Just stick it back in the right way

Nov 29th, 2019 12:57 pm | By

Way back last May:

An Ohio state representative introduced a new bill last month, which aims to prohibit insurance coverage of abortions that occur where the mother’s life is not “endangered if the fetus were carried to term.” The bill includes exceptions, including one for a procedure that does not exist.

GOP Rep. John Becker introduced House Bill 182, which allows for two situations where insurers could offer coverage for abortion services. One is a “procedure, in an emergency situation, that is medically necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life.”

The other, the bill says, is a procedure for an ectopic pregnancy, “that is intended to reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman’s uterus.”

Which can’t be done.

“An ectopic pregnancy cannot move or be moved to the uterus, so it always requires treatment,” according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Ohio is no stranger to anti-abortion legislation. In April, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed the state’s “heartbeat” bill, an abortion ban that would prohibit the procedure about five to six weeks into a pregnancy, before most women know that they’re pregnant. The law is slated to go into effect on July 10.

This is some of that cis privilege we hear so much about, isn’t it.



Her stern, clear warnings

Nov 29th, 2019 12:18 pm | By

Naomi Wolf is an interesting case study. Here I was thinking she had learned from the drastic mistake she made in her book and the fact that it was pointed out to her in a BBC interview. But just three days ago she tweeted

This clip shows @BBC editing of audience laughter at Boris Johnson. My own @BBC
interview was edited to cut my stern, clear warnings to host that he was mistaken to state as a fact that men executed for sodomy in 19th c were mostly molesters, rapists.

Was that before the host pointed out her mistakes, or after?

It’s all the stranger that she’s so boastful of her stern, clear warnings when it’s only been a month since the news that her book is so full of mistakes that the US publisher canceled it.

The US edition of Oxford-educated author Naomi Wolf’s new book Outrages is being pulped after a number of major errors were discovered.

Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalisation of Love is based on a PhD thesis that Wolf wrote in 2015, in which she claimed to have found examples of “several dozen executions” of men convicted of sodomy in Britain.

But, oops, she hadn’t found that at all, she had simply misunderstood the meaning of the phrase “death recorded” in the records.

Wolf came upon the phrase “Death recorded” in Old Bailey records, and cited one case of Thomas Silver, “aged 14”, who was “actually executed for committing sodomy” in 1859.

“The boy was indicted for an unnatural offence. GUILTY – Death recorded,” she wrote, inferring that an execution took place.

However, in an embarrassing interview with BBC radio host Matthew Sweet – himself an author – which took place in May, it was pointed out that Wolf had, perhaps understandably misinterpreted the term “Death recorded” to mean executed, when in fact it means the opposite: that the judge abstained from pronouncing the death sentence and the prisoner was pardoned.

But now she’s back, and not just back but bragging on Twitter about how she told that very same Matthew Sweet what’s what in that very interview?

Matthew Sweet is not impressed.

Oh dear. Here we go again. With the usual apologies. No such statement was made, as we were discussing post-1835 executions for sodomy in England. Contrary to the emphatic argument of @Outragesbook, no such executions occurred.

Here we go again after her US publisher recalled the book from shops and pulped it. What is she smoking?!

Sweet suggests she make an official complaint:

If Dr Wolf has a genuine complaint to make about editorial standards on @BBCFreeThinking, she – or perhaps her own editors at @ViragoBooks – could make it directly to the programme, and if that fails to satisfy, to take it up with @Ofcom.

As ever, I look forward to the corrected edition of @Outragesbook. And the revised version of her @UniofOxford DPhil. I will be interested to see if Dr Wolf has found any evidence that the Victorian cases upon which she builds her argument involved consensual sex.

Is Naomi Wolf Trump’s cousin or something?



Another bridge

Nov 29th, 2019 11:05 am | By

The BBC reports:

Two members of the public have died after a stabbing attack at London Bridge, in which police also shot dead the suspect.

The Met Police has declared the attack a terrorist incident.

The suspect, who died at the scene, was believed to have been wearing a hoax explosive device, police said.

Videos on social media appear to show passers-by holding down a man. An officer arrives, seems to indicate to the group to move, and fires a shot.

Because of the apparent explosive device, I guess.

The challenge for police and security services is that low-tech attacks – involving knives or vehicles – and often carried out by lone actors can be hard to spot in advance since they involve relatively little preparation and communication.

Little or indeed none. Lone actors don’t need to communicate.

But in the wake of previous incidents in both the UK and other countries, police have been prepared for this kind of incident and seem to have been fast to intervene, taking few chances, although members of the public were also involved in restraining the individual.

And what’s the goal? Probably the same as Putin’s – disruption.



Unscientific Scientific American

Nov 28th, 2019 11:58 am | By

The Scientific American blog has a shockingly bad – and anti-science – post by Jennifer Block attacking Jen Gunter for disrespecting The Anecdote.

Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop brand is annoying, unattainable and overpriced, for sure. But Goop does more than just annoy. It incites an interesting rage among medical professionals in particular, most prominently Jen Gunter. An ob-gyn and the author of The Vagina Bible (also a New York Times contributor, prolific Twitterer, TV show host and soon-to-be podcaster), Gunter wrote an open letter to Paltrow in 2017 and hasn’t stopped harping on her since. Gunter points to Paltrow as emblematic of the “wellness industrial complex” that is not only exploiting gullible women with snake oil but threatening their health. At a recent event in Toronto, Gunter went so far as to call Paltrow “a predator.”

Goop does indeed do more than just annoy: it promotes products and practices that are useless and/or dangerous to gullible people, especially women. It does harm. It’s not just some expensive irritation, it’s a source of harm. Why should Gunter stop “harping” on Goop? It’s fraudulent, profitable, popular, and dangerous – Gunter performs a service by “harping” on it. What Paltrow does is indeed predatory, whether she admits that to herself or not.

Block concedes that Gunter has “considerable feminist cred” but then gets to her real objection.

But as Gunter tours the continent promoting her book and other media ventures, she’s also been calling out Our Bodies, Ourselves for spreading “misinformation,” because it was originally written in the 1970s and not by doctors. In a letter to Gunter, the board of directors (it is now a nonprofit) defended its more current editions, which have been continually updated and vetted by “dozens of physicians and researchers.”

What Block doesn’t say, what we don’t learn unless we read the tiny blurb under her name at the end of the post, is that “she was among dozens of editors of the 2005 edition of Our Bodies, Ourselves.” That should be in that paragraph, right after she mentions the book.

Gunter was a child in the 1970s, but surely she has read some history. A book written for women by women—and not by doctors—was the whole radical point. The feminist health movement challenged what was then an extremely male-dominated, misogynist, paternalistic and not very evidence-based establishment. It disrupted the whole notion of expertise, or what scholars call “authoritative knowledge”…

The point may be “radical” but that doesn’t make it not stupid. Disrupt male-domination and misogyny all day long, but expertise? No. Fake expertise, deluded expertise, mistake-riddled expertise, yes, but expertise as such, fuck no. That kind of thinking is how we end up with Donald Trump squatting in the White House and Gwyneth Paltrow telling women to stick porous rocks up their vaginas.

In attacking the feminist health bible, Gunter tips her hand. What irks her isn’t actually the manipulative capitalism of Goop, but really anything that undermines her authority as a physician: Jade eggs and vaginal steaming and home remedies like yogurt or garlic to balance vaginal flora cannot possibly be beneficial because the medical establishment, the authorities, have not researched or endorsed them as such.

But that’s not why, not by itself. Block’s “because” there is just bullshit. Gunter explains why jade eggs and vaginal steaming and “home remedies like yogurt or garlic to balance vaginal flora” are bad and harmful.

Because if we dismiss everything that isn’t patented or presciption-only, we dismiss people’s lived experiences.

Ah the famous and inviolable “lived experience” – which I suppose means an experience of thinking vaginal eggs are a good idea because that nice Gwyneth Paltrow said so? So much more lived and experiencey than knowledge of chemistry.

Gunter goes so far out of her way to debunk yogurt, in fact, that she misses credible research suggesting that it might be beneficial. No, it hasn’t been rigorously studied in large randomized clinical trials. But in every edition since the 1972 original, Our Bodies, Ourselves has cautiously reported some version of “some of us have had success.” There’s nothing scandalous or unscientific or pseudoscientific about that statement.

Uh……..other than everything? Other than the fact that, as at least one person on Twitter shouted, that’s the definition of unscientific?

On her CBC show (unironically titled Jensplaining), Gunter channels Wonder Woman to wield her lasso of truth to separate “myth from medicine.”

