things will get cooler. But the “I don’t think science knows” is accurate. What we have is opinions about the future that are mixed with science and politics. The California director is conflating the existing situation with predictions of the future. As well as confusing annual variations in rainfall with CLIMATE itself. And, the science actually predicted things should get cooler over the next 30 years or so…… due to very low solar activity. At least some of the science.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516354-trump-casts-doubt-on-climate-change-science-during-briefing-on

    There is a lot of evidence that Climate is changing or has changed. We might enter another period of stable climate, nobody knows for sure, but that climate will be different than the one many of us grew up with. And someday it will change again. Because that is what it has done over millennia. The real question is HOW DO HUMANS SURVIVE these changes.

    In order to address this question, that is solve the potential problem, we need to look at various potential Climates. Not just one cooked up by Mr. Mann and his associates. My point is that if you think Global Warming is bad, just consider another major advance of Glaciers across the northern hemisphere.

    • Global temperature has many small decadel variations in the data. These variations are fit very nicely by using the orbital mechanics and solar cycle theory. For the CO2 model, they smooth out many of these variations and then fit the smoothed data. It roughly matched until about 20 years ago when the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature rise was broken.

      If you look at the data presented by Tony Heller, he compares historical temperature charts to those being published today. It is obvious that the data has been altered with suppression of the older temperatures and enhancement of the later temperatures. In fact, it was hotter in the 1930s than it is today. The temperatures being compared are ground based values. Logic would state that current ground based readings especially from more urban thermometers should read high due to the well documented heat island effect. Furthermore, the current ground based data does not agree with the satellite data we have been collecting for the last 40 years.

      A good physicist always looks for internal consistency in the data as compared to the model. Lack of internal consistency spells trouble for the model or indicates that the data are faulty, having some systematic error in it. It is often just a gut reaction at first but my 50 years of fitting data alarms have been going off for sometime with respect to AGW.

      The orbital/solar model predicts a cold spell in 2030 and another one in 2040-2050. Cold is far more dangerous than warm. There is also a predicted return of a major ice age in about 3000 years give or take a few thousand. I think we can wait 10 years to see what happens.

      In any case, the correlation between CO2 and increasing temperatures has been broken for the last 20 years. CO2 does not drive the climate at least not in a major way. It is time to work out a new theory. In the meantime, forget about climate change and clean out the forests.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Sometimes it takes awhile for the enlightened crowd to catch up to the rest of us.

    https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/09/14/stop-calling-liberals/

    • JAC,

      Did you read this article, or just the headline?

      This thing is a completely biased hit-piece.

      There may be a legitimate point – somewhere – that “liberty” is not what “the left” stands for (at least, not in terms of taxes and regulations), but this article is so full of biased bullshit it’s hard to find.

      • I keep telling you this ain’t your father’s D party. They left you somewhere in ’07 during the hope and change era. They got their change and left you hoping for something different.

        Cmon, man! Many in the black community have gotten it, many Latinos have gotten it. Heck, Ive even seen Jews getting it. The ‘ol D party ain’t what she used to be. This is where you need to catch up. AND I can’t even tell you that the groups I’ve listed are suddenly R fans, but they do realize that the Ds don’t speak for them. For that matter, I’m willing to say that many in the R party are just as fed up with the R party. THAT is why Trump is president. And thank God for that.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I keep telling you this ain’t your father’s D party. […] For that matter, I’m willing to say that many in the R party are just as fed up with the R party.

          Funny. They all still look like a bunch of statists to me.

          Statists now, statists tomorra’, statists foreva’!

          Just a bunch of people blindly waiving team-flags with their pet ideologies screaming “freedom for me, but not for thee,” trying to adamantly defend such rights as benefit or interest themselves while denying disfavored rights to others…

          “Oh, yes, guns are holy! No one can take our guns! But, errr… we don’t think you should go to jail if you smoke marijuana!”

          “We think prostitution should be legal. But we also think the government should micro-manage your private company!”

          “Well, we think the government has no right to demand taxes from us! But it should tell people which bathrooms they’re allowed to use!”

          “Well, we think churches should have no regulations (including taxes)! But Muslim women shouldn’t be allowed to wear hijabs!”

          “Well, we think cops shouldn’t be allowed to murder suspects in custody! But we don’t think you should be allowed to shoot looters trying to steal from you.”

          Bunch o’ hypocrites, the lot of ’em!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Yes, I read it. Twice. I agree there is some hyperbole but on the whole pretty much true.

        So show me where this is “just a hit piece”.

        Me thinks you have the same problem with this article as you do with many of the arguments here. You cringe at the truth because you think you are part of this group. Yet your words betray you. You are NOT PART of the modern LEFT. And for those of us who have paid attention for decades I would say you were never part of the “left”.

        You associated yourself with the left because you couldn’t see enough similarity with the “right” or “conservatives”, or “Republicans”. If not there then where? So you accepted them as your tribe. Even if only cousins and not brothers and sisters. You have the same problem that many of my “liberal” friends have today. They realize that maybe they were wrong and it hurts. It is confusing and can make people a little unsettled. Much like “conservatives” felt when they realized that the Republican party was really not what it said it was.

        The Marxist and anti-American system types took on the titles Liberal and Progressive long ago as a means of hiding their agenda. The author is also correct in that the Republicans happily obliged by trying to turn “Liberal” into a derogatory term. Rather than speaking the truth. Rush Limbaugh is a great example of this. It is only in recent years that he realized what he had done.

        I and others have written here often about how there is little that is actually “Liberal” about the Democratic party anymore, and certainly not the “Left”. That the “movements” that party has embraced are anti-Liberal and “regressive”, not “progressive”. And that has been true for a very long time.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Mathius is a typical liberal.

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            And by “liberal,” I mean that is the lay/common parlance.. not in the sense that he belives in anything actually resembling “Liberty.”

        • Even if only cousins and not brothers and sisters.

          Well put – cousins is far better than siblings.

          I am not, and never have been, completely at home in any political demographic.

          I am, as you know, wildly divergent on a number of points for which I have been lambasted and banned by many such groups and blogs.

          Yet……

          You associated yourself with the left because you couldn’t see enough similarity with the “right” or “conservatives”, or “Republicans”.

          Perhaps.

          I find the Republican Party abhorrent.

          The Right… well, honestly, I don’t have a clue what “The Right” even means beyond simply a hatred of “The Left.” Perhaps you could define it a bit better for me?

          As for conservatives (small-c), they’re just more Republicans who are just trying to avoid being tainted by the table.

          As for Conservatives (big-C), well….. they’re my cousins, too. And I think you know that.

          I and others have written here often about how there is little that is actually “Liberal” about the Democratic party anymore, and certainly not the “Left”.

          Maybe.

          Maybe not.

          Much as I hate to agree with the pirate, I think he has a point.

          The Democrats and “The Left” have their pet rights and freedoms which they care more about. The Republicans have their pet rights and freedoms. The Blue Team is happy to destroy 2A. But when Red Team tries to pass laws (as it often does) on the premise that the US is a Christian Theocracy, it’s the Blue Team that stands up and defends 1A.

          Would you deny the number of rights and freedoms which have been attacked, damaged, and destroyed at the behest of the Republican Party? I, certainly, would not deny the damage done by the Democratic Party.

          We could go back and forth all day point the finger between the two camps (“you tried to destroy this right”) (“well you tried to destroy that right”) and we’d both be right that both camps are shitty.

          For this reason, I often diverge from “my” camp. As you know, I have a wholly unique view on abortion. As you know, my view on borders is radically “Liberal.” As you know, my view on drugs is radically “Liberal.” As you know, my view on guns is a solid “meh,” which aligns far closer to Red Team than Blue.

          I and others have written here often about how there is little that is actually “Liberal” about the Democratic party anymore, and certainly not the “Left”.

          I think what you’re missing is not that I said “this is my camp because it’s good” so much as “this camp has more good in it than that camp.” Neither camp is right correct on everything. But the things the “left” prioritizes are, to me, generally, more important and better aligned with the things I care about than the “right.”

          I think you paint a false-choice between a lunatic-vision of “the left” which shares none of my values and a fantasy version of “the right.” And I think the answer is that “the left” is a big tent (as is “the right”) and I don’t need to align myself with its crazier elements nor with its every goal. I can sit there, with one foot out the door, and say, “sure, I’m more here than anywhere else,” without acceding to your implication that they’re all batshit crazy and have all flown off in the direction of crazy-land, leaving me with my formerly-in-foot in a now-vacant parking lot.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I have and again acknowledge all you just said about yourself. But the game you play is to then attack language, the meaning of words, based on your personal conflicts.

            It would be like me jumping up and screaming at someone, like you, for pointing out what the “right” means to you, based on the evidence you see. Just because I feel more aligned with some of their thinking than with the left.

            We only have so many words to explain what we see and know, or think. Especially when it comes to “political” spectrums. There has been a lot of academic work done on how these words have been hi-jacked by those who want to confuse things. You have dismissed this work in the past with a typical rationalization, “words change meaning”. Yes they do. But there is a difference between organic long term changes and sudden shifts to something that was and remains the opposite. Such as the word “Liberal”.

