Friday, May 20, 2016

Obama Transgender Decree

The Obama White House, along with President Barack Obama's puppet "Justice" and "Education" Departments, has issued a decree that all schools must allow anyone to use the bathroom and locker room of whatever gender they self-identify with on a given day.

This is simply stupid — as everyone with even half a brain knows. One part of this is that "self-identification" — "transgender" or otherwise — is subject to huge amounts of abuse. Here's a small example

But there's more. One piece is the role of political correctness in enabling mental illness and fraud.

So this guy walks into an OB/GYN clinic and demands a gynecological exam. The doctor, a woman, takes one look at him and says, "That won't work. You're a man." The man, however, "self identifies" as a woman and blasts the doctor for being a bigot. "I self identify as a woman," he says. "And I demand to be treated as a woman, or I'll call my civil rights lawyer."

The doctor, not wanting to be called a bigot, proceeds to give the man a fake gynecological exam, playing into his delusional distortions about his own biology and arguably worsening his mental disconnect with his physical self.

This is what transgenderism and "biological subjectivism" has come to in America today... a politically correct demand that everyone agree to participate in the mental distortions of a few individuals who suffer from a psychological disconnect from their biological realities. Such ideologies stand in complete contradiction to the known science on biology and physical reality, and sadly, this mental distortion is now being thrust onto children as part of a sick, demented political agenda to appease the most lunatic fringe elements of the political spectrum. [emphasis in the original}

But it's even worse than that. Let's start with the fact that news stories have cited "transgender" students as young as 3 years old. To think that kids that young have any thoughts at all about sex or gender is just dumb. The only way they would is if those thoughts come from their parents. And that looks like child abuse, causing mental illness in children.

It's not just me saying so. The American College of Pediatricians has reached the same conclusion. Their key findings:

  1. Sex is immutable.
  2. Gender is a social construct.
  3. One's belief they are something they are not is, at best, confused thinking.
  4. Nearly all "transgenders" return to their biological sex. Therefore,
  5. "Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse."
This means the White House, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Education — through their order to all schools from kindergartens through colleges — are objectively promoting child abuse and fraud, all in support of their left-wing extremist ideology.

It's time for a major change. The nation needs to get rid of these ideologues. Now.

UPDATE: This (below) is an excellent addition to this discussion.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Off the Wall

I couldn't believe it when I saw this image.


Carbon-free sugar?!? Really?!?

This also struck me as truly strange. Just another facet of "politics is strange".

There are also a couple of political/religious questions:

  • Why is it that our children can’t read a Bible in school, but they can in prison? I would also question why the Bible seems to be off limits, but the Koran is not.
  • Why do I have to swear on the Bible in court when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed outside? It's just another piece of major governmental hypocrisy.

And then there's this. Is it part of the "War on Women"?

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Monday, May 9, 2016

Teddy Roosevelt on Immigrants

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an American in 1907

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. .. .There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
      — Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Some Things I Find Interesting

Here are some images I find interesting. First is a proposal for our southern (and western) border.

These are just a little off the wall. But good.

As noted before, dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is a pretty dangerous chemical.

Here's an interesting question.

And then, inevitably for this year, there's politics. I think I agree with this guy.

Here are a couple of examples from this year's campaign.

And this one is good, no matter how you slice it.

Saturday, May 7, 2016

LBJ Changes His Mind on the Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been introduced by the Republicans in the 1950s, but had been decisively voted down by the Democrats. Same thing for anti-lynching legislation. So why did LBJ change his mind in 1964 — and get enough Democrats to go along with the Republicans to get it passed? LBJ explained in his own comments:

These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
So it should be no surprise that with all the "help" provided by the Democrats, blacks and the poor are worse off than ever. A commenter on this notes "Given the ultra-racist history of the Democrat party, it is simply impossible for me to believe that no one in the party understood this would happen. This was done on purpose and by design. Black Americans were solidly Republican before LBJ's administration." And I would note that included that famous Republican, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.

A Blooper

The Albuquerque Journal had a definite blooper — a big error — on page A3 of their print edition of Wednesday, May 4. The headline and subhead read

GOP primary in NM loses luster
Cruz withdrawal eliminates contest

In the later part of the story there's a paragraph that begins "On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Trump will continue ...."

That's a pretty big blooper for a political writer to make!

Friday, May 6, 2016

Just Cute

No comment is necessary.

Economic Ignorance

Governments don't understand economics. That is clear. Or maybe it's just that governments don't care. All they worry about is their budget numbers, without caring caring about the impacts of budgetary decisions. But those impacts make a big difference to those affected by the changes. This is just one example of how.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Protesters Jump the Shark

It seems to me that recent protesters really have little or nothing to protest about. But, of course, they want to protest anyway. Just because — and because they're getting riled up by provocateurs. Here's part of what Victor Davis Hanson had to say about this today:

The country owes about $20 trillion in debt. It will soon not be able to meet its pension and Social Security obligations. After slashing the military budget and raising income-tax rates, the United States is still running unsustainable annual deficits. The world abroad is becoming dangerously chaotic.

