Breathtaking

Jul 26th, 2020 10:27 am | By

No comment necessary.



Feelgood interlude

Jul 26th, 2020 10:11 am | By

But St Bernards are supposed to rescue people in the mountains…

A mountain rescue team has said its members “didn’t need to think twice” when they were called to help a 121lb (55kg) St Bernard dog that had collapsed while descending England’s highest peak.

Sixteen volunteers from Wasdale mountain rescue team spent nearly five hours rescuing Daisy from Scafell Pike after receiving a call from Cumbria police.

Her back legs were hurting and she couldn’t keep going. (Descending a steep hill can be hella painful, more so than climbing.)

They sought advice from vets before beginning the rescue operation and were able to assess Daisy’s condition and administer pain relief before lifting her off the mountain on a stretcher. The team said: “After a little persuasion and a bit of arranging the stretcher to become dog-friendly, and of course plenty more treats, the 55kg Daisy very quickly settled down with her chin resting on the head guard, having realised that we were trying to help her.

She’ll be reet.

Mountain rescue team with dog on stretcher
Wasdale Mountain Rescue Team/PA


Bread for the world

Jul 26th, 2020 9:59 am | By

Speaking of men who treat women like underlings

A nonpartisan Christian organisation that seeks to end hunger says it has asked for and received the resignation of Republican congressman Ted Yoho from its board of directors, following what it called his “verbal attack” on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

That’s especially interesting because what was Yoho abusing Ocasio-Cortez about? Her argument that an increase in crime is related to an increase in poverty – i.e. that poverty can lead to increased crime. Poverty is also very intimately linked to hunger. Ocasio-Cortez and this Christian organization are on Team End Poverty while Yoho is on Team Poverty Is the Fault of the Poor Person. It was never a good fit.

In a statement on Saturday, Bread for the World said its board met Friday with Yoho and sought his resignation “as an action that reaffirms our commitment to coming alongside women and people of colour, nationally and globally, as they continue to lead us to a more racially inclusive and equitable world”.

See what I mean? Not a good fit. Those words are not words a Republican would ever say.

“As a bipartisan Christian organization committed to alleviating hunger and poverty through sound public policies, Bread for the World upholds the values of respect, dignity, and compassion that Jesus calls us to when engaging decision makers from across the political spectrum,” the statement said.

“We believe that Rep. Ted Yoho’s recent actions and words as reported in the media are not reflective of the ethical standards expected of members of our Board of Directors.”

As Christian organizations go, this sounds like a decent one.



Offering to discuss the issue in public

Jul 26th, 2020 9:12 am | By

Jolyon Maugham QC says he would love to discuss it with a gender critical feminist, so a GC feminist says I’d love to discuss it with you Jolyon, so…

He says it.

Privately. For their privacy only. So we don’t know who they are or what they said or why his offer was “without success.” We don’t even know whether we should believe him or not. We do know he has carefully hidden the evidence and offered an explanation for the hiding of the evidence, one that seems a bit implausible on its face. If they’re high profile why would they be so bashful?

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1286611375331127298
https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1286627327892500483

Jolyon? Anything?

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1286757189634461698

Ah there he is at last.

So he will only discuss it with a select list of GC feminists, ones Kathleen Stock will know but he can’t name because [something something], on the basis of their shared belief in light as opposed to heat. So apparently he thinks Stock doesn’t belong to that category? But that’s absurd – she’s famous for being reasonable and fair and not shouty.

Maugham left it there, as far as I can tell (Twitter loves to hide the replies you’re looking for and show you the ones you aren’t). LetterWike stepped up.

Jolyon? Anything?



The right to be named

Jul 25th, 2020 5:01 pm | By

Just call her Bitch?

In Afghanistan, family members often force women to keep their name a secret from people outside the family, even doctors. Using a woman’s name in public is frowned upon and can be considered an insult. Many Afghan men are reluctant to say the names of their sisters, wives or mothers in public. Women are generally only referred to as the mother, daughter or sister of the eldest male in their family, and Afghan law dictates that only the father’s name should be recorded on a birth certificate.