            The irony of those who have disdain for “conservative” thinking is that without “conservatives” the institutional memory of such things would be lost.

            And for the record, you have more in common with modern “conservatives” or moderate “libertarians” than you do with the left or Democrats.

            Now to take one of your bigoted view points apart. The views against abortion are NOT based solely on “religious” texts or the desire to “impose” some Christian ideology upon the country. The proportion of people who have come to disagree with abortion on demand would not exist if it were only a religious thing. Just as you have “evolved” so have many others. Abortions is a true MORAL /ETHICAL issue or question. The ability of the society as a whole to resolve this issue was short circuited by Roe v. Wade. Thus it never stopped being an issue. The only reason that the “R”‘s or the Conservatives could use it as a political tool was because it was still raw. Or “unsettled” if you will.

            I also take exception to you constantly couching the bathroom issue as someone wanting to dictate which bathroom people could use. That is a gross distortion of the truth. Those opposed were and remain concerned about men using the cover to gain access to the girls who use the facilities. Women were opposed as well and not on any religious grounds or desire to dictate to others. Another example of falling on a rotten sword as far as I am concerned.

            Drugs are another serious issue and opposition should not be dismissed as a liberal vs. conservative viewpoint (in modern context, not original meaning). I know a lot of “liberal” who oppose the “L”ibertarian viewpoint of drug use. In fact I know many “conservatives” who are more akin to your way of thinking. They simply recognize the cost to society of allowing drugs to become common place while using the public’s treasury to deal with the blowback.

            Oh, I am not missing anything about your position on which “camp” you prefer. I do think you are wrong though. I believe your view of the other camps is distorted with bias picked up though indoctrination. Decades, a few anyway, of indoctrination. You display great capacity for critical thinking, at times. And other times you revert to knee jerk reactionary response.

            • And for the record, you have more in common with modern “conservatives” or moderate “libertarians” than you do with the left or Democrats.

              I don’t think the libertarians would like my economic positions very much…..

              But, yes, generally, when it comes to many social issues (sex, drugs, and rock and roll), I am deeeep into the Libertarian camp. Far enough that both the Red and Blue teams are a mere speck on the horizon.

              The views against abortion are NOT based solely on “religious” texts or the desire to “impose” some Christian ideology upon the country.

              I think you’d be hard pressed to show where I made this claim

              This is ONE reason for the support (and a damned major one at that) for a ban on abortion by “the right.”

              But, insofar as I was attacking the Republican Party for trying to act like a Christian Theocracy, this is as good a point of contention as any… see also prostitution.. see also blue laws.. see Terry Shivo… the aggressive denial of gay rights… see also pushes to teach “intelligent design”… see also.. see also.. see also..

              The ability of the society as a whole to resolve this issue was short circuited by Roe v. Wade.

              Probably true.

              Honestly, I think Roe is probably another bad ruling whose results are better, but whose legal grounding is backward (this is the conclusion we want, how do we justify it) like Obergfell. JUSTICE Mathius would overrule it even while CIVILIAN Mathius is more open minded.

              I also take exception to you constantly couching the bathroom issue as someone wanting to dictate which bathroom people could use.

              Then take exception.

              I stand behind the characterization.

              Those opposed were and remain concerned about men using the cover to gain access to the girls who use the facilities.

              The result of fear-mongering and puritanical ideas of gender and identity.

              I know a lot of “liberal” who oppose the “L”ibertarian viewpoint of drug use.

              As do I.

              It’s just that.. “on balance,” I think (and I think you’ll agree) that, again, on balance the Blue Team and their allies are more open to legalizing and decriminalizing drugs.

              None of these things are 100% one way or another.

              In fact I know many “conservatives” who are more akin to your way of thinking.

              As do I.

              They simply recognize the cost to society of allowing drugs to become common place while using the public’s treasury to deal with the blowback.

              This is a concern on the left as well.

              Any rational person considering drug legalization has to be concerned about the consequences of that legalization.

              I believe your view of the other camps is distorted with bias picked up though indoctrination.

              Maybe.

              So set me straight, wise JAC.

              What are the ACTUAL AUTHORITATIVE POSITIONS of each of the many respective camps?

            • You might as well just vote for Trump. He’s sure not conservative..more like center right. Sorta like you.

