(surprise!) for what I needed to change, and running away and screaming won't help, I now present this evening's picture dump. I hope it raises your spirits, because I'm both pissed and discouraged.
_l.jpg)
Saturday, February 11, 2023
Friday, February 10, 2023
While it's possible that some people in EffingBI headquarters still remember their oath includes
upholding the Constitution, considering the actions of said Sacred Bureau upper levels the last few years, this could also be "We got caught, so put out something to calm the criticism until we find another way to do this."
The FBI tells the Caller that the document, put forward by the Richmond field office, “does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI” and that the Bureau will be conducting an internal review.
“Upon learning of the document, FBI Headquarters quickly began taking action to remove the document from FBI systems and conduct a review of the basis for the document,” the agency told the Caller...
Yeah, I'm cynical about anything coming from that agency; when you've worked that hard to trash trust in your organization, you should damn well expect it.
In case you hadn't heard what this is about, the Richmond EffingBI office put out "We have to look at those radical traditional Catholics, they may be white supremacists", etc., etc. Their sources? Articles in Salon, The Atlantic, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. And it got out, and for some reason a lot of people are really pissed off about it.
The FBI tells the Caller that the document, put forward by the Richmond field office, “does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI” and that the Bureau will be conducting an internal review.
“Upon learning of the document, FBI Headquarters quickly began taking action to remove the document from FBI systems and conduct a review of the basis for the document,” the agency told the Caller...
Yeah, I'm cynical about anything coming from that agency; when you've worked that hard to trash trust in your organization, you should damn well expect it.
In case you hadn't heard what this is about, the Richmond EffingBI office put out "We have to look at those radical traditional Catholics, they may be white supremacists", etc., etc. Their sources? Articles in Salon, The Atlantic, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. And it got out, and for some reason a lot of people are really pissed off about it.
Thursday, February 09, 2023
When the hysteria and stupidity of "You must let your child transition!" ends,
a bunch of doctors and 'counselors' and activists deserve a proper flogging. Preferably using a flagrum, for what they've done.
During the four years I worked at the clinic as a case manager—I was responsible for patient intake and oversight—around a thousand distressed young people came through our doors. The majority of them received hormone prescriptions that can have life-altering consequences—including sterility.
I left the clinic in November of last year because I could no longer participate in what was happening there. By the time I departed, I was certain that the way the American medical system is treating these patients is the opposite of the promise we make to “do no harm.” Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care.
Today I am speaking out. I am doing so knowing how toxic the public conversation is around this highly contentious issue—and the ways that my testimony might be misused. I am doing so knowing that I am putting myself at serious personal and professional risk.
Almost everyone in my life advised me to keep my head down. But I cannot in good conscience do so. Because what is happening to scores of children is far more important than my comfort. And what is happening to them is morally and medically appalling.
...
This concerned me, but didn’t feel I was in the position to sound some kind of alarm back then. There was a team of about eight of us, and only one other person brought up the kinds of questions I had. Anyone who raised doubts ran the risk of being called a transphobe.
The girls who came to us had many comorbidities: depression, anxiety, ADHD, eating disorders, obesity. Many were diagnosed with autism, or had autism-like symptoms. A report last year on a British pediatric transgender center found that about one-third of the patients referred there were on the autism spectrum.
Frequently, our patients declared they had disorders that no one believed they had. We had patients who said they had Tourette syndrome (but they didn’t); that they had tic disorders (but they didn’t); that they had multiple personalities (but they didn’t).
The doctors privately recognized these false self-diagnoses as a manifestation of social contagion. They even acknowledged that suicide has an element of social contagion. But when I said the clusters of girls streaming into our service looked as if their gender issues might be a manifestation of social contagion, the doctors said gender identity reflected something innate.
From what I've read, the number of people who actually suffer their brain chemistry and plumbing not matching up is very small; you'd think this sudden rush of "I feel I'm actually a X!" would, by itself, tell the doctors and counselors something; apparently you've got a mix of "I have to support the kid or my career is over!" and true believers, and both of them are involved in the ruined bodies and lives.
During the four years I worked at the clinic as a case manager—I was responsible for patient intake and oversight—around a thousand distressed young people came through our doors. The majority of them received hormone prescriptions that can have life-altering consequences—including sterility.
I left the clinic in November of last year because I could no longer participate in what was happening there. By the time I departed, I was certain that the way the American medical system is treating these patients is the opposite of the promise we make to “do no harm.” Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care.
Today I am speaking out. I am doing so knowing how toxic the public conversation is around this highly contentious issue—and the ways that my testimony might be misused. I am doing so knowing that I am putting myself at serious personal and professional risk.
Almost everyone in my life advised me to keep my head down. But I cannot in good conscience do so. Because what is happening to scores of children is far more important than my comfort. And what is happening to them is morally and medically appalling.
...
This concerned me, but didn’t feel I was in the position to sound some kind of alarm back then. There was a team of about eight of us, and only one other person brought up the kinds of questions I had. Anyone who raised doubts ran the risk of being called a transphobe.
The girls who came to us had many comorbidities: depression, anxiety, ADHD, eating disorders, obesity. Many were diagnosed with autism, or had autism-like symptoms. A report last year on a British pediatric transgender center found that about one-third of the patients referred there were on the autism spectrum.
Frequently, our patients declared they had disorders that no one believed they had. We had patients who said they had Tourette syndrome (but they didn’t); that they had tic disorders (but they didn’t); that they had multiple personalities (but they didn’t).
The doctors privately recognized these false self-diagnoses as a manifestation of social contagion. They even acknowledged that suicide has an element of social contagion. But when I said the clusters of girls streaming into our service looked as if their gender issues might be a manifestation of social contagion, the doctors said gender identity reflected something innate.
From what I've read, the number of people who actually suffer their brain chemistry and plumbing not matching up is very small; you'd think this sudden rush of "I feel I'm actually a X!" would, by itself, tell the doctors and counselors something; apparently you've got a mix of "I have to support the kid or my career is over!" and true believers, and both of them are involved in the ruined bodies and lives.
As Michael Z. WIlliamson says, leftists lie.*
And then wonder why you don't trust their 'news' reporting.
PBS NewsHour promoted that strange public-relations exercise, which flies in the face of the timeline. NPR also helped in this effort to deny DeSantis a win. But what made this truly eye-opening is Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart claiming he was in the first generation of his family "to not have to pick cotton." Capehart grew up with his mother in New Jersey (his father died early in his life). He's implying his mother had to pick cotton. Where do they pick cotton in New Jersey?
...
And one thing I like to remind people, particularly young people, history is not really history when you're talking about African Americans in this country. My cousins and I are the first generation in my family to not have to pick cotton. We are the first generation that did not have to live under Jim Crow. I'm 55 years old. That's how long this has been a democracy.
What caused all this upset? DeSantis didn't allow a college to teach Critical Race bullshit to students. Which is unforgivable. Teaching kids to be racist against the right people should be required in the view of clowns like Capehart.
PBS NewsHour promoted that strange public-relations exercise, which flies in the face of the timeline. NPR also helped in this effort to deny DeSantis a win. But what made this truly eye-opening is Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart claiming he was in the first generation of his family "to not have to pick cotton." Capehart grew up with his mother in New Jersey (his father died early in his life). He's implying his mother had to pick cotton. Where do they pick cotton in New Jersey?
...
And one thing I like to remind people, particularly young people, history is not really history when you're talking about African Americans in this country. My cousins and I are the first generation in my family to not have to pick cotton. We are the first generation that did not have to live under Jim Crow. I'm 55 years old. That's how long this has been a democracy.
What caused all this upset? DeSantis didn't allow a college to teach Critical Race bullshit to students. Which is unforgivable. Teaching kids to be racist against the right people should be required in the view of clowns like Capehart.
*Mike just says 'liberals', but I've known some actual liberals who don't. Leftists, on the other hand...
The Hill isn't exactly a right-wing news site, so the orders have apparently gone out
that the EffingBI and company have really overstepped. Or their writers have realized just what a threat to the 1st Amendment, that they depend on, this crap really is.
The role of the FBI in prior scandals will remain a point of heated debate in Congress. However, members of both parties should be able to agree on the need to investigate one of the most serious allegations: Censorship by surrogate.
Many of the allegations of FBI bias are worthy of investigation. Some of those allegations are problems of personnel who can be removed. But a far more menacing problem has emerged in recent months with the release of information from Twitter.
The “Twitter files” revealed an FBI operation to monitor and censor social media content — an effort so overwhelming and intrusive that Twitter staff at one point complained internally that “they are probing & pushing everywhere.” The reports have indicated that dozens of FBI employees worked on the identification and removal of material on a wide range of subjects and that Twitter largely carried out their requests.
...The FBI’s response to disclosure of these long-secret communications is particularly chilling. When some critics denounced it as raw censorship, the FBI accused them of being “conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation.” So, criticism of the FBI’s work to censor citizens resulted in an official statement denouncing those citizens.
Nice of them to finally join the party, isn't it?
The role of the FBI in prior scandals will remain a point of heated debate in Congress. However, members of both parties should be able to agree on the need to investigate one of the most serious allegations: Censorship by surrogate.
Many of the allegations of FBI bias are worthy of investigation. Some of those allegations are problems of personnel who can be removed. But a far more menacing problem has emerged in recent months with the release of information from Twitter.
The “Twitter files” revealed an FBI operation to monitor and censor social media content — an effort so overwhelming and intrusive that Twitter staff at one point complained internally that “they are probing & pushing everywhere.” The reports have indicated that dozens of FBI employees worked on the identification and removal of material on a wide range of subjects and that Twitter largely carried out their requests.
...The FBI’s response to disclosure of these long-secret communications is particularly chilling. When some critics denounced it as raw censorship, the FBI accused them of being “conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation.” So, criticism of the FBI’s work to censor citizens resulted in an official statement denouncing those citizens.
Nice of them to finally join the party, isn't it?
Wednesday, February 08, 2023
Right now, I've got nothin'
It's cold and wet outside, and I have to go do things. And there's some stuff I need to do in the house, and one thing I'm NOT going to do is talk about President Gropey telling us how well-off he's made us.
So I'll be back later.
So I'll be back later.
Tuesday, February 07, 2023
About the 'even more interesting' post yesterday, more
on the subject over at GFZ. Including
The argument of the government was that the second amendment doesn’t apply to Harrison because he is not “a law-abiding citizen” and is “unvirtuous”.
When we look at these cases, we need to pay attention to the how of the government’s argument on why they should be allowed to infringe. For years it was “you aren’t part of the militia, the second amendment doesn’t apply to you.” After Heller it was means-end balancing which said that while the law was infringing, the law was narrowly tailored and in support of a good goal.
Post Bruen the government has been arguing that limiting locations isn’t an actual infringement, that certain weapons are to dangerous to allow the people to possess, that requiring “good moral character” is not an infringement.
In defense of §922(g) they are now arguing that they don’t have to follow Bruen and defend the law on the basis of Text, History and Tradition because this class of person is not part of “The People” because they are not virtuous.
If this argument were to prevail, you can bet that we will see more and more laws passed requiring people to prove they are virtuous and of the different levels of the government passing laws defining actions, traits, or opinions as proof that someone is “unvirtuous”. All of which is bad.
It's a long piece, and worth reading.
The argument of the government was that the second amendment doesn’t apply to Harrison because he is not “a law-abiding citizen” and is “unvirtuous”.
When we look at these cases, we need to pay attention to the how of the government’s argument on why they should be allowed to infringe. For years it was “you aren’t part of the militia, the second amendment doesn’t apply to you.” After Heller it was means-end balancing which said that while the law was infringing, the law was narrowly tailored and in support of a good goal.
Post Bruen the government has been arguing that limiting locations isn’t an actual infringement, that certain weapons are to dangerous to allow the people to possess, that requiring “good moral character” is not an infringement.
In defense of §922(g) they are now arguing that they don’t have to follow Bruen and defend the law on the basis of Text, History and Tradition because this class of person is not part of “The People” because they are not virtuous.
If this argument were to prevail, you can bet that we will see more and more laws passed requiring people to prove they are virtuous and of the different levels of the government passing laws defining actions, traits, or opinions as proof that someone is “unvirtuous”. All of which is bad.
It's a long piece, and worth reading.
Monday, February 06, 2023
Well, this is getting even more interesting
U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick in Oklahoma City agreed with Harrison’s lawyers, ruling on Friday that federal prosecutors’ arguments that Harrison’s status as a marijuana user “justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm … is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.”
“But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports,” said Wyrick, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. In his ruling, Wyrick highlighted that under Oklahoma law, marijuana can be bought legally at more than 2,000 store fronts in the state.
Attorneys for Harrison, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting the case, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Sunday.
And broken out from the ruling by BRM,(bold mine)
“But the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports,” said Wyrick, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. In his ruling, Wyrick highlighted that under Oklahoma law, marijuana can be bought legally at more than 2,000 store fronts in the state.
Attorneys for Harrison, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting the case, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Sunday.
And broken out from the ruling by BRM,(bold mine)
"The first caveat, that the prohibition on possession by a felon be longstanding, makes sense. If not for this limitation, a legislature could circumvent the Second Amendment by deeming every crime, no matter how minor, a felony, so as to deprive as many of its citizens of their right to possess a firearm as possible. Imagine a world where the State of New York, to end-run the adverse judgment it received in Bruen, could make mowing one’s lawn a felony so that it could then strip all its newly deemed “felons” of their right to possess a firearm. The label “felony” is simply “too easy for legislatures and prosecutors to manipulate.”
Remarkably, when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said “yes.” So, in the federal government’s view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm. Why? Because courts must defer to a legislature’s judgments about what is and is not a felony, says the United States. It’s as if Bruen’s command regarding the inappropriateness of such deference to legislative judgments has been lost in translation. In a sense, one must applaud the United States for its steadfast commitment to its legal position. But “giv[ing] legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label” is inconsistent with the entire point of constitutionalizing a fundamental right in the first place: to restrain a legislature’s ability to infringe that right through legislation. What would remain of the Second Amendment if the Court were to accept the United States’ view that a legislature could prohibit the exercise of the right it protects simply by declaring anything or everything a felony? Nothing. Maybe that is what the federal government desires, but it is hardly what the Constitution requires.
Remarkably, when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said “yes.” So, in the federal government’s view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm. Why? Because courts must defer to a legislature’s judgments about what is and is not a felony, says the United States. It’s as if Bruen’s command regarding the inappropriateness of such deference to legislative judgments has been lost in translation. In a sense, one must applaud the United States for its steadfast commitment to its legal position. But “giv[ing] legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label” is inconsistent with the entire point of constitutionalizing a fundamental right in the first place: to restrain a legislature’s ability to infringe that right through legislation. What would remain of the Second Amendment if the Court were to accept the United States’ view that a legislature could prohibit the exercise of the right it protects simply by declaring anything or everything a felony? Nothing. Maybe that is what the federal government desires, but it is hardly what the Constitution requires.
Let's see, 'giving legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label' just doesn't cut it. Oh, I think that is going to become a real important line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)