Of course that’s not completely strange to us in the so much more progressive part of the world. Not many decades ago it was pretty normal to refer to a woman as Mrs Charles Dudeguy and leave it at that. It wasn’t taboo to know her first name, and informally it was ok to call her Jane Dudeguy, but it was quite possible to read a news story (for instance) that referred to a woman solely as Mrs Man’s Name.

But it’s even worse in Afghanistan. It’s as if societies compete to see which ones can most completely obliterate and conceal women. Here we’ve given up on the niqabs and no names approach, and instead we replace women with men who say they are women – they do it much better. (Except for the sex part. Since that’s by far the most important use for women, that’s a bit of a problem, but technology will probably come up with a fix soon.)

But some Afghan women are now campaigning to use their names freely, with the slogan “Where Is My Name?” The campaign began three years ago when Laleh Osmany realised she was fed up with women being denied what she thought was a “basic right”.

Well, yes, because if you’re only ever referred to as Man’s Possession you begin to wonder if you’re just an object, like a kettle.



One more time!

Jul 25th, 2020 4:49 pm | By



She “firmly corrects them” all right

Jul 25th, 2020 3:02 pm | By

Oh good, the tv machine is training kids in how to lecture medical staff.

The first clip is merely stupid and cloying, but the second is infuriating. The lecturing kid is what, 12? Maybe 13? And she’s lecturing two medically-trained adults as if they were puppies who had eaten the carpet. And they look grief-stricken and horrified, as if they’d torn the patients limbs off by mistake. Also the clip is teaching the world that it’s a fabulous righteous thing to do to give medical staff false information about patients, like for instance getting the sex wrong.

It’s as if everybody is trying to out-stupid Trump.



Invisible women indeed

Jul 25th, 2020 10:20 am | By

A play in three acts. WITS is Women In Technology & Science.

Act one:

Good choice. Caroline Criado-Perez is brilliant, as any fule kno.

Act two scene one:

In other words, don’t read this book that you chose, read some other book that someone else will choose from this list of names provided by me.

Act two scene two:

Act three:

Curtain.



Their oath to defend the constitution

Jul 25th, 2020 9:44 am | By

Veterans challenge illegal orders:

The Black Lives Matter protest in Portland looked to be winding down last Saturday night when US marine corps veteran Duston Obermeyer noticed a phalanx of federal officers emerge from the federal courthouse.

They shot teargas at the crowd and pushed a protester to the ground with such force that, Obermeyer said, she slid 6ft across the pavement.

He’d gone there to see what was happening, but at that point he decided to participate.

In a Pokémon hat and Superman T-shirt, and with a cotton mask protecting his face, the 6ft 4in, 275lb man walked up to the officers and asked whether they understood their oath to defend the constitution.

Defending the constitution is not abruptly without warning teargassing a group of protesters.

“They are not supposed to be coming and attacking protesters,” Obermeyer told the Guardian. “They didn’t even give any warning, there was no ‘hey you need to move’, ‘hey back up’. There was basically them walking out and assaulting a protester just to prove that they could.”

There was a navy veteran a few feet away asking the same kind of questions.

“I’m not a big believer in coincidence,” said Obermeyer. “I believe that we both have similar feelings because we come from similar places and we truly believe in the constitution as it’s currently written and as it’s taught in grade school. And this is a violation of constitutional rights.”

David, who came dressed in a Naval Academy sweatshirt and Navy wrestling hat, told the Guardian he believes they both came out that day because of their time at the naval academy, which instills “a deep level of integrity” in graduates. But also, he said, for perhaps an even simpler reason.

“We have the ability to see what is right and what is wrong. And what we both saw was wrong and we wanted to go out there and talk to those officers.”

Obermeyer also asked the officers whether they understand what an illegal order is, referencing the fact that military officers are required by law to disobey illegal or unconstitutional orders.

“Assaulting an unarmed protester who is exercising their first amendment rights is illegal, that’s an illegal order,” he said.

Crucial point. Remember My Lai? Illegal orders. Illegal acts.