              • aHA aHAhaaHAahaahhaA aaahaHhHH aaHhH aaAa HAHaH a AHA AahHaa HAH H A HHhHhaaHhhaAHHAah HaH hhhHAaHHhAH h AhhhAahaAh HAa hHHaAAHAHAHA AHaAAhHHHaHHa AaH HhHhh A AAHha AH HaHHHHha HAh aA HHhA Hah HAAa H HaH aAH H aAAaAaHhhHhAhh HA aAaHHhAaah HH a hhhh haA AaHhAh Aa A ah ahAaHA AaaAH Hh aHAh hA aAAaAh HH hHhHhhaaHhhh hA hhA HaAhhhhh hHhAAHAHAa AaAahH HHhAH Ahh AahHaAHahaAhAa AHAhhaA aa Ah Hh H haahhAAh AA HhhaHHaAAA haaHHh aAHhaAhAhahaA HahhHaA Ah A AhhHAA aa hHHa hHAaahHhHh ahHAhHhhahaA h hh AHAhA aH haaA aAH A hhahhA aHAhHh Hah aAhhHaaHh HaahHhA A aAhhHhaHaHh haa h HaHAaaH h aHHaHahAHhahaaaAAaAaHH aaHahA A A HhaAAAaHAAAaah AhaaHHhHhH Ha HA hhaHaa H AH aahAa aa aa hhAA hAaaHH HaH hA AAHHAh hAhH hHHH H Haa HHhhAaHA Aa h aH ahHH a HhAh aahaAhHhaahhA aH AaAah AaaAh haAah h A haH ahaA AaHaAHHh hHh a Aa Haahaha aAa HaH Aa hhaah ah HHaaaahhh haAa AHa a ahhA aHHHhaaAaahhaAAaha H Ah h aHh H HaHhHA aAaaH aAHhAa A AAhAAAhhhA AHhA HHhHaA hHHaAaAHHaHhAAHh h AaahahAhhA AahahHAHHA AhHaHa AAAHA aHa aHHhH HAAAaHa hAahH ahhHh HA h Ha HAHAHaAhHAHahh haaaHAhhhhaa haA haAhAhaHHAaaa haHHA H HA aHHa AaahAAA aAAH hhaAhAahAa haHh h A AA hh aAhhAahaA AhAHhAahHAaah aA HAHaaH aahaA Hh HH AaaAAhaa H hA AHA ahAHaH A aAahHAAA HHAH aA hAaAHHAHaaaAH aa aHhh HhHAAHAahhhhHHa a hhhA aHaaaAHHAHh HAAHaa haa aHAHHAHhHHaAHAhA AaaAHhaaHAhaa AAAAaAAAa HhAaAhAha aAHhhh AahahaHhAhh AHa haaha A aahHHHH haAhH hhHHaHhaAaAHHAahaHAhh AH A h Hhh AaHahA hhHH ahhh Ahh A a H AaAHHaH a A AAhH AAaHA AA A hahhAAAH HaA H HaA HAa AHAah hAahAHaHhHA A aHAH HAaa a A haAaahaAhahh h hHHAAhhaHAAaAah AA haA hha hHah hhhh ha A hhh hhAaA HaaA hahA a ahhahhaHaHAhaa HH HaAaa aaaAa AA a hHaahh HHaahH a AHAAH aH hh H AHAA H HhHHHhH AA HaaHH H AhaAhAAhaaah HAHAHAH AAhAHAHhhhAh aAh AH h aAHAAAAHhha hHa HahhAAhH aAHahaA hHahaahAhhhHaHh ahhaAa hHA ah hAHAA AAHh h HahaHAhHHHaahAHhhAAH HhaAh A AHaAH Hh H hAaHAH AhahH HahahAHH hHhAHAhaAAhHh aH hAhh hAhHH hhhAAhHaaAHH AhHahH a A H hH H hHHh Hha ahAhah AAhhH hHHHH h AhhaaHa ah AHha Aa aAHhhhhAhH A aAHHahAhAaah HAHahH AHhAhAHHaaHhaHaHH HH AH aAAHAHAAHah a Hah A HhaHahAh A HAh haaa h HhHAa a HHaAhAhhhHh H hHA hAHhAhAHhAAaAAA AAAhAAh aAAhH hAaAaHaHaAaHAhHah aAaahA a HHh AahAaH AHH aaAH a a A Ah hAh AaAaaH aHA AHHaaAahHaHhHHaaaHAAAaA hHh AhahAhHah a haHaHhAHhH Ha HA AaAHaHAAahHH HaHh HAAA aHhHAhHHAaA aH HhH AaaaaHH H a hAHAA HahHaH HHA aaH hhhhAHh aAaha hHhaHaAahAH hAAh HAhAaHaH aAH a h A HahA haaAHhaaHh aHh HhAAah aaAA aaHAhHAAAA hhAahHa ahh haAAAaHHHhHha Hh ahaHaAHHH a AhA HaahHHAHAHAhhaAHhHAH HH hahHAhhAh a AAaAAAH AhHha HaAhaAHHahaah HaaA AH Hh aa hhaH AhA AaaAAAHHH aHahHAAaa HhAahHh hhAHa AHHahaAhHHAAAAaHAhhAHaah AAhHh H AhaAhAHAh AAhhAAAHhhhAHahHhHAAhhA AaAA AAAA H hHhHa AHHHh AhHHh Aa HH ahhahAa AA Ah h AHaAH aHHhaaa hha aHaa aA a hA ahHh aahAHha H aAhHa Haa H h hh Ha haHh HhHaaAaAHhA a A hhAhaa ahaHAHaaaHhhHhaHh HHa hhAhHHHAAA h AhHaaahH HHHaHHhhA h AHahAhHaAah hHhh AAh a AaAhAhHaaA h aHAh a a aHHh hhAHAaAAAA HaAH AhhaAAHhAHH H ah h aAhhh Ah HAhH ah hhh hAaHHAAhh a Hh aHahaHaAAA H Aa A aAhA AA HHaHhHah AAaaAhhHhHAAaaaH HAhA haAah hAA Ah HhHhaHA HHAa aA h haHH AHAHAAa hA A AaAHaAAaHaAHhh HaHHH Ah aHhaA aHHAhhAHAAahhhAAHhAaA H HahHAh HAHa hhAaa aAAHhHa Ha ha aHA aHHAHa haHHaA a a HhaAH HhaHhAhHAaHhHaHAAaAh hhH HAhAa hh ahAhHha ah a HAAaHHhhHaAhhhaHAAhhAaa AhAHAaAhHaaHHAhaH Ah HhAhHahAa haAh AhaAah h H A a ahHahHa A Ha a hAaHAAHah HhhaaH H aHh a hA AAHhaAhAHh A aAHhhH AaAH AHAAhH HHhhAa HhAAaahHaaAHaAhhAA h ha A AhhahHH haA HAaAa hhh aHA aAhAahha H HAhaAHHAaA hHahHhaHHhaAaAhhaaahHaHhhhHahH haaaAAahAAHAHHA h AHh ah ahaaaahHhhAaA h HhhaAhHAAh hHhhHhHH HAA hhHHaaHhAHHaA ahah HHaahHAaAhH AHhHhAaaaaaHAa h AHhhAaAAH ahaah ahAAhAHaH Aha h haHAAHhh ha HhaHahh hAAAHAHH HaahaHAA AhhhAH aA hh H hHhAhaa HaaHAhHH AHaAhaA hAaA AHa HAHh haaHaa hAaAHhaH h AAAHhAaahHh H HaA HaHHHH HHh h A Ahh ahHHh hHahhHHHhhH hHhh aHAA aH aaa HA AAhahA A hhaAaHhaha aHhaAhAhHhHAAh ahaaH Aah HhhH aAaAHHaaaAHhH AHh HHa HAa HH H AhAHah HAHHAa HaAaa aH aaah HAh H Hh haHAAAaa HaAaH a h aHAaaHHa aHaaaA HhAa HaAAAah a hA AaAAAAaAhAh HhAHaHhA hahh H AHaAaA aaHH ahHHhAahHaa ah hAHHAhaAHh Hha HHhAa A aHA AhHHAA ahaHh aAH A hHhAAAHH hhhAaAahAHhaH ahaaah hHa Ha HHHaAH H hHAaAHHaHh AaHhHa AHAHH hHaHh hhA haaaH HaA a Ah hhhhaAaHha HHaAH Hh aH hAhAaaHaHa AaAh HhaAAaHaH aHhAH HahAAHaAh AAaHAaaHhHHAAaHA HaHHaahhAhAH ahhhhHHaH a AhAaaaAAAa AAaa Ah AAA h AhHaAH h aAAA haHAaa hhhHhH hHa a ah aa aa Aha Ha HhH HHHhhAAHaHhHHhHahh aHhHaaaaA ha A hHa HAha AH A AAahhahHAhA AHA aAH aAaHHahH HHHa aaHAahhaAhHA ha H aAhaAhHhHaa hhAHah hah A HaA HAAA h AAahHh H AaHAHAHAHahAHA HhhaAa AAaAAAaHhaHAAhA aAAaHHA AAaHHAhHah Ah AaAAaAahHHH aaaH aaahh aH hAHaHha HHHHhHaahAHa ha aHaAAHH HAAhhHHh hAHHaaAHh a HaHa haAHaAahAhHAhAHHh Ha aHaHHhAa aA A ha hAhaHhHHH AhHAHHhHAAHAh hAH HAaHAA haHHha AAhh a a AhHaAAA ahaha aAHa aAhhh HhHH HHhHa hhaHAAAAA HHAAAA HhhahHhAHAHAHHh haaahhAHHaH A ah hah HAHhAA HHAaAa A aHHaaHhhA HaaHhA AHHh h HAh HAHaH AaaHhA h AAaaHAHaha a hhhHHh HAa aH AHAhH ahAaHAhAhaHAAaaAa a H aha aAhAh A hHHhHHhaaH HAahH AhhAhHahahHhHAhAA AHaAHH AaAH A hAAH AH Ha AahaAAhHHAAaahahhahAAHhaA A a aaa hhh HAH H HAAAHH hhA A h HHH aaAhahHahAaH aA hHaaaHhAh HHa aH HaaAhhHaH h H hhAH HHhhhAAaAAha AhAaaAhaHhHhA AAaAHHAhhaa AaAH aAaAH AH HhAhh hAH H H HH HH HA AHaha AHHhAAa hAHHahaHahah hAaAhh aH a hAHAaa aHahhAhahAhaaaAH HAhAAhaaAHahAaHaH a a ahHHahhhAA AAhHA HH aaHhhAhH hhaHHAHhHA A A haaHhhaa hA hA hHahHHA aA hHHhahaa AHAahHh aAAAAhaAHAhahAH h AHhHAHAhH haHh hahHhhAAahaAAaHhha A AAhaaahAHa h a AAh hAHaHahah HhHa hA AaaAhAAahhH hh AHha hHhAaAhahaHH aAhaHhhhHhH AHaA hA HHH AHH ha aa aHAH HAHaAAHh ah HhhAH hhaaaHh hAAAaAaaAhHAAaA h HhhHaaAhH aHa HA HHaaHHh aaH HHaAA hHHa aaA AhAhHahhAHhhhhH a AAAH H A AHA ahhAA h ahhAaAHHAAA AaaHa aAHahHha aAaA AHaAHh A HhaaHaa aAhhH h haAahAh Aahh HhHHaAhHaAhhh aha hH hAHHaAaAaHa HAAhaaH h hhAAhHaHhAhhA a HAA HhhhAaaaaAaAahaH HH aHHhahAhHHH HAhaHH a AAa AahahHa aHA AAHh AhaaHAHahHhh HH Hhaa H ahhH aHAa AhHHAhaAaH hA aaaHhAhh hh ahhaah aaAAaHHH ah a HhhHa a H hA aaaaaHHH aHhAahHAHaAahaAHhh hhH Hh hhaaHAh hhAHaHahH AhaA AaHHaaaaHaaAhAAHAAAAHAH ah h aAh AH AHAA hHa a Ah aAaah ha HhAA haaAHHA Hh H AhHhHHHHAHaahHHAaahhaAa aAHAHaAaa HA A haAAHhH aHhAaAh aaAHHhHH AHahH h aaA hh Ah Hhh haAAhHAh H A A HaaHhhhAAH HAAAAAAhAAh aHhhA H HAAhaaahh HhHA a H hHh AHaahaAaaAAa haHHh aH aAHAHhhAhhh Hh HAAA aHH HHH Hh haAHh H aAa hHAHHAa AaahH hhaHAhAHAAaa AaaahHhhHAaah AhAH Haa AhhAH hAh A Ahh A h Hh AahHhh A Hh Aa HaHh a AHaAhaA a AHaHaHaHhHAaHaAHAHHaHahh AAH haAhhh hA ahAah a A HaaAaaaAhaA aaAahAhAAAHA hA HHhH HAAaaaaHAhHHH hAaHHHhAh h hhaAAaHAA a ahHAaHhaahAhAahahh aAHaahHAAAHAAhH H ahhAAh A AHAhAa AHh hHaha h aH HaH ahhha HaHAaAahH AAAAhAAa HHA hHaHHhAHhAHaH AAaAHhhaahaHH ahHaHAHa hAaHaHaAhHHHh AAhA hHaHhhaAHahhHhAhAhhAa h AAHHhHhA AHhHh Hah AHHaaAHAahaA A h A Ah h H ahaa HhAaH H HaHa AhH AHAAA hAHhAaA hahh AHAaA A hHh aAhAhAhhAhHa aHhaAAahhhH AA aAAHh aHahAH aa Ah h AhAA AHhAhAAaA HhH haha hAhaa a Hah h aAAah H AhH AA a aHAaAhHHAHa hA HHhAahh H hA Aa AAHHhahHhaAaHHhahA haAa HHAA A Ha aA HhAAhAHH hAHA aHhH HAha aaHAaHHHAhAH aAHHAHHHaAhA h HA aaahha Hhh a AAhh AHHahHH HhH Ah hHh Aaa hH AhaH hHhHAa AH AHhAaAAAAHaaaaHahhAAHaHa Haa HA HHAHhHaAAhhH hAaAaHAhAhhHaaA Hah hHAaAHHHaHaHA aaH aHaAhA h HHh hhHAaa hAhaAAHhhAHAAahaAHa AHHA AAA a a HHHaAhaAAhAAhahAHhAAHhHhaH HAhHaahAHA Hh aaHHH aAhHaah aH AA aHAA h HHhHhA aaAhHahHhAHahhha HhhaAAHa ahaAhh Hahah AaahHhhH A ahaa a AaH a a HAahh AAAaAaA AhaAaAhAahA Ah HhhH HHAHhhHaA H hhAAahAH aHAA hHH Ahaha aahhA aAh hhhhAAaaAaaH hAHaaAh aHh Ha H aaHAAaha a HhA aHA ah AHa Ha AHhaA A hHhHAhaHh aHhAhhAA AaHhHHH AaAa AA AaahHahaHaaA AahHha A aAH ha HHhAhAhhahHh Ahhha hAhAaAH A HhHhah aa H h ahHA hhHHH hAaAhaaH Aa aHHHHHh haAh hhaHa a hahhh a H hha AAaAAaH AHaHa h HHh hAh aahhH aaaahAAhHhhhhHHa ahhHh AAh Hh AhAHAaHHhh HAHHH HAhhhh hA A hhHAHhHAaHHH HAahA haHH haha a aH hAHA aaHaHHhAahHAaahha h hAh HAAAAh HH aAHHAA A HaaHah H hhHAhh aH AH aAhhhAhHAh ahhh hh aAAH hAAhHa ahAHhAh AAAHHAHA Aaa AHhhha ha aaHHaaahah hHhhhHAHhAhAaHAAaHAHH HhahAaa HaHAhhHHHHhHaHAaaaHaHAAAAAh Ha a hHA a HHaH hHHAAhahHAaHhAah hahaahaAHhaH aA AA hhHHHAhaaaA haAhaAhaAAAAhhhhhA hh ahahA A a hahHaHh AH hAAAAH HHhA aAh HhHHHhAHaHaHhahahHhAhAA Haa A h aha AHahaHAAA AaA HAh H AH aha hAh a haA ahhAHHAhaH ahHHA hHAHaAAa hahaA AhA HaHhHHa a AAahhAA ha a aAAAhHhh AHHH aaA Hh aHHAha HhHhA HhaA hhahaAAHHH AaaAHAhH HHaHhaaHhaAhHAahhaHhaahaa HHHHH AhHhAHAaaaHhh HHHAAHHhH hh AAa AaAha A A haAAAH HA A hhhhhaHHAH hh aa H A aaa HaHhhH HAHAahA Aa a aHHAAHHhAAhA AH HA hHahAA ahaHh hAhHh AHAhH haHA AhAhHH ah H HaaAh AhAHA aAA aA hA a hhAaAahAHaHahHA hHaaHAaaha aHhA hAh aAaA ahAHAHh hAaaHa H AHhAAaAa a AHaHH HhH aahaH aHHh HhaA hh h HH ha aaHAahhh h AHAAaA AAAAh hhaHAHa HhAAaAH hhhHHAAhH AH aAhaHAhhH Hhhah AhhaHaaaA aAHhah H HhHa ahA hhAaaAA HHA hH HaahAHh hHaHhA aA hh aAHAAhA aAAhAHAa HAAAHHHhA ahha a hAAa HahAAh aaahAa H HahahhAA aH H h AAHhaAa hA aaA HAAAhHa aaHAH ahAaHa hh AAaAHAhaA HH AA hHH h A aAaH haahaaaAhh Hh haAh Hh HHhHa aAahahH A hhahaHAaAa aaHHaaHAhAaA hH AAaAhaH hh Aa A hhAh Hh aAhHa hA HHhH ahAHa aaA hAhHAAahh ahaha ahA hahHaHhh aHH HAaAA hhh Hha AH hh AAahAahaA HhAA AH A H Aa a hHhH hHAH Ah aHhaaHAhAHhaaAAH AAHHh Hhah hhh HHaaHa HHAAAaaaaaAHHhHhahAahA HA HaA HaaAaHaHhH A HHhAhhhhhHa A AH aAAHAAh AHaaAahaaAH Ahh h haahhhhhHAah hha hAahHHH HAAAahaahA h HAA h aAaHAA HaA hhhhAhHAh aHHHhHHAhAH haAHAHAa aA aahA HAhA AAA AhaH H AaHHaA Hahahhah aAAahh A H HA ahhAHh AAhaAH a AaAaHAh HhhaHHhhHhhhh ahhhHA AH HHA AAha AhAAhH H H A h h a h aH H AAah HA h aaHAaaaa hAHhaA hhHHHa Ha HAa hhHh aAhAhAAHaAAaA AH hHAaHaHHa AAhH H

