Category Archives: Social Issues

The wonders of leftist cognitive dissonance

It’s strange that, with full color, x-ray vision into the fetus’s world, leftists can both celebrate that view and still be pro-abortion.

I grew up as a pro-abortion Democrat. I was unable to maintain that attitude when I saw the first ultrasound of my daughter at ten or eleven weeks or so. Her spine was like a little string of pearls. That was when I had that cognitive “click” that a fetus is a baby.

Once she was born, of course, the connection between baby and fetus became overwhelming. Visceral knowledge killed the cognitive dissonance that had allowed me to acknowledge fetal development (remember those black-and-white pictures in the old biology books?) while continuing to assert that there was no connection between a fetus and living, breathing people.

I mention all this because a pro-abortion person I know posted on her Facebook page the following post from IFLScience, a hard left site. It’s an amazing, beautiful, and fascinating video:

I am certain that, despite watching the video, all the people at IFLScience, the leftist who posted the video, and all the fans of IFLScience who watched the video are still pro-abortion. And I don’t understand that. If you’re hit over the head with the fact that the zygote, fetus, and baby are the same thing, how can you justify abortion as a form of birth control?

Incidentally, regarding fetuses, when I was about seven months along with my son, he started hiccuping. It’s a very peculiar feeling to have a baby inside you who is hiccuping. Then, after he was born and for at least his first year, whenever he laughed, he’d start hiccuping. So the question is, was he laughing already when he wasn’t yet born?

Is there an upside for men hidden in the Equality Act?

Bear with me here, because I’ve got a weird theory about the Equality Act and the whole transwomen (i.e., fake women) thing.

I am and will continue to be second to none in my assertion that there is no such thing as transgenderism — that is, wishing you were or believing you are a member of the opposite sex does not make you one. If you treat me with respect, I will accord you the courtesy of pretending that you are whatever the heck you want to be. However, if you insist that your delusions are real and, worse, insist on remaking all of America and, indeed, all of human society to accommodate your delusions, I’m going to push back very, very hard.

So that’s where I stand on transgenderism and, until there’s actual science to support this leftist societal lunacy (and there isn’t), I’m not budging on the issue. But….

The other day, Abigail Shrier testified before the Senate regarding the ludicrously misnamed Equality Act. Shrier isn’t opposed to transgenderism — or at least, that’s the position she’s taken so that she won’t be shouted down when she talks about her real passion, which is women’s rights. Shrier’s point is that opportunistic men will take advantage of the Equality Act to get into women’s prisons (where they rape actual women), locker rooms and bathrooms (where our daughters are at risk), and university and business spots reserved for women.

As I was listening, it occurred to me that, while I agree with Shrier 100% regarding women’s physical safety, when it comes to those university and business spots reserved for women, it’s the opportunistic men who may have a point. I know, I know! But hear me out.

Men are a minority in college, something that’s happening all over the world, and it’s very bad for men. Before Wuhan virus madness took over the world, even the Washington Post had noticed:

Fifty years ago, 58 percent of U.S. college students were men. Today, 56 percent are women, Education Department estimates show. This year, for the first time, the share of college-educated women in the U.S. workforce passed the share of college-educated men, according to the Pew Research Center.

It’s not just that more women opt for college. It’s that fewer men do, affecting their opportunities and lifetime earnings.

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Men are also being squeezed within colleges. While men are much more likely to engage in college-level sports, Title IX equity forces colleges to spend exactly the same on women’s sports as they do on men’s. Since most colleges can’t spend more on women’s sports, they simply cut back on men’s sports.

And of course, speaking of Title IX, under Obama’s administration, men were presumptively guilty whenever a woman accused them of sexual wrongdoing. Along with that presumption came the denial of the right to speak to parents or attorneys, denial of the right to question witnesses, and denial of any other due process before they were labeled “sexual predators” and kicked to the curb. Trump reinstated due process rights, but Gropey Joe Biden has removed them. Most colleges will be happy because the hard left administrators in charge of allegations of sexual misconduct tend to be “womyn” and “womxns” who truly hate men.

Once out of college, it’s women who are coming to dominate some of the professions that are associated with status and wealth. The majority of medical students are women. In 2016, women also became the majority in law schools. Women have already been the majority of veterinary students for a decade.

At a more general level, at the dawn of the Wuhan virus insanity, women were the majority in the workforce:

Going into 2020, the U.S. economy generally seems strong — especially for women, who hold the majority of jobs for the first time in almost a decade. Women held 50.04% of American jobs as of December, excluding farm workers and the self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s up from 49.7% just one year ago.

What’s driving the surge in female employment? The two industries that experienced the biggest overall gains, health care and retail, both employ many women and are fueled in part by demand from economically-empowered female consumers, says Amanda Weinstein, assistant professor of economics at the University of Akron.

Meanwhile, as women have gained increased control of spending in American households and entered the workforce over the last century, they’ve helped fuel the rise of the service sector, which includes healthcare, education and retail, all industries with lots of female employment. In turn, services such as daycare, home health care, and food preparation have made it easier for women to join the workforce.

While these statistics look great for women’s libbers, it’s questionable how good they are for families, in general, and children, in specific. It turns out there’s truth to the saying “happy wife; happy life,” and the corollary, although it doesn’t rhyme is “happy mother; healthy, happy children.” When mom is absent or overwhelmed, no one is very happy. But that’s a subject for a different post.

Of course, there are still legions of women who go into the jobs traditionally associated with women — teachers, social workers, child care, dental technicians, nurses — something that inordinately frustrates feminists. Some of it is because women’s interests genuinely lie in those directions. And some of it is because women do want to be mothers to their children and that means jobs with more flexibility. When you’re preparing for trial or are doing your 13 years of training to become a neurosurgeon, there’s no such thing as personal time. But still, when you look at the statistics, men are slowly being squeezed out of the old upper-class professions.

My point is that the societal pendulum has gone way overboard when it comes to promoting women and holding back men. This matters. Let me repeat part of the quotation from the Washington Post, above:

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Huerta could have added that this trend also decreases men’s chances with women. Women tend to look for higher status males. I’m sure leftists will say that this is a cultural artifact, but I think it’s a lizard brain thing. When young women meet a young man, their lizard brain checks out the young man for fathering potential. Lizard brain says that the young man should be physically healthy and should have the potential to be a good provider. What’s cultural is that, for about a century, the white-collar professionals were the good providers. That’s no longer true. Men are losing out in the dating game.

(By the way, the corollary to young women looking for high-earning men is that an enormous number of women who married high-earners, raised families, and then found themselves in the market again for a relationship, surprise themselves when they’re drawn to men who aren’t so Type A/Alpha Male/High Earning. Without lizard brain urging them to find a good provider for their hypothetical children, older women can really get to know the guys — and they discover there’s a virtue to the more mellow ones.)

The ultimate point of all of this is that men have been getting the short end of the educational and employment stick for a long time now. I wouldn’t be surprised if opportunistic men fake transgenderism just to re-level the playing field a bit. That is, it’s not that they want to rape little girls in women’s restrooms. It’s just that they want a chance to go to college, but have noticed that some colleges have such imbalances that their incoming classes are up to 65% female.

What’s glorious for these men under the Equality Act is that they don’t have to behave like women, they don’t need to take hormones, they don’t need destructive surgery, and they don’t need to date men. Instead, they just have to announce that they are women and it’s done. If they continue to act like men…well, they’re “butch.” And if they date women, they’re “lesbians.”

So when young feminists start to complain that men are coming for their positions in academia or at the hospital or big law firm, maybe it will comfort them to know that the men are just swinging the pendulum back a little toward the center.

Photo of transgender flag by Lena Balk on Unsplash; edited by me.

Is there an upside for men hidden in the Equality Act?

Bear with me here, because I’ve got a weird theory about the Equality Act and the whole transwomen (i.e., fake women) thing.

I am and will continue to be second to none in my assertion that there is no such thing as transgenderism — that is, wishing you were or believing you are a member of the opposite sex does not make you one. If you treat me with respect, I will accord you the courtesy of pretending that you are whatever the heck you want to be. However, if you insist that your delusions are real and, worse, insist on remaking all of America and, indeed, all of human society to accommodate your delusions, I’m going to push back very, very hard.

So that’s where I stand on transgenderism and, until there’s actual science to support this leftist societal lunacy (and there isn’t), I’m not budging on the issue. But….

The other day, Abigail Shrier testified before the Senate regarding the ludicrously misnamed Equality Act. Shrier isn’t opposed to transgenderism — or at least, that’s the position she’s taken so that she won’t be shouted down when she talks about her real passion, which is women’s rights. Shrier’s point is that opportunistic men will take advantage of the Equality Act to get into women’s prisons (where they rape actual women), locker rooms and bathrooms (where our daughters are at risk), and university and business spots reserved for women.

As I was listening, it occurred to me that, while I agree with Shrier 100% regarding women’s physical safety, when it comes to those university and business spots reserved for women, it’s the opportunistic men who may have a point. I know, I know! But hear me out.

Men are a minority in college, something that’s happening all over the world, and it’s very bad for men. Before Wuhan virus madness took over the world, even the Washington Post had noticed:

Fifty years ago, 58 percent of U.S. college students were men. Today, 56 percent are women, Education Department estimates show. This year, for the first time, the share of college-educated women in the U.S. workforce passed the share of college-educated men, according to the Pew Research Center.

It’s not just that more women opt for college. It’s that fewer men do, affecting their opportunities and lifetime earnings.

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Men are also being squeezed within colleges. While men are much more likely to engage in college-level sports, Title IX equity forces colleges to spend exactly the same on women’s sports as they do on men’s. Since most colleges can’t spend more on women’s sports, they simply cut back on men’s sports.

And of course, speaking of Title IX, under Obama’s administration, men were presumptively guilty whenever a woman accused them of sexual wrongdoing. Along with that presumption came the denial of the right to speak to parents or attorneys, denial of the right to question witnesses, and denial of any other due process before they were labeled “sexual predators” and kicked to the curb. Trump reinstated due process rights, but Gropey Joe Biden has removed them. Most colleges will be happy because the hard left administrators in charge of allegations of sexual misconduct tend to be “womyn” and “womxns” who truly hate men.

Once out of college, it’s women who are coming to dominate some of the professions that are associated with status and wealth. The majority of medical students are women. In 2016, women also became the majority in law schools. Women have already been the majority of veterinary students for a decade.

At a more general level, at the dawn of the Wuhan virus insanity, women were the majority in the workforce:

Going into 2020, the U.S. economy generally seems strong — especially for women, who hold the majority of jobs for the first time in almost a decade. Women held 50.04% of American jobs as of December, excluding farm workers and the self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s up from 49.7% just one year ago.

What’s driving the surge in female employment? The two industries that experienced the biggest overall gains, health care and retail, both employ many women and are fueled in part by demand from economically-empowered female consumers, says Amanda Weinstein, assistant professor of economics at the University of Akron.

Meanwhile, as women have gained increased control of spending in American households and entered the workforce over the last century, they’ve helped fuel the rise of the service sector, which includes healthcare, education and retail, all industries with lots of female employment. In turn, services such as daycare, home health care, and food preparation have made it easier for women to join the workforce.

While these statistics look great for women’s libbers, it’s questionable how good they are for families, in general, and children, in specific. It turns out there’s truth to the saying “happy wife; happy life,” and the corollary, although it doesn’t rhyme is “happy mother; healthy, happy children.” When mom is absent or overwhelmed, no one is very happy. But that’s a subject for a different post.

Of course, there are still legions of women who go into the jobs traditionally associated with women — teachers, social workers, child care, dental technicians, nurses — something that inordinately frustrates feminists. Some of it is because women’s interests genuinely lie in those directions. And some of it is because women do want to be mothers to their children and that means jobs with more flexibility. When you’re preparing for trial or are doing your 13 years of training to become a neurosurgeon, there’s no such thing as personal time. But still, when you look at the statistics, men are slowly being squeezed out of the old upper-class professions.

My point is that the societal pendulum has gone way overboard when it comes to promoting women and holding back men. This matters. Let me repeat part of the quotation from the Washington Post, above:

“It’s a crazy cycle,” said Adrian Huerta, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California who focuses on college access and gender. “We know that when you have a college education, there are good outcomes with health. You’re more likely to live longer. It matters for employment stability and civic engagement. You’re less likely to rely on social services.”

Huerta could have added that this trend also decreases men’s chances with women. Women tend to look for higher status males. I’m sure leftists will say that this is a cultural artifact, but I think it’s a lizard brain thing. When young women meet a young man, their lizard brain checks out the young man for fathering potential. Lizard brain says that the young man should be physically healthy and should have the potential to be a good provider. What’s cultural is that, for about a century, the white-collar professionals were the good providers. That’s no longer true. Men are losing out in the dating game.

(By the way, the corollary to young women looking for high-earning men is that an enormous number of women who married high-earners, raised families, and then found themselves in the market again for a relationship, surprise themselves when they’re drawn to men who aren’t so Type A/Alpha Male/High Earning. Without lizard brain urging them to find a good provider for their hypothetical children, older women can really get to know the guys — and they discover there’s a virtue to the more mellow ones.)

The ultimate point of all of this is that men have been getting the short end of the educational and employment stick for a long time now. I wouldn’t be surprised if opportunistic men fake transgenderism just to re-level the playing field a bit. That is, it’s not that they want to rape little girls in women’s restrooms. It’s just that they want a chance to go to college, but have noticed that some colleges have such imbalances that their incoming classes are up to 65% female.

What’s glorious for these men under the Equality Act is that they don’t have to behave like women, they don’t need to take hormones, they don’t need destructive surgery, and they don’t need to date men. Instead, they just have to announce that they are women and it’s done. If they continue to act like men…well, they’re “butch.” And if they date women, they’re “lesbians.”

So when young feminists start to complain that men are coming for their positions in academia or at the hospital or big law firm, maybe it will comfort them to know that the men are just swinging the pendulum back a little toward the center.

Photo of transgender flag by Lena Balk on Unsplash; edited by me.

Today’s gay push is a continuation of the 1970s and for the same reason

The leftist LGBTQ+ push began in the 1970s, took an AIDS break, and is now back — for the same reasons and with the same benefits as before.

Perhaps you read that Milo Yiannaopoulos has decided to grow up and leave his gay past behind him:

Milo Yiannopoulos, the gay man whose conservative messaging and willingness to speak the truth sparked riots on university campuses may well trigger more outrage now that he describes himself as “Ex-Gay” and “sodomy free,” and is leading a daily consecration to St. Joseph online.

Two years ago, when Church Militant’s Michael Voris famously challenged Yiannopoulos to live a chaste life, Yiannopoulos was not defensive. Instead, he acquiesced, and humbly admitted his human weakness.

“I know everything you’re saying, and I’m just not there yet. And I don’t know if I’ll get there,” Yiannopoulos told Voris at the time.

It seems that he has now arrived “there.”

While Yiannopoulos, in the interview, talks about having originally embraced the gay lifestyle to irritate his mother (and that must have been one heck of a mother-son relationship), I haven’t forgotten what he said really got him started down that road: He was molested by a priest and another man when he was only 13. Indeed, at the height of his flamboyance, Yiannopoulos said that it was a wonderful experience and that all gay men should get that start — which led to his fall from grace.

That assertion, of course, was both whistling in the wind and a cry for help. It is not a wonderful experience to be homosexually molested when you’re 12, even if it feels good physically. It messes with your brain’s pleasure center and leaves you confused about sex. It takes maturity, insight, and will to walk away from that. Good for Yiannopoulos for figuring things out.

Of course, Yiannopoulos is bucking a cultural trend. The “in” thing now is to be gay if you can’t find it within yourself to be transgender, with 1 out of every 6 Gen Z adults claiming to be LGBT+ — although I feel I’d like to know more about the poll that reached that conclusion. Still, there’s huge pressure on young people to embrace some variation of homosexuality, with girls, especially, being pushed to lesbianism and transgenderism. (The two, of course, are mutually exclusive because if girls are being told they’re boys, there’s no way they can be lesbians.)

I realized today that what we’re seeing now is a continuation of the push towards homosexuality that began in the 1970s. Because I grew up in San Francisco in the 1970s and worked there in the 1980s, I got a front-row seat to the gay lifestyle.

What I figured out during those two decades is that there are some men who, for whatever reason, are absolutely homosexual. I don’t know if they’re “born that way” or reflecting very early experiences,  but in elementary school, we kids already knew which boys were going to be gay and which girls were going to be lesbian.

But I also figured out that children who are not naturally inclined to homosexuality can be pushed into being bisexual, gay, or lesbian. As Dennis Prager has always said, it’s easier with girls, but you get enough social pressure, and it works for boys too. I think Yiannopoulos, a young man molested as a teen and with mother issues, fell into that second category of gay men. Indeed, the flamboyance may have been the overkill he needed to fight against his natural heterosexuality.

For the young men in the second class — they really can go both ways — my observation was that a lot of their homosexuality was a toxic blend of narcissism, laziness, and selfishness. In San Francisco in the 1970s and early 1980s, male homosexuality was fantastic: Unlimited, no-strings sex (helped along by poppers and bathhouses); two-income, no kids lifestyles with another guy who was also “into” open relationships; no worries about pregnancy; no limits on sexual experimentation (increasingly bizarre practices were all just part of the spectrum); and no having to court women, which is always a pain when women are strident feminists.

Regarding courting women, a lot of straight young men today really hate having to deal with their female peers. They’re castigated as “incels” and some really are weirdly off the charts. However, many others just don’t know how to deal with the young women that leftist society grooms to be angry, neurotic, and hostile to men.

What stopped the gay party in the 1980s was AIDS. However, nowadays, AIDS just isn’t a thing. You can avoid it or live with it. You’re no longer going to die with it, as a generation of young men I once knew did.

With AIDS sidelined, all the things that drove homosexuality in the 1970s and early 1980s are back again. This time, though, institutional America is helping it along. For big government types, homosexuality has a lot of benefits: Despite the fashion statement of gay people having children, it’s mostly a non-child lifestyle. And again, before I go further, let me say that I know there are exceptions. I have known gay men over the decades who are passionately family-oriented, completely monogamous, and repulsed by the insane lifestyles of the radical gay crowd. Still, for leftists, a gay lifestyle is mostly the antithesis of the nuclear family and, of course, the nuclear family is a bulwark against the state.

Leftist gay men are also political powerhouses. They bring to their activism the testosterone of men living in an all-male hothouse and the cultivated emotionalism of women. Conservative gay men don’t show these traits. They’ve arrived at their politics rationally and they tend to have lifestyles that are built around things other than their sexuality: shared interests, careers, hobbies, family, etc. They are like other conservatives but for the fact that their sexual desires are homosexual, not heterosexual.

If you’re wondering why homosexuality is the vehicle for this leftist push, think about it: Other than food and drink, is there any urge stronger than the sex drive? There is no easier way to attract young people to the cause than to get them drunk on what seems like no-strings, user-friendly sex of all. It’s crack cocaine without the side effects and the illegality. Bring kids into the gay lifestyle — as happened with Milo — and they’re yours, although Milo went off the tracks by being conservative. No wonder every TV show, every movie, every everything has gay characters, far in excess of their actual representation in society. They’re cool, funny, hip, and free. Again, they’re crack cocaine.

I’m not a homophobe and never have been. That is, I don’t care with whom my friends sleep as long as, in other ways, they have traits I like in people: interesting minds, good senses of humor, loyalty, patriotism, a commitment to the nuclear family structure even if they don’t embrace it themselves, racial color-blindness, etc. However, I dislike leftist gay men because too many of them are everything I dislike about the left, only with the added high of emotions on testosterone.

But to my original point, make no mistake: This is not a new trend. It’s a continuation of yet another long leftist march through institutions, the institution, in this case, being the nuclear family with its subset of stable sexual mores. And the push for homosexuality is done in service to allying young people with leftism. Now that Milo has gone back to heterosexuality, he is, therefore, more dangerous than he ever was before.

P.S. The one thing I absolutely and unreservedly despise about the whole gay movement is that it took the rainbow away from society at large. Now rainbows mean “gay” instead of being a universal symbol of hope and beauty. That’s just so wrong.

Image by Karl Bewick on Unsplash (cropped)

Reconnecting with our fellow Americans

In 2021, we must make an effort to reconnect with our fellow Americans, creating personal goodwill, rather than anonymous, woke anger.

I’ve been hearing from friends who have been unlucky enough to be in lockdown states. Without exception, they are depressed. The depression isn’t just because of the sad state of American politics, the unseemly power of the woke mob, the saggy economy, or any of the other grim stories in the media. Their depression is because they’ve been isolated from human contact for too long.

One of these friends directed me to Mollie Hemingway’s short post from yesterday, in which she talked about Kurt Vonnegut and shopping. Her point was that Amazon’s horrible sin isn’t just that it’s deliberately destroying smaller businesses and that it made out like a bandit thanks to the lockdowns. Instead, Amazon’s sin, just by existing, is that it forces us away from our fellow citizens.

Hemingway learned that, not long before he died, Kurt Vonnegut made the same point in an essay, and elaborated on that point in an NPR interview. (I can’t find the NPR link, and Hemingway doesn’t include it, but I’ll copy from Hemingway’s article.) Hemingway’s lead-in is that, when Mr. and Mrs. Vonnegut need envelopes, Kurt, rather than going on Amazon as his wife recommends, heads to the store:

KURT VONNEGUT: Oh, she says well, you’re not a poor man. You know, why don’t you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I’m going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope.

I meet a lot of people. And, see some great-looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don’t know. The moral of the story is, is we’re here on Earth to fart around.

And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don’t realize, or they don’t care, is we’re dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we’re not supposed to dance at all anymore.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Well you wrote in the book about this. You write; What makes being alive almost worthwhile–

KURT VONNEGUT: Yeah.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: –for me besides music, was all the Saints I met who could be anywhere. By ‘Saints’ I meant people who behaved decently, in a strikingly indecent society.

KURT VONNEGUT: Yes. Their acts of kindness and reason. On a very– on a face-to-face. On a very local.

That resonated with me. As longtime readers know, I grew up in a very snobbish household (European parents). I completely (and without any good cause for doing so) internalized that snobbish attitude. I was judgmental, impatient, and condescending. When I complained that I had problems making friends, my mother commiserated by telling me the others just weren’t good enough for me — and I believed her.

I started figuring things out in my 30s and have spent the decade since working extremely hard to be a nice person. It is a daily effort because I’m not naturally nice. One of the virtues of political writing is that it gives me a place for my venom. I have no trouble channeling all my natural malice toward public figures I believe are destroying my country and making the world a dangerous place.

One of the things that has helped me be a nicer person is discovering that, if you ask the right questions, everyone has something interesting to tell. For that reason, I always start conversations with people — clerks, gardeners, guard gates, whomever. Saying “Hello, how are you?” as if you mean it (which I do) always gets a smile. Then, if there’s time, commenting on something that you know matters to the other person — her artistic nail polish, his looking forward to the coming weekend, her manifest efficiency, his beautifully deep voice — often sparks a conversation. My favorite thing is when I can hear the conversation continuing with other people in line after I’ve moved on.

I very strongly believe that part of America’s falling apart is that we no longer see or speak to each other. Once upon a time, daily commercial transactions bound Americans together. At the grocery store, the butcher’s, the hardware store, etc., we’d see the same clerks and run into the same friends and neighbors. Those small interactions, repeated over and over, create a strong sense of community. I know that’s true because, for all its political leftism, that’s what life was like raising kids in Marin County. I lived in the functional equivalent of a small town, recognizing people wherever I went. Few were friends but all were friendly.

Nowadays, especially thanks to the lockdowns, we do much of our shopping online. Even when we do visit a physical store, such as rising into a grocery store after work, people are masked and turned inwards. Saying “hello” through the mask requires physical effort.

Social media, contrary to its name, hasn’t made us more social; it’s made us more angry. We don’t see each other’s faces so it’s easy to yell and insult. The very nature of a mob is that its very mass makes it impersonal. No one person is responsible for the physical or emotional damage it does. It’s the rare person who, like Clarence Thomas during the race riots after Martin Luther King’s death, looks at what he did while he was part of the mob and is so horrified that he completely revamps his life.

My theory — and I have no way of proving it — is that people who feel unseen and unheard, which is where our society has gone, especially in the last year, aren’t just lonely people. They are angry people. They know that they, their lives, and their opinions have value, but no one sees and no one listens.

In this regard, I think each of us has a responsibility (I know this sounds banal) to be nice. See people. It makes a huge difference. And a little gratitude doesn’t hurt either.

I’ve been blessed in that I’m allowed to be out and about, thanks to South Carolina’s loser restrictions. Even when I’m most downhearted about the political scene, I can remind myself that those Americans who aren’t working overtime as a shrill woke mob on social media are pretty darn nice people.

***

After I wrote the above, but before I pushed the “publish” button, I watched Tucker Carlson. I think his opening monologue about Meghan’s and Harry’s unutterable self-centeredness, their lack of gratitude, and their blindness to others in the world — a disease that afflicts many of America’s rich and powerful — is an appropriate coda to a post about valuing the people in our world:

Image: Service with a smile, 1923. Library of Congress.

Democrats have a schizophrenic approach to a woman’s right to privacy

I think there’s a good argument to be made that the Democrats’ Equality Act violates a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.

The basis for unlimited abortion in America is a woman’s right to privacy. It says so in Roe v. Wade, with its talk of emanations and penumbras:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, [citation omitted]; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, [citations omitted]; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, [citation omitted];; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, [citation omitted]. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” [citation omitted], are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

[snip]

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Let me restate this: The United States Supreme Court has held, and never backed away from, the assertion that the constitutional right of privacy is so pivotal — a woman’s control over her body’s integrity so complete — that it extends to snuffing out a life.

Democrats have embraced this as the true holy grail of their politics. Nine times out of ten, the Democrat-voting women I have known over the years (which is nine out of ten of the women I have known) are single-issue voters: It’s all about abortion for them. No wonder Nancy Pelosi said abortion is “sacred ground.” Without it, they lose women voters.

That’s been the case since 1973.

Now think about the Democrats’ beloved Equality Act, which the House passed and which is going to the Senate. Here is how Congress.gov sums up the Act:

This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.

The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

Again, let me restate this: Under the Democrats’ new holy grail of the Equality Act, men who, because of mental illness or opportunism, claim they are women, have unlimited, mandatory, government-backed access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms, jails, hospital rooms, waxing salons (think pubic waxing), and jails. All of these are places in which women’s bodily integrity is at its most vulnerable because they are unclothed. There is nothing more private than the human body. Unless we are exhibitionists or in prison, we save our bodies for those whom we specifically invite into that private realm. And even in prison, women have the right not to be visually or physically molested.

So answer me this: How in the world does the Equality Act not conflict with Roe v. Wade’s explicit holding that women have a constitutional right to privacy that extends to their bodies? With the Equality Act, which is based upon no science whatsoever, it’s no longer a woman’s body and a woman’s choice. The government has coopted that choice, leaving women helpless in the presence of men.

Image: Pro-abortion rally in St. Paul, MN, 2019 (cropped), by Lorie Shaull

Is the whole government in on this fraudulent election? By Robert Arvay

This article appeared first in AmericanThinker.Com:

Is the whole government in on this fraudulent election?

By Robert Arvay

Every once in a while, most of us wind up in situations where we are completely baffled.  It may be a simple situation, such as having looked literally everywhere for our reading glasses, and not having found them.  Did they violate the laws of physics and just vanish?  One knows that that cannot be true, and yet, as the old saying goes, once one has ruled out every logical possibility, only the illogical remains, no matter how unlikely it is.

Another situation is the one we are in now.  Any informed person, with a modicum of sense, can see that the presidential election results, at best, are not to be trusted and at worst are rampantly fraudulent.  Yet it seems that court after court, and investigative agencies one after the other, are turning a blind eye.  Are they violating the laws of physics?

It turns out that the reading glasses did not disappear; they were in place, but pushed up, on one’s forehead all along.  There was a logical explanation after all.

And sadly, it turns out that the courts and government agencies were not turning a blind eye.  They have been, all along, part of the fraud.  No matter how unlikely that seems, it is the only answer remaining.

In other words, we lost this battle a long time ago.  As soon as Trump was elected president in 2016, the dark state realized that it had blundered.  Its members had underestimated the degree of fraud it would need to defeat him.  This time, they removed all possibility of failure, and even then, they needed vastly more fraud than even they had anticipated.  Stuffing the ballot boxes was not enough; they had to call time out, for a few hours, so they could print yet more ballots.  Indeed, they printed so many more that the sheer number of them made it obvious that they were cheating.

One might think they overplayed their hand, that they had used a sledgehammer to swat a mosquito.  In doing so, they removed all reasonable doubt — the election was clearly rigged.  But the dark state was so desperate that its operatives cared nothing for how it seems to the informed observer.  Nothing.  They just had to make absolutely sure that there would be no way that Donald Trump would be declared the winner.

The culprits were not merely the usual suspects — the Adam Schiffs and Eric Swallwells and their ilk.  As profoundly and obviously corrupt as they are, they are weak.  They could not have pulled this off without some heavyweight criminals in high places, including the courts, the premier law enforcement agencies, the intelligence bureaus, and the private sector communications companies.

It is certain that President Trump has been a wrecking ball against the dark state.  He came at it with courage, resolve, and a level of acumen that the left had dangerously underestimated.  The 2020 election was, as the establishment saw it, the last and final chance to remove the threat he poses to their power.  Had the election been honest, Trump would have won so overwhelmingly that the Democrat Party, for one, would have become a thing of the past.  Trillions of dollars were at stake worldwide, including in China.  People go to war for that kind of money and that level of power.

It is unsurprising, then, that there was nothing, literally nothing, from which the dark state would refrain, in its attack — not even if it destroys the republic.  This was the final banzai charge.  It was do or die.

There is only one remaining backstop that can defeat the dark state.  It is we, the people, the heirs of 1776.  In that year, the Founders declared their concerns not only for themselves, but for their as yet unborn “posterity.”  They cared about us.  Will we care as much for our descendants?

Images: JAF

.

Now we know for sure that our judges and justices are abject cowards

Article appeared first in AmericanThinker.Com

Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett, 2020
Stinking, Reeking COWARD, Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett, 2020

Now we know for sure that our judges and justices are abject cowards

Several weeks ago, we worried that the judges and justices, state and federal, may not have the courage to take up the cases before them addressing the massive election fraud that took place November 3rd.  Now we know that they are all cowards, the Constitution be damned.  

Even the three SCOTUS justices Trump fought for were too terrified to do the right thing.

The intimidation tactics of the left – Antifa, BLM, and the campus fascists — have worked.  They have frightened each and every judge and justice, with the not surprising exceptions of Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, into disregarding Articles II and III of the Constitution.  

The vote fraud that took place in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada was monstrous and long planned.  Election laws were surreptitiously weakened by secret consent decrees (GA), mass mail-in ballots, Dominion vote machines programmed to flip votes, the creation of tens of thousands of fake ballots, illegal alien voting, illegal drop boxes, get-out-the-vote campaigns in Democrat-heavy districts paid for by the execrable Zuckerberg of Facebook infamy, the refusal to allow GOP observers, ballots trucked from one state to another.  

The judges dismissed lawsuits in every court where one was filed by the Trump campaign or other plaintiffs, seemingly without even considering the details.  The Supreme Court justices surely all know what took place; they can’t have missed all the hearings at which witnesses to fraud testified and signed affidavits as to the truth of what they observed.  But the judges and justices were afraid.  Now that the left seems to have successfully stolen the election, they will certainly do it again.  They have the permission of the SCOTUS.  Margot Cleveland does a masterful job explaining how cowardly the court’s dismissal was. 

Every remotely sentient American by now knows that the Democrats cheated every conceivable way possible.  Around 30% of Democrats reportedly do not believe the final result.  Biden did little actual campaigning but knew his win was in the bag thanks to the combined forces of big tech (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter), the mainstream media that is the propaganda arm of the DNC, and all those Soros-installed state secretaries of state, AGs, and election officials willing to do the left’s and Soros’s bidding for a price.  

