All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Hi Deanna. We have gender freedom. Precisely the number of men who wanted to be nurses and merited admission to a program, are now nurses. Same for speech therapists, and all the rest. I was a teacher, or substitute teacher to be exact, for five years. I loved every day at the preschool. In Denver all the pre-K and pre-pre-K classrooms are at one building. Four and five year olds only in the whole building. All the water fountains and sinks are two feet off the floor, its such a cute building to enter. Those days were my favorites in part because the maximum headcount is lower in this age group, so fewer kids to manage. But the big reason was that these classrooms always had two educators, the licensed teacher and the (typically unlicensed) assistant. I was only there because the licensed teacher was out that day and the school must by law place a licensed, background-checked educator in there. But the assistant is there every day, knows what the kids are used to and is used to doing all the "managining." The result was that I really didn't do a damn thing but be a grandfather figure. I would know what to do next when the assistant would say "now we are going to our meeting area, Mr Jon has a book to read to all of you." Later, "Mr Jon will come around to every table and you can tell him about the art you are making." Nothing against most men, but most men cannot be a preschool teacher. Most women cannot, either, in my humble experience. But more women can do it well than can men. The genders are not equal.
  3. I think that leftist worries about Trump's being re-elected have a far more plausible basis than my worries about his not being re-elected - sort of on a scale of Jupiter compared to Mercury in size. There is, however, the factor that leftist worries will inspire even more devious ingenuity than during the Hillary Clinton campaign, where they felt confident of victory up till the day of defeat. Now they know they have a tough battle. Ellen
  4. Merlin, Squad (noun): a small group of people having a particular task. In popular culture, it's a term well known to apply to a group of women (usually young ones) with a close friendship and shared values. Google "girl squad." The images alone should give you an idea of how that term is used. It's a simple, albeit somewhat juvenile, concept. AOC was showing immaturity when she applied that term to herself and her colleagues in a professional capacity. Personally, I would distance myself from that in regards my career as I would see it as undermining my professionalism. Peter, We don't have gender equality. How many men are nurses? Or speech therapists? Or preschool teachers? Probably about the same percentage of women who are CEOs. Sadly, it's rare for anyone who talks about equality to look at both sides of the equation.
  5. Criticism of Epstein's sweetheart deal in '08, treatment that only the perpetually above-the-law-elites receive, is not Monday morning quarterbacking. That deal was indeed objectively an abortion of justice. In due time Acosta will get his day and he will testify as to who threatened him and forced him to do the wrong thing. So far he has said that he was repeatedly told that Epstein was "intelligence" and he had therefore better back off. In January of 2016 an Israeli ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak (and hopeful future Prime Minister) was sneaking into Epstein's NY home and "a bevy of young women were also seen going into the multi-millionaire's lavish home on the same day that married Barak was snapped." May I ask why you think it seems the behavior stopped?? "The probe into Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile ring is now threatening to derail the Israeli election as these pictures obtained exclusively by show Ehud Barak, one of Benjamin Netanyahu's main challengers, trying to hide his face as he entered the convicted pedophile's Manhattan townhouse. The former prime minister announced his return to politics as the leader of a new party in Israel’s coming national election, saying it was time to end Benjamin Netanyahu’s “corrupt leadership +13 "Barak admitted that the pictures are indeed of him, blaming his bizarre attire on being cold, the 77-year-old claims that he has 'never met Epstein in the company of women or young girls'"
  6. Today
  7. Vox tries to explain how 4 congresswomen came to be called “the Squad”. One meaning of "quad" is "a rectangular area surrounded on all sides by buildings." Of course, a rectangle has 4 sides. Another meaning is "one of 4 children born at the same time from the same pregnancy". That doesn't hold strictly for "the Squad," but the 4 are much alike. Here's another possibility. "Squad" is a compression of "socialist quad." 😊 Hmm. That reminds me of The Gang of Four.
  8. The headline says it: Judge denies Jeffrey Epstein bail in child sex trafficking case, citing ‘danger’ to public Michael
  9. Let me give a conceptual referent to what I am talking about. Here's what happened to a heckler at last night's Trump rally. (And notice that there were no masked goons with baseball bats like the Dems use. Instead there was a big honking "Keep America Great" sign. ) I don't see anything comparable coming from the Dems at this point and I can't imagine anything comparable with the current slate of candidates. Maybe things will change enthusiasm-wise, but I don't see how just yet. Michael
  10. Ellen, btw - Axelrod, the guy who elected Obama, is much more worried about Trump being reelected than you are about him not. He sees what I see, except with a Dem accent. He didn't talk about it all, just a small slice, but this guy is wicked, effective and extremely cunning. (The link leads to a video.) Axelrod: Trump "Forcing" Democrats To Embrace AOC's Squad, Accept They Run The Party Trump is forcing Dems to think this way or that? Trump has the power to force Dems into opinions? Right after a "muh racism" Dem stampede? That's quite an admission for a Dem Svengali-of-the-Public to make in public. Michael
  11. Ellen, That is wise. Maybe I'm going a bit overboard, but I'll feel more anxious when I see signs of something to feel anxious about. Oddly enough, I felt anxious about AOC for a while because she had, or was being coached by someone with, President Trump's savvy about keeping the spotlight on him. (Granted, she can't run due to age, but she could be a powerful constant sidekick to the person who does run.) But she fizzled when her sheer incompetence at basic administrative and political facts became part of her image. (Look at her current polling numbers.) As the adage goes, sell with emotion and justify with reason. Well... AOC sells well with emotion, but she turns too many off when she gets to the reason part to be a threat to Trump. Also, I favor saying she is coached more than talented (although, as time goes on and as she learns, I do see signs of some talent emerging). But someone who is constantly and heavily coached in what to say and how to present herself does not stand a chance against someone who is fast on their feet when improvisation is needed. Look at what Trump did to Megyn Kelly, for example. Right at the outset ("Only Rosie O'Donnell...") shows what being fast on his feet with improvisation means. Then he went in for the bloodbath ("blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever...") . Everything that unfolded in public after that showed how ineffective Megyn Kelly was as Trump's support grew. When she cut her hair short as a ploy to look stronger, he had her on the ropes and she never recovered. As to people who hate Trump? I'm not worried about what they think since nothing will convince them. But swing voters, which is where the election will be decided if it is close (and you know what I think of that prospect ), will need a lot more than "Orange Man Bad" and socialism with self-righteous class victims to stop looking at the way the economy is booming and decide to roll the dice on someone else, not to mention so many other issues where Trump's results are shining. Here is an indication that would make me worry. Did you catch any part of Trump's rally last night? I know that the conventional wisdom from political insiders says that crowd size does not matter in elections, but I believe that constant crowd size does. If Trump's crowd sizes ever start falling off, then I will get worried. So long as they are the sizes they keep being, and the Dems aren't able to come close except for a sporadic thing here and there, I don't think Trump will have any trouble. The only reason he lost the House in the midterms is that a slew of Republican House members retired and many Trump voters stayed home. I don't believe they will stay home this go around for the simple fact that Trump is on the ballot. But after he lathers them up in the heat of the election, I'm not worried about Trump haters inspiring enthusiasm anywhere close for turnout. I agree with you that powerful interests are against Trump, but I don't fear them in terms of the electorate. But there is an area where I do worry about them. I worry they will find a way to hack and falsify the voting results or assassinate Trump or something like that. These folks are very good at cheating. But with the scandals that will involve many of them that will soon erupt now that the silly "muh Russians" thing has been killed, I think the nastiness of their cheating heart bite will take a serious hit. So... I feel good about Trump's prospects for reelection, at least so far. I'm not crowing victory in general because someone could still come out of nowhere the way Obama did, but if the ticket is Harris and Pocahontas, I just don't see much of a threat. If the Dems want a woman with a chance to beat Trump, they need to come up with a liberal version of Margaret Thatcher or something like that, in other words, someone who inspires the poetic side of the human heart in addition to showing strong leadership. Can Harris turn into a liberal version of that? I doubt it. She's boring and arrogant. And I just don't see those qualities in the other women who are in the Dem public eye right now. Dem men ditto, except maybe Biden due to his eight years as VP, but he's compromised by needing to carry Obama's legacy--both on legit issues and those that are soon exploding--and he's older than Trump and showing it. I don't want to make light of your fears, but the way I feel right now, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Michael
  12. Same source, ch.The Need for Self-Esteem, HtS, by NB: "We are the one species that is able to form a judgment about what is best for us to do--*and then proceed to do the complete opposite*. We are the one species free to disregard our own knowledge or to betray our own values. The concept of hypocrisy is not applicable to lower animals; neither is the virtue of integrity". To round off, the antidote to Sam Harris: "Man is a being of self-made soul". AR
  13. I think that Harris' determinism is 'harder' than what you suggest, Korben. Because those events/influences "*precede* any conscious decision to act", by necessity, they must be acted out--or else Harris would have to admit to free will. Yes, the man *might* not become a killer -- but not because he *chooses* otherwise. Then Harris' theory would fall flat. Maybe, he doesn't ~feel like~ killing just yet, maybe the circumstances aren't right, etc., but at anytime in future he could, um ~decide~to enact his preconditioned impulse. Doubtless, Harris must realise that blame, self-responsibility (and pride in achievement) - or any moral judgments - are greatly weakened or nullified by the actor not being in control of his own acts - (what that will do to any individual who properly practised his doctrine, not to mention to society, is awful to consider). Which means Harris has no grounds to base an ethics upon. Not the good for others, nor the good for oneself. The field of ethics is denied to anyone who thinks no one has the choice of actions. Harris ends up in self-contradiction, since as we can see, his credo does not stop him from making his moral judgments online, at times pertinent and rational. (Ah, his rational thinking was also determined - may be his reply). Because, Harris equally and consistently thinks and has stated that "the self" is a myth, so what agent remains which can "decide" to overrule one's 'propensity' to e.g. murder? Or to decide that murder is immoral? Nothing. One's act is "predetermined", in the absence of will AND self... What he does, simply, is apply causality backwards, from this present individual 'effect' back to its 'causes', deductively or empirically, like he'd do with experiments in matter and energy. Envisaging a consciousness which projects 'forwards' and deliberately selects/integrates its knowledge/morals hierarchically, would not occur to a reductive-materialist, as Harris is. For whom the self is "matter". Nathaniel B writes in Honoring the Self (of course, self-esteem has essential connections to free will, just as determinism must corrupt self-esteem): "Aside from other objections that may be raised, determinism contains a central and insuperable contradiction--a contradiction implicit in any variety of determinism, whether the alleged determining forces be physical, psychological, environmental, or divine. The determinist view of mind maintains that whether an individual thinks or not, takes cognizance of the facts of reality or not, places facts above feeling or feelings above facts--all are determined by forces outside his or her control, at any given moment or situation, the individual's method of mental functioning is the inevitable product of an endless chain of antecedent factors".
  14. In the serial killer example, Harris cites prior causes being determinates, "these events precede any conscious decision to act," but because they exist in the serial killers past doesn't mean they caused it. Of course there are plenty of plenty of people that have similar backgrounds but haven't murdered, Sam Harris is identifying conditions in the serial killer's past that could have influenced his act, but they are conditions, not necessary and sufficient conditions, so they exist but they aren't necessarily causal.
  15. That he does these things doesn't make people who hate him like him any better. How many are there who hate him, and how effectively can they be mobilized? Maybe not effectively. Maybe the anti-Trumpers are in such disarray, they can't manage any effective opposition. But there are powerful interests who don't want Trump re-elected and will be working to mobilize a counteroffensive. Please understand, I really mean that I hope you're right in your sanguine prognosticating. But I won't crow victory until/unless it happens. Ellen
  16. Yesterday
  17. Shit, meet fan: Over 2,000 Files in Jeffrey Epstein Case to be Released Within a Few Days Imagine the fun just about ready to happen. Michael
  18. Pelosi has not been having a good week, but she finally caught a breather also gets to tell Al Green to shut the hell up for awhile. Let the President himself give the news. That's right. The vote was 332 to 95 with one abstaining (I think abstaining is correct--I tried to look it up to be precise, but I can't seem to find the information quickly--search engines and the news media for simple information like this suck these days). btw - All Republicans voted against the bill and 137 Democrats joined them. Michael
  19. Ellen, Did you see what President Trump just did to Nancy Pelosi? I feel sorry for her. (Nah... I don't really. ) Think of this. Trump detected a schism happening in the Democratic Party, a schism so acute that the four Congresswomen who checked all the progressive boxes of what progressive utopian women should be, were accusing Pelosi and Biden themselves of racism. So with a simple tweet, he unified the Dems against him to not only call him a racist, but pass a resolution in the House to condemn him as a racist. Except there were some outcomes not exactly expected or intended by the Dems. 1. Yesterday, the House looked more like an episode of Romper Room than a chamber of Congress. Pelosi definitely did not look like a strong leader. Instead, she looked inept, emotionally discombobulated and not concerned with law or decorum. 2. By knowing exactly when and where to make a small incision with the persuasion knife, President Trump got her to cause the entire Democratic wing of the House of Representatives look exactly like she was, inept, emotionally discombobulated and not concerned with law or decorum. Like the cliché goes, they became the gang that couldn't shoot straight. They got the job done, but in a Three Stooges kind of way while the whole world was watching. btw - As gravy, didn't the House recently and formally condemn anti-Semitism in a resolution based on bigoted comments by Dem. Rep. Ilhan Omar? They didn't mention her by name, but they did the resolution with her in mind. And what happened? A big fat nada, that's what. She kept up her anti-Semitism as if nothing happened. That shows what this resolution thing means in legal terms. Besides, does anybody even remember it? 3. The House Dems are now on record, with the unintended public image of trying to enact "President Trump is a racist" into law. And, by extension, many Trump supporters will see this as trying to enact "President Trump's supporters are racists" into law. Imagine what Pelosi will have to do to get the taint of this off her seriousness quotient. 4. Pelosi knows that swing voters can't stand "The Squad" (the four young Congresswomen who hate America) based on recent polling, but she was thrown into a situation where she had to embrace and defend them, thus defend the very qualities that make swing voters detest them. 5. Pelosi now has to figure out what to do about the thirst for impeachment among many of the House Democrats, knowing full well that impeachment, if presented and passed, will almost guarantee a Trump reelection by a landslide and probably guarantee transfer of the House majority to the Republicans--with a wide majority at that. 6. Pelosi has to know that President Trump practically canceled asylum requests from people from Central America and wanted to rant and rail against it as a new crusade, but instead, she has to try to save her own reputation about "muh racists." Notice that one tweet by Trump would have been enough for a shitstorm, but Trump kept hammering the point--in several tweets over several days--that these young Democrats--who should leave America if they hate it so much--now own the Democratic Party. And the press kept up (and still keeps up) the outrage shitstorm that Trump is a racist. Nobody is talking about the policy restrictions in asylum petitions as the policy is being put into place. 7. Calling someone a racist has been the most effective Dem weapon in the Dem arsenal over the last few decades, but President Trump detected the moment to strike. He steamrolled the press into hollering about "muh racism" so much that he practically took the weapon right out of Pelosi's hand at the very moment she mobilized the House Dems to vote on a "muh racism" reprimand. She looked like a comedy show doing it and even got reprimanded herself. (Imagine Trump watching this and laughing his ass off. ) The fact is, racism accusation fatigue has set in with the mainstream public, even those who are not political. People are sick of it. But Trump has engineered another four days or more (probably more) of nonstop "muh racism" outrage in the press. (The poor things can't help themselves. ) This is turning off the public big-time. 8. Like some commentators have asked, where are the polls on Trump's tweets? Or on the House reprimand? Normally there would be polls all over the place with scores of talking head panels on news shows tut-tut-tutting about "muh racism" and now Trump has gone too far, just look at the polling, yada yada yada. But there's a big fat silence from the fake news media about polling this. That's because, at least in a Rasmussen poll, Trump's approval has grown since his tweets, not diminished. And this makes Pelosi's grandstand in the House look like something an amateur would do. And Pelosi is anything but an amateur. But she sure looked like a high-school student in that case. I could go on because, believe it or not, the ripples from this thing haven't stopped, but it's even clear to lefties that President Trump punked Pelosi and her influence with the public big-time. (There are now some mainstream leftie articles out there saying things to this effect.) So imagine what President Trump will do to a Harris and Pocahontas ticket when the spotlight of the entire world is on them and the outraged reactions to what he will do and say about them, including their own emotional discombobulations--and the mainstream fake news media yacking about it nonstop--over months and months of the election. The principle is, when people on the same side express outrage and get results, then the results dry up, they get super-frustrated and start getting outraged at each other. Outrage that causes results is a craving hard for an addict to ignore once the beast is let out into the open. So the Dems, frustrated at not being able to move any meaningful ratings needle on Trump, will eat each other alive. Then we will get to watch as the Democratic Party melts down into goo. Unless something drastic changes, like Trump getting ill, this election promises to be one of the greats fun-wise for people who savor the taste of broiled schadenfreude. Michael
  20. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The 2020 Colorado Democratic primary will take place on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, as one of 14 contests scheduled on Super Tuesday in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election, following the South Carolina primary the weekend before. The Colorado primary is a semi-closed primary, with the state awarding 80 delegates, of which 67 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the primary . . . . The 2020 United States presidential election, scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020. end quote The Presidential election is around 16 months away. When should you contribute? Feel free to do the right thing now, but I usually donate near the one year mark, before the election. Who should get your money? Philosophize it. A fan of Rand, libertarian, free marketer, Patriot, or hater of totalitarian government MUST support and vote for President Trump. And don’t let me hear any of that “I don’t like him so I am staying home.” Hey. It’s in the Constitution! joke. Donate. Vote.
  21. I did not notice. So if one or more is not what they seem, they are doing a good job of it, and that's the ticket, as exemplified in the movie "The Crying Game." And by adding an "ed" to transgender Brant, are you implying that they have been fixed or spayed? How dare you!
  22. Don't they have any transgendered candidates? --Brant
  23. Ellen wrote: That's the ticket - Harris for president, Warren for vice-president - which I think would give the Democrats their best shot in 2020. end quote You did not mention what they stood for in that statement, simply that they are who they are, which is female democrats. I looked up Harris and she espouses the usual liberal agenda but has not taken a stance on a lot of issues. She did not seem flaky. Yet, I figure Pocahontas is a proud, clueless socialist. I think Kamala can do better than Warren. I don’t think Warren can swing a swing state and the upper north east including New England should vote for the democrat without her on the ticket. If 55 percent or more of the female voters vote for them, it may not come down to a few swing states. The election will be called by 9pm. Peter
  24. No, it isn't specifically predicated on women voting for a woman president. Maybe you didn't notice that plenty of men voted for Hillary Clinton. It's predicated on what those two, Harris and Warren, are gung-ho about, the causes they espouse. Ellen
  25. Last week
  26. Harris: "Consider a generic serial killer--his choice to commit his last murder was determined by neurophysiological events in his brain, which were in turn determined by prior causes, bad genes unhappy childhood, a night of lost sleep ...these events precede any conscious decision to act." (at 7.00 min)
  27. That is predicated on the idea that ENOUGH women will vote for a woman president, which may be the case. Gulp! From 2017 after Trump’s victory. The most dramatic dip for Republican numbers was among white women: The percentage identifying with the Republican Party fell 5 points from 37 percent to just 32 percent over a year, according to an NBC News report, which further broke down Gallup’s data by demographics. Notes. Born and Raised. Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in East Bay, San Francisco. She has a mixed ethnicity of Indian and African American. Her mother Dr. Shyamala Gopalan is from Chennai, India and her father Professor Donald Harris if from the United States. Her father is a light skinned person born and raised in Jamaica. Of course Elizabeth Warren is a debunked American Indian, 70 years old and full of yeast.
  28. President Trump is a racist, so says the fake news media and the outrage mob. LOL... Michael
  29. William, Hell, that's easy. I'll see your Stone and raise you a Pelosi. The link goes here: House decides Nancy Pelosi's criticism of Trump violates chamber rules And here I thought she was Speaker of the House with control over her Democrat majority. Michael
  1. Load more activity