That’s when teargas was fired on the two men. When that didn’t deter them, Obermeyer said an officer tried to hit him with a baton, but he caught it and quickly pushed him back. Another officer repeatedly beat David with a baton, breaking his hand in two places, an injury that will require surgery on Monday. He was also sprayed in the face with a white chemical irritant that he said “felt like flaming gasoline.”

This is for asking questions of soldiers who are committing unprovoked violence against protesters. This is Trump’s United States.

Obermeyer recalls an officer sticking an automatic weapon in his face, while another shot him at point-blank range with an orange chemical irritant.

Orange. The stuff sprayed on the medical equipment we saw yesterday was also orange.

After serving in the marine corps for over a decade, including as an officer, Obermeyer has experienced being gassed many times. In this case, he wasn’t sure what they had used because, he said: “I’ve never felt worse than I did that night after being sprayed in the face.”

His eyes and nose almost immediately closed up, and he started having a difficult time breathing. His clothes were drenched, and he said it felt like his skin was on fire. Others in the crowd guided him a block away and helped him flush out his eyes. It took him three days to recover.

All this is against the repeatedly expressed will of the mayor and governor.

Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court against DHS, the Marshals Service, Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Protection Service, alleging their behavior violated state citizens’ right to peacefully protest.

The DHS said in a statement Wednesday that federal law enforcement officers are working “diligently and honorably to enforce federal law by defending federal property and the lives of their fellow officers” as “violent anarchists continue to riot on the streets of Portland”. The DHS and Portland police did not respond to a request for comment.

Lying shits. What are they doing, hiring Fox News to write their statements?



A wall of veterans

Jul 25th, 2020 8:24 am | By

Good luck watching this unmoved.

The chant is: our streets.

 



Go after the medics

Jul 24th, 2020 3:52 pm | By

It appears that the Feds committed a war crime in Portland.

Federal authorities have been accused of violating the Geneva Convention after apparently destroying medical equipment during protests in Portland.

Reporter Sergio Olmos shared a video on Twitter Tuesday night showing medical supplies and protective gear covered in an orange liquid.

“It appears that federal officers, during dispersal, pepper sprayed the medical supplies in the tents,” Olmos wrote.

And The Enemy is…protesters. Not soldiers for the Nazis but protesters.

An article in the 1998 International Criminal Court Statute says “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against … hospitals and places where the sick and the wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

It comes after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the DHS, U.S. Marshals Service and the city of Portland on behalf of volunteer medics who have been attending to injured protesters.

The lawsuit alleges that federal agents have “brutally attacked” volunteer medics with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, flash bangs and batons in violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights.

But but but graffiti.



He tormented all of his siblings

Jul 24th, 2020 11:21 am | By

Mary Trump was on Fresh Air yesterday.

GROSS: Donald Trump was sent to military school, the New York Military Academy. And this was against his protests. Why was he sent there, and who do you have that information from? Who told you why he was sent there?

TRUMP: My grandmother told me stories. And, you know, I think it was a combination of things. He was a student at a school in Forest Hills that my grandfather was a trustee for. He was on the board of trustees. And Donald’s behavior, as he grew up, became increasingly belligerent and uncontrollable. So I think that was causing some problems. I think my grandfather probably found it, if not embarrassing then inconvenient that one of his children was getting into all sorts of trouble at a school he was associated with.

It’s interesting that Donald was getting more belligerent and uncontrollable in his early teens. He’s had some sixty years of being belligerent and uncontrollable…of being an intrinsically horrible person who does bad things to people and makes them feel bad.

At home – where my grandmother certainly had to deal with Donald more than my grandfather did because he was at work all the time – he was incredibly disrespectful to her. He didn’t listen to her. He was a slob. He tormented – in one way or another, I think he tormented all of his siblings. But certainly, by then, you know, the older kids were out of the house, and Robert was the most frequent target of his bullying.

If only we could send him to military school.

For a time Mary Trump worked as a ghost writer on Donald’s second book. It didn’t work out, partly because he would never sit down with her to do an interview – I guess he expected her to just make it up? It’s what he would have done.

GROSS: He did give you some pages that he had written, which were not exactly germane. Tell us what was on the pages. TRUMP: Yeah. You know, the awful thing is I was so excited because I thought, finally, I’m going to have something to go on. And it just turned out to be about 10 pages, a transcript from a recording he had made, you know, speaking into a microphone. And it was page after page of his ideas about women, you know, his evaluation of them, almost entirely of their physical appearance or their bearing. And most of it was just – it was so dripping with misogyny. I just – it was hard to read. And I never looked at it again and certainly didn’t plan to use any of it.

That’s the guy we know.

GROSS: Donald Trump is so fixated on numbers when he can use it to prove that he’s best. And he’ll sometimes change the numbers or not know what the real numbers are and put that in service of proving that he’s best. And he’s done that with money, overstating how much he has, bragging about test scores, about his cognitive test, about the size of crowds at his inauguration, about the size of crowds at his rallies, his TV ratings – all numbers to prove, like, I am the best. What I do is the best. Was he that way before? Like, did you notice that before he became president?

TRUMP: Oh, yeah. That’s – one thing we can say about Donald is he has been consistently himself for decades. I can’t really think of any way in which he’s evolved or changed from the person he was when he was a teenager. Now, obviously, I wasn’t alive when he was a teenager. But there’s a reason my dad nicknamed him The Great I Am when Donald was 12.

Twelve. Interesting. So that’s at least 62 years of being a known egomaniac.

TRUMP: He meant that, you know, nobody could be as good. Donald was always the best and claimed to be the best at everything and the greatest and et cetera. So yeah, it started very early on. And I believe that, initially, it was just a way to make sure that my grandfather never for one second mistook Donald for being like my dad.

Mary Trump’s father was seen in the family as being weak, a loser, disappointing – in other words not a ruthless conscienceless criminal cheating racist exploiter like Fred and Donald.



An offer of contrition?

Jul 24th, 2020 10:43 am | By

What is contrition, what is apology, what do we mean when we use those words?

Did Ted Yoho apologize and/or “offer contrition” to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for calling her a fucking bitch?

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s outrage over a Republican lawmaker’s verbal assault broadened into an extraordinary moment on the House floor on Thursday as she and other Democrats assailed a sexist culture of “accepting violence and violent language against women” whose adherents include Donald Trump.

A day after rejecting an offer of contrition from Republican congressman Ted Yoho for his language during this week’s Capitol steps confrontation, Ocasio-Cortez and more than a dozen colleagues cast the incident as all-too-common behavior by men, including the president and other Republicans.

An offer of contrition? What offer of contrition? There wasn’t one. Let’s review:

“I rise to apologize for the abrupt manner of the conversation I had with my colleague from New York,” Yoho said Wednesday morning, while also denying that he ever directed profane language toward Ocasio-Cortez.

Yoho, who was emotional during his brief soliloquy Wednesday morning on the House floor, stated, “the offensive name-calling — words attributed to me by the press, were never spoken to my colleague, and if they were construed that way I apologize for their misunderstanding,” before concluding, “I cannot apologize for my passion or for loving my god, my family and my country.” 

That’s not an offer of contrition, or an apology. Apologizing for “the abrupt manner of the conversation” is not apologizing for calling a woman a fucking bitch. Apologizing for other people’s misunderstanding is a minus-apology, an apology-remover.

Also: this is a pattern, and it’s a pattern the sitting president follows.

The remarkable outpouring, with several female lawmakers saying they had routinely encountered such treatment, came in an election year in which polls show women lean decisively against Trump, who has a history of mocking women. Trump was captured in a 2005 tape boasting about physically abusing them, and his disparagement of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has included calling her “crazy”.

And there are mountains more where that came from.

No Republicans spoke. But the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, at a separate appearance defended Yoho, 65, one of his party’s most conservative members and who will retire in January.

“When someone apologizes they should be forgiven,” McCarthy said. He added later: “I just think in a new world, in a new age, we now determine whether we accept when someone says I’m sorry if it’s a good enough apology.”