The nine justices on the Supreme Court surely know all this as well.  They know it all but refused to take the case just as all those state judges dismissed the cases before them.  They are simply scared to do the job they swore to do – uphold the Constitution.  

One has to wonder, how many of them have been threatened?  Have they had their families threatened?   So, the bottom line is that none of them should ever have been seated on those courts in the first place, not Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett to say the least.  Not because Trump nominated them but because when the going got tough, they folded like cheap tents.  All of them except Thomas and Alito, forever true heroes for they are the real thing.  How profoundly disappointing is it that Kavanaugh, whom so many fought so hard for, did not have the guts to stand up against the overwhelming Democrat vote fraud that took place.  They are all scaredy cats, like little children running from bullies.   

It appears that the left’s strategy of “obey us or suffer the consequences” has worked.  They looted and burned numerous cites over the summer vowing that law enforcement must be defunded or disbanded.  Biden and Harris failed to condemn the rioting and Harris staffers raised bail money for the rioters.  And now we are to believe they won!  

Biden will never be considered the legitimate president by the eighty million (not the 74 the left claims) people who did vote for Trump.  Biden has always been a greedy power seeker, a liar, a plagiarist, a racist, a groper of women of all ages, and an all-around very nasty man.  Ask anyone who knows him personally.  And now we know that he and his family are nothing but grifters on a grand, global scale.  

There is no way Joe Biden was fairly elected.  The left planned on cheating; they just did not plan on having to make it so obvious.  Even big tech and the media, so deranged by Trump hatred, failed to realize how much most Americans came to love and respect this President.  

Obviously, Biden is not well, he is declining quickly.  And now that the family’s illegal financial dealings around the world are coming to light, their allegiance and submission to China for example.

Biden may have to resign (if inaugurated) within months.  If that happens and the absurdly unqualified Harris becomes president, the America we knew and loved will be over.  The US will be just another rough and brutal place run by some really awful people drunk on power.  See Peter Weston’s short video to get a Brit’s perspective on the degeneration of our once democratic republic.   And say a little prayer of sadness for all the judges who dismissed valid cases probably without reading them and for the wholesale failure of the Supreme Court of the US to do its due diligence and uphold the Constitution. 

George S. Patton once wrote: 

“Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best’ it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle.  The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty.”  

Scales Of Justice Graphic credit: Pixabay

.

PS: READ THIS, BY THE GREAT ANDREA WIDBURG

.

Now They Are Coming After the Pioneers By Henry Wickham

Henry Wickham (hahaha---NOT the writer, but, yeah...)
Sir Henry Alexander Wickham (1846-1928) english explorer. (Hahaha, not the writer!.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now They Are Coming After the Pioneers

By Henry Wickham

EXCERPT:

…If Washington and Jefferson were nothing but slave-owning racists, then why bother with Washington’s Farewell Address or the Declaration of Independence? If Hamilton and Madison didn’t demand and get the immediate abolition of slavery, then why support the Constitution? Why prolong a constitutional republic when Utopia supposedly is within our grasp? Work within the system to destroy the system….

…Lives of American Indians were anything but. (I say American Indians instead of Native Americans because anyone legally born in the United States is a native American, and if the name, American Indian Movement, was good enough for Dennis Means, it is good enough for me.) As Lawrence Keeley demonstrates in his book War Before Civilization, the lives of those Indians were incessantly violent with almost constant intertribal warfare.  This was not war to be fought by the fainthearted, as it was characterized by ambushes, murders, scalping, and the atrocious treatment of prisoners. All this after the horrific initiation ordeals for boys often mandated by the tribe….

…But that was then, and this is now. In little more than a year, the winds of destructive revisionism are now at gale force, and, as a rule, college administrators are a cowardly bunch….

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE IS HERE:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/now_they_are_coming_after_the_pioneers.html

.

THE CHANUKAH UNDERGROUND Daniel Greenfield December 13, 2020

“JEW, BE GONE!”

(WHO will be next? You, Is Who!)

Nazis Progressive Jews

<———————————->

THE CHANUKAH UNDERGROUND

 

 

EXCERPT:

…In 2020, Chanukah came early when another abominable tyrant, fresh from killing 11,000 nursing home residents by forcing facilities to accept infected coronavirus patients, decided to adopt the medieval habit of blaming the virus on Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn. A swarm of inspectors from every department were sent out to schools and then to the hidden schools…..

…And in 21st century America, children huddled in basements, afraid to make a noise, and then, if Cuomo’s men found them, were ready to claim that they weren’t in school, just playing games….

ENTIRE ARTICLE IS HERE:

http://www.danielgreenfield.org/2020/12/the-chanukah-underground.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+%28Daniel+Greenfield%2FSultan+Knish+articles%29