              • I expected the short version of that. 🙂

              • 🙂

  27. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    The YMCA song turned into the MAGA song by a guy called Ricky Rebel. If nothing else it demonstrates that some brighter than average folk from what I still think of as fringe groups get teh fact the DJT sees himself as President of ALL the people. The initial 5 second lead up is interesting ……..Ricky has cojones

    • If only there were an option other than “lying” and “panicking”…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        There is………….. but you do not have the courage to choose it.

        • Is the implication that Trump is a coward? Because then I’d probably have to agree with you.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Swing and a MISS Padwan. Swing and a MISS.

            • Enlighten me.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                YOU are the one who has a choice.

              • We weren’t talking about ME.

                I neither panicked nor lied.

                I spoke to the best of my knowledge, advising concerned caution.

                We are referencing the comic Gman posted. There, he shows a donkey – representing the Democratic party – complaining that the pilot sounds too calm, acting like his calmness is the problem.

                Gman presents a false dichotomy – as though the objection isn’t to his LIE, but rather to his lack of panic.

                The Democrats (and many others) are complaining that Trump is on tape talking about how serious and dangerous he believed this virus to be, and then he turned around and told the public the exact opposite. The point ISN’T that he should have been panicking – it’s that he should have been honest.

                But you knew all this.

    • I read this article….a sharp reverse punch would have solved this problem.

    • Throwing her off the plane is the right more… I just wish they’d have done it at cruising altitude.

      —–

      Are people losing their minds? That’s what the media and BLM want.

      See, this is the BULLSHIT that pisses us (the left) off.

      This woman is a MORON.. or she’s staging this for social media (which is also MORONIC).

      Either way, this is NOT what “the media and BLM want.” And to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.

      If I point at a MORON on your side of the political aisle, it’d be disingenuous for me to act like he represents the goals and intentions of entire movements on your side. There was that lady at a Trump rally shouting “white power” and proclaiming that she was going to teach her children to hate black people. And, you know what? She’s a racist. And an idiot. Would it be “fair” for me to sit here and opine that she’s what the Republicans and Trump really “want”?

      Or would you call that a strawman nutpicking?

      • Would it be “fair” for me to sit here and opine that she’s what the Republicans and Trump really “want”?

        To be fair, you do not do this, but the Liberal media and their pundits sure as hell do.

        Now, the article is what it is, but the video was what I thought was important. It is quite clear that the media’s push about white privilege has worked on her. She is not alone.

        But overall I agree with your points.

        • To be fair, you do not do this, but the Liberal media and their pundits sure as hell do.

          Well, to be fair, I appreciate your fairness.

          To be fair, you do not do this, but the Liberal media and their pundits sure as hell do.

          Would you go further and stipulate that, from time to time, I call out the “liberal media and their pundits” when they do this… or at least that I agree with many people here when you call them out?

          To be fair, you do not do this, but the Liberal media and their pundits sure as hell do.

          Would you also – in fairness – acknowledge that the Right does this?

          As, you know, they exactly did in the article you just posted.

          That is, “nutpick” (my new favorite term) is not exclusively a practice of either side.

          Now, the article is what it is, but the video was what I thought was important.

          Fair enough… wow… lots of fairness going ’round here today…

          It is quite clear that the media’s push about white privilege has worked on her. She is not alone.

          True.

          Well – minor objection – it’s not “the media,” but “some media.” This lady probably isn’t watching MSNBC – she’s on Daily Beast or something even worse. I’m sure there are plenty of Black Power liberal micro-blogs and facebook groups.

          But, yes, she is not alone. There are plenty of nuts in this vein.

          I think there’s always been a type of person who is just unhinged and entitled or spoiling for a fight or or or… or just crazy. They aren’t isolated to the left or right, but when there’s a narrative afoot, they may be excessively susceptible to it… the message of BLM is “you don’t have to accept being treated as inferior” but she heard “you are a queen and you can act like an entitled asshole” – and, to be fair, that’s probably the message being repeated over and over in her little echo-chamber.