But he didn’t apologize. Apologizing for “the abrupt manner of the conversation” and not for the “fucking bitch” is not apologizing. Really. If I hit you in the head with a brick and also get mud on your shirt, it’s not an apology if I cite only the mud on the shirt. Yoho does not get to count that petulant whiny belittling irrelevance as an apology and neither does McCarthy. Also it’s not always the case that “when someone apologizes they should be forgiven.” It depends. Say someone kills your family and burns down your house and then says “sorry”; does that make forgiveness mandatory? I think not.



What a “cisgender” woman is allowed to believe

Jul 24th, 2020 9:27 am | By

Our new friend Zack just keeps on giving. Thanks to the vagaries of Twitter I didn’t see this one yesterday, despite clicking on all the view threads and replies I did see.

It’s breathtaking, isn’t it. We impudent women “can,” according to this man, “believe” (stupid credulous creatures that we are) that our biology is “part of” what makes us women – only “part of,” mind you, we’re not allowed to “believe” it’s the whole of it. Also we’re not allowed to “believe” it’s what makes women women, we’re only allowed to believe it of our single selves, “personally.” He misused the “inclusive” their/them, and sowed confusion by doing so – he meant “a cisgender woman can believe her biology is part of what makes her, personally, a woman” – but she is required to believe that other rules apply to other women.

But wait! Not only is it a mere belief, not only is even that a mere part of what makes her a woman in her silly personal belief, but also – she is not allowed to “assert that this is the only way one can be defined as a woman.”

So many rules and limitations and orders in one little tweet, all telling women what a man will allow us to believe and assert.

That takes some fucking brass neck, I must say.

I’m not the only one.

https://twitter.com/radicalhag/status/1286412754031726598

There are a lot of replies like that – aka it’s a dogpile, and we’re told and told and told not to contribute to Twitter dogpiles – but what can we do when a conceited smug man who thinks he knows it all makes assertions about what women can believe, personally, about what makes us women, but cannot assert such beliefs about other women? What can we do when a smug conceited man says all that to a man and entirely ignores all the women who object to his domineering pronouncements about us? When the smug conceited smug man in question is a senior correspondent at Vox? He’s not a random Twitter fella, he’s an opinion-maker, and he won’t even reply to a single one of us.

Yes so when I saw that tweet just now and my hair caught fire I contributed to the dog pile. One more reply for him to ignore.



Why aren’t radio shows asking what a man is?

Jul 23rd, 2020 6:17 pm | By

Right???

Funny how that works.

Notice Beauchamp’s “come on, man” – no pause to ask what is a man, no worries about whether men think having a male body makes men “more legitimately” men – just the bare word itself, taken for granted, as usual, as it always will be.



Selma and Nuremberg

Jul 23rd, 2020 4:34 pm | By

Media historian Aniko Bodroghkozy explains why the march on Selma got so much national attention.

On March 7, 1965, Alabama state troopers beat and gassed John Lewis and hundreds of marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

Most Americans didn’t see the footage on the 6:30 nightly news. Instead, they saw it later Sunday night, which, like today, drew the biggest audiences of the week. That evening, ABC was premiering the first TV airing of “Judgment at Nuremberg.” An estimated 48 million people tuned in to watch the Academy Award-winning film, which dealt with the moral culpability of those who had participated in the Holocaust.

News programs never got those kinds of ratings. But shortly after the movie started, ABC’s news division decided to interrupt the movie with a special report from Selma.

[U]ntil Bloody Sunday, nothing had emerged out of Selma that gripped the nation’s attention. Even the Birmingham images didn’t have quite the immediate impact of those from Selma.

That’s largely because the special report interrupted a prime-time broadcast. But there was also the fact that the footage from Selma thematically complemented “Judgment at Nuremberg.”

Now that’s interesting. Perhaps people thought “Are we being like the Germans who did nothing? Should we be doing something?”