Unironically? Unironically? How could it be anything but ironically? It’s not as if jensplain is a literal verb.

Some Twitter commentary:

  • “I want to stick foreign objects and substances in my vagina without a doctor telling me not to” is a weird hill to die on. Seriously though, as a microbiologist, please don’t mess with your vaginal microbiome by putting yogurt and rocks in your vagina.
  • Ah yes, the classic “anyone who requires evidence is bad” argument. Glad to hear anti-intellectualism is [alive] and well, and the arguments against science are as contrived as ever. @DrJenGunter is better at this writing thing than you are.
  • So, women can’t be experts on women’s health? Even if a woman spends years training and then helping other women she can’t claim her own expertise because that’s “patriarchal”? I’m confused.

I guess it’s unwomanly to get an actual degree in medicine. Real women just consult their lived experiences.



Why can’t people

Nov 28th, 2019 10:17 am | By

A man tweets:

The replies in this posts just proves why LGBT people don’t feel welcome in sport. Such a horrid place our country is becoming. Why can’t people accept others for who they are. Trans women are women and trans men are men

Why indeed? Why can’t people accept men who dislike the gender rules that apply to men for who they are, which is men who dislike the gender rules that apply to men?

In other words, this “for who they are” crap is not necessarily a weapon only against Team Gender Critical. Which is more unreasonable: to think that men who like to simper and pout are still men? Or to think that men who like to simper and pout are in fact women despite that whole male body thing?

I think a better way to “accept others for who they are” is to do just that, rather than to laboriously re-name and re-categorize people who fail to conform to the baroque Rules for their respective sexes.

What the man asking the question meant was actually “Why can’t people accept others for who they say they are,” but perhaps he realized the answers to that are too obvious. (Example: why can’t we accept that Trump has a hard sculpted body when he shows us a photoshop of his head on a hard sculpted body?)



Very little understanding

Nov 28th, 2019 9:52 am | By

The Guardian reports:

Richard Spencer, who was fired as Navy secretary for his handling of a Navy Seal war crimes case championed by Donald Trump, has said the president “has very little understanding” of how the US military works.

Coincidence! Trump has very little understanding of anything else, too.

The extraordinary accusation came in an opinion piece published by the Washington Post on Wednesday evening, three days after Spencer was fired. Spencer called Trump’s intervention in the case of Navy chief petty officer Edward Gallagher “shocking” and unprecedented.

Spencer said Trump had involved himself in the Gallagher case “almost from the start”, telephoning Spencer even before the Seal’s court martial started to ask that Gallagher be moved out of confinement at a Navy brig.

Spencer said he resisted because the presiding judge decided confinement was important. Trump ordered Spencer to transfer Gallagher to the equivalent of an enlisted barracks.

Spencer said he believes Trump’s interest stemmed partly from the way Gallagher’s defense lawyers and others “worked to keep it front and center in the media”.

Shiny. Shiny thing. Must pay attention to shiny thing.

After Gallagher was acquitted of most charges but convicted of posing with the corpse of an Islamic State fighter in Iraq, he submitted a request to retire. In Spencer’s telling, that raised three questions for the Navy, including whether Gallagher should be allowed to retire at his current rank. The military jury had said he should be demoted.

But Trump barged in and said oh no you don’t.

“This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review,” Spencer wrote. “It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.”

“Very little” is a euphemism for “zero.”

Also, saying Trump has zero understanding of what it means to fight ethically does a lot to sum him up. He has zero conscience or moral compass or sense that there is such a thing as acting “ethically” in any context at all. He’s psychopathic-level empty of all that.



Peak pedantry

Nov 28th, 2019 8:59 am | By
Peak pedantry

Sally Hines, Gender Studies Academic (as she says in her own Twitter profile), has gender studies academic thoughts on the Guardian’s social experiment the other day. “Wozzat?” you wonder? The Guardian is running a blind date series, apparently – it sets up blind dates and hilarity ensues, or something. A few days ago it set one up between a lesbian and a trans woman without telling the lesbian that her date was a trans woman. Some gender critical feminists consider this a not very nice thing to do, for several blindingly obvious reasons. Sally Hines offered some gender studies academic analysis of their view.

Capture

So, the Guardian blind date thing… You’re proper mad. You lot. Simply bonkers. Just lost it. Fuck pig, fucking, crazy.

Sometimes the academic jargon is just way over my head.



Conflicting information

Nov 27th, 2019 5:48 pm | By

Oh interesting. Can you say “two sets of books”? Pro Publica tells the tale:

Donald Trump’s business reported conflicting information about a key metric to New York City property tax officials and a lender who arranged financing for his signature building, Trump Tower in Manhattan, according to tax and loan documents obtained by ProPublica. The findings add a third major Trump property to two for which ProPublica revealed similar discrepancies last month.

In the latest case, the occupancy rate of the Trump Tower’s commercial space was listed, over three consecutive years, as 11, 16 and 16 percentage points higher in filings to a lender than in reports to city tax officials, records show.

I’m sure it’s just coincidence that higher numbers are good to show lenders while lower numbers are good to show the tax people.

For example, as of December 2011 and June 2012, respectively, Trump’s business told the lender that 99% and 98.7% of the tower’s commercial space was occupied, according to a prospectus for the loan. The figures were taken from “borrower financials,” the prospectus stated.

In tax filings, however, Trump’s business said the building’s occupancy was 83% in January 2012 and the same a year later. The 16 percentage point gap between the loan and tax filings is a “very significant difference,” said Susan Mancuso, an attorney who specializes in New York property tax.

And Trump is a very significant liar and fraud.

More than a dozen tax and finance experts, presented with ProPublica’s earlier findings, also said they could not decipher a reason for the differences. As with Trump Tower, the discrepancies made the two properties — a skyscraper located at 40 Wall Street and the Trump International Hotel and Tower near Columbus Circle — appear more profitable to the lender and less so to property tax officials.

Those discrepancies were “versions of fraud,” according to Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. The penalties for false filings can include fines or criminal charges.

But then Trump will put on his boxing pants and punch them all.



Stuffing the ballot box

Nov 27th, 2019 12:55 pm | By
Stuffing the ballot box

And the thing about the BC NDP formerly Women’s Committee’s deletion of all those dissenting comments is not just that it silences those comments but also that what’s left looks like ecstatic and universal approval.

Capture

Capture

Capture

They were thrown out to improve the averages.



For other folks for whom gender

Nov 27th, 2019 12:06 pm | By

Meghan Murphy on the NDP Women’s Committee’s suicide and the usurpers’ efforts to shut up the women who object:

The BC NDP Women’s Rights Committee deleted their initial post celebrating their decision to make the group inclusive of men, claiming the push back from women was “hateful” and that the comments were coming from “right wing trolls,” when in fact they were from feminist, left wing women who were not hateful at all, but simply angry. The lack of accountability and integrity is astounding. At what point will the BC NDP take women seriously?! The party is losing votes and losing women. One would think they would care…

Facebook, by the way, appears to be hiding Meghan’s post. I couldn’t find it by going to her wall, I had to Google it. Shut up, women!

Image may contain: text

What a strange and brainless thing to be proud of – changing a women’s committee into a committee for everyone. (Everyone? Yes. “Folks for whom gender has been cause of their discrimination and lack of safety” is woolly and sloppy and dopy enough to apply to literally everyone.) Women are still a subordinated subset of the population and thus still need to gather and organize as that subset. No one should be telling women to help other subordinated subsets at the expense of retaining their own groups and committees, especially since this expectation and demand that women put aside their own concerns to take care of others is one of the pillars of that very subordination.

The comments on Meghan’s post are all about commenting on the BC NDP Women’s Committee post and seeing the comments instantly removed. Shut up women!

But they’re telling themselves all the dissenting comments are from trolls south of the border.

Image may contain: text



Rocks in the head

Nov 27th, 2019 11:09 am | By

He actually tweeted this. No words, just the photoshop.

Image

Reality:

Image may contain: one or more people

 



Iss woss in yer harrt

Nov 27th, 2019 11:02 am | By

Wizzzdom.

Image may contain: text

Women are women regardless of sex, just as chairs are umbrellas regardless of structure.

You can be both or a mix of the two…all you have to do is dye your hair on one side. Presto! You are now both woman and man. Or you can get a Mohawk and become neither woman nor man. Isn’t life fascinating?!



Mai pronouns arrrrrrrrre

Nov 27th, 2019 10:11 am | By

Oh ACLU

Some of our personal favorite Thanksgiving conversation starters:

💬 “My pronouns are…”

💬 “Firing people for being LGBTQ is illegal and Trump asked SCOTUS to change that”

💬 “Who loved Pose season 2?”

💬 “Please pass the pie, and the Equality Act”

I think Chase Strangio meant conversation enders.



2,686 measles cases have been reported since the outbreak

Nov 27th, 2019 9:57 am | By

News from Samoa:

The death toll from the measles epidemic in Samoa has reached 33 as of Wednesday and infection rates continue to rise.

Of those who have died, 29 are children under the age of 4 years old.

Despite mass immunisation efforts, the Government of Samoa confirmed 249 more cases had been recorded in the past 24 hours, bringing the total to 2686 on Wednesday.

Government of Samoa tweets:

Latest update: 2,686 measles cases have been reported since the outbreak with 249 recorded in the last 24 hours. To date, 33 measles related deaths have been recorded. Since the Mass Vaccination Campaign on 20 Nov 2019, the Ministry has successfully vaccinated 33,085 individuals.

View image on Twitter



Happy pumpkins

Nov 27th, 2019 9:35 am | By

Trump will save us all from the treacherous war on the word…”Thanksgiving”?

Conservative media and some Republicans have for years claimed that Christmas is under attack, turning some people’s decision to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” during the month of December into a culture war touchstone to try to spark outrage on the right. Trump has embraced the “war on Christmas” narrative, and now he’s taking it a step further: he’s claiming liberals are out to get Thanksgiving, too.

At a rally in Florida on Tuesday, the president confoundingly reassured supporters that he wouldn’t let the “radical left” change Thanksgiving’s name. “As we gather for Thanksgiving, you know, some people want to change the name Thanksgiving. They don’t want to use the term Thanksgiving,” Trump said. He later continued: “People have different ideas why it shouldn’t be called Thanksgiving, but everybody in this room, I know, loves the name Thanksgiving. And we’re not changing.”

Personally, I think it should be named Pizzahut, but a much larger faction prefers Route 518.

I suppose what the confused belligerent fool is “thinking” of is the fact that the holiday celebrates the moderate success of a group of people who set up camp without invitation on the coast of what is now called Massachusetts, and that some of us are rude enough to point out that there were already people there and they weren’t consulted.

The president has leaned into culture wars often throughout his tenure, aware that it’s a way to rally his base and sow division. Declaring out of the blue that there’s a movement on the left to change the name of Thanksgiving is another example of that. But the episode also highlights the president’s dismissiveness of issues with some real cultural and social weight. While Thanksgiving’s name isn’t particularly controversial, its history is.

But that’s the problem, you see – it’s political correctness run mad. Why shouldn’t people bounce into other people’s neighborhoods without an invitation? Unless of course they’re from Mexico or points south – then it’s a whole different ball game.

Pass the guacamole.



Timing is everything

Nov 26th, 2019 5:27 pm | By

What did the Trump know and when did he know it? The Times says before he unfroze the aid to Ukraine. Oops.

President Trump had already been briefed on a whistle-blower’s complaint about his dealings with Ukraine when he unfroze military aid for the country in September, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Lawyers from the White House counsel’s office told Mr. Trump in late August about the complaint, explaining that they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to Congress, the people said.

Here’s a detail I didn’t know:

The whistle-blower complaint, which would typically be submitted to lawmakers who have oversight of the intelligence agencies, first came to light as the subject of an administration tug of war. In late August, the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, concluded that the administration needed to send it to Congress.

But the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, and his deputy John A. Eisenberg disagreed. They decided that the administration could withhold from Congress the whistle-blower’s accusations because they were protected by executive privilege. The lawyers told Mr. Trump they planned to ask the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether they had to disclose the complaint to lawmakers.

If the executive branch doesn’t have to turn whistleblower complaints over to Congress then what does the term even mean?  What’s the point of making a complaint that will just be thrown in the garbage?

A week later, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the administration did not have to hand over the complaint.

No problem; just do whatever you want; there are no rules, no laws, no limits.

There’s a little vignette of life under Trump:

Only days after the president learned of the whistle-blower complaint, he spoke with Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, about the aid holdup. Mr. Johnson sought permission to tell Mr. Zelensky at an upcoming meeting in Ukraine that Mr. Trump had decided to release the security assistance, according to Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Trump replied that he was not ready, Mr. Johnson said. He said he asked later on the call whether the aid was linked to some action that the president wanted the Ukrainians to take.

“Without hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed,” Mr. Johnson wrote in a letter this month to House Republicans.

Mr. Trump erupted in anger and began cursing, he wrote.

“‘No way,’” Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Johnson. “‘I would never do that. Who told you that?’”

Touchy, are we?



Why wasn’t it done a long time ago?

Nov 26th, 2019 4:20 pm | By

More of Today in How Dense is Donald Trump?: he doesn’t understand chronology.

Yesterday, it happened again, when Trump signed the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act, which directs the Treasury to issue a commemorative coin to honor the 100th anniversary of American women getting the right to vote. After signing the measure – which passed both the House and Senate unanimously – the president decided to take a moment to reflect on what he considered important: his own awesomeness.

“I am curious why wasn’t it done a long time ago and also, well, I guess the answer to that is because now I am president and we get things done.

“We get a lot of things done that nobody else got done.”

Well, if Trump is “curious” why other presidents didn’t sign the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act, I can help. In this country, the women’s suffrage movement led to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1919, and its ratification in 1920.

No one tried to honor the centennial of this because – and this is important – centennials mark the hundredth anniversary of things. In order to recognize the centennial of something that happened in 1920, we had to wait until around 2020, because that’s how time works.

It’s how dating works, at least. We weren’t allowed to celebrate the centennial ten years ago, or fourteen, or eighty-seven. The Academy is strict about that kind of thing.



5°C in decades?

Nov 26th, 2019 11:25 am | By
5°C in decades?

Kevin Drum says the world has given up on climate change. He starts with a table from the Financial Times:

Capture

Europe is pulling back from clean energy research. India and Brazil barely have any to begin with. The United state is flat at about $50 billion—maybe a tenth of what we should spending. And China, after a decade of research, has decided to double down on coal and slash its clean energy R&D. Only Southeast Asia is still increasing its green energy research, perhaps because they have a more visceral fear of climate change then the rest of us. When you announce that you’re moving your capital from Jakarta to an entirely new island because Jakarta is sinking…

…it drives it home rather.

This is a disaster. Given (1) the consistent global refusal to cut back on energy usage and (2) the fact that building out current technology (mostly wind and solar) will only get us halfway to zero carbon, our only hope lies in better technology. Without that, 2°C is already in the rear-view mirror and even 3°C is all but impossible to achieve. We’re looking instead at a world that will warm by 4°C or even 5°C during the second half of the century. This is not a world you want your grandchildren to live in.



Has anyone lifted the lid?

Nov 26th, 2019 11:01 am | By

Trump explained his administration’s subtle, carefully considered policy on China and Hong Kong this morning:

After signing an executive order establishing a task force on missing and murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives, Trump was asked by a reporter about the protests in Hong Kong as he continues to negotatiate a potential trade deal with China.

“It’s going very well, but at the same time we want to see it go well in Hong Kong, and I think it will,” Trump said. “I think that President Xi [Jinping] can make that happen and I know him and I know we’d like to make it happen.”

Ahhh good; that’s impressive. I’m relieved to know they’re taking it so seriously and being so thoughtful.

No but seriously. This is total cognitive failure. It’s baby words taken from the tiny basket of baby words, for saying when somebody asks a hard question about a substantive issue. Go well, see it go well, think will go well. Nice Chynah man can make happen, my frend, can make happen. Will go well. Is going well, want to go well, will go well, think will go well. Can make happen, like make happen, will happen make.

He’s drawing on a tiny shrunken vocabulary and just repeating the one ghostly emaciated “idea” over and over and over. “They ask me about Hong Kong. Must say all will be good. Say that. Say that again. Say knowing Xi, big import man, proud be frend, say about him me. Say will good be.”

Why do we not have any system in place for when a president’s brain has mostly evaporated?



“Comply” and “obstruct” are synonyms

Nov 26th, 2019 10:44 am | By

Pompeo says we’re totally complying.

Julian Borger:

Pompeo on Ukraine inquiry: “We will continue to comply …so that appropriate oversight can be conducted.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee:

.@SecPompeo and the @StateDept have turned over zero documents required by a duly authorized congressional subpoena.

Zero.

That’s not compliance. It’s obstruction.

Oh, right, obstruction. We always get those two words mixed up.