          But I don’t think – and I’d like you to acknowledge – that though there are a not-insignificant number of this kind of nutjob in the BLM arena, they aren’t per se “indicative” of the movement and/or its theoretical goals.

          I’d further like you to acknowledge that MAINSTREAM BLM has some legitimate concerns and grievances, but that the supposed right to refuse to move out of a stewardess’ way is not one of them.

          But overall I agree with your points.

          ::Mathius dies of shock::

          • MEDIC!!!!!

            • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              Can’t yew see he died o’ shock? It’s too late for a medic…

              Someone call a necromancer!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Honestly and as your blog friend. You do not have a clue what the BLM “movement” really is or what they are about. That is why you think that showing a nut is just nutpicking. Sorry Sir, you have used that argument over and over while the crowd of “nuts” grew to the point they started burning down parts of cities and overwhelmed local law enforcement agencies.

            They may be a minority among the population but hey are NOT a small number or not so insignificant number of nuts. They need to be dealt with if you cherish the “Liberal” society you espouse.

            It is like many groups who try to gain legitimacy while covering their true agenda. The killing of innocent people by police is a serious issue. I would even grant them the ability to narrow their focus to “innocent Black people” being needlessly killed. So that became their public face in the beginning. But that is not really their narrative and never has been.

      • Come on man, let’s be fair, either both women are morons or both are racists.

        I said early on that this BLM stuff was about black supremacy. I stand by that statement. But this is what you get when you create protected classes.

      • All you have to do is read the BLM website and follow its links…then you will see what they stand for….read it yourself and the underlying theme…..but you must read it with open mind and that is hard to do. It was hard for me to do……I know it will be hard for Mathius to do…..but read it and follow its links.

  28. OOPSIE

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I forgot to answer your question above so will do so here.

    You asked me to define or describe the “Right”. As I have said many, many, many times. The Right is essentially defined by the self proclaimed Left. Those who espouse Statist and to some extent totalitarian views as being on the left leave only one definition for their OPPOSITE.

    And that Sir would be ANARCHY. True, unadulterated ANARCHY.

    The anarcho-Capitalists would be considered Statist by those on the Right.

    Absolute State Power and Control vs. Absolutely NO State Power or Control.

    Or per Occam: Slavery vs. Liberty

    This of course is a definition based on broad concepts. A “foundational” definition if you will.

    The confusions arise when we then try to place “political” systems or ideas on this spectrum. Because we soon find that what we think is “liberal” or “freedom” is just another form of STATISM. That is deeply disturbing to our psyche.

    • I’m trying, JAC, to establish “where does Mathius belong.”

      You assert I belong to some confluence of Liberal (big-L), Libertarian, and Conservative (big-C).

      I contend I’ve got a tentative foot in the Democrat camp, another foot in the Libertarian camp, another foot in the anarcho-Capitalist camp, and another foot in :: non-Newtonian spatial region::.

      (Yes, that’s four feet. Deal with it.)

      So.

      If you think I’m wrong, it’s probably a problem with my definitions.

      So draw me up a little table on some key positions (abortion, gay rights, taxation, free speech, judicial theory, militarism, drugs, and so on) and fill it in and I’ll check the boxes that apply, and we can see where I land.

      • No need to land, your firmly in the land of confusion 😀

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathus

        You admit you are conflicted. I say you are conflicted. So why do you need me to draw a picture?

        But part of my argument with you is just what you did. You described movements or collections of ideas and then compared those to your affinity for a Political Party.

        My comment was that you are more aligned with the Political Party you do not associate yourself with, the Republican. Because it is that party which contains most of those folks with the ideologies associated where you claim your feet are planted. It is that simple.

        One other note of clarification. There is no such thing as GAY RIGHTS. And the only thing “conservatives” opposed was the Marriage license. Which is not a Right anyway.

        Nobody was proposing to make cohabitation illegal. It was only about the Govt. declaring Marriage contrary to thousands of years of accepted meaning. For most this was a moral and somewhat a religious issue. For others, like me, it was about undermining the Constitutional separations and traditions by Govt. fiat/dictate.

        • You admit you are conflicted. I say you are conflicted.

          I don’t think I’ve ever denied this. Have I?

          No one system or group seems to have all the right answers. I dislike messiness, so I continue to look.

          So why do you need me to draw a picture?

          …. because I’m conflicted?

          My comment was that you are more aligned with the Political Party you do not associate yourself with, the Republican.

          How so?

          There is no such thing as GAY RIGHTS. And the only thing “conservatives” opposed was the Marriage license. Which is not a Right anyway.

          The hell it isn’t.

          If the government is going to tie things to the idea of a “marriage license” (by the way, I abhor the idea of government involvement in “marriage licenses” at all).. but if the government is going to tie things like insurance and medical proxy and estate purposes and adoption and and and and and and and to this idea of government-sanctioned “marriage,” then denying it to one party based on their sexual preference is a denial of equal rights.

          And before you get into any kind of bullshit about “civil unions,” let me remind you that separate is not equal.

          Nobody was proposing to make cohabitation illegal.

          In fairness, I’ll try to avoid nutpicking. So, no, I don’t think this was the majority position on your side.

          There were plenty of people arguing that it’s against god’s laws and blah blah blah blah blah. Maybe they weren’t arguing to make cohabitation illegal (anymore), but they were trying to make true equality illegal.

          Then again, on my 20th birthday, SCOTUS told Texas to go sodomize themselves.. (interesting that Obergefell was also on my birthday… happy birthday toooooooo me!)

          It was only about the Govt. declaring Marriage contrary to thousands of years of accepted meaning.

          Fuck “accepted meaning.”

          Government had no business (HAS no business) being involved in marriage in the first place, but since it IS in the business, it has to be in the business FAIRLY for ALL its citizens.

          Try this: swap out “gay” for “interracial” and see if that argument holds water.

          Just because “this is the way we’ve always done things” does not mean “this is right.”

          For most this was a moral and somewhat a religious issue.

          Where the holy hell is the MORAL aspect?

          I get the religious one. Cherry-picking from Leviticus 18, we can see where that’s expressly prohibited (then again, Mathius wonders why that is so strongly defended, but no one seems to care about wearing of different cloths or planting different crops in a field..).

          But what MORAL position that is based on any kind of RATIONAL ontological system holds that two consenting adults should be denied the same treatment by an ostensibly-SECULAR government as two other consenting adults because of their genders?

          For others, like me, it was about undermining the Constitutional separations and traditions by Govt. fiat/dictate.

          Fuck “tradition.”

          Who is to say what “tradition” is and why do YOU get to dictate it to THEM?

          Why do you get to say “MY tradition is more important than YOUR equality under the law”?

          And why does “tradition” have any say over anything?

          I was “traditionally” allowed to own people right up until that agitator Lincoln got involved.

          I was “traditionally” allowed to beat my wife.

          I was “traditionally” allowed to pat my secretary on the ass.

          I “traditionally” had to negotiate my marriage with my wife’s parents, not her. And pay them for her in camels.

          There are lots of “traditions” that you seem to conveniently write off… and a great deal of it has to do with marriage and seems to somehow have been left by the wayside as what they are – antiquities.

          Yet, when it comes to two men (or two women) wanting to be together, oh no! HERE is where we must hold the line… the past is sacred, you know! We must not dare to change anything from the way it was done at this arbitrarily selected time.

          “Yes, we know it completely arbitrarily screws over an entire subset of the population for no legitimate reason, but, you know, this is the way things have been for ::arbitrary amount of time:: in certain populations in certain countries, so we cannot ever allow that to change no matter what!”

          BAH!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Nice little tantrum this morning. I think I can sum up most of your criticism about the “marriage” issue with a question.

            Was it not you who clearly stated that if a law is bad it should be changed via the proper process, not just ignored or overturned by some activist judge????

            By the way, any licence or permit is a “privilege” by definition. NOT a “Right”. That is one of the weak spots in a Govt. system which supposedly is focused on individual rights, yet tries to operate like traditional government. A “license” for marriage from the Govt is no different than a “license” to operate a business.

            You have a right to live with whom ever you want. You do not have a right to a piece of paper issued by a Govt. saying it “sanctifies” your arrangement.

            • Was it not you who clearly stated that if a law is bad it should be changed via the proper process, not just ignored or overturned by some activist judge????

              ::checks notes:: Yes. I believe it was me who said that.

              Which is why – repeatedly – I have called Obergfell (along with all my other misspellings of that name) a bad ruling and one which JUSTICE Mathius would (regretfully) overturn.

              The issue here isn’t with the ruling. Which, again, is a bad ruling. It’s with the fact that the REPUBLICANS refused to grant gay people equal rights.

              The left won the fight by cheating, effectively.

              And I take exception to that.

              That they were on the right side of the fight doesn’t mean they didn’t win by nefarious means.

              But I ALSO take exception to the fact that the REPUBLICANS (and their allies) made it necessary to even be in a fight in the first place.

              Here… I made you this… I hope it clears things up:

            • You do not have a right to a piece of paper issued by a Govt. saying it “sanctifies” your arrangement.

              I say I do when denying me that piece of paper on arbitrary grounds relegates me to a second-class citizenship and denies me benefits which are freely granted to all members of the favored class.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                We covered all this before. Your mistake, and that of all the brilliant left leaning legal minds was that the marriage license DID NOT CONVEY ANYTHING. Of course they also ignored the inconsistency of applying this approach to marriage licenses while claiming special powers to regulate gun owners. You seem to forget the issue at the time was federal vs. State authorities and one judges view that marriage in one state had to be recognized in another.

                What should have been challenged were the various laws that granted special treatment to “married” people. But then you have to address why “married” has any special treatment at all. It was the other laws that created the issues surrounding equity of treatment regarding taxation, property ownership, contracts, etc.

              • Of course they also ignored the inconsistency of applying this approach to marriage licenses while claiming special powers to regulate gun owners.

                I think that, to draw that parallel, you’d need to create a class of citizens who are arbitrarily denied the right to bear arms.

                Eg: Everyone gets to have a gun… except JAC.

                Just you. No logical or justifiable reason. Just… you know.. it’s tradition… we’ve always felt that YOU – personally – should not be armed. Yes, sure, most people objecting base it on something-something-something-Leviticus… but, really, this is about TRADITION!

                If everyone gets to have a gun, but they just decided to arbitrarily single you out, then YOUR rights are not being treated equally to others.

                And, by the way, do you need me to draw another Venn diagram to show that I can simultaneously be against abuses by Blue Team and Red Team? I can, you know.

                You seem to forget the issue at the time was federal vs. State authorities and one judges view that marriage in one state had to be recognized in another.

                Firstly, and foremost: fuck the “states.”

                I’m so tired of “states rights” as cover for abuses.

                Fuck ’em.

                Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read the Ninth Amendment. I understand that the powers not reserved to the Federal Government belong to the states or the People. This is one of the big reasons I disagree with Obergfell. But that doesn’t mean that I give states a pass for doing the wrong thing.

                I can believe that it’s a state-level matter under the Constitution even while noting that the national-level party known as “Republican” was the one pushing to oppress gay people.

                And don’t think that, for a second, I give Blue Team and Clinton a pass for DOMA. Sure, they’re on the right side – NOW – but they weren’t always. I was 13 when that passed, but you can bet I would have told them to where to shove that law if anyone had bothered to consult me. The cowardly pieces of shit in the Democratic Party were against gay rights or, at best, weak on it until public sentiment amongst their base made it expedient and less risky to support.

                You seem to forget the issue at the time was federal vs. State authorities and one judges view that marriage in one state had to be recognized in another.

                Secondly, you’ll have to point out to me where I gave any kind of shit whether this was federal or state or local.

                The objection is simple: gay people should have equal rights under the government. Every level, every time, every scenario. It’s the REPUBLICANS who pushed back against this and made the fight necessary. They could have “evolved” on the issue as did the Blue Team. But they didn’t. They backed the wrong horse and, for this, they draw my ire.

                Yes, again, I still hold Blue Team in contempt for cheating to win.

                But I ALSO hold Red Team in extra-contempt for making the fight necessary in the first place.

                And, whether that fight is state, local, or federal or Plutonian, I don’t care. Anyone on the side of denying equality to a class of people based on arbitrary or religious or “tradition” grounds is on the wrong side. And in THIS fight, that’s Red Team (and allies), not Blue Team.

              • JAC's Daughter says:

                Anyone on the side of denying equality to a class of people based on arbitrary or religious or “tradition” grounds is on the wrong side.

                Mathius,

                Do you believe business owners have the right to refuse business to someone based on their personal beliefs?

              • JAC's Daughter says:

                Also side question….why if I only bolded () the top line did the 3rd line also turn bold?

              • JAC's Daughter says:

                haha Oops! Apparently I didn’t separate it enough

              • JAC's Daughter says:

                grrrr… i’m trying to put the back carrot followed by the b followed by the front carrot. 😦

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            On your intro:

            You admit you are conflicted. I say you are conflicted.

            I don’t think I’ve ever denied this. Have I? Please read the first sentence again.

            Now for the real crux of the issue: “No one system or group seems to have all the right answers. I dislike messiness, so I continue to look.”

            Your comment, or answer, presumes two things. First that there is A solution, or “right answer” and second that a solution is needed regarding Govt. action. Which is the only reason “politics” as we know exists.

            Many of the problems with Govt. overreach are created by people who think something should be fixed by Govt.. And, in many of these cases it is really only their solution that they think is correct. The reality is that there are no “solutions” which involve Govt. much of the time. Because the solution or “answer” creates other problems.

            As for your primary question and conflicts, they are easy to address. First, your proper place to stand is with your family. Second, spend more time with the Dread Pirate. His clarity will eventually rub off on you. :).

  30. U.S.—Astronomers claiming to have detected signs of life on Venus were forced to walk back their claims after it was revealed that the supposed “life” was actually just an unborn human baby in an incubation pod left there by an unknown civilization.

    “False alarm, everybody — it’s just a fetus. No life here,” said one NASA researcher as a probe sent back images of the preborn human in a glass tube. The unborn baby is clearly seen kicking, sucking his thumb, and flipping around in his artificial womb. The researcher pounded his fist on the desk. “We were so close! Back to the telescope.”

    “We were really excited at first,” said astronomer Dr. Edward Adama. “We thought we had found some phosphine gas, which might be a byproduct of organisms, which could potentially mean that life may or may not exist on Venus. But instead, we just found this dumb baby, which is clearly not alive.”

    “Sad!”

  31. U.S.—It has now happened a couple times in the past few decades that while one candidate won a majority in the Electoral College, the other candidate had a larger share of the popular vote. The candidate with the Electoral College win became president, but the popular vote winner walked away empty-handed. Now, a new Amendment, the 28th, has been added to the Constitution to fix this. It reads:

    “Whoever wins the popular vote in a presidential election will receive a framed certificate attesting to that fact and a coupon good for 10% off at Golden Corral.”

    With this Amendment, whoever wins the popular vote will get proper recognition with a fancy framed certificate. If the popular vote winner also wins the Electoral College, he or she will be able to hang the certificate in the Oval Office. Otherwise, he or she can simply hang it somewhere at home and admire it far from Washington, D.C.

    Some had opposed the amendment, saying it was wrong to have a whole framed certificate paid for at the taxpayers’ expense when the popular vote winner could just be sent a PDF to print out the certificate himself, but ultimately the Amendment was ratified by nearly all states. It will not be retroactive, though, so Hillary Clinton had to buy her own framed certificate ($29.99 plus S&H) and will still have to pay full price at Golden Corral.

  32. UPDATE!

    The black queen on the plane in the above post was removed from the aircraft and missed her flight.

    • Good. I only wish she’d been removed mid-flight.

      • JAC's Daughter says:

        This video actually made me laugh out loud with how ridiculous this woman was being.

        Question for the group:

        What would you have done if you were on the plane when this happened? Especially if you were in the back half of the plane.

        • I would have told her to hurry to the bathroom and sit on her throne.

        • What would you have done if you were on the plane when this happened? Especially if you were in the back half of the plane.

          • In a plane flying at 500 mph (or thereabouts)….at 38 thousand feet…..in the absence of an air Marshall……when does it become your business?

            • Well, this happened on the ground… so I’m a little less concerned about the plane suddenly and mysteriously falling out of the air.

              But, let’s say it happened midflight… well, it becomes my problem when it becomes a threat to me and mine. Otherwise, it’s the stewardess’ job to handle it. Her being an obnoxious idiot isn’t going to threaten the plane’s ability to fly. And I’m not getting in a fight where I’m going to end up also getting arrested unless I have to.

              If I get annoyed enough, I might shout at her to shut up. But I somehow doubt that would help the situation any.

              I still vote for having her thrown out of the plane midflight.

    • A man walking down the road, legally carrying matches, is accosted by a gun-toting vigilante who interrogates while forcing him to lie face down on the road. The man, who offers no resistance, and is surprisingly calm and restrained throughout the ordeal, denies any wrongdoing while being held extrajudicially. We note that, though she repeatedly demands to know whether he started any fires, there is no evidence that any fires actually occurred on her property.

      As of this moment, he has already been released and she has been charged with unlawful use of a firearm and being a racist.

      🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        “Walking down the road” huh?

        Cast continued: ‘Some of you still think we’re not being attacked. I found this individual walking in my property as I was driving in, all he had were some matches in his hand.

        ‘I walked him out of my property at gunpoint and then when we got to some asphalt ground on the main road [where I] made him lay down while the cops arrived.’

        She said: ‘Had my husband been here he would have been dead. This criminal has got multiple warrants, one of them [for] assaulting a police officer.’

    • JAC's Daughter says:

      Hahaha that’s good T-Ray! lol

      I’d like to say I’d handle that much better, no need to brandish my gun when he’s not posing a threat to me. I don’t think he can light me on fire with a book of matches.

      BUT… the guys at my shooting range would tell you they wouldn’t want to cross my path as a threat. 🙂

      • Bull turds……if anyone is on posted private property and no trespassing…..you do not treat them nice.

