Month: September 2025

By on

Sometimes when people on social media reach the end of their patience with people they disagree with and they want to cease seeing their disagreeable posts, they will announce that any person who holds such horrible beliefs should unfriend them as they can no longer tolerate such nonsense. This is hardly an effective way to accomplish this and it makes you fair game for further noxious posts.

The best way to handle this, at least in my mind, is to unfriend them and be done with it. They will probably never realize you’ve unfriended them and you no longer have to be bothered with their noxious posts. It is an easy way to achieve social peace without having a showdown.

Unfortunately some people feel there must be a showdown. I am telling you I am no longer putting up with you and your asshole beliefs so do me a favor and unfriend me. Just speaking as someone who, from time to time, will send out annoying posts, don’t ask me to do your dirty work. Annoying your political opponents is part of the fun. If I know I am annoying you, I am certainly going to keep you as a friend in order to annoy you some more. Posting your displeasure with me, just announces I am being effective with my posting.

By on

No matter how much I want to blame Donald Trump for being the problem, he isn’t. He is a symptom of a problem. The problem with our system is that the system is the problem.

All this whining about gerrymandering is missing the point. Trump isn’t bad because he has decided to gerrymander. The system is bad because either party can gerrymander. And that is what is happening. Trump asked for 5 Congressional districts in Texas. So, California retaliates. Missouri is now retaliating because California retaliated against Texas. And round and round she goes. The problem is that either party can gerrymander. The whole strategy of both parties is to reduce the number of competitive congressional districts through gerrymandering.

This hardly seems like the forefather’s dreams of elections. Given the startling number of partisan dominated congressional districts, elections are pretty much a waste of time and money. Might as well have the party leaders of each district pick the candidate who will then go to Washington.

Gerrymander isn’t the only systematic problem with our democracy. There is the filibuster which requires a super majority in the Senate in order to make laws. The filibuster is not part of the constitution and is a Senate procedure that can be eliminated at any time by the Majority Party. We have had both Democratic and Republican Majorities in the past ten years, but neither party seems terribly interested in ending the filibuster as a simple majority would give the party in power to actually do things.

The Senate, which requires a super majority in order to pass laws, also is grossly undemocratic. Small rural states carry disproportionate power there. Every state gets two Senators. California with 37 million people gets the same number as Wyoming with little more than a half million people. This is difficult to change because a constitutional amendment would be required in order to make this happen. The idea that small rural states would give up power willingly is absurd. If I lived in a small state, I would certainly want to retain that power. So no change there is even possible.

So, because the legislative bodies are incapable of accomplishing anything and are incapable of instituting changes that would make their bodies functional, nothing gets done. It doesn’t matter who is in power.

The result then is Donald Trump. He lacks even a basic view of how government operates but he damn will has some ideas on getting things done. He does what he pleases and finds out later if it is OK and, even if it isn’t OK, he defends his right to do it. Maybe he will get away with it, maybe he won’t. The problem here is that the only way left to get things done in the USA is through near dictatorial power from the President. Trump’s lack of institutional knowledge or concern about precedent makes him the perfect executive to wield power.

Trump will be gone in 3 1/2 long years but the problem remains. It is illuminating that of the hundreds of democracies that have come into power since 1776, none of chosen to duplicate the American system and almost all emulate the British Parliamentary system where the political party who wins the election actually holds power until the next election.

Trump may be an asshole but the system is the problem and will remain the problem when he departs the White House.

By on

The big idea behind Trump and the Right’s anti-DEI stance is that race shouldn’t matter when making decision about who gets admitted into a university or gets a job. All that matters is quality.

The big idea behind Trump’s anti-immigrant stance is that the government should be able to stop any Brown person or anyone speaking Spanish to enquire about their immigration status because they might be here illegally. This strategy, just validated by the Supreme Court, doesn’t take into consideration that 19% of Americans are Latinos and 13% blacks. So over 30% of American citizens must live in fear of being stopped on the street and asked for their papers. Their papers. How American is that?

So while investigating the immigration status of a person the government can use race to stop any person they suspect as being here illegally but can’t use race when rewarding people for jobs or university placement, race is irrelevant.

Got it. But don’t tell me race doesn’t matter to you because obviously it does.

By on

Jesse Watters, Fox pundit, wants revenge for the murder of Charlie Kirk. From who exactly? We don’t know who murdered Kirk yet. The justice system, given the notoriety of the case, will probably capture a suspect and he will go to trial. That is all the revenge anyone should expect in this case.

So who is Watters angry with? The people who pointed out that Kirk may have had it coming because of the inflammatory things he said. Isn’t that Watters’ point about Kirk? Nobody deserves to be killed for what they say. So while he defends the right of someone like Kirk to say what he pleases, even if it is inflammatory, he is also calling for revenge on all Left Wingers for saying terrible things about Kirk after he was killed.

Revenge is a great but temporary feeling. It feels good right up to the point that the other guy counters with his revenge. This usually turns out bloody for everyone so everyone gets hurt and the revenge becomes endless. Is this what Watters wants? Kirk’s murderer deserves revenge, everyone else is innocent even if they said terrible things about him afterwards.

What about words? Can’t words incite someone to violence? Certainly they can. The Bible can incite some people to violence. But lets be clear, words don’t kill. People do. You can’t exact revenge on everyone who disagrees with you, particularly if they restrict their disagreement to words. Also if Watters is so worried about words inciting violence, he might want to temper the words coming out of his mouth,

By on

The Trump Administration is trying to prevent transgender people from buying guns. While this is clearly illegal, it could be good news. It is an admission that some people shouldn’t have guns. This seems to be a significant change in this NRA backed administration. The NRA is supporting the Trannies’ 2nd Amendment Rights while Trump and his gang are pushing for laws that will prevent them from buying guns.

There are presently laws that stop mentally ill people from getting guns but enforcement varies from state to state and the national registry is only as good as the states willing participation. If Trump is truly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of transgender people, what is he willing to do to about it. And, if transexuals are on this list, and it is so important to do so, what other mentally ill diagnosis should be on this list.

Of course, Transgender people shouldn’t be classified as mentally ill but if Trump believes that some mental illnesses make gun ownership dangerous, then the battle should be on defining those terms — who shouldn’t own a gun. Some Republicans are hoping the Democrats fight for Transexuals Rights to be locked and loaded. They are amused that they will be put in the position of defending gun rights. Don’t take the bait.

I much prefer a battle over what is defined as a mental illness that prevents people from purchasing guns. Instead of fighting for Transexual’s Second Amendment rights, let’s focus on what mental health issues should prevent a person from owning a gun and how to ensure that anyone that meets this criteria is on a list that prevents them from purchasing a gun.

Also we should never pass up an opportunity for a NRA/Trump rumble. Get the popcorn ready.

By on

I don’t like Trump — either the man or his chaotic policies — however I have to admit he is the master of confrontational politics. How this dimwitted asshole comes out on top is beyond me. The problem is he does.

Look at what he has mastered in the last few months. He maneuvered the Democrats into defending illegal immigrants, transexuals and criminals. All people worthy of defense but also marginalized people with tricky legal situations. More importantly, very few actual voters among them.

Think about Trump bringing troops into Washington. What the Democrats are saying is that there is no problem in Washington and that the crime rate is actually the lowest it has been in 30 years. True enough but it sounds rather lame in comparison to Trump’s sending in troops so you are safe to walk the streets of Washington. Instead of making a forceful anti-crime statement, the Democrats are saying you think crime is bad now, it was much worse 10 years ago. It reeks of passivity and inaction.

Immigrants are coming into the country illegally. Trump is taking an aggressive stand to prevent their entry and kicking out the ones he sees as criminal. What are the Democrats saying — we need immigrants and we can’t break up immigrant families if the children were born in USA. So the Democrats end up making a big falderal about the deportation of Kilmar Garcia — a legal immigrant whose wife has accused him of abuse. The Democrats reaction to Trump is this is a bureaucratic error, Trump’s response is that Garcia is a wife beating thug. How are the visuals on this?

Garcia deserves due process but the Democrats are missing the point — what are the Democrats going to do about illegal immigration. Yes, we need immigrants and yes we should not separate parents from their children — that isn’t, however, an answer to what are you going to do about illegal immigration. It sounds very much like you intend to do nothing and that becomes the problem. Worse still, it is hardly a rousing call to battle with the Republicans.

Then there are the drag queens. A target so big that it is impossible for the Republicans not to hit. The visuals on this are horrible. What the Democrats want the public to know is they are defending 13 year olds bullied in their schools and who need help with their gender identification. This is a complex problem and the country is beginning to suss it out. Unfortunately Trump has painted a much different picture. Instead of seeing the abused adolescent, they are seeing 6 foot 4 hunk with a blonde bouffant wig, costume jewelry, and an evening gown reading to kindergartners about how to get a sex change operation.

It’s not that I think the Democrats are wrong in any of this, its more that they are being suckered into defending unpopular positions over the bigger concerns of the average Americans. Trump pulls Democrats into debates that are nuanced and difficult to explain. Whenever they do try to explain it sounds like they are pro-criminal or pro-illegal immigration or pro-transexuals in the classroom. It doesn’t matter that this is untrue – perception is reality. At least, it is until someone changes the perception. This isn’t going to be done by Donald Trump. It has to be the Democrats.

Trump uses the media to dance to his tune. Talking only about the issues he wants to talk about while ignoring his weaknesses. Democrats should park themselves outside medical offices and ask people about their health insurance problems. A lot of people have good stories about shabby treatment from insurance companies — get it on the news. Every single day. Or go to grocery stores and ask customers about the higher prices they are paying. Connect to people with issues that everybody has. Widen the net of potential voters.

Or you can continue to talk about unpopular issues that the average voter cares very little about and, when you lose the election, you can stare confusedly into the abyss and wonder why this keeps happening.

By on

Reality Star Heather Dubrow threw a party that may have cost as much as $140,000. The average American makes in one year $66,622. So, Dubrow spent more than twice the average American salary for one party.

Some will say, it is her money to spend how she wishes.

I would argue with that. If she is receiving any tax credits to lessen her tax burden, some of this tax money is actually being spent on a party. How would you feel if a poor person spent their benefits on a party? Of course, we would be outraged. So, why are rich people, who gain income through not pay all their taxes, seen differently? Aren’t they manipulating the system to obtain money they don’t need to pay for a lavish party? Why is the Welfare Mom (which is largely mythic and not real) who buys a Cadillac demonized while the socialite (which is real) can use her tax reduced income on lavish parties and nary a word in protest is spoken?

It’s not so much the cost of the party, it is the misplaced sympathies we have for the rich. The temerity of these people who constantly complain about their tax burden while they can still afford lavish parties. They are doing fine and will continue to do fine if they pay their full tax bill.

By on

Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Coleman have a new movie out called the Roses. In the movie, there is a scene where Cumberbatch’s character gives Coleman’s character a food she is allergic to and then refuses to give her her epipen when she reacts until she signs their divorce papers. Apparently the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation is upset because depriving someone of their epipen while having an allergic reaction just isn’t funny. This seems like another mountain out of a mole hill situation. The movie is a satire on how divorce proceedings get out of hand and the terrible things that people might do to gain an advantage.

The movie wasn’t endorsing murder by epipen as much as pointing out the potentially horrible things a desperate person might do who finds themselves in a messy divorce. Withholding an epipen to someone who needs it to fits nicely into one of those potential horrible things. There are thousands of ways this might be done. Would it be any funnier if he was holding a gun to her head?

And I am pretty sure I have seen it before in movies and in television without comment. It is in fact an ingenious way to murder someone. Why then has the Natasha Allergy Foundation got their panties in a twist over this is a bit of mystery until I read that the movie had lukewarm reviews and weak box office.

Then the light bulb went off over my head, this is just a PR trick to get the movie into the headlines. Nobody is really mad at all. Now I have no proof whatsoever regarding my speculation but it is the only thing that makes sense. It is a movie after all, a movie where people do outrageous things, depriving a person having an allergic reaction of their epipen is outrageous and wrong but it also fits right into the movie being made.

I am betting there is no there there but kudos to the movie’s marketing department for keeping it in the headlines.

By on

I have to give it Donald Trump and his administration. They definitely know how to make a mountain out of mole hill and gain advantage from that little mole hill.

Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, resigned in a wave of resignations that struck the CDC last week. He also wrote a memo using the term “pregnant people” as opposed to the Trump preferred “pregnant women.” People and women are not the important words here, pregnant is. This is a message to advise someone who is pregnant about a health issue. It doesn’t really matter if you call them people or women.

But, of course, I am wrong. It matters greatly and people are hopping mad about it. One side believes pregnant people is more inclusive of trans people and the other side is claiming that only women can get pregnant and it’s ridiculous to use the more inclusive term.

Trans-obsessed lefties want everyone to use the more inclusive people and make no bones about telling people they should. This irritates trans-obsessed righties who think this is a biological question and that only women can get pregnant, so when talking about pregnant people, people should say pregnant women. This is so much cage rattling and of little significance to the majority of Americans.

First, the necessity to use pregnant people over pregnant woman is incredibly stupid. 99.99% of the people who are pregnant are women and like to be called women. Plus there is little chance that a pregnant trans man ( I am assuming about .01% of the population or less) would be confused by what the sentence means and how it might relate to him. But because somebody somewhere might be offended, people should be used instead of woman. This is the mountain they want to die on.

Language is social lubrication. It is there to make our lives easier. If you want me to use specific personal pronouns for you. I have no trouble using them. On the other hand, if I see a person with a beard, I am going to think this is a guy and I will trust my eyeballs and use male pronouns. 99% of the time I will be correct and offend nobody. This makes my life easier and less awkward because a lot more people would be either stumped by your personal pronoun question or unnecessarily angered by it. Why bother making trouble for yourself?

Which means I will continue to use visual cues, like a beard, to guess at someone’s gender identification until I start having trouble with people about it. Right now, I think I will die before having to ask someone their preferred pronouns.

What to do if people say “pregnant people.” I say deal with it. I admit it is a little clunky but perfectly understandable. Someone who says this is talking about pregnancy and want to be inclusive. Let them. Do what is comfortable for you. But no, “pregnant people” has become fighting words, so a fight must ensue.

The worst part is Trump has managed to turn the chaos at the CDC into a problem with politically correct bureaucrats. They have gone after Daskalaskis for being both gay and a satanist. So what should be about how to effectively get health information out to the public has become a witch hunt about being politically correct. And Trump has the advantage here.

I’m not sure this helps pregnant people or pregnant women but public health should be about using the right terms instead of delivering important information about people’s health.