4/08/2023

not every 1 is a real star like carol burnett

 

carol burnett is turning 90.  there will be a t.v. special saluting her shortly.  i love carol and watch 'the carol burnett show' to this day.

she's a true star.


what's a true star?

they can avoid the press for months - even years - and when you see them, they capture your attention all over again.


then there are our fake stars who have to keep getting media mentions or else they'll be completely forgotten.


an example? 


does everything sharon stone do have to be for attention?  i'm sorry but this 'tribute' to her brother - died 2 months ago?  it just seems like more attention seeking behavior.  it's not as though she's been on radio silence for the last 2 months.  no, she's been griping about michael douglas (making more money than her) and other things.  she's been all over the place and that finally died down and she trying to make herself happen again.  for some 1 who does such little work, she is overexposed and then some.

she needs a new publicist.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


April 7, 2023.  A major truth about an Iraq incident emerges and NPR can now report that Duncan Hunter is responsible for the deaths of two US soldiers, Clarence Thomas is corrupt and exposed but look at our 'straight talkers' (grifters who've moved from the left to the right) who just can't find that story, not even for a Tweet -- all this and Tara Reade puts the food down long enough to fan girl over Marjorie Taylor Greene.


Well I guess if you scream and call them out loud enough, if you shame them just enough, even idiots like Tom Bowman can belatedly due their damn job.  Online, I'm referring to "Tom Bowman acts our War Porn while NPR pushes for the money shot" from March 26.  Offline, I'm referring to endless conversations with friends at NPR.  

Tom Bowman is supposed to be a reporter but he filed a 'report' March 16th that was nothing but porn.  His fellow reporter was too busy impersonating a US soldier -- that should be as big a crime as civilians who try to scam people for money.  Graham "G" Smith acting like he's a soldier with his use of  "Man, . . ."  and "bitch" thinking he's sounding like  a solider.  WTF was that?  how insulting to the enlisted.  

I can remember the first time I went to an AIDS hospice.  A friend put it together -- this was back when many were encouraged to fear people with AIDS and told to be wary of even casual contact.  So I applaud the others who went with me but one, a fortyish TV actor, immediately sat down on the floor in a main area, removed his shoes and socks and thought this was a 60s rap session.  And I looked at the people there and noticed them staring at his bare feet with dismay.  This was their home and he thought he was cozying up to them but he actually was insulting some of them with his actions -- which were overly familiar.

That's "G" Smith.  Or should he have been billed on air as "G" Dawg?

If you missed it, here's the opening of the critique we gave:

NPR's cancelled four podcasts.  (See Ruth's "NPR created their own problems.")  They should make it five.  TAKING COVER needs to be cancelled as well.

Tom Bowman's always been more of an idiot than a journalist -- but he really let his stupidity shine last week with a 'report.'  Bowman and company wasted 49 minutes and over 7,500 words to tell you nothing.  NPR should be ashamed of themselves.  They gave your war porn while claiming it was reporting.  


Here's how it started: A tip to Tom about the US military (when? This year? we're never told).    The tip was  about events on April 12, 2004 in Falluja.  The US military lied.  They concealed details of a death.  They didn't just conceal it in real time.  When Bowman and NPR made an open records request, they were told that there were no records.  


This should have been big.  It should have been huge.


A report like this should have ended with the family of the dead Marine -- or his friends -- speaking about how disgusting it was that the US military concealed his death for 'optics.'   It should have had a comment from Senator Jack Reed who is the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 


It didn't.  Instead we got a lot of nonsense.  Including the fact that no one ever needs to hear NPR reporters tossing around the term "man" as though they're buddies with the veterans.  Graham Smith and Tom Bowman aren't part of the Marines.  They are journalists -- someone should have reminded them of that.

 

They use the 49 minutes  to serve up war porn.  


And to make themselves the stars.


You can listen to the report and find out about how what books and documents the two 'reporters' went through.  As though that's the story?  Because that is what they made the story.  


Not the death, not the cover up.  In fact most people listening to this garbage may not grasp at the end, after 49 minutes, that Bowman and Smith never revealed what the story needed revealed.

Here's Tom Bowman yammering away early in the porn:


 I might run into a colonel I knew in Afghanistan or a general visiting from his overseas command who can tell me what's really going on. But there are some things, well, people just don't want to talk about in the building. So I might call them at home at night, or...

(SOUNDBITE OF DRINK POURING)

BOWMAN: ...We might meet up at a bar, which is what happened one night at a whiskey bar in D.C. Actually, this very bar, a guy who spent a lot of time in Iraq told me a story very few people knew. He told me that early in the Iraq War, there'd been this tragedy. U.S. Marines had dropped a mortar or a rocket on their own people. That's what they call friendly fire. Now, in this case, he said, one Marine was killed and another seriously wounded. Friendly fire deaths - they happen. They happen in every war throughout history. That's not what made his story shocking. Here's the thing - he said that the Marine brass had actually covered it up, burying the truth about this terrible incident because, he said, the son of a powerful politician was involved in the screw-up.


"SOUNDBITE OF DRINK POURING"?  That was needed to drive home that the two are trying for entertainment not not news.


A death was covered up.  And it was covered up because "the son of a powerful politician was involved in the screw-up."


We need to know why the cover up and we need to know son of a politician.  


They can add sound effects and they can brag on themselves but Bowman and Harris can't deliver the basic facts.


This is shameful.


49 minutes on this and they never told you a damn thing.  It opened with the tip.  49 minutes later, they had not asked anyone with DoD for a public response, they had no response of outrage from no members of Congress -- and we're never told who the son of the politician was.  

But we got sound effects!  We got "G" Dawg talking in a manner he assumed is how soldiers speak.  We got "bitch" on NPR, didn't we?  We got so much -- so very much of nothing.


And as I've noted here, my conversations with NPR friends were not just me complaining.  A large number of people at NPR were bothered by that nonsense as well.


So Tommy Bowman and "G" Dawg were put back on the story but this time with a chaperone -- Chris Haxel.  With a designated adult on the team, 22 days after their 'report,' it can finally be told: Duncan Hunter.