“I have just witnessed on television the new sequel to Adolf Hitler’s brown shirts,” one anguished young Alabamian from Auburn wrote to The Birmingham News. “They were George Wallace’s blue shirts. The scene in Alabama looked like scenes on old newsreels of Germany in the 1930s.”

In the ensuing days, hundreds of Americans jumped into planes, buses and automobiles to get to Selma and stand with the brutalized marchers. The landmark Voting Rights Act passed with remarkable speed, just five months after Bloody Sunday.

And the Supreme Court cut its head off in 2013.

In 2013, the Supreme Court eviscerated a key provision of the VRA. Section 5 of the law required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain approval before changing voting rules. This process, known as “preclearance,” blocked discrimination before it occurred. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court invalidated Section 4 — which determines the states and localities covered by Section 5 — ruling Congress must pass a new formula to determine which states and localities would be subject to “preclearance.” The ruling had the effect of eliminating preclearance, ushering in a wave of efforts in states previously covered under Section 5 to restrict voting rights.

I guess the Nuremberg effect fades after a few decades.



Crowding us out

Jul 23rd, 2020 1:46 pm | By

This Zack Beauchamp guy – he’s a senior correspondent at Vox. He wrote a long piece on the Harper’s letter and cancel culture and all that. In that context he talked about The Trans Question – aka won’t someone please think of the trans ladies.

Kate Manne and Jason Stanley, philosophers at Cornell and Yale, respectively, put the point nicely in an essay on the free speech debate in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Kate Manne and Jason Stanley are both very hostile to feminist women who say that women are women and men are not.

“When oppressed people speak out — and up, toward those in power — their right to speak may be granted, yet their capacity to know of what they speak doubted as the result of ingrained prejudice. And the way in which they express themselves is often then made the focus of the discussion,” they write. “So it is not just that these people have to raise their voices in order to be audible; it’s also that, when their tone becomes the issue, their speech is essentially being heard as mere noise, disruption, commotion. Their freedom of speech is radically undercut by what is aptly known as ‘tone policing.’”

Zack Beauchamp comments:

We saw this at work in the backlash to the Harper’s letter. Much of the controversy surrounded the decision to include a signature from J.K. Rowling, who has emerged as one of the most visible anti-trans figures in our culture. Rowling sees the backlash to her statements about trans people as a threat to her right to free expression; “as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech,” as she put it.

Already we’re in the muck. Rowling is not “anti-trans.” Disputing a new (and stupid) ideology that claims

1. men are women if they say they are and

2. it’s phobic and right-wing and evil to say that’s nonsensical

is labeled “anti-trans” or “transphobic” or TERF bigotry or all those. But the claim is nonsensical and it shouldn’t be framed as evil or murderous or violent to say so…but Zack Beauchamp does just that by labeling Rowling “anti-trans.”

But for a lot of trans writers and thinkers, having to constantly debate Rowling’s position— that the movement for trans equality is a threat to the safety and status of cisgender women — is a mechanism for excluding them from public discourse.

Hello Mr Beauchamp. I’m a woman. Are you aware that women are often excluded from public discourse? And have been as far back as we have any records? Does it occur to you at all, ever, that passionately defending men who say they are women, while slandering women who say that men are not women, is also a mechanism for excluding them – women – from public discourse? Does it occur to you at all, ever, that it’s not actually your place to be telling women that we’re just a fraction of the category women and that we have to “include” men in that category if they tell us to? Does it occur to you that you yourself are “punching down” by doing that? Because it sure as fuck occurs to us.

It is so hurtful to be told you aren’t “really” a woman or a man, to subject yourself to the public abuse and threats that inevitably follow when debating anti-trans voices, that the psychological cost effectively forces trans thinkers to self-censor.

How hurtful is “so” hurtful? How do you know? How do you measure it? Do you ever wonder how “hurtful” it is for women to be told to shut up and move over to make room for men who say they are women? Do you think about women (as thinking beings like you) at all?

Contrary to the notion that worries about safety are absurd, LGBTQ writers and writers of color commonly do experience threats of violence for participating in public debate.

You know who else experiences that? Women. We experience it a lot.

Allowing Rowling to speculate about which women should really “count,” in their view, contributes to crowding them out of the public sphere.

It’s not speculation though, it’s just material reality. And what about the way they – and you, by writing dreck like this – contribute to crowding us out of the public sphere?

[T]here are precious few trans people in positions of power and influence, and treating Rowling’s view as an odious-but-worth-debating view makes it less likely that trans people feel comfortable existing in the public eye. Why should trans people have to treat anti-trans voices as legitimate argumentative partners when no one would, for instance, expect a Jewish writer (like me) to debate a neo-Nazi?

But trans people are not equivalent to Jews, or to black people, or to the working class, or to immigrants, or to refugees, or to women. Also, women who refuse to agree that men are women if they say they are are not equivalent to neo-Nazis. Not even close.

I’m so sick of these smug shits.



Person, woman, man

Jul 23rd, 2020 10:50 am | By

Ummm

Donald Trump, the president of the United States, has insisted that a cognitive test he took recently was “difficult”, using the example of a question in which the patient is asked to remember and repeat five words.

“Person, woman, man, camera, TV,” Trump explained, saying that listing the words in order was worth “extra points”, and that he found the task easy.

He said it to a man-person standing in front of him, facing a camera for a tv shoot. I don’t know if there was a woman within view – he may have come up with that one all by himself. “Man” and “person” are pretty broad hints though.

“They said nobody gets it in order, it’s actually not that easy. But for me it was easy. And that’s not an easy question,” he told Fox News medical analyst and New York University professor of medicine Marc K Siegel.

Um. Yes it is. Even if you can’t see any of the five words it’s an easy question. It’s a dementia test, not a college entrance exam.

But for the full effect you have to watch the clip. Oh god oh god oh god.

Especially the part toward the end where he says they gotta test Joebiden, they gotta, he’s gotta deal with RUSSHA, there’s something going on there.

Trump went on to explain the test, saying that after several questions, the doctor returned to the list of words, asking Trump to repeat them. “And you go, ‘person, woman, man, camera, TV.’ They say, ‘That’s amazing. How did you do that?’ ‘I do it because I have like a good memory? Because I’m cognitively there.’”

They don’t. They don’t say that. They don’t say “that’s amazing.” They don’t say that because it’s not amazing. And that’s for a real test, not one that names 5 (or 4) items a few inches in front of Trump’s face. It’s not amazing to be able to recall 5 words. It’s neutral. The inability to do so is a sign of impairment.

Also, Trump hesitated even over the list of things in front of his face.

NOW can we invoke the 25th????



Retaliatory

Jul 23rd, 2020 10:01 am | By

New development! Michael Cohen ordered released from prison.

A judge ordered the release from prison of President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer on Thursday, saying he believes the government retaliated against him for planning to release a book about Trump before November’s election.

Michael Cohen’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was ordered back to prison on July 9 after probation authorities said he refused to sign a form banning him from publishing the book or communicating publicly in other manners, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said during a telephone conference.

The judge ordered him released by tomorrow afternoon.

“How can I take any other inference than that it’s retaliatory?” Hellerstein asked prosecutors, who insisted in court papers and again Thursday that Probation Department officers did not know about the book when they wrote a provision of home confinement that severely restricted Cohen’s public communications.

“I’ve never seen such a clause in 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people and looking at terms of supervised release,” the judge said. “Why would the Bureau of Prisons ask for something like this … unless there was a retaliatory purpose?”

Oh so it’s not routine. I vaguely assumed it was, or might be.

His attorney, Danya Perry, said in a statement that the order was “a victory for the First Amendment” and showed that the government cannot block a book critical of the president as a condition of release to home confinement.

Also a victory for the whole idea that we need all the information about Trump’s crimes, because of the position he holds, which gives him the power to drag the country into a sewer of corruption and mass death.



What he thinks is bigotry

Jul 23rd, 2020 9:47 am | By

Dude explains that it’s bigotry for women to think that women are people with female bodies.

What a good thing it’s up to Zack Beauchamp to decide. We women are too stupid and too bigoted to decide or understand what women are.