We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, September 17. 2018
Bay Area March for Science: Revenge of the Nerds
Mastectomies On Teen “Transgender” Girls
Lehman anniversary: The five most surprising consequences
Indulging High Schoolers' Anxiety
Public speaking is a basic life skill
Black students demand segregated spaces from white students
Student council members: Ice cream is not 'inclusive' enough
A word to the wise: Overthrow your tech overlords while you still can
Is It Time to Regulate Social Media?
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admits conservative staffers 'don't feel safe to express their opinions' at liberal tech giant
The European Union Would Love to Control Your Internet Use
Universal Savings Accounts a Silver Lining in Tax Reform
True Blue Liberal California Now Leads The Nation In Poverty
Rahm Emanuel’s failure is an ill omen for all Democrats
BOB WOODWARD LOOKED FOR RUSSIA COLLUSION FOR 2 YEARS, FOUND NOTHING
Joe diGenova: Comey, McCabe, and Strzok Are 'Going Down' Over FISA Warrant Abuses
Never mind Paul Manafort, the Mueller inquiry is the biggest scandal in US history
Joe Biden on Trump Supporters: ‘The Dregs Of Society’
Les Deplorables again
What happens when Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaves the Supreme Court?
Wait, That Allegation Sat on Dianne Feinstein’s Desk Since Late July?
Democrats Want Their Pound of Kavanaugh Flesh
It is war
As we say, the minimum wage is zero
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
It is war. And the Republicans will lose, because that's what they do.
I agree with DiGenova, if the Republicans fail to confirm Kavanaugh, they will lose the Senate this fall.
"Comey, McCabe, and Strzok"
That's not enough, the rot goes much deeper. But then to pull it all out might mean killing the patient.
What do we think the headlines and discussions would be if Donald Trump - or any Republican - called any collection of Democrats "The Dregs of Society?"
Hateful of me to say that, I know. It just shows how it's people like me who are dividing this country.
"Deplorables" . . . "Dregs of Society" . . . We are being dehumanized from the top of the Democratic Party. They set the tone and example for their followers.
“It is they not you who have allies in the White House.”
Funny, I could’ve sworn that it’s the Democrats who support fundamentalist Islam. Can somebody give me an example of when Republicans threw gay people off rooftops?
BOB WOODWARD LOOKED FOR RUSSIA COLLUSION FOR 2 YEARS, FOUND NOTHING
Woodward says that to get to the bottom of Russian meddling in 2016 you may have to go to Moscow. And if he went to Moscow looking for the answers, he would probably never return. Of course, Mueller has resources unavailable to Woodward.
Aggie: Glad to see you agree he found nothing.
Sure, but as good a reporter as Woodward might be, he can't compel testimony, nor imprison those who lie to him. We do know that Trump Jr. wanted to collude with Russia, saying he would love to accept help for the campaign from the Russian government, even suggesting the timing of the release of information damaging to Clinton.
Mueller can compel testimony though and he doesn't seem to have found anything either. The only indictments he's charged having anything to do with the election is to a bunch of Russians who will never stand trial. Except, that is, the ones who want to go to trial but Mueller strangely decided it wasn't the right time after his defendants wanted to see the evidence.
I find it amusing that you keep beating this collusion drum about Trum Jr.'s willingness to get dirt on Hillary from a Russian lawyer who came to him after Hillary and the DNC paid millions of dollars for lies about Trump from Russians.
mudbug: Mueller can compel testimony though and he doesn't seem to have found anything either.
And you know this how?
In any case, Mueller has guilty pleas from Trump's campaign manager, Trump's personal attorney, Trump's National Security Advisor, and others. All of these include significant contacts with Russian agents.
mudbug: The only indictments he's charged having anything to do with the election is to a bunch of Russians who will never stand trial. Except, that is, the ones who want to go to trial but Mueller strangely decided it wasn't the right time after his defendants wanted to see the evidence.
It was not Mueller's decision, but that of the court overseeing the case. The court said that federal prosecutors gave “ample good cause” that identifying sources would jeopardize ongoing investigations, undermine efforts to protect the electoral process, and the sources themselves. The court determined it is not necessary to divulge the information at this point in the process, but the issue could be revisited once a trial date is set. That decision is subject to appeal to a higher court. Good luck with that.
mudbug: I find it amusing that you keep beating this collusion drum about Trum Jr.'s willingness to get dirt on Hillary from a Russian lawyer who came to him after Hillary and the DNC paid millions of dollars for lies about Trump from Russians.
Clinton's campaign paid for opposition research, and any information coming from Russia was derived from unofficial sources that had proven to be reliable in the past, including an investigation that unraveled a Russian government conspiracy concerning doping in sports, certainly not something of which the Russian government approved.
Trump Jr. was told that the information was being provided as part of the Russian government's effort to help Trump's campaign, which is illegal on its face.
To repeat - no indictments have been passed that involve any complicity with Russians. The only indictments - other than for Russians and those don't allege collusion with the Trump campaign - that have been passed that are related to the campaign are those of lying to the FBI.
WRT the Concord Management indictment - Mueller indicted them expecting them not to go to court. When they demanded discovery, Mueller said the information was sensitive because Concord was still engaged in the behavior. The fact remains that a prosecutor would only indict a defendant if they are ready to go to trial - unless they are sure the defendant would not stand trial.
Clinton and the DNC listed the payments to Perkins Coie as legal services on campaign finance disclosures as for legal services which is a lie so they likely broke campaign finance laws. Clinton and the DNC used foreign nationals (Steele) to concoct lies about Trump. More damning than what is alleged to have happen with Trump Jr.
Some of the sources in Steele's dossier were top level Russian intelligence officers and foreign ministry personnel. They were either lying or their attributions were lies. If they were telling the truth and they are the who Steele claims they are, under your Russian collusion theory, then their input for the dossier would be detrimental to Trump's campaign and because (according to you) Putin was on Trump's side, they would likely be killed for subverting Putin's plan.
mudbug: no indictments have been passed that involve any complicity with Russians. The only indictments - other than for Russians and those don't allege collusion with the Trump campaign - that have been passed that are related to the campaign are those of lying to the FBI.
Well, lying about contacts with Russian agents, if that is what you mean.
mudbug: Mueller indicted them expecting them not to go to court.
And it looks like it will go to trial. Concord has argued that foreign troll farms putting out fake stories to influence the U.S. election are legal. But even if it is against the law, they say they didn't know about it anyway.
mudbug: (according to you) Putin was on Trump's side
According to Russian state media, which overtly sided with Trump and attacked Clinton throughout the campaign.
mudbug: Clinton and the DNC used foreign nationals (Steele) to concoct lies about Trump.
Steele has provided reliable information in the past. In any case, the Clinton campaign never used the dossier.
mudbug: then their input for the dossier would be detrimental to Trump's campaign and because (according to you) Putin was on Trump's side, they would likely be killed for subverting Putin's plan.
Well, duh. Russia is a murderous kleptocracy. Revealing sources could be very risky. It would endanger the sources, end their willingness or ability to provide information, and deter other sources from coming forward.
You keep espousing views that have no evidence: global warming, Russia collusion, the benefits of diversity, the validity of SPLC.
You're a low IQ proselytizer who put her faith in some really stupid things.
DrTorch: You keep espousing views that have no evidence: global warming, Russia collusion, the benefits of diversity, the validity of SPLC.
We provide evidence to support our positions, positions which we are careful to qualify; whether global warming, Russian collusion, or the benefits of diversity. We have never defended the validity of SPLC.
In any case, are you disputing our assertion concerning Woodward's limitations, or Trump Jr.'s expressed desire concerning Russian government help?
"You're a low IQ proselytizer who put her faith in some really stupid things."
Noticed no denial of this statement. LOL
Charley HuaChu: Noticed no denial of this statement.
Because our IQ, like most ad hominem attacks, are fallacies of irrelevance, and do not change the underlying facts.
The TrollBot is the single most intellectually deceptive commenter I've ever seen online. Its framing and co-opted buzzwords are nearly art.
And the kiddiez seem to have a misconception of the meaning of that word: fact .
Fact, evidence, support, position, careful to qualify, and that's from just one poopagraph. Above it demands a negative proof ... and then later abuses the word fallacy.
That's before even touching on its Montana-sized smokescreen about what really happened before, during, and after the last election.
Ice cream. I see the point of not wanting to make foods at a college unnecessarily off-limits to a student. There is a counter-argument, however, that the purpose of dietary exclusions for religious reasons are to set oneself apart from the general public. It is why (some) Jews keep kosher. It is why many religions have prescribed fasts and feasts. If there were nothing the student could eat, such as would be the case if the student were vegetarian and all dishes included meat products, that would be an unfair hardship. This is not the case here.
Christians were taught not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and had some foods forbidden during specific fasts. Think fish on Fridays. These were considered an opportunity to obey, not a punishment.
If it were a staple, or food were so difficult to get that someone was in danger of going hungry, I could see the issue. I think it's polite to offer alternatives when you have guests with dietary restrictions--but ice cream? Is it the only dessert available? Is dessert a necessity of life?
I was always envious that women's colleges like Smith and Holyoke had "ice cream trusts," where a benefactress would set up a perpetual trust to assure that ice cream would always be available for every meal in the dining halls. Supposedly to assure that the students had a more positive outlook on life. My wife tells me she gained 10 pounds.
Activist Christine Blasey Ford coming forth after some 35 years to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of ? (assault, attempted rape, groping ?) when she was a sophomore and he was a junior in high school appears to have a back story. Martha G. Kavanaugh, Brett's mother, was a Maryland district judge in 1966 on the foreclosure case against Ford's parents.
The Democrat's ability to seek out women who have had ancient complaints against Republican candidates is remarkable. Remember the one accusing Presidential candidate Herman Cain was found to be a resident in the same apartment building as David Axelrod, the Democrat operative for Barack O, who also opened sealed divorce cases of The Zero's opponents during the run for Illinois senate?
Doesn't remember where it happened. Doesn't remember WHEN it happened. First there were 4 attackers, then two... and the guy she said broke it up says it didn't happen.
She carefully and thoroughly scrubs her social media presence. Scrubs her 'RateMyProfessor' presence. Does her best to be 'clean'.
This reeks. I'm not feeling any sort of credibility here.
Funny thing about that science march. It claims to be about science and science policy in general, but the article keeps returneing to two points: climate change and more funding. I think hidden in that is also a "more status for us" agenda, but I can't prove it. I would willingly wager money that the speakers make freqent references to creationism in the context of climate change, even though that belief does not produce measurable damage to others. (I am an evolutionist, but creationism is merely irritating; it is trotted out because it is a high-profile example of "The fools aren't listening to us, their betters!")
Strangely missing from the article are discussions of organic farming and GMO's, alternative medicine, population genetics (or even human genetics in general), vaccines, or anything that would reflect poorly on liberals. This is a motte and bailey conference. https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-motte-and-the-bailey-a-rhetorical-strategy-to-know/ ("Aren't you in favor of Science?")
Anything calling itself a March for Science isn't likely to be a march for science at all.
It'll be a March for Scientism, an entirely different kettle of fish.
The five most surprising consequences of the 2008 financial blowup to young people all appear to be self-inflicted damage, terrible decisions they made for themselves for lack of any better understanding of markets or money (e.g., don't invest in the stock market or in a home; wallow in distrust as an excuse for paralysis and withdrawal). I'm glad my parents didn't react that way to the Depression. For that matter, I'm glad I didn't react that way to graduating in 1978.
re Lehman anniversary: The five most surprising consequences
This is a populist screed, but it does make some good points.
10 YEARS LATER – NO LESSONS LEARNED