22 days later.  Despite the fact that Tom Bowman was told it was Duncan Hunter on day one, NPR can finally release the name.  I knew the name back in March.  A friend at NPR and I were on the phone and he told me a listener or two had written in asking if it were Beau Biden.  I said, "No, it's not Beau, he wasn't even in Iraq that year.  If someone wants to figure it out, it's not going to be that hard, there weren't a lot of children of Congress members in Iraq.  There's Duncan Hunter --" and he cut me off with, "I didn't say that."  And his nervousness made it clear that it was Duncan.  They were working on getting a report on the air and I said I wouldn't put it up here until they did.  I wasn't trying to 'scoop' them, my point was that it needed to be public knowledge.



On the night of April 12, 2004, a deadly explosion rocked a schoolhouse in Fallujah, Iraq, where U.S. troops had set up a temporary base. Two Marines died and a dozen were wounded, some severely.

But as seared as the fatal explosion is in the men's memory, to the Pentagon it's as if it never happened.

An NPR investigation found that the explosion at the schoolhouse in Fallujah was a tragic accident — the worst Marine-on-Marine "friendly fire" of recent decades. Officers determined almost immediately that the explosion was caused by an errant 81 mm mortar fired by the victims' own comrades, yet the families of the dead men weren't told for years, despite Marine Corps regulations. Some of the wounded have never been told.

Three officers involved in the deadly mortar fire were recommended for punishment, but that was rejected by the Marines' ground commander in Iraq — Maj. Gen. James Mattis. Consequently, no one was ever disciplined.

And NPR found another secret: An officer who was part of the confusion, but was not cited for discipline, was the son of an important and powerful member of Congress. Then-1st Lt. Duncan D. Hunter was working in the command center that mistakenly approved the mortar launch. His father — U.S. Rep. Duncan L. Hunter — was then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, responsible for oversight of the war.


For those who don't know of nepo-baby Duncan Hunter, from WIKIPEDIA:


Duncan Duane Hunter (born December 7, 1976) is an American former politician and United States Marine who served as a U.S. representative for California's 50th congressional district from 2013 to 2020. He is a member of the Republican Party, who was first elected to the House in 2008. His district, numbered as the 52nd from 2009 to 2013, encompassed much of northern and inland San Diego County and a sliver of Riverside County, including the cities of El CajonEscondidoSan MarcosSantee and Temecula. He served in the U.S. Marines from 2001 through 2005 and succeeded his father, Republican Duncan Lee Hunter, a member of Congress from 1981 to 2009.

In 2017, the Department of Justice began a criminal investigation into Hunter and his campaign manager and wife Margaret Jankowski, for alleged campaign finance violations.[1][2] In August 2018, both were indicted on charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, and violating campaign finance laws.[3] In June 2019, Jankowski pleaded guilty to corruption and named him as a co-conspirator in using campaign funds for personal expenses.[4]

Also in June 2019, federal prosecutors showed that from 2009 to 2016, Hunter had spent campaign funds on extramarital affairs with five women, including lobbyists and congressional staff.[5][6] In December 2019, Hunter changed his plea to guilty on one count of misusing campaign funds.[7] On January 7, 2020, he submitted letters of resignation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom, that took effect on January 13, 2020.[8] On March 17, 2020, Hunter was sentenced to 11 months in prison, scheduled to begin in January 2021.[9][10] He was pardoned by President Donald Trump in December 2020.[11][12][13] The next day Trump pardoned Hunter's wife.[14]



Maybe if old "Mad Dog" had done his job, we wouldn't have had to endure Congress member Little DD Hunter.  But Mad Dog never did what he was required to which is why it was embarrassing to watch some rush to praise him just because he was an enemy of Donald Trump.

NPR's in the news and not for the right reasons.  Twitter has labeled them government funded or something like that.  They do need to be labeled that way, they do get government money.  And the whining over it -- not every friend at NPR agrees with me on this (obviously) -- has been a distraction all week long.  We didn't comment, there was no reason to do so, we had serious issues to cover.   But since we're noting NPR right now -- first time this week, we'll note that.  

And thank you to everyone at NPR who worked so hard to get the truth out -- the truth that Tommy Bowman and "G" Dawg never thought was all that important.

49 minutes about a cover up and they couldn't tell you Duncan Hunter.

Now let's go to the Glenneths.  Starting with Glenneth Greenwald himself.  Not one tweet about Corrupt and Crooked Clary Thomas.  But the transphobes like Glenny insist that there are real issues and it's the transgendered people who are distracting us from them.  Okay, let's go to John Stauber.

Nope.  Not a word.  What about bigot Tara Reade?  

Thank you Tara for speaking with and I today. Courage is contagious. More to come.


Tara, you just get more disgusting.  You really are garbage.  

I honestly thought Jimmy Dore would've Tweeted about it and was about to give him credit for at least breaking from his pack.

This is why we've caught on to your con, people.

Oh, we must defend Donald and it's not about politics, it's about what's right. 

Isn't that the garbage that you transphobes are forever insisting?

No, it's not about anything but your admiration for the Republican Party.

Did someone say Jonathan Turley?

Yep, another transphobe in their con artist group.


I didn't write about Clarence here until right now.  Because Monday through Friday here, I write in the morning.  But even here, we've got these posts:



 
So five videos on the topic -- one's a CBS NEWS report -- went up here last night and this morning.  Last night, it was the topic of the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin.   And many community sites covered it.

It is big news.  

Here's some of Elaine's post:


Tonight, I have a question: What do you have to do to get impeached if you're on the Supreme Court?

Your wife being part of organizing a riot doesn't appear to be an issue.  You're breaking the law doesn't appear to be an issue.  Ken Meyer (MEDIATIE) notes:


ProPublica appears to have sparked a looming media uproar with their bombshell report on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ acceptance of luxurious perks from a Republican megadonor, which Thomas never disclosed as required by law.

The report delves into multiple instances over the years where the conservative justice and his wife, Ginni, were treated to lavish vacations, yacht cruises, and flights on a private jet, all on the dime of billionaire real estate developer Harlan Crow. ProPublica analyzed flight records, internal documents, and interviews with dozens of Crow’s employees to track his access to Thomas and the number of times he schmoozed with Crow and his friends while accepting princely trips to exclusive locations.

Crow gave ProPublica a statement on his friendliness with the Thomases while claiming he and his cohorts “never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue.” However, ProPublica reports that Justice Thomas never revealed anything about this in his financial disclosures, which raises the possibility he violated ethical norms along with a law requiring public officials to disclose these kinds of gifts.