        • JAC's Daughter says:

          I need to work on my not nice approach. It’s most often my go to, but probably not the most helpful in certain situations. Would you still have kept your gun on him once he was on the ground and compliant?

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Milwaukee…………. would have thought this was Madison. This arrest is very troubling.

    https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/09/16/watch-blm-surrounds-and-harasses-family-at-home-homeowner-ends-up-the-one-arrested/

    If there is not more to this story I hope the LEO and DA pay a big price.

  34. Daughter,

    Do you believe business owners have the right to refuse business to someone based on their personal beliefs?

    Depends on the business, depends on the beliefs.

    If you are the local hospital, and you think black people are inferior, I would be against you being able to deny medical treatment to an injured black person.

    If you are a baker and you don’t believe in gay marriage, then I think the happy couple should shop elsewhere. (but I also think they have every right to lambast you on social media and trigger a boycott of your business).

    I’m less concerned with what PRIVATE entities do than what GOVERNMENT does. Generally speaking, for the lion’s share of such matters, the free market does a pretty decent job (over time) of getting to where it needs to be as it follows behind public sentiment. Sure, sometimes it needs a kick in the backside to force the issue, but, generally speaking, the free market will destroy any businesses which customers view as morally repugnant. Try opening a whites-only cafe and see how long it takes to get boycotted – I’ll bet you the boycott kills your company faster than any government prosecution for civil rights violations.

    But Free Market doesn’t apply to the government. It has to uphold the notion of equality and fairness. Unless there’s a reason to justify treating a group differently, then they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. If they say “no guns for you… because TRADITION!!” that’s not ok. If they say “no guns for you because you’re a felon” that’s ok.

    Also side question….why if I only bolded () the top line did the 3rd line also turn bold?

    Looking at the page code, I see no reason why it turned off and back on.

    A mystery of the universe, I guess!?

  35. Test the vaccine on politicians first. We win either way.

  36. Nashville Officials Concealed Low COVID-19 Numbers Coming From Bars And Restaurants:

    Leaked emails between the senior adviser to Nashville’s Mayor and a health department official reveal a disturbing effort to conceal extremely low coronavirus cases emanating from bars and restaurants, while the lion’s share of infections occurred in nursing homes and construction workers, according to WZTV Nashville.

    On June 30th, contact tracing was giving a small view of coronavirus clusters. Construction and nursing homes causing problems more than a thousand cases traced to each category, but bars and restaurants reported just 22 cases.

    Leslie Waller from the health department asks “This isn’t going to be publicly released, right? Just info for Mayor’s Office?”

    “Correct, not for public consumption.” Writes senior advisor Benjamin Eagles. –WZTV

    • Of course, the Mayor is a Crat. Gotta keep the economy down till election is over. These people are a disgrace.

    • JAC's Daughter says:

      I was in Nashville three weeks ago visiting some friends and they were talking about how the cases seemed a lot lower than what they were being told. She sent me that article last night and I found it quite disturbing.

  37. Trump: “If you take the blue states out, we’re at a level that I don’t think anybody in the world would be at. We’re really at a very low level but some of the states — they were blue states, and blue-state management.”

    Let’s skip over the incoherent syntax, shall we?

    Anyway, as Corona deaths in the US approach 200k, Texas has just moved into 3rd place.

    NY: 32.6k
    NJ: 16.0k
    TX: 14.8k
    CA: 14.7k
    FL: 12.9k

    Admittedly, broad swaths of Texas are uninhabitable wastelands occupied exclusively by rattlesnakes of usually large size, but I think we all need to acknowledge the NY and NJ are both far denser and were the first to get hit, before anyone was ready or had any good information about how to treat an infection. That skews things a bit. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to ignore this and lay blame at the feet of mismanagement by Democrats.

    USA Today: New York, California, and New Jersey – all widely considered blue states in the presidential election – were among the states with the highest number of deaths from coronavirus. But they are also the states with the largest populations in the country, and they were the first to experience and tackle major outbreaks of the disease.

    Other states with a high number of deaths include Texas, a red state, and Florida, a battleground. Those states are also among the nation's most populous.

    The picture is slightly different when normalized for population: New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts had among the highest death rates per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University. But red states and battlegrounds, such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Arizona and Michigan were also in the top ten.

    Democrats slammed the president's response, noting that blue states are part of the nation, too.

    "Trump continues to politicize the coronavirus," the Democratic National Committee tweeted. "COVID isn't a red state or blue state issue. 9 of the 10 states with the most infections per capita have Republican governors. This virus has impacted all Americans."

    • Now, restate in roper context…..I did the other day……….I will again……in Tarrant County there are 600+ deaths supposedly attributed to the virus……….the TRUE reporting is that there are 4 deaths where COVID was the only issue……all other issues had prior EXISTING health ailments…….to attribute a heart attack to COVID when the patient had previous heart issues….it is bad reporting to report that as a COVID death. Or if a person dies of other injuries and happens to have COVID…….that is NOT a COVID death.

      • To borrow someone else’s analogy…

        Mr. The Colonel, you have some medical history, I believe. High BP? Maybe “diabetus”? Maybe a bum ticker? Maybe a steel plate in your head?

        You are out, strolling around one day, minding your own business, when suddenly a bear drops out of the sky and mauls you.

        While attempting to treat your injuries, your [exacerbated preexisting condition] acts up and you die.

        What killed you?

        • No high blood pressure….jus diabetes type…2……..as to the bear…probably a heart attack due to a bear falling out of the sky.

          Try another analogy…..a realistic one. How about the Colonel walking down the street and dies of a heart attack but has positive COVID things…..do not consider that a COVID death or even a COVID related death. It was a heart attack…….or…….since I also have Diagnosed PTSD, Diabetes, and Agent Orange Herbicide poisoning……do we inflate all the static’s simply because I have them.

          I stand by my PERSONAL belief…that the COVID deaths are minuscule and if there are preexisting conditions, that COVID is not necessarily the cause. But you know this already.

          And now the world published Chinese viriologist that defected that is on record saying she worked directly on the manufacture of the COVID military controlled virus at the Wuhan Bio complex….and that it was intentionally released……is being silenced by Facebook, UTube, Google, Instagram, CNN, MSNBC…..

          Wonder why?

          • How about the Colonel walking down the street and dies of a heart attack but has positive COVID things…..do not consider that a COVID death or even a COVID related death

            How do you – YOU – clarify the difference between:
            A) “heart attack brought on by the strain of suffering COVID” and
            B) “heart attack while infected with COVID”

            Without a crystal ball to know that you would or wouldn’t have had that heart attack if you weren’t infected, the two groups are largely indistinguishable, no?

            The way – I – would would look at this, were I the CDC, were I in possession of all the pertinent statitics and data…. is I would ask this question: “does the death rate of people with covid infections differ from the death rate of people without”?

            That is, if 1% of the population dies due to [all causes except COVID] and it’s 1.5% due to [all causes where COVID-positive], then we can surmise that there’s a 0.5% that’s due to* COVID. Then you can multiply out to see how many people died due to COVID and how many died with COVID.

            *probably causally linked

            For good order, let’s also not forget that there’s another group:
            C) “died from COVID, but not diagnosed, so not counted as a COVID death”

            There have been rumors (unsubstantiated) that a huge uptick in the number of “pneumonia” deaths in Florida are actually COVID.

          • JAC's Daughter says:

            Last March my uncle got the flu, which turned into a serious case of pneumonia, which he would have died from if he hadn’t gone to the hospital the night he did. In the hospital they saved his life by incubating him and putting him on a respirator, which led to an additional infection which led to him passing. The doctor said if he was healthier (weight, exercise, etc) he would have had a much better chance of fighting and surviving the infection. What caused his death?

            It’s a combination of things. I don’t think it’s one and not another, but ultimately I think you could boil it down to not living the healthiest life and taking care of himself when he originally got sick. My question for the CDC and everyone telling us what’s best for us, is why are we not talking about the health benefits of fighting Covid by living a healthier life (included but not limited to: working out, drinking more water, less alcohol, less caffeine, more vitamins and vitamin D, doing things that bring us joy…. and the list goes on).

            • That’s an easy answer. Under this administration, it would be considered racist after so many minorities were victims of the virus (because the minorities have a high level of comorbidities). So anything that the Left can use to cry racism, they will. With that said, the CDC is run by an old white guy, which would make matters worse, leading to protests and more riots by people not following the current CDC guidelines (which means they wouldn’t likely follow the healthy living part either).

              How’s that?

              • JAC's Daughter says:

                Add a dash of them losing their control over the people and the reliance on the government the lazy has embraced, and I think you’re on to something! LOL

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mr. Trump stepped in their trap. There is no doubt that mismanagement in Blue States early on contributed to greater fatalities. But that was also when CDC was scrambling to understand what we had to deal with.

      But on the political side, the Dems have been politicizing Covid for months. And Mr. Trump gave them the sound bite they wanted by attacking “Blue States”. His habit of striking back every time is clearly understood and being used against him.