Instead of protesting those existential crises, students cry over Halloween costumes, deride free speech as hate speech, devour their own liberal administrators, and dismiss $100 million payoffs as too little.

Guess they're just spoiled children. I hope they eventually grow up.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Predictions from the Original Earth Day

This is something to think seriously about when today's scientists warn us of a rapidly approaching calamity if we don't do something this year quick about global warming — or is it climate change now. Here are 13 predictions that were made on the original Earth Day in 1970.

  1. "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
  2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  3. "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
  4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
  6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
  9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  10. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
  11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
  13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

Kinda makes you think about the predictions being made so confidently today, doesn't it?

UPDATE: There's also this:

Saturday, April 16, 2016

The State of U.S. Politics Today

In the past few days, I've run across a number of cartoons pertaining to the state of politics in the United States today. These few cartoons vary across existing programs and the presidential campaign. There is also an image of much more general applicability.

One cartoon has to do with our president and the economy he and his regulators run.

This one is an historical comparison of current events to events from long, long ago. Why can't some people follow the rules?

Here's another variation on the question of why can't some people follow the rules?

Of course, all of this makes us think (or at least makes me think), along with Mark Twain, that

Sunday, April 10, 2016

When Words Don't Mean What They Say

An article published on page 3 of the Business Outlook section of the Albuquerque Journal last week sheds light on the current state of the law and the legal profession. The article, written by Joel Jacobsen and headlined Court puts quirky spin on burglary statute, discussed two recent decisions by the New Mexico Supreme Court. But it seems the disease these decisions exemplify is spread much more broadly than just this state.

At issue was whether entering a business for a criminal purpose in a manner that was not authorized, by deception or in violation of an express prohibition, is "unauthorized" as part of the definition of burglary (a felony) as opposed to shoplifting (a misdemeanor). As Jacobsen wrote,

'Unauthorized' doesn't always mean what it seems to say when would-be thieves enter a commercial enterprise with crime in mind. . . . Because entry into Costco without a valid membership doesn't implicate such highly wrought feelings, therefor it's not unauthorized. Even though it's not authorized. . . . Again, as a matter of statutory construction, the court held that the entry into the store wasn't "unauthorized," even though it was prohibited.
What can make sense out of that sort of self-contradictory verbiage? How can English words be made to say things that are so completely at odds with their normal meanings? The answer to these questions is what is called "statutory construction".
Professor Daniel A. Farber [apparently now at the School of Law of the University of California at Berkeley] once explained how statutory construction works. If a person at the table asks you to pass the salt, obviously he or she wants you to pass a common flavor enhancing condiment.

But it would be unreasonable to assume the person is asking to be given a substance that raises blood pressure and shortens lifespan. Therefore, he or she means for you to pass the pepper.

Why is this important? Jacobsen explains at the end of his article.
In constitutional theory, as expressed in Article III of the New Mexico Constitution, courts have no power to rewrite statutes. But, in judicial theory, interpreting a simple word like "unauthorized" to refer to a complex of emotions that "we" supposedly feel doesn't count as rewriting. And that's why New Mexico now has two burglary statutes, one found in the statute books that covers all businesses equally and one existing only in the opinions of judges that carves out an exception for retail stores. Here's your pepper.
In other words, while judges are not allowed to write or rewrite laws, they do it anyway by changing the meanings of words. As I suggested above, that's not something that's limited to the judges in this state. It seems to be a communicable disease — a communicable mental disease. But a remaining question is whether it is communicated judge to judge (or senior judge to senior judge), or whether that occurs in their initial law school training.

A Primer On Socialism

Yes, socialism — in all flavors — is something that sounds great, especially to youngsters. That's because the young haven't yet learned enough knowledge and logic to see that it's a chimera, a mirage. It has never worked and never will, because it violates human nature.

The problem with this, of course, is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. And then the system (1) backs away from socialism, (2) completely breaks down, or (3) goes full totalitarian.

Despite what President Obama said on his trip to Cuba and Argentina, there is a HUGE difference between capitalism and socialism.

Socialist illogic has showed up multiple times in the current presidential campaign. Here's an outstanding example.

I find it shocking that that people can reach such heights with no concept of either basic economics or human nature.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

About President Obama & Cuba

For those who have been paying attention — for those who give a damn — the allegiance of President Barack Obama is plain to see.

If we are charitable, we may describe this as as President Obama's blind spot. Which is to say that Barack Obama just can't see the problem — his ideology gets in the way.

Here's another way to look at this.