He needs to be immediately removed from the bench.  He cannot effectively rule on others and other issues when he himself cannot follow the law.  He needs to be removed.  Their should be zero tolerance.  This is not a kid.  This is not someone who doesn't know the law.

Clarry T is not only supposed to know the law, he's supposed to rule on it. 

If he can't follow the law himself, no one should have any confidence in him as a judge.  He needs to be removed from the Court immediately.  Failure on the part of Congress to take action would constitute a dereliction of duty.


 
Crooked Clarry Thomas needs to resign immediately or he needs to be impeached and removed from the Supreme Court. Natalie Musumeci and Oma Seddig (Business Insider) report:


US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been taking secret lavish vacations on a private jet and superyacht paid for by a GOP megadonor for years without disclosing them, according to a bombshell ProPublica report published Thursday.

Thomas, a conservative who joined the nation's highest court in 1991 and is currently the longest-serving member, has accepted the trips from real estate magnate and Republican donor Harlan Crow nearly every year for more than two decades, ProPublica reported, citing flight records, internal documents, and interviews.  
According to the report, Thomas has vacationed with Crow on his 162-foot yacht around the world, flown around on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet, and stayed at his private resort in the Adirondacks almost every summer. 

A June 2019 Indonesia vacation that Thomas and his wife went on, thanks to Crow, could have cost more than an estimated $500,000 if Thomas had chartered the yacht and plane himself, according to the report.



This is corruption plain and simple.  He needs to be off the Court immediately.  There is no excuse for doing it and there's no excuse for failing to report it.  This is corruption and this is betrayal of the public trust.  There is no way that he can continue to serve on the bench.  If Democrats allow him to they're spitting on the rule of law.

Everyone is accountable and no one is above the law.

He needs to go.  This is grossly offensive.  He needs to go.  He needs to go immediately.




Now for some news.  Elaine's writing about PROPUBLICA's expose on Crooked Clarence.  Thomas has not been reporting many ''gifts'' such as private jet travel.  He is dishonest, he is shady and he needs to resign.   John Wagner (WASHINGTON POST) reports:


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) vowed in a statement that his panel would take action in response to the ProPublica report, calling the behavior of Thomas “simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.”

Durbin and other Democrats renewed calls for the Supreme Court to adopt a strict ethics code that would include a process for investigating alleged misconduct, and some Democrats called on Thomas to resign.

“This cries out for the kind of independent investigation that the Supreme Court — and only the Supreme Court, across the entire government — refuses to perform,” tweeted Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who has sponsored legislation that would direct the court to adopt an ethics code.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on financial services and general government, promised to use the appropriations process to ensure that the Supreme Court adopts a code of conduct similar to other members of the federal judiciary.

“The Supreme Court should have a code of ethics to govern the conduct of its members, and its refusal to adopt such standards has contributed to eroding public confidence in the highest court in the land," Van Hollen said in a statement.

“Is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas corrupt? I don’t know,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House leadership team, said in a tweet. “But his secretive actions absolutely have the appearance of corruption. … For the good of the country, he should resign.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has previously called for Thomas to step down, renewed her call Thursday, saying “[t]his degree of corruption is shocking — almost cartoonish.”

He resigns or he gets impeached -- those are the only two choices.  He's made a mockery of the law and he's no longer fit to preside over it.  Resign or be impeached.  And shame on anyone who doesn't have the backbone to push impeachment if he refuses to resign.  We either have a Supreme Court that follows the law or we don't.  And his corruption reeks.  


This is not minor.  The con artists have slammed transgender people and have told us that they are a distraction.  There are important issues to focus on, they insist.  As they focus on Donald Trump and how wrong his case is.  What case?  He's been charged, he hasn't been tried but they're acting as though he's behind bars on death row.  They can't make time to defend the transgender community and, in fact, they ridicule it.  And they're just calling balls and strikes, understand.  This isn't about partisanship. 

Really?

Clarence is an embarrassment for the Republican Party so they just all happen to ignore it?

No, they're exposing themselves.

What Clarence did is outrageous.  

And they have no comment.  Not even a damn Tweet.

He needs to resign and if he won't resign he needs to be impeached.  The Supreme Court is for sale -- that's the message Clarence has sent with his actions.  He cannot rebuild the public trust.  

He needs to go.

But they can't say that.  I guess they haven't gotten their marching orders yet from Tallahassee? 

Let's stay on Jonathan Turley for a moment because he came up in a Zoom yesterday and I made a point that I didn't realize wasn't well known.  It goes to how outrageous his transphobia has been.  I was talking about how disgraceful that this person holding the Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University had been.  A young man asked me what "public interest law" is?  That's a good question.



Public interest law is defined as anything affecting the well-being, the rights, health, or finances of the public at large, most commonly advocating for those living in poverty or marginalized populations. While it can be tireless work, and the financial rewards are not great, on campuses across the country, the desire to “give back” is growing.


Jonathan holds the chair and spends all of his time obsessing over millionaire Donald Trump.  In the last 12 months, he's only offered one defense (and that was last week and only because his image of a transphobe is building across the country) -- and  a weak one -- of the attacks taking place.

Every week, that community is attacked.

This is QUEER NEWS TONIGHT from yesterday.




Jonathan Turley is not fit to hold that chair.  He's a Trump apologist who does nothing to defend the powerless.  He's taken more recently to attacking schools and public education.  He's sold his soul to FOX "NEWS."

He and the others have exposed themselves, have shown their true nature.  Their silence on Clarence Thomas should be the last clue anyone needs.



The following sites updated:





4/06/2023

lack of supervision means the f.b.i. should be sued

i am not a litigious person; however, i say 'sue! sue!' and i'm not calling for susan.  i'm referring to the man that the f.b.i. illegally (not just wrongly) held and interrogated for over an hour.  'the insider' reports:



At around 10 p.m. on Tuesday, agents from the FBI's Boston office were helping the Defense Department conduct a training exercise at a hotel in the city, the FBI told Insider in a statement. The agents were "mistakenly sent to the wrong room" where they detained an individual who was not the "intended role player."

According to CBS Boston, which first reported on the incident, the agents initially banged on the door. When a confused man opened it, they handcuffed him, put him in the shower, and interrogated him for more than 45 minutes. After the agents discovered they had made a mistake, they apologized to the man, who turned out to be a Delta Airlines pilot who was just trying to get some sleep.

i don't care that they're trainees except that the blame does not fall on them.  where was the supervisor?  trainees can make mistake - it's in the name 'trainees.'  why did it take an hour to stop this nonsense?  where was the supervisor?

for a whole hour, f.b.i. trainees are not in the location that they were told to go and no 1 notices?  what if there was a criminal gang present and they see the trainees and grabbed them and killed them?

you are supposed to be doing an exercise and you do not make it to the location you are supposed to be at and it takes the f.b.i. over an hour to realize this?

where is the oversight?

and think about the poor man.  he's working all day.  goes to his hotel room and tries to catch some sleep before he has to wake up and fly out.  instead, strangers are bursting in his room.  they are holding him in his bathroom.  they are asking him questions - as part of the training - that he has no idea about because he's not part of the training.

i bet the trainees thought, 'man, this guy is good.  he's really staying in character.'

again, this is not on the trainees.  where was the supervision?  and how can the f.b.i. justify that they had trainees who had disappeared for an hour, not shown at their designated location and no 1 knew about it?

heads should roll.

and the pilot should sue.  i can't imagine the trauma there as he probably kept saying, 'i don't know what you're talking about.  i'm just a pilot for delta airlines.'


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Thursday, April 6, 2023.  PBS continues to sell the Iraq War and Glenneth Greenwald tries to address his transphobia.


A few minutes ago on a phone call, a NEWSHOUR friend was insisting on a link to prove they were responsive to criticism.  Ava and I called them out in "TV: How they lied about Iraq and how they still lie about it" and I called them out in Tuesday's snapshot for another in their efforts at war whoring.  They did a segment last night and now they want a link., 

I don't work on your timetable and I don't work for you.  That's (a) and (b) when I do get to it, I will either be slamming you again or linking to someone who has -- again, anyone, grab it, send me a link to your piece.  I've got other things to do.  I'd love it others would critique the pro-war garbage coming from PBS.  

If it's news and I'm told of it before I start dictating the snapshot or after I've started, I'll happily include it.  That would be, "Hey, we just did a report on the protest in Baghdad taking place right now!"  That would be an example of news that I'd want to include right away.  

Your attempt -- that I said I'm sure is awful -- to try to improve your own program's image?  That's not news.  And since the phone call, while trying to figure out who some YOUTUBER is (I'll get to it later in this snapshot), I've also read over the transcript of the interview they want linked to and what a load of more garbage.  Lulu -- it was ethnic cleansing, it wasn't a civil war.  The ones put in charge by the US government went after the other side.  For you to mouth "civil war" so many years later may be an improvement for you and may be a real personal high but it was ethnic cleansing.  You might want to pick up the book your colleague at NPR wrote -- still the best book on Iraq from the early years of the war, Deborah Amos' EXILE OF THE SUNNIS: POWER, EXILE AND UPHEAVEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST.   We've applauded the book here for years -- it's made at least two of the community's books of the year lists.  Here's an interview Deborah did with Terry Gross about it for FRESH AIR.  That interview was broadcast on March 10, 2010.  I mention that because that was the day Iraq voted in what was the most appalling election -- due to US intervention after an eight month political stalemate -- and though Deborah didn't write about that to my knowledge (about The Erbil Agreement in November of that year), she had already published a paper on the lead up to that election that was the strongest piece of coverage.  


In fact, let's note it again.  We've got other stuff to cover -- one big thing -- but Deborah deserves credit and her voice is not being brought to you by the mainstream media right now.  She wrote her analysis for Harvard's Joan Shorenstien Center on the Press and this is from [PDF format warning] "Confusion, Contradiction and irony: the Iraqi media in 2010:"  



The dramatic conclusion of the parliamentary vote also played out on Iraqi TV screens when Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al‐ Maliki, appeared on the state‐run broadcasting service to announce he was challenging the results. Maliki’s political coalition had won 89 seats in parliament, well short of the winning formula of 163 seats. Maliki refused to accept that an alliance led by challenger Iyad Allawi had won more parliamentary seats than his bloc had.
These two Iraqi politicians shared similar backgrounds: a lifetime of working to overthrow Saddam Hussein, membership in underground political organizations, and being a part of Iraq’s majority Shiite community. Each had returned to Iraq when the Americ an military toppled Saddam. But in the 2010 national election, they had taken different political roads.
In the 2010 campaign, Maliki’s party was primarily a sectarian political list of Shiite candidates with a few Sunni political figureheads. In contrast, Allawi’s political coalition was a cross‐sectarian list. While Allawi is a Shiite, he headed a party consisting of Sunni political leaders from western and northern Iraq and some Shiite politicians who believed it was time to move beyond sectarian politics if Iraq is to achieve national unity.
In Iraq’s short history of free elections, Shiite candidates have a demographic advantage. Shiites are approximately 60% of the population, and Iraqis voted almost exclusively along sectarian lines in the 2005 national elections and the 2009 provincial vote. Maliki also had a media advantage. The state‐run national news network did not accept paid campaign advertisements, but freely broadcast extensive reports of Maliki’s election appearances and campaign speeches in evening news bulletins. On the eve of the vote, state TV broadcast a documentary highlighting the Prime Minister’s visit to security checkpoints around the capital. Maliki is widely credited with an improvement in the day‐to‐day security in the capital and in the south, but his pre‐election inspection of the security checkpoints was seen as a long campaign ad.
According to domestic media monitoring reports of state ‐ run television, Al ‐ Iraqiya, Maliki’s political coalition received by far the “highest positive coverage” when compared with all other political parties in the campaign.  When it came to the vote, Allawi demonstrated that sectarian voting patterns could be broken. A small percentage of Shiites voted for a party that included Sunnis on the ticket which helped deliver the two‐seat lead.  Prime Minister Maliki charged widespread fraud and demanded a recount to prevent “a return to violence.” He pointedly noted that he remained the commander in chief of the armed forces.
Was Maliki threatening violence? Was he using the platform of state ‐ run media to suggest that his Shiite ‐ dominated government would not relinquish power to a Sunni coalition despite the election results? His meaning was ambiguous, but his choice of media was widely understood to be part of the message. Iraq’s state run news channel, Iraqiya, is seen as a megaphone for Shiite power in Iraq, which is why Maliki’s assertion of his right to retain power raised international concerns.


We've covered it before.  Nouri refused to step down.  Initially, especially after Gen Ray Odierno was proven right (and Chris Hayes was an undeniable idiot fool), the White House was going to back tot he winner "absolutely."  Then Samantha Power and Susan Rice got on either side of Barack Obama's head and convinced them that a second term of Nouri was better -- because, as the CIA had said when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House -- Nouri's paranoia made him easy to manipulate -- and so it was decided to overrule the voters -- the Iraqi people -- and ignore any lessons in democracy by instead giving Nouri a second term via The Erbil Agreement.  And we don't have time this morning to again go into that.

We also don't have time to suffer through Chip Reid's ridiculous -- and unintentionally confessional -- statements about how he identifies with the group he was embedded with.  That was the point, you idiot.  They would embed you to control your coverage and you're still stupid all these years later.  We don't have time for Lulu lamenting that she was recently told -- by the Iraqi man who did all of her work while she stayed in hiding -- that the Iraqi people hated her.  Oh, the horror, poor Lulu.  To think you reinvented yourself with a stripper name and that doesn't even make them love you.  What's it going to take Lulu, what it's going to take to get respect?  I don't know, maybe actually doing your damn job.

It's another hideous segment from PBS and its know-nothing staff that just wants to sell the war all over again.

It's time for THUS SPOKE GLENNETHUSTRA.  Yes, it's time for Glenneth Greenwald and his  transphobia.  I'm being told that the link I provided isn't working.  Did he pull the piece?  I believe I just copied and pasted it.  I've got to take a shower after this dictation is done -- I'm on a treadmill right now -- and then a Zoom with a college on the east coast so I'll put a note in later as to the link or if it's gone.  [Added, here's the link.]  If there are any misquotes, I'm doing this from memory, I read the piece online last night before going to bed.  Glenneth writes to an e-mailer who is troubled by his transphobia:


As you rightly point out, I rarely talk about trans issues, in part because I generally try to avoid talking about anything where I have nothing unique to say due to lack of expertise or passion (which is how I feel about the trans debate), in part because I do think the Culture War (often by design but always in effect) distracts and divides us from larger and more consequential questions about how and where power is wielded, but in larger part because it's mostly an easy issue for me: I think adults should have the absolute right to do and be however they want, pursue whatever makes them happiest and most fulfilled, and they ought be respected both legally and socially regardless of those choices, including but by no means limited to pronoun use, which doesn't bother me at all. That's a principle in which I believe strongly: that society should be constructed to facilitate and maximize the self-actualization of the individual. That was not only the foundation of the successful effort to obtain equal rights for gay men and lesbians but also the core precept on which the Culture War consensus over the last 20 years or so was based, a consensus now sadly unraveling primarily over this issue.



The Culture War?  He's a coward.  He was a coward in college -- I have the receipts,  him in his too big jeans, walking around campus, farting all the time -- I'm serious he had some gas problem -- I know all of it and he's still a craven coward taking what's offered him.  He refused to fight as a gay man and instead cozied up to right-wingers and hoped to be their mascot.  He was pathetic then.  The same refusal to fight was evident in his departure from THE INTERCEPT.  He's an attorney.  The term "breach of contract" should be a familiar one to him.  He refused to sue THE INTERCEPT while making his grand stand.  And that's because Glenn never fights.  Coward.

Trans people, he insists, are distractions and divisions pulling "us from larger and more consequential questions about how and where power is wielded."  Spoken like a true Karen, Glenneth.  Trans people are in the minority, they are oppressed by the government and for you to pretend otherwise goes to both your cowardice and your stupidity.  

If you can't grasp his stupidity, Karen Hunter and her guests rejected that argument yesterday noting that it's target the transgendered right now, develop a blue print to use on others.










Glenneth is speaking of 'self-actualization'?  He really is an idiot.  No, self-actualization was not behind Stonewall or any other major LGBTQ+ protest and/or rebellion.  It was about equality.  If you hadn't been so scared of being seen as gay throughout most of your life, you might know some LGBTQ+ history.  But you were a stupid moron and you were too cowardly to read the books you should have in order to educate yourself.  What if ____ saw you with the book!!!  You know who I mean, Glenneth, the right-winger you crushed on in college but he was straight.  You did everything but doodle his name on your classroom notes.

He goes to Maslow because Glenneth doesn't believe in equality.  So he goes with the best of each own blah blah blah.  Amazing how offensive the words equality are too him until you remember that he is a right-winger.


He then appears to be saying -- read it carefully and grasp that logic is not his skill nor is presentation -- that gay and lesbian rights -- he ignores others -- are faltering now "unraveling primarily over this issue" -- trans people.  First off, learn some history you ahistorical idiot.  Second, trans rights are causing a backlash?  


Oh what a shocker.  I noted that reality last year.  And didn't couch it.  Yes, they are.  And I also noted that the backlash was coming anyway.  If anything Ls and Gs are lucky that trans persons have been taking the bulk of the scorn because they would otherwise be the primary target.  Instead, trans persons are the ones taking the hit but this is about everyone that is seen as an enemy of the right -- pro-choice, pro-equality, pro-democracy.  

We progressed as a society throughout the 90s and the 00s and marriage equality coming in the '10s was a huge step for Americans.  Progress is never a brisk walk down the road.  Instead, people throw up barriers and blockades -- hate constructs that they pursue never grasping how ugly they come off to the people around them.  

An attack was coming regardless and it focused on transgender persons primarily (make no mistake, if an anti-trans agenda was achieved tomorrow, these same hate merchants would be going after lesbians and gay men).

Glenneth is wrong about the so-called "consensus" -- it's been ripped apart by liars which is why you need to call it out.  The playbook -- as we pointed out long before others started noting it -- was a repeat of Anita Bryant in the 70s.  Groomers was used to attack gay men back then and it's used to attack trans people   It's why history is important.  You need to know what happened before.  The hate merchants of the 70s used lies just as is happening now.  And they're running off support with their ugly remarks.  That happened in the 70s as well.  The more hatred emerged, the more obvious that we weren't dealing with people who were loving and caring and believed in the best for the country.  We were dealing with hateful, dishonest people who would just as soon turn on your straight ass as they did on gay men.  



FOX NEWS, as we've been the only ones to note (not bragging, just pointing out reality -- I'd love it others noted it, we could just link to it and I wouldn't have to spoon feed repeatedly) has reached its own tipping point.  They aren't sure how to proceed.  Basic cable subscribers are still with them.  If this were 1994, that might be a good business model.


It's 2023 and that doesn't cut it.  FOX NEWS no longer has FOX entertainment to help it out during tough patches.  THE SIMPSONS network is now part of ABC-DISNEY, et al.  To generate revenues, it is important that FOX NEWS has a streaming service.  FOX NATION was born.  And it looked like it was doing okay.  That was a mirage brought on by Roseanne Barr.  Interest in her return to stand up led to a lot of people signing up.  Some dropped it without ever paying -- using the trial system.  Many more dropped it six weeks or so after.  We noted that reality when it happened and we noted that in the "reason" for dropping, people were referring to the broadcasting of hate.  There was a Catholic male, for example, who identified as Catholic, stated he was religious but noted that FOX NEWS' idea of religious did not fit with him.  He stated he did not know any trans people but even he was offended by the coverage.  I've seen hundreds (thousands?) of the responses.  How bad is it?  Days ago, FOX NATION started reaching out with an offer of $1.99 a month if any of those people would sign back up.


They need subscribers.

DISNEY+ lied about subscribers.  The huge drop off they have right now is not a huge drop off.  They've actually stabilized.  But they lied for months about their numbers -- they did lie -- and that's one of the things that Bob Iger is not going to put up with.  They had to get honest.  But they were able to lie because trade papers -- VARIETY, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, etc -- print any lie.  They're not real journalists (especially at THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER) and NETFLIX would lie that X number streamed whatever film or series and it would be printed as fact.  No you type up "NETFLIX claims they had . . ."  Industry reporters -- unless they hate you -- do not ask you to back up anything and run with any claim.  So FOX NATION may claim that they're doing well -- that would keep their stock afloat.  But they are not doing well.  That's reality.

Why I was seeking out the data on that was because of history.  If this is happening to people who would subscribe to FOX NATION in the first place, this means they're losing from the center and the right.  This is the beginning of a turning point.  How long that will take, I have no idea.  But the hate merchants are repelling people that previously weren't repelled.

Back to Glenneth:


My only interest in trans issues is: 1) whether children are being manipulated, coerced and subject to unsafe and untested medical and psychiatric treatments: a concern we constantly debate when it comes to various age of consent and other child-rights questions, 2) relatively trivial but not irrelevant issues such as sports participation and access to women's only spaces (prisons, shelters, etc), and 3) whether this movement is starting to rely on regressive notions of what it means to be a boy and a girl. I have spent a lot of time talking in particular to lesbians about how butch lesbians in particular are virtually disappearing because so many of them now have their breasts removed, mustaches grown, and declare themselves men. 





Are they your children?  Why are you sticking your nose in someone else's family -- while claiming you're all about self-actualization?  Adults are smart enough to make decisions.  I don't need to hear your lies or your scare tactics.  Iowa was the only state that would perform surgery on someone under 18 (unless they're an emancipated minor, in which case, they are an adult in the eyes of the law).  Iowa has overturned that law.  In the US, parents must give consent.  We've heard a lot of whining via FOX NEWS that was all a bunch of garbage.  Scare tactics and lies.  My favorite was probably the 50 something man who came forward to save children from what he went through.  He transitioned while he was a child?


No, after 20 years in the US military, he decided he wanted to become a woman.  It was awful and he regrets it.  Because, it appears, he didn't want to be a woman, he wanted to be a young girl.  Sorry, changing your gender after forty will not make you a teenage girl.  But, more to the point, he didn't have surgery.  He was whining and whining about nothing.

We've heard a lot of those stories.  FOX NEWS loves to pimp the freak in the UK.  You know who I mean, right?  He's a she, he's a gay male, he's whatever will get attention at the moment.  Now he has had surgery -- not gender reassignment surgery, no he had surgery to look like his favorite member of BTS.  Freak.  Gender is the least of his problems.  Some people are just crazy.  Accept it.  Time and again, their 'journalism' is revealed to be nothing but what was once called "yellow journalism."  From WIKIPEIDA:



Yellow journalism and yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate, well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.[2]
[. . .]

The term was coined in the mid-1890s to characterize the sensational journalism in the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal. The battle peaked from 1895 to about 1898, and historical usage often refers specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. Richard F. Outcault, the author of a popular cartoon strip, the Yellow Kid, was tempted away from the World by Hearst and the cartoon accounted substantially towards a big increase in sales of the Journal.[7] An English magazine in 1898 noted, "All American journalism is not 'yellow', though all strictly 'up-to-date' yellow journalism is American!"[8]

The term was coined by Erwin Wardman, the editor of the New York Press. Wardman was the first to publish the term but there is evidence that expressions such as "yellow journalism" and "school of yellow kid journalism" were already used by newsmen of that time. Wardman never defined the term exactly. Possibly it was a mutation from earlier slander where Wardman twisted "new journalism" into "nude journalism".[4]: 32–33  Wardman had also used the expression "yellow kid journalism"[4]: 32–33  referring to the then-popular comic strip which was published by both Pulitzer and Hearst during a circulation war.[9] In 1898 the paper simply elaborated: "We called them Yellow because they are Yellow."[4]: 32–33 




That's what FOX NEWS -- and others including THE NEW YORK TIMES -- having been offering with regards to trans issues.  A stupid woman who had her breasts removed and now regrets it.  Boo-hoo.  No sympathy.  You spent your entire FOX NEWS segment explaining you were under age.  You never once called out your parents -- or mentioned that they okayed the surgery (they did okay it).  You just wanted to whine about the doctor.


I've said before, if my children (were underage, they aren't) came to me and said they wanted to have surgery to transition, my first response would be that we need therapy.  Not because they're sick.  Not because they're stupid.  But because this is a big decision.  I'm not doubting them.  I am doubting me.  Meaning, I don't know all that would entail life after such surgery.  I would want them to explore that with a trained therapist.  Not to 'cure' them but so that they knew what was entailed.  That would not be a series of never-ending Freudian therapy sessions.  There would be a start date and an end date (firm) unless my child wanted to continue therapy.  But if that's what they wanted and the therapist had spoken to them about the issues in a manner that my child was comfortable with (discussing issues with your parents can be embarrassing -- specific issues), that's what would happen.


If they came to me a day after turning 18 and said they wanted to transition, I'd explain, this is your life, it's a big decision for 18 but you are an adult so it's your decision.

Tattoos are often the least of things we regret doing when we were younger.  That's not to say transitioning is 'minor' like a tattoo.  It is to say that we all grow up with regrets.  When we get older, we realize more things.  

That's why, as a parent of a child, I would want therapy first.  Not months (unless my child wanted that) but a few weeks to be sure that all the issues were addressed with a professional before surgery.  (Again, I doubt my own expertise and I am also aware that when things go from general to specific, children can be uncomfortable talking with their parents.)  It's a huge decision for anyone but, as the parent, I would be the one responsible and I screw up parenting enough as it is without having my child come back to me in 10 or 20 years over a surgery.  


That's me.  (And I would hope that I would be aware of what was going on and not surprised by it one day with an announcement.  I hope I would be aware that this was a developing issue.  But I could miss that or anything else.)

I'm not here to parent you or to parent your child.  My plate is full, thank you very much.


You had a kid and it wasn't taken away by authorities?  You are responsible.  You handle it how you think it needs to be handled.  (Sadly, that would also mean not allowing your child to transition if that was your decision.  That's why your the parent.  Not me.  You parent your kids.)  Because it does fall under parental rights.  And it's hilarious to watch FOX NEWS rip apart parental rights while pretending to be for them.


These scare stories, this yellow journalism, needs to stop.  Shame on the uneducated Glenneth (I long ago told you he wasn't a very smart attorney and that he promoted the Iraq War).  If they told the truth, they couldn't whip up a frenzy of hate.  They know that which is why they lie.  


Again, no sympathy for any of FOX NEWS' interviewees who regret their decision.  Thus far, we've had adults who did things as adults and now feel bad.  Boo hoo.  I regret last week's hair cut.  (Not really, I've got a great stylist.)  Life is about regrets and thrills and hopes and fears and living.  You're going to make mistakes.  If you can't take accountability for your own mistakes, you're not much of a person.  And I don't have a lot of sympathy for you.  In addition, they've had adults who did things when they were not adults.  So take it up with your parents, I'm not here to parent you or your children. 
Or in the words of Goldie Hawn's character in DECEPTION, " Oh, for Ch**st's sake! Isn't anybody in charge around here?"


[We censor the use of any deity's name as a swear.  That's out of respect for others' religion.  That's not me pretending not to have a foul mouth.  If you're not a child and you know me, you know I have a wide range of curse words I pull from frequently.]

 

I also should note how cute it is that Glenneth tries to hide behind lesbians.  Glenneth, I find it difficult to believe that "butch lesbians" speak to you.  It seems that, if they did, they'd be slapping your face repeatedly.  So that leaves us with non-traditional lesbians and 'fem' lesbians.  So they're having trouble finding "butch lesbians."  Sigh.  Guess they're in the same boat straight women have been in for years -- you know, how that group infamously said for decades that it was hard to find a man to date who wasn't married or gay?  

Life is hard, for everyone.  And anecdotal is all Glenneth has to offer.

I really need to pause here a moment.

I really want to underscore how, in the 90s and 00s, America had to endure columnist Thomas Friedman who would pimp his own opinions into mythical cab drivers who populated his writing and now, in the '20s, Glenneth has introduced mythical butch lesbians to be his sock puppets.  


And I want to also note TERBLS.  Glenneth is our modern day Margaret Mead and has discovered a new social participant in the dialogue -- Trans Exclusionary Radical Butch Lesbians.  Oh, Glenneth, you are so accomplished.  Doing it all from Brazil, are you, all this research?  You are amazing, Glenneth, simply amazing.


He then goes on to whine about "parents not assigning a gender at birth"

What is that your business?

You claim to respect parental rights and now you're whining about how they're parenting.  It doesn't effect you.  Get your busybody nose out of it.  The ego on this person is astounding.  (As we note in "Read The Tea Leaves" at THIRD: "In the year 2028 . . . David Miranda explains why he divorced Glenn Greenwald, 'There just wasn't enough room in a California king for him, his ego and me'.") 



Here he really reaches and we may have to break this paragraph up into sections:


I regrettably liked Matt Walsh's film because the central question -- "What is a Woman?" -- is impossible to answer for those who deny that it's about biology and anatomy precisely because any attempt to answer it in any other way will dredge up gender stereotypes that we -- in my view, rightly -- have finally discarded (a woman is someone who likes wearing dresses, playing with dolls, cries a lot, hates sports, and is more sensitive). 

No, it won't.  It will if you're uneducated hick named Glenneth Greenwald.  

Try reading Carol Tavris' THE MISMEASUREMENT OF WOMEN: WHY WOMEN ARE NOT THE BETTER SEX, THE INFERIOR SEX OR THE OPPOSITE SEX.  That book came out in 1992.  As usual Glenneth wants to weigh in without doing any work.  This is a topic feminists have dealt with forever and a day.  And that was the point -- last week? -- I was making here about the ones who are erasing women are not transgender women but people like cis women in my industry who are rushing to self-describe as "actors."  As I said, actress is a noble profession.  If we're not comfortable with that term, why aren't we using a different one instead of adopting "actor" which is a term for men.  Men are not the norm -- a point Carol makes repeatedly in her book.  "Singer" is a non-gender related term.  If we want a non-gender related term for acting, we need to come up with one.  If we're using "actor," why?  Why aren't we asking that men call themselves "actress" -- why are we bending over to accommodate men?  I'm not joking on this.  "Actress" is being walked away from not by transgender women or transgender men but by cis gender actresses.  Who's really erasing women -- answer that.


Matt Walsh is a transphobe and that's why Glenneth embraces him.  Glenneth -- friend of lesbians and so worried about gender constructs (which he can only manage to term "gender stereotypes") doesn't write about women, do you ever notice that?  Do you ever notice how this 'champion' of women doesn't reTweet women.  Maybe one reTweet every 30 or so Tweets is a woman.  But Glenneth is our brave supporter or ally -- in his mind.  


He's full of garbage and always has been a sexist pig -- yes, again, I'm going back to his college days.


Feminists have been addressing gender constructs for decades.  Want to go back to Mary Woolstonecraft Shelley -- because we certainly can.  Glenneth's ignorance of the work, research and literature on this topic is appalling.  What's worse is he's writing this in a 'response' -- not shooting off the top of his head. He knows nothing and he thinks he can b.s. his way out with a lot of words.  But he doesn't know what he's talking about and, honestly, owes us all an apology.


What is a woman?

If you have to ask, I don't think I should have to speak to you.  My time is valuable and limited.  I don't have time for your nonsense.  

How stupid are you?  What is a woman?

Even in the 19th century there wasn't one answer to that question.  

How did you get a college degree -- let alone a law degree -- and remain so stupid?

Is it based on having a period?  Well if so, that rules out all adult women who've gone through the change, who have had surgery that stops  menstruation (such as endometrial ablation), women who are not menstruating due to physical activity and/or lack of caloric intake (bulimics, anorexics, and some women in certain endurance competitions, etc),  women practicing certain birth control (such as Depo-Provera) . . .

Again, I'm so sorry that you're so damn stupid.


And why the hell are you -- a gay man -- so interested in a woman's gender?  Do you think you have the right to ask someone if they're a woman or not?  If they tell you they are, does that mean you have the right to look at their genitals' to prove they're not lying?

Honestly, what is that your business?


If Pat comes up to you and asks you the time, and you tell her the time and Pat responds, "Thank you.  Sorry, even as a girl, I never wore a watch" -- do you think that you somehow need proof to identify Pat's gender.  Pat just told you she's a woman.  End of story. 


I don't understand it.  Are you in a lab setting?  Will you be dissecting Pat?  


Are you fearful that you're going to bump into Pat in the ladies room because, if you are, Glenneth, you shouldn't be in the ladies room.  


Again, things that are none of your business.


You are a transphobe and you are using every lie you can think of to justify that.  


Why don't you try telling people how Pat being a woman harms your life?  And if you can't, why don't just shut the f**k up?


Because that is the reality.  Pat being a woman has nothing to do with you at all.


You have no reason to attacks transgender people.  You need to stop it and you need to stop lying that it's funny or hip.  It's disgusting and hateful.


But attack them is all you do.  Again, back to the same paragraph:



That's why Dylan Mulvaney has become controversial: she's a cartoon of what a woman in the 1950s was supposed to be, and to see someone who lived her whole life as a man pronounce herself a woman based upon such exaggerated caricatures of "what a woman is" does strike me as not much different than minstrel shows where whites express their caricatured version of "what it means to be black." 


Glenneth wrote that.  It would be a man, I think.  Well it would, wouldn't it?


Those familiar with actual women are probably smiling.  


Glenneth never bothered reading the work of women.  Nora Ephron, before she became a successful director, was ESQUIRE's media critic. She wrote about a woman who had surgery to transition.  The woman had bought into stereotypical constructs of women and had become June Cleaver without any sex drive.  


So, Glenneth, you think you're being clever but you're not.  For actual wit on the topic, refer to Nora's 70s essay "Conundrum."  Some would argue it hasn't aged well.  Nora (who I knew) is sending up the woman for her extreme notions.  Transitioning isn't really the issue of the piece other than that the woman had the surgery.  


Dylan Mulvaney?  Sorry.  I do have a life.  I had to look her up.  What's exaggerated?  What am I missing?  Or, after Nora's take on the former soldier who became the dainty, tea sipping woman who couldn't handle the bonnet on her car (she was British) or mingling with those rough, hairy men, am I just not seeing it?


Because I don't see it.  I see a young woman. She's 26.  THE NEW REPUBLIC pulled an article on Pete Buttigieg that made a good point regarding maturity (that's not an insult to him today, he's matured since the article was published).  It was noting that there are 'growth spurts' when a closeted person comes out.  And I mention that because Dylan has transitioned and she did so after the age of 18.  I'd say she's still young. THE NEW YORK TIMES and others excused Bully Boy Bush's drunk driving arrest in 1976 as "youth" and he was 30.  So I think a young woman finding her way deserves a lot more latitude than a War Criminal.  


She appears to be doing Amy Sedaris, not a 50s caricature.  Maybe I've missed something in the four videos I had to stream this morning to learn of her.


I don't know why you're acting this way, Glenneth.  Well I do.  I've written about PARIS BURNING before, right?  About Glenneth in college and his near vomiting reaction to the film -- even without seeing it?  He's also has a real aversion to being seen as femme.


It's his own personal problem.  


But there's nothing wrong with Dylan.  And she's not a cartoon of a 1950s woman.  I'm so sick of people who talk about decades and don't know what they're talking about (see Ava and my "Media: They lie" for more on that).  Dylan is just fine the way she is and she doesn't need a transphobe judging her.  


Again, what is Dylan's life Glenneth's business?


He's worse than Gladys Kravitz on BEWITCHED.  I don't own a gun but, if I did, and Glenneth and his big nose came looking in my window, I just might shoot.  Maybe that's the only way a buttinsky like Glenneth learns?


An apology to Chelsea Manning.  When she was trashing him, I did understand some of it.  But the transphobia?  I hadn't heard him express that and I'd never read his Tweets at that point.  Having read his Tweets, I now get her point.  She was right on the transphobia, she nailed it 100%.  My apologies to Chelsea for not realizing what he was.  


Back to Glenneth:



And I absolutely question why someone can simply declare a new gender identity that must be instantly respected based solely on self-declaration but that can't be done for racial identity (Γ  la Rachel Dolezal).


Your are just an idiot.  You don't understand genetics, you don't understand constructs, you don't know the history -- around the world -- involving third-sex, for instance.  I can't help it that you're so damn stupid that you think this is a new development in our society.  Surgery is apparently new, less than a hundred years.  But we've dealt with and welcomed -- around the world -- larger understandings than we have today.


And we're going to leave it at that or I'm not going to have time for a shower before we go into the morning zooms.



The following sites updated: