Virginia Thomas the conflict of interest:

A little-known conservative activist group led by Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, collected nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations to wage a cultural battle against the left over three years, a Washington Post investigation found.

The previously unreported donations to the fledgling group Crowdsourcers for Culture and Liberty were channeled through a right-wing think tank in Washington that agreed to serve as a funding conduit from 2019 until the start of last year, according to documents and interviews. The arrangement, known as a “fiscal sponsorship,” effectively shielded from public view details about Crowdsourcers’ activities and spending, information it would have had to disclose publicly if it operated as a separate nonprofit organization, experts said.

So that means she deliberately concealed the conflict of interest. How…interesting.

The funding is the first example of anonymous donors backing her activism since she founded a conservative charity more than a decade ago. She stepped away from that charity amid concerns that it created potential conflicts for her husband on hot-button issues before the court.

And proceeded to subterfuge in order to go on with her “activism” but in secret this time.

In reality I think it’s not altogether fair that a spouse married to a senator or justice or similar can’t operate independently, but at the same time I think the issue is real so we’re stuck with the unfairness.

Of course Virginia Thomas is also a trumpy lunatic, so there’s that.

In 2020, she privately pressed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to pursue efforts to overturn the presidential election, and she sent emails urging swing-state lawmakers to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory in awarding electoral votes.

That is she tried to help overthrow the government. That goes quite a bit beyond spousal conflict of interest.

Ginni Thomas has long maintained that she and her husband keep their careers separate. “I can guarantee that my husband has never spoken to me about pending cases in the court. It’s an ironclad rule in our house,” she told congressional investigators last year who were examining the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. “Additionally, he’s uninterested in politics, and I generally don’t discuss with him my day-to-day work in politics.”

Which totally works as long as you define politics as “that which does not interest Clarence Thomas.”

It seems the guy who dumped tomato soup/juice/sauce/whatever on KJK is being sought by The Law. Unless he’s just identifying as being sought by The Law.

NPR is slashing staff to save $$.

NPR moved this week to cut 10% of its staff and stop production of a trio of acclaimed seasonal podcasts — Invisibilia, Louder Than a Riot and Rough Translation — as it seeks to close a yawning budget gap that stands in excess of $30 million.

…

[Chief executive John] Lansing said the network sought to protect its core public service mission of journalism while preserving what he calls its “North Star.” Since joining NPR four years ago, Lansing has pushed to ensure the network has a bigger and broader audience base, rooted in younger and more diverse listeners, readers and consumers who will serve as the next generation of NPR supporters.

Hmmyes but that may have been its undoing, too. “Younger” listeners may have convinced NPR that gender ideology is the hot new thing as opposed to an embarrassing mistake.

About that burden of proof thing…

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

This is also stated in Hitchens’s razor, which declares that “what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.” Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – which is known as the Sagan standard.

The perceived status quo is that men have to stay out of women’s sports for much the same reason men must not punch women. It’s also much the same reason adults should not batter children and people should not batter puppies. You could call it the “pick on someone your own size” rule or standard or status quo. You could sum it up, however repetitively, as people should not take advantage of a physical advantage.

It seems like a pretty reliable status quo. There are exceptions, I suppose – if a small feeble person is about to open fire on a crowd then a big strong person should intervene. But as a broad, general status quo rule? I think it’s solid.

So then Pink News gloated again about its hostility to lesbians:

Members of The Dyke Project partied to protest the inaugural event of the The Lesbian Project – a trans-exclusionary initiative created by Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock.

Yeah how dare Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock be exclusionary of men in their Lesbian Project? The best people include men in all their lesbian projects.

The group held its first event on Saturday (25 March), which was met with a protest by The Dyke Project.

Formed in direct response to the Lesbian Project, the trans-inclusive group announced itself with a tweet reading: “Some want to sow hate and divide us by saying lesbians are being erased and need protection – so not true!”

So not true! We’ve just re-defined “lesbians,” that’s all!

I remember when Pink News was for lesbians and gay men. Seems like only yesterday. Now it gloats at bullying of lesbians.

Hundreds of LGBTQ+ women tell trans-exclusionary Lesbian Project: ‘You do not represent us’

What are LGBTQ+ women? They’re not anything, because no one can be all of those things. Why is Pink News rejoicing that confused lesbians are shunning and scolding lesbians for being lesbians?

More than 800 lesbians have signed an open letter to The Lesbian Project, denouncing the trans-exclusionary group as not reflective of the “lives, needs and community” of lesbians. 

That is, more than 800 lesbians have denounced other lesbians for not being inclooosive of men. Why are lesbians denouncing other lesbians for being…lesbians?

The Lesbian Project was launched earlier this month by Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel, in response to the suggestion that lesbians are being “erased” and “silenced” in society. 

The pair have appeared across the media to discuss the project, saying it “highlights and champions the experiences, insights and sensibilities of lesbians in all their diversity”. 

They have courted controversy for their anti-trans views, and concerns have been raised that the new project will be used by some as an undercover means to push anti-trans viewpoints and other narratives harmful to the community. 

The old agent-free “concerns have been raised” – Pink News is “raising the concerns” itself but prefers to pretend it’s unspecified concerns-raisers in their thousands or millions. Also the old “narratives” when they mean analysis or knowledge or both. Also of course “anti-trans views” when they mean rejection of the reality-denying claims of the more fanatical trans ideologues – like the people at Pink News.

The letter goes on to say: “Our community is beautiful precisely because it is made up of gender non-conforming lesbians, trans lesbians, non-binary lesbians, butches, studs, femmes, lesbians of all kinds who make up a tapestry more vibrant than you can imagine.” 

So their community would be max beautiful if it were made up of anyone and everyone, right? If it’s vibrantly made up of “trans lesbians” i.e. men then why even call it the “LGBTQ+” community? Why not call it the everyone community?

Glinner asks a police officer why the police are not protecting the women from trans activists, who have completely encircled them. The officer says “People can come and go as they please.”

No, you can’t do research on male athletes’ physical advantages compared to women, because you called them male.

Dr John Armstrong, a scholar at King’s College London (KCL), applied to carry out a survey of elite athletes and volunteers on whether trans women, who are born male, should compete in women’s track and field categories and whether they felt they could express their views.

However, the university’s ethics panel rejected his application last week citing equality and diversity concerns, in what has been labelled an attack on academic freedom.

In a rejection letter, the university said: “The language is not sensitive and the misgendering of athletes is not appropriate… there is obvious bias in the language and there is very little scientific reasoning underpinning the hypothesis.”

You can’t do research on sharks because it’s not sensitive to call them sharks. You can’t do research on viruses because it’s not sensitive to call them viruses. You can’t do research on black holes because it’s not sensitive to call them black holes. You can’t do research on rape because it’s not sensitive to call it rape.

KCL took issue with how Dr Armstrong had referred to trans women as “males” in his research proposal.

Dr Armstrong’s application had said: “The principle aim of the project is to find the views of athletes and volunteers on the question of when males should be allowed to compete in the female category in athletics.”

But they don’t identify as males so no research for you, bang, case closed.

KCL’s panel also said “there is a risk that some participants might be unhappy or distressed by the questions that are being posed to them” and asked Dr Armstrong to “please contact the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion team to seek input on the wording used”.

What for, when they’ve said he can’t do the study?

Former GB athlete Mara Yamauchi, the third-fastest British woman ever to have ran the marathon, told The Telegraph: “Female voices in sport have repeatedly been silenced, ignored and intimidated.

“Research like Dr Armstrong’s is therefore valuable, necessary and important. It is disappointing to hear that it has been blocked. This is yet another example of academic freedom being diminished.”

And a very grotesque one.

A King’s College London spokesman said: “While we can’t comment on individual research applications, we are strongly committed to ensuring that the research carried out by our staff and students is consistently of the highest quality and to the most rigorous standards.

“This is important to instill confidence in academic communities, funding bodies, and crucially the public that the data, findings, and results produced by our researchers are sound and trustworthy.”

Excuse me Spokesman you seem to be talking about something else. The issue here is blocking research because the researcher calls men “men.” That’s the opposite of “highest quality” and “most rigorous standards.”

Oh dear, NPR has had to admit it lies about men in women’s sports.

Ok ok ok we lied but still THERE’S LIMITED RESEARCH.

Mr Menno reports:

Well worth reading and watching the whole thing.

Tomorrow’s Times:

(It is just barely tomorrow in London but only just.)

The health secretary has ordered NHS bodies to review their membership of Stonewall and stop hiring diversity officers.

Steve Barclay wrote to ten leading national health organisations, including NHS England, the UK Health Security Agency and the Care Quality Commission, asking them to question whether their “diversity and inclusion memberships” provided good value.

Good value for money, he goes on to say.

I don’t think that’s the best way to put it, because Stonewall’s ideas of “diversity and inclusion” are bad ideas, even if Stonewall gives them away for free. But governments do have to think about the money.

Several organisations and institutions such as the BBC, Channel 4 and the House of Lords have pulled out of the Stonewall programme, which aims to promote workplace equality and inclusion.

That is, Stonewall aims to promote Stonewall’s idea of “equality and inclusion,” which leaves out equality and inclusion for a very few people such as for example women. Stonewall is all about the trans, and it’s not worth any money at all.

March 27 update: the LA Times reports more accurately:

WACO, Texas —  

Facing a potential indictment, former President Trump took a defiant stance at a rally Saturday in Waco, disparaging the prosecutors investigating him and predicting his vindication as he rallied supporters in a city made famous by deadly resistance against law enforcement.

With a hand over his heart, Trump stood at attention when his rally opened with a song called “Justice for All,” performed by a choir of people imprisoned for their roles in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Some video from the attack was shown on big screens displayed at the rally site as the choir sang the national anthem and a recording played of Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

End of update.

It’s pretty damn creepy to watch/listen to.

Is there any truth in what Billy Bragg said here?

Is it true that women’s rights were won at the expense of men? Is it true that a loss of rights for one set of people is what must happen for an excluded group to win their human rights?

I don’t think so.

There may be some truth in it in the case of women, because of the role of childbearing, which brings with it some physical needs (or lacks, if you want to put it that way) and some responsibilities that can’t be shared. There may be some truth in the claim that men have to give up or dial back some of their advantages and freedoms if women are to have equal rights. If men just walk away from the children they half-created then the women who bear the children lose a lot of freedoms, aka rights.

But other than that, I don’t think it is true. Exploiting the labor of groups of people deemed subordinate is not a right in the first place. Abusing them, shunning them, forcing them to accept bad housing in neglected neighborhoods – none of that is a right.

But maybe I’m overlooking something…

Former SNP Glasgow City Councillor has a wee laugh.

Hur hur har har hahahaha it’s so funny when women get soup thrown over them and punched in the face and terrorized by a screaming mob.

But he has never condoned violence against women, he says. Giggled about it, yes, but condoned it, no. The two are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

NPR is pathetic.

World Athletics Council, the governing body for international track and field, will bar transgender women athletes from elite competitions for women.

The council’s policy, which will be in effect starting March 31, largely targets athletes who transitioned from male to female after going through puberty as a male. It will also tighten rules for athletes with disorders of sexual development, cutting in half the level of testosterone athletes can have in order to compete in women’s events.

The policy “targets” male athletes ffs – as if it were pure meaningless cruelty to keep men out of women’s sports. Also calling male athletes “athletes who transitioned from male to female” is ridiculous, because there is no such thing. You can’t “transition” from male to female any more than you can “transition” from human to chimpanzee.

The council said they ultimately decided to prioritize “fairness and the integrity” of the female competition over inclusion.

That too is a stupid and nudgy way to put it. Why would “inclusion” even be on the table? NPR doesn’t burble about “inclusion” of adults in children’s sports, so why does it burble about “inclusion” of men in women’s sports?

At the center of the issue is whether transgender women [male athletes] have a physical advantage over other female competitors, even after lowering their testosterone levels. But there is limited scientific research involving elite transgender athletes — which the council also acknowledged.

And we just don’t know, do we, we have no clue – who is stronger, women or men? Oh gosh I just have no idea, nobody does, it’s like asking what kind of flowers bloom on the far side of the moon.

Alarmist subhead:

The ban is part of a growing resistance against transgender women and girls in female sports

That is, a growing resistance to men destroying women’s sports.

Meanwhile in the U.S., 19 states have so far banned transgender athletes from playing on girls or women’s sports teams. In statehouses across the country this year, there are dozens of more new and proposed laws that further curb transgender rights.

Men don’t have a right to destroy women’s sports. That’s not a right.

There was violence.

Controversial pro-woman and anti-transgender campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull said she thought she was going to die after she was attacked with tomato sauce and mobbed, forcing to cut her planned rally short.

…

Footage shows the controversial activist struggling to get through the crowd to escape the crushing mob with her security.

The crowd quickly became violent with supporters and protesters pushing against each other, while a metal barrier was pushed down by screaming counter-protesters.

One of them punched a woman in the face.

This wasn’t just noise, this was physical violence.

Co-leader of the Green Party, James Shaw, issued a statement following the violent rally, saying the party stands with trans and non-binary whānau.

“Aotearoa should be a place where everyone can live their lives without fear of hate or discrimination,” he said.

Except women of course. All they can do is get punched in the face.

There it is. I saw mentions of it yesterday but not the action shot.

The visual of Trump’s insurrectiony fascist rally. Not the play-fascist kind the gender crazies rant about but the real thing – the actual murderous violent racist woman-hating wannabe Leader who had power once and could get it again. Trump’s insurrectiony fascist rally celebrating his attempted overthrow of the government.

He plays footage of his attempted coup at his rally.

He is beyond dangerous.

Marginalized communities!!

“The only good Nazi is a dead one, so just go kill yourselves.”

Trump hails the apocalypse in Waco.

Donald Trump, the former US president, continued to invoke retribution and violence on Saturday when he used the first rally of his 2024 election campaign to rail against prosecutors weighing a criminal charge against him.

Efforts by Trump’s team to steer a more conventional, disciplined candidacy have wilted in recent days as the 76-year-old unleashed words and images that – even by his provocative standards – are unusually dehumanising, menacing and dangerous.

He opened the rally by playing a song, “Justice for All”, that features a choir of men imprisoned for their role in the January 6 insurrection singing the national anthem intercut with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Insurrectionists singing “the national anthem” – it would be funny if they weren’t so insurrectiony.

Trump falsely predicted his own arrest on Tuesday last week and called for protests without adding that they should be peaceful. On his Truth Social platform he warned of “potential death & destruction” if he is eventually charged.

He also used increasingly racist rhetoric as he launched ever more personal attacks against Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, raising fears that supporters could try to lash out on his behalf. Trump even shared an image of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Bragg.

Oh ffs. He has the brain of a pea yet he could ruin everything.

The 45th president repeated his false claim that the the 2020 presidential election was “rigged”, praised the rioters of January 6 and raged against the “weaponization of law enforcement”, branding the prosecutors overseeing multiple investigations into his conduct as “absolute human scum”.

Wearing a dark jacket, white shirt and no tie, he said: “I got bad publicity and my poll numbers have gone through the roof – would you explain this to me … It gets so much publicity that the case actually gets adjudicated in the press and people see it’s bullshit.”

Trump claim that his personal life “has been turned upside down” because of “prosecutorial misconduct by radical left maniacs” and framed the various investigations as political attacks coordinated by Democrats in Washington.

He said: “You will be vindicated and proud. The thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system will be defeated, discredited and totally disgraced.”

The thug and criminal is the one inside your jacket, Don.