      He needs to be more sophisticated in his counter attacks. But he is who he is and I see no change possible. We might all be paying the price of his stubbornness come Jan 2021.

      As for Mr. Mathius: Curious why you post this comment by Mr. Trump yet have not to my memory posted a single one of the false allegations made by the Democrats. Especially the troll they nominated and keep in the basement.

      • Mr. Trump stepped in their trap. There is no doubt that mismanagement in Blue States early on contributed to greater fatalities. But that was also when CDC was scrambling to understand what we had to deal with.

        Certainly, the response was far from “perfect,” but I seem to recall Trump and allies lambasting the “blue state” governors for hitting the panic button and going into lockdown, etc. They claimed (and I believe I’ve seen the claim here) that Democratic governors did it deliberately to hurt the economy and make Trump look bad.

        Now, don’t get me wrong. A lockdown is not the only tool in the response tool kit, but it is the “nuclear option.” And it was primarily the blue states – and NY/NJ/CT in particular (as the first and hardest hit) who dialed their reaction up to 11.

        Without full knowledge of the disease, it’s pathology, it’s treatments, how it spreads, etc, they could only offer best guesses and a healthy dose of paranoia. But they DID react. Whereas it was the red states who (largely at Trump’s behest) acted like nothing was the matter and declined to react.

        So it doesn’t sit well with me to see the “Blue States” attacked for a poor response after having been attacked for over-reacting.

        • The Blue States had a horrible lack of urgency leading up to the virus and that was helped by the Liberal media. Once the cat was out of the bag, they panicked, plain and simple, especially Cuomo. This was their overreaction. They went from “no big deal, go out, catch a show, grab dinner etc” Then, boom, New York needs 75k ventilators and 25k hospital beds.

      • He needs to be more sophisticated in his counter attacks. But he is who he is and I see no change possible. We might all be paying the price of his stubbornness come Jan 2021.

        God, I hope so.

        Here’s hoping for President Harris.

        • JAC's Daughter says:

          Do you, in all honesty, believe this country would be better off with Biden/Harris at the helm?

          • I believe this country would be better in the hands of someone competent, centrist, and well-meaning.

            But since that’s not an option, I’d choose Canine Weapon.

            But since she’s not an option, I’d choose a random name drawn out of a hat.

            But since that’s not an option, I’d choose an animated piece of talking garbage.

            …………

            …………

            …………

            But since that’s not an option, I’d choose the kid who once bet me that dinosaurs died out 65 years ago (~during WWII).

            …………

            …………

            …………

            But since that’s not an option, I’d choose Jeffrey Dahmer.

            …………

            …………

            …………

            But since that’s not an option, I’d choose Biden / Harris.

            Since I choose Biden / Harris, I don’t have to choose Trump.

            ———

            (somewhere, buried thousands of lines below here, are Nancy Pelosi followed distantly by Mitch McConnell)

            • JAC's Daughter says:

              Awww I didn’t realize Canine Weapon was a girl!!

              I’m sure this is me opening a can of worms, but what the hell…..what exactly do you think will be better for our country and the citizens of the United States with Biden/Harris over Trump/Pence (since those are realistically our options as of now). Not based on feelings toward a person, but facts of why we would all be better off.

      • Curious why you post this comment by Mr. Trump yet have not to my memory posted a single one of the false allegations made by the Democrats. Especially the troll they nominated and keep in the basement.

        Three reasons:

        1/3) That basement troll isn’t the President. I know Trump is running as though he’s not the incumbent, but he is. I am less interested in what [random candidate] has to say when his power and impact is so vastly dwarfed by the President. Likewise, I don’t really care what commenter TrumpSuxxx420 wrote on Huffington Post – he might be right, he might be wrong, but he just doesn’t matter to the greater scheme of things.

        2/3) SUFA is my primary source of right-leaning news. Most (not all, but most) of my other consumed media skews left to various degrees (as does reality). It is one of the reasons I am here, and one of the reasons I spend so much time and effort on you lunatics. But it also means that I often hear about [bad thing done by the left] on SUFA before anywhere else. To that end, I don’t often have much to contribute against the left which isn’t already well-trodden ground here.

        3/3) SUFA does a sufficient job attacking the Democrats and the left on its own. I see no need to add fuel to the fire. Where appropriate, as you have seen time and again, I am more than willing to call The Left / Democrats / liberals / Biden / etc out. But is it a valuable use of my time to add another log to an already-raging inferno?

        4/3) I care what “the troll” has to say only insofar as he doesn’t cross any lines that make him completely unpalatable to me. My choice is, sadly, binary: Trump / Biden. Trump is an absolutely unacceptable option to me. Full stop. I’m not voting “for Biden,” I’m voting for “not Trump.” To that end, I don’t really care what Biden has to say or what he thinks… unless he’s worse than trump – and not just on this one item, but as a total package (including Harris/Pence) – then it just doesn’t matter. I absolutely hate this, but it is the reality of the situation. And Biden has sooooooooo far to fall before I feel like Biden is comparable to Trump.

        • If this is your source of right leaning news, it is not adequate to get a true picture of the trouble this country is in. The level of corruption that came out of the Obama administration is quite astounding. If you are not fully plugged in then I can understand why you are not furious with the corruption in DC. If Harris/Biden win, that corruption will only get worse.

    • Mathius,

      Since you admit where you get your news, I would offer a bunch of videos of how the Liberal media, Democrats and the like were seriously incompetent in the time leading up to the real virus mess. That is why NY, NJ etc got creamed by it. But you might already know this, so let me know how many vids of the truth you would like to see. Then we can talk about competence.

  38. The Harris Administration, with Joe Biden as President………………..Ned there be more to say?

  39. JAC's Daughter says:

    I think people are waking up.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Must Read, a little long but you should take it all in. You can shorten it by skipping to where Barr starts his speech. An opening line about glad to be at Hilsdale College. Unfortunately the speech is not clearly demarked from the author’s comments.

    Mathius………… me thinks you will agree with his remarks. I feel just a tiny bit releived that the system might work in the long run. Unfortunately, I don’t see many Mr. Barr types on the horizon.

    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/09/17/attorney-general-bill-barr-uses-hillsdale-speech-to-hammer-dojs-culture-of-political-and-extreme-prosecutions/

  41. Colonel,

    Hearing rumors about forced hysterectomies on detainees by ICE.

    Story looks pretty thinly sourced and pretty conveniently timed to me.

    I’d also suggest that “murder” is far easier and more practical (and doesn’t leave the victim alive to talk about what happened).

    I’d also suggest that the number of people who would need to be in on the conspiracy and keep their mouths shut is prohibitive. And, of course, Blue Team is foaming at the mouth to investigate.

    I’m going to go ahead and call this story bullshit unless / until more information comes to light, but I thought I’d get you to weigh in on it, too, since you’re so much more knowledgable about ICE and detentions centers than I am.

    I’d be particularly interested in what you know about why such a thing would be impossible to accomplish / hide / cover up. Or, conversely, if it would be easy to pull off, I’d be interested in knowing that, too.

    ——-

    Then again, the US does have a history of this kind of thing… and it would fit very neatly into the narrative of US2020 vs German1939

    • Mathius, I would not believe that no matter who was president.

    • Sir Mathius……I have not heard of this but I do have very credible sources that can verify this….it will take me a day…..I don’t think You should bet your first born on this….but will certainly inquire. If this is credible, it is horrible. I don’t think even Obama would go this low….but allow me a day.

      • I find it interesting / telling that you don’t reject this out of hand. Should I read anything into that?

        Does the fact that you’re willing to even ask questions and look into it through back channels suggest that you find the allegations at least – on the surface – plausible?

        • No sir…..but I have learned over the years….experience has taught me to explore all avenues. I doubt this is true but I also doubted and was adamant that the US would not experiment in Vietnam with trying to make super troopers…….I was wrong.

          So….I have credible, very credible medical sources, that can confirm or deny this.

  42. This is interesting. It presents a theory I had never heard before. The severity of a viral infection is proportional to the initial load.

    • This is generally true.

      If you think about it in terms of getting attached by an invading army, which is worse: (A) they all show up at once, or (B) they tip their hand and slowly build up while you, simultaneously, ramp up your defences?

      An interesting side note to this is that many virii have a (poorly understood – at least by me) signalling mechanism whereby they are largely dormant or very slowly reproduce until a tipping point when some kind of message (peptide??) goes out and they all attack at once. This is kind of like having troops sneak across the border and lie in wait until there are enough of them, then someone blows a whistle, and everyone jumps out of hiding to launch the assault.

      Another interesting side note is that some medications are in the works which would disrupt this signalling mechanism. As a result, virii would either attack too early (allowing for a stronger / more timely immune response) or not at all (even better).

      I don’t know the current status of these topics – I read up on all this several years ago and it was fascinating stuff, but I’m not a virologist, so I haven’t kept up with the latest journals.

  43. Interesting……more than 1600 uncounted ballots found in New Jersey from the primaries…..hmmmmmmmm. Signs of things to come, I am sure.

  44. A new thread is posted.

%d bloggers like this: