redcairo

Misc. Trump-Administration issues of the moment: Media makes it worse not better: TWEET: If the mainstream media had not so thoroughly disgraced itself by partisan hackery, right now Moore would have zero support. That's not a comment on whether Moore is guilty but on how people, with reason, totally distrust the media. I agree with that. He may be guilty as F--- but the timing and approach of it has wrecked credibility with people who think it's merely political. TWEET: Why would we take the word of an accuser that we don't know over the word of the accused that we do know? @MooreSenate has YEARS of faithful CONSISTENT service. TWEET: I lived and worked in Gadsden, Alabama. If there was rumors, gossip or truth told I would have heard about it & I it would have made front page news ages ago. Yeah, probably it's not flying with his voters. Selective media: TWEET: Which conspiracy on the right prevented The NY Times & other media outlets from interviewing & investigating Broderick’s claim for 25 years? Yeah there's that. Larger goals than even The Devil: TWEET: And make no mistake: the REASON Democrats want Moore’s Senate seat so badly? With one more + traitor John McCain, Democrats take control of the Senate and can begin IMPEACHMENT proceedings against President Trump. WE ARE UNDER ATTACK. And here we were believing Moore that it was the work of the devil and all...lol... Ooooh morning hearings with Jeff Sessions and others today. (Fusion GPS also behind closed doors today.) TWEET: ”Now what we know for CERTAIN is for a while now, the #DOJ has been looking into ALL of these allegations. And NOT just #UraniumOne but the #ClintonFoundation, LEAKS💦out of the FBI, the UNMASKING of Americans!” -@SaraCarterDC That's the biggest news of the week! RC

Moore: I don't like Moore because I consider him an activist judge. That said I'd rather he be a senator than a judge. If his people don't care if he's a religious nut why should I. But judges IMO should be hardline rule of law. I consider the current drama a huge setup though, especially now that Gloria is involved. She's a paid dem operative (wikileaks email proof on that) and did the same thing just prior to DJT election. The "month before the election" is the key time. 40 years of running for public office I tend to think if someone had stuff on them it'd show up sooner. It was iffy but the moment she stepped in I considered the entire thing a political farce. Mitch McConnell spent 30 million dollars trying to get the guy who was not Moore into the chair. He hates Moore. The instant the article came out about Moore, which was a minor thing (touched her bra strap? 38 years ago? Took her home? FFS it's not like that is rape even if it's true) McConnell announced Moore was done. Didn't even wait for dust to settle let alone any response. It was like he was perched on the edge of something waiting for it. He expected Moore to step down. Everybody 'right' I see online believes that McConnell is some part of making this happen, even against his own party, and that he is so rabidly against Moore, even though Moore's people want him, that he would rather have a democrat in office. (There was even a story with that headline quite some time ago, as if predictive...) So there are at this point 4 people in question. The first 3 came from a WAPO article. Allegedly someone named Beth offered $ for a story about Moore to one woman who has reported it and we will see how that goes, whether it's true and the article was literally a result of being 'shopped'. But a reporter (named Beth) published a story with three women that she managed to seek and find. They had not filed anything or stated these things publicly. She just found them. Two of the four, had no crime involved, and appear to be there in the article only for show/numbers, either to make the point that he dated young women when in his 30s (not super unusual espec. as it was non-sexual and a slightly diff era. He said: "Never without their mother's permission.") or simply to add numbers so if you could say "three women!" instead of one it would sound "obviously true due to the numbers." Aside from the two being teens (but of legal age), one said that when she was 18-19 she dated him, and at some point during that overall period he brought her wine a few times and "she can't remember but she might have been 18 instead of 19 when it happened." The drinking age in that state is 19, so that was seen as a possible issue. 38 years later. But even the "invited accuser" can't say anything inappropriate even happened for sure. Since the article however, it turns out both those women are literally involved with the political opposition! So... McConnell suggested Strange could run yet-again as a write-in, get a lot of press, which of course would divide the R vote, likely ensuring the Democrat won instead, but maybe Strange would. 30 million later, Mitch is sure hoping... The other (of the initial 3 in the same article) allegedly he kissed her, she was in his home, he "touched her bra strap" as she was partly undressed, but "at some point" found out her age (14 instead of 16, the legal age) and ended up taking her home -- nothing further happened. He says he doesn't even remember her and so denies it happened at all as far as he recalls, which given I don't remember a couple far more intimate encounters not as far back as that, doesn't seem too surprising to me, and leaves it in the he said/she said category of even existing. Which would be a lot more convincing had it happened at some point in the last 38 years prior to "a month before an election" (perfect and typical timing for these kinds of claims). Meanwhile, her mother has contradicted some details. Like, you might ask why a 14 year old's mom would let her date someone that much older since 16 was the legal age. She claimed her mom didn't know because he called her on her own phone line in her room in the 70s and she went off and met him. Her mother said she didn't have even a phone for the family line in her room let alone her own line. (Which was actually not common in the 70s, for a house to have more than one landline, especially for folks not wealthy.) Also, this woman has publicly accused at least three church pastors of making sexual advances on her in the past (as well as has a history with the law and finance that suggest some issues with character). So, it could be true, but it's so long ago, he doesn't remember, she's known for making claims like this, and her mom contradicts her on a key detail. It wasn't working; the media was mostly only pissing his voters off, who considered it a setup, and he still had a huge lead to win, possibly even despite a split vote. After his constituents responded more with being pissed off over thinking it was a setup than rejecting him, and the shouts of "Three women! One only 14! Sexual assault!" screams were not killing him in the polls, then the infamous Gloria, Attorney For Hire shows up, along with some woman with a new story. New woman ratchets the "criminal behavior and intent" up significantly, not to rape, but to saying he kindly offered to give her a ride home from her job where she was a waittress at age 16, and instead, drove to the back and assaulted/mauled her, groping her breasts and pushing her head toward his crotch, then when she resisted, pushed her out the car door ("or she fell out, she can't remember") and left her in the street driving away. Cue tears for the press conference. Wow! So, seeming like a nice guy, offering a ride home, then violently attacking someone and kicking them out the other side of the car when they resist is a pretty big step up from kissing someone and taking them home when you find out their age, or bringing them wine when they MIGHT have been two months too young to drink. She said that he signed her yearbook which was her "proof that she knew him." Weirdly, the yearbook signing has: 1. His name 2. The name of the restaurant 3. His job title as 'DA' 4. The date Which has got to be the most bizarrely 'complete' yearbook signing I've ever seen. 1. Pretty sure, looking at it, and several 'comparison' writings posted from his other stuff, that's going to totally fail the forge test. The last name does look very similar to one instance. But the numbers are significantly diff -- these are what change the least and are most recognizeable in a person's writing -- as are some other letters, and the name of the place is likely a different hand. I am not a professional but I actually did handwriting analysis pretty seriously for a couple of years after much study so I happen to agree that this sig is likely forged, but it's only an estimate since of course I'd need more data and more focus to be more sure. 2. The restaurant name is spelled wrong. 3. He was the DEPUTY DA. He was not the DA, was never the DA. 4. The date is Christmas. Yearbooks come out at the end of the school year, for a day to a few weeks depending on the school. Why would he be signing her yearbook at Christmas? Weird. Not impossible, just very unusual. Anyway, he says it's a huge and utter lie, that the signature is obviously a forgery, that he doesn't know the woman and certainly didn't ever behave as claimed, and that he considers it all a political -- and evil -- set of lies to keep him from office, solely because he is a/ verrrrry christian and b/ because totally aside from the democrat opposition, the republicans spent 30 million as his opposition too, and he still won, so this is their last-ditch effort. (He also points out that he would never sign something as the DA when he hadn't been.) Note that Moore's been married for 30 years and in all that time nobody's made any accusations. His wife publicly stated she was intending to sue WAPO -- assuming she can find some grounds, since it may be political or even fraud, but there's no law against the media publishing a story about "she said." McConnell's baaaack: At that point it was announced that even if Moore DID win the vote, even a split vote with Strange as write-in, that the GOP would not seat him, no matter what. All this despite that there is zero evidence. But clearly McConnell was responding to the fact that nothing was making Moore willing to quit, and his people didn't seem to care much. Media was announcing his voters had abandoned him but some of the better trusted polling was showing he still had a ridiculous lead, so I think that was as much assumption or propaganda as anything else. After Gloria's star witness, various other key GOP members who would need to vote to seat him announced publicly they withdrew their support for him. Last I heard, Rand Paul had not, but Rand has been sort of busy with broken ribs and lung damage and only just returned to work. The governor finally stepped in and said if nobody would seat him, and he won, it would force a new election. Honestly at this point I don't know what to believe, but I think you gotta train people out of thinking there is great opportunity and no downside to political misdeeds. All this does is encourage everyone in politics to think look, this works, we'll be sure and do this to everyone now going forward. I think there is due process in our country which he hasn't had any of, and conveniently he cannot prove himself innocent (or more to the point, he cannot be proven guilty beyond a doubt) if he doesn't have a trial, but he can't have a trial if nobody is accusing him legally -- conveniently, he is only being tried in the court of public opinion. Note I am not his fan and I would defend the due-process rights of any democrat just as much. To me this is injust toward a citizen, and toward men in general, and cannot be supported. I am vehemently, even rabidly, against sexual assault especially with the underage, but I am far more stoutly for the constitution and due process -- and the issue of wrecking men's lives and careers utterly over nothing, from exaggerations, to mental disorders, to lies, on the part of women, has been a serious issue especially in the college world for eons now. This is one of the things our country seriously needs to fix. It marginalizes true victims, who get less hearing, it causes many espec. everyone who knows a man to behave defensively for him, and it generates this huge issue of resentment and distrust between the genders. For example most men I know, especially cops, if they knew a man had raped a woman, they would be all about arresting him -- if not kicking his ass personally -- they are usually protective of women. But at this point in time if you tell a man another man raped you, his face will just show a whole list of "Yeah maybe" "she could be lying" "what does she consider rape" and other things that are perfectly fair questions given that men have been forced into years of imprisonment and worse unfairly. The current "me too" obsession with the sexual assault claims in the media at large, has managed to mix together "an actor who made a pass at me while we danced kind of drunk at a party 15 years ago" and "an actor who put his hand on my knee for 1 second on a talk show years ago" with "a man guilty of drugging and/or serially raping women" -- as if there is total moral equivalence between these things. This is a big 3rd-wave feminism "all men are born guilty" mess that needs to be checked before it wrecks our culture any farther. At this point given the GOP nevertrump'rs have made it clear Moore can't win even though he won, even if he wins again, they just won't allow the people to vote for who they want, they the GOP who spent 30 million dollars on his adversary won't let it happen, he won't have any choice, if the governor is saying it would just nullify the election. He will have to step down I think. This did succeed in keeping him from the 2-years chair, which was not much of a tenure. However it mostly succeeded in making millions of conservatives and evangelicals think that the opposition is using typically dirty tricks -- they don't believe the "one month before election" claims made against DJT, either -- and made them dislike the GOP even more. Much like the more injust attacks on DJT it just makes his voters bond to him harder in defense. The republican party is already dead, they just don't know it yet. RC

Apologies for not being on the same page. Sometimes messages aren't the best way to deal with complex topics, for sure. :-) Peace, RC

On the way to planning the perfect world™ an honest look at biology ought to be in there somewhere. I don't believe men are sexually proactive merely because culture is teaching them that. I feel pretty sure biology is driving a great deal of that. There may be a perfectly good reason why matriarchal societies are so rare and small. It may be a nearly freak occurence of culture being able to sufficiently override biology. Yes, that is the pro-abortion stance, that since men aren't giving birth they have no right in the discussion at all, even if it's their child. I used to agree with that since I was raised to do so. I still agree that women have been enslaved by unwanted pregnancy since the dawn of time and finding a solution for that is important. I am not sure however that the solutions so far have been particularly effective and/or have brought the results desired. I think abortion, like privatized prisons, seemed like a good idea, and may on rare occasion be the only reasonable option, but it should be "on rare occasion." The vast majority of the time like the prison situation it is just a horrific result that hurts everyone involved except those making money off it, and actually is geared to intentionally generate more of the very problem we were trying to prevent in the first place. At this point, short of outright rape (which I think needs to be given some clear gradient of definition in our society), women DO decide whether they are going to have sex. The problem isn't unwanted pregnancies, that is the symptom. The problem is a complete lack of responsibility and accountability for women in our society -- including the government's happy willingness to allow any woman to have any number of children and never have a job or a man or worry about food and housing. Not that I'm suggesting people starve in the streets, but I AM suggesting -- like the above -- that our approach to solving a problem has instead actually made it more common, so we probably need to think up some new approaches. Where I'm from if a woman doesn't work with a kid she gets welfare and food stamps and HUD. I know women with 5 kids all by different men and never a job in her life. If a man doesn't work with a kid he gets put in jail for lack of child support. If a woman doesn't want to have a child she can abort it or adopt it out. If a man doesn't want to have a child he will still be responsible for it financially for 18 years, or in jail if he's not and he can be found to punish. If our legal culture required a woman register (and DNA test at birth) a father, and a father had the right to sign to agree or not agree for a lifetime of responsibility (no responsibility, no involvement), then we'd actually have something fair to both genders -- and women would know in advance what they'd be dealing with in the future as well. Until our culture fairly treats men as well as women in the birth situation, it's going to be a mess. The lack of decent work toward better birth control; particularly for men; the tendency of the groups most against abortion to also be against birth control; these things are maddening, since obviously that is one of the primary points to begin with in preventing unwanted pregnancy and relationships and families with angry, 'trapped' people of either gender. Statistically, getting and staying married has a radically different result on just about every area of life for parents and their children. The ongoing liberal media influence toward the idea that fathers are disposable and irrelevant and unnecessary is incredibly destructive IMO. :-( Hmmn. You mean humans are not part of nature? :-) I don't know of any creature in the animal or mammal kingdoms -- those we have enough of a handle on to understand a bit -- that does not have both a seniority and an authority heirarchy (oft related but not always the same thing). Maybe what succeeds only in part, like the current democratically-centered capitalism culture, works only in part because humans en masse are not ready for anything else, and so something working in part is all they're up for anyway. The argument starts sounding like that made for socialism/communism: that "everybody will be equal" and so everything must be good. When everyone's a buddha, that can happen. Until then I expect it's profoundly rare and for good reason. We are where we are today because that's where we are. I suspect when humanity is evolved enough on the whole to deserve something better suited to them, it will naturally happen. Maybe we can see where we are on that scale simply by what we have. They say people get the government they deserve. Maybe the same goes for culture. :-) RC

Hmmn. Having never lived in a matriarchal society, I have no reason to assume it would be better in every way, or wouldn't bring different problems that were even worse. I suspect the human race is going to need to evolve a little more before any form of government -- and any form of influence in its forming -- is going to be ideal or even really good. There's also probably a lot of stuff that is not so fairly blamed on "men" as it is simply the lack of development of humans across the board. And, even when it is fairly blamed there, I think it should be considered that men, just like women, are at the mercy of the founding culture. There isn't a man alive who created "the patriarchy." They are stuck in our reality as much as women are. I know a lot of women who feel they had good lives. And they were 'traditional' women in terms of their roles. I sometimes think people who don't grow up around that often are sure that all those women are miserable or something. And once in awhile someone is (I know women who've left the south solely because they didn't want to marry anyone from that region), but it seems to me we've reached a point culturally where women can make the choices they want in that regard. It goes without saying that all humans in our culture would be better off with better culture. :-) RC

We will see. Since her primary efforts seem to have been to destroy by framing Trump for what she was actually guilty of, I don't think you're likely to see any Trump discussion that doesn't include her in some fashion. Clearly, with persons who seem to be deliberately doing stuff to get Trump spied on initially, and then investigated officially, and he's lived under that for many months, there isn't really any unentangling of it for now. We will see what comes of Mueller's efforts. For the good of the country, I sure hope there isn't anything obscure (as opposed to 'obviously intentional and bad') that he can fork against Trump. Because the way the media has attacked Trump since the day he won has done little but make most of his fans ever-more bonded to his defense. So far the violence in country has been mostly from the left. That could change. I suspect that there is sufficient lobbying-style inappropriate behavior that they could investigate and charge for that kind of stuff from now and for the next ten years. Some of it may be charged in part just to get people willing to talk about others for a plea deal, of course. Last I heard there were something like 30+ more sealed indictments. That is quite a lot! Great! I'm all for people who want to improve the country doing their best to do so, even if I don't agree with their means and ways. Probably a few decades of educating people toward marxism will not help the quality of candidates on either side of the politic, or either gender, but not much we can do about that now. Also probably weeding out the disaster of the cult of 3rd-wave feminism would help the pool, but our culture seems to be stuck with that as well. We can only hope for the best. Around the mid to late 60s the high-blue many-reps areas started having lots of women in politics (Republicans had the first women in politics, and most the early minorities as well I think) and at this point, there's a boatload of political positions available from mayor level on up to congress. Women can definitely increase their representation if they try. There's so much wrong with that statement I shouldn't even address it. Sexism, like racism, is something I consider vastly worse on the left than on the right, usually while the left is screaming about it loudly, ironically. Oh Ralis. Some people have no sense of humor. Also, I think you will find that after a group of people repeatedly calls another group of people names (like sexist, bigot, racist, zenophobe, etc.) that eventually their reaction to that group is going to hone right in on that topic. My other favorite line (from the infamous Women's March): "Finally, a million men had some peace and quiet for a day." It's a joke. Sheesh. In a perfect world it would simply be about cleaning up wrongdoing. Ideally, in some fashion related to the whole topic of buying influence and affecting the 2016 election. I doubt it'll be anywhere limited to that. And probably people on both sides will be affected, although who and how, I guess we'll see. A good sign, so far since it is mostly about lobbying and related financial issues. Not that these seem to have much to do with the 2016 election at least so far. Well that list of people called on is pretty extensive at this point. I'm not sure we can assume anything from the people called if they're trying to cover everyone -- which I would expect them to, at some point. That linked article doesn't make it sound like there is much prosecutable there, but I'm sure they had to talk to him. RC

To strangers, it appeared that Ralis spoke the same language as the others on the thread. But really, ...

When someone behaves as a wretched human being, I think it is injust to imply that people down on them are merely racist, sexist, or whatever. LOL! That would be a novel new addition to political history. I'm trying to imagine what their ransom would be. China: drop the currency claims and exempt us from import tax. US Government: Keep him. We hate him. China, a week later: We'll give you North Korea, half our cryptocurrency and twice the tax to take him back. RC

I think that's true. Though we may have to shoot the people that attempt to leverage their stone-age culture over ours. I imagine despite that it may solely be cultural, they might take it personally. ;-) RC

There is a whole long list of sealed indictments right now. I think it's possible that Mueller has been working on even some of these things... and Sessions knows it and doesn't need to. We will have to see. Hopefully these will come out openly in the next month or so. We'll just have to wait and see what they are. RC

In regards to why HRC is mentioned so often in a Trump thread: 1 - because he is in the chair in great part due to mass public disgust with her and her ilk in the last admin in particular 2 - because she or her ilk have been trying to get him out of the chair since the instant he was elected to it, by creating (with the collusion of others in congress + the mainstream media) a number of accusations that he or his admin have had to deal with daily (and near 24/7 news coverage about those) 3 - because she and her ilk (more tribute to Obama than her in part here) created a long list of horribly troublesome international and local situations which he and his admin are attempting to deal with 4 - because #2 continues, along with #3 of course, creating more of #1. 5 - And without #1 pushing for rule of law coming down on the big corrupt festering mess, #2 may, through sheer ongoing corrupt plays, finally succeed, so must be addressed. Particularly since at this point, some wiley way of getting him out of the chair like for something obscure/tedium/trivial or unrelated to what was supposed to be investigated, really might spark what could lead to actual civil war in the future. Needs resolution now. RC

Because we don't have enough to argue about in the world today. We must import historical reasons too. :-) RC

Gossip: Btw I think it might be up to 5 people who survived Las Vegas have now suddenly died. At least a few had stuff on their social media saying they witnessed multiple shooters including on the ground. Well I guess they won't be a problem witness anymore will they. search engines for more.

When I was young, I thought I was obligated to watch the news and be 'involved' in everything, local and global, to whatever degree. Like it was a responsibility of every human. My heart bled for everything and everyone, everywhere. Save the whales. You name it. I was a vegetarian for awhile because I love animals so damn much. Wrecked my health for awhile since I lived on nothing but grains and dairy, possibly the two worst ingestible-entertainment substances for my body (I have since spared myself grains but still ingest dairy). I watched the news whenever I could and read the paper and really felt like I was 'involved.' .Then I went through a stage feeling that was all indoctrination and in fact nobody was obligated to do anything except pay taxes and die, and the first was a debate and the second at least one could hope was far away. Then after too-close exposure to the... inherent qualities of mainstream news, the founding and operation of the AMA and FDA and their histories, more study of organized religion, I was so demoralized I didn't want to be part of anything at all because I felt we were all just powerless cannon fodder at the mercy of evil, or machiavellian greed that might as well amount to that. Over the course of life my feelings have changed about this "involvement in the world around me" many times. I recall reading A Course in Miracles a million years ago and going through stages with it. For awhile it was magical. And then it was horrible. Everything was fake. Nothing mattered! back and forth. Eventually I got caught up in my own life and attempt to reparent myself, remake the messy outcome of an unhappy youth and become something akin to what I wanted to be instead of the seemingly accidental and not very pleasant result that had occurred prior to self-intervention. And life has a way of keeping you very busy and distracted for a long time if you let it. * Once in a meditation, in another world, I was observing a small army troop (this was world development about equal to ours maybe 1000 AD or so), and they were corrupt and were planning to go to a ranch house nearby, kill the people, take their food and horses. I wanted to stop that, but what could I do against a bunch of men, and I was frustrated, and so (sitting in a tree above them) I thought grumpily at a guide inside me, I can't do anything. This is none of my business anyway. And he said, "It is always your business when this kind of thing is in your immediate reality." So I had to try and come up with something to change that probability. But the comment stuck with me. If we are responsible for cocreating our reality experiences, then it's a given that if it's in our face, it's reflecting us in some fashion, and hence becomes "our business." It's not my business if the guy down the street gets mugged some night while on the town, at least unless I 'choose' to make it so, but it is if it's happening in front of me. The advent of media intrusion into our lives, makes everything happening right in front of us. At any given moment we could 'curate' the info around us and the primary focus would be the extinction of rare species or something. As opposed to what we focus on now, which mostly depends on what we do for news and entertainment -- and of course, what we 'think about.' Is there really an obligation? People are dying everywhere. There is injustice and war all over. At any moment, whatever it is we're up in arms about, thIat's one of at least 100 things of equal worth that we're just not hearing about or focusing on, it's not as shiny in the moment. And there's also good and beautiful things that we're unlikely to hear about because apparently good stuff is not nearly as inspiring... misery loves company, or something. I've known people really 'into' a subject that is local, like 4H or something they owned a business for, or their church, and their whole life centered around that info. They didn't need to focus on anything else, there's only so much time in a life and theirs was filled. What was their obligation? Was it fair to obsess on 4-H when, oh I dunno, the soup kitchen on the other side of town was closing for lack of volunteers, or a grave injustice was being carried out because citizens were inured or ignorant about something going on with city council or the police, or -- check one anything. What IS a person's obligation -- spiritually, and as a citizen, and do those differ? I feel obligated to put kids first, veterans first, but is that really fair to the average 35 year old guy who also needs life saving or needs a job? Is that a biological obligation, survival obligation, cultural obligation, citizenry obligation, or is there any such thing? When I say obligation I don't mean that in the government way where someone forces you to do something. I mean it in the more wholistic way where you are moved to do something because it is, even if indirectly, a part of you and that feels appropriate. I don't separate the physical, psyche and spiritual much, because my particular road is a big blend of vivid spontaneous and intentional and light, sometimes it's another world entirely and sometimes, it's all about suddenly understanding why the doorknob to my closet and my kid's bedroom are both having issues and how it pertains to the energy in me. But lately I am wondering, if media makes something "in my life" then does that create a sort of spiritual obligation? In other words, if we're going to "attach ourselves" to what is going on in... oh, France, say... do we do both ourselves and France a disservice by NOT 'becoming involved actively' in some fashion? Is there subtly an effect on the 'the target of our attention' by our focus, which if we're going to be passive, is more harm than help? If we cannot change what happens in some ways, should we avoid the topic? And is it some statement of projection if we choose to care more about what is happening in Syria or France than what is happening across town at the soup kitchen or whatever? These are the things I've been thinking about lately. RC

This is a really old one and it wasn't intended to be funny but I always thought it was. If you don't have 10 minutes to meditate daily, you had best make it 20. .

Aside from OBEs and Lucid Dreams, I am also often aware that I am dreaming. Sometimes I am aware that the world is a dream; sometimes I am also aware that 'this' world is also a dream; sometimes I am aware that all worlds are dreams. RC

Oh, Don! I grew up with his music. My dad's a C&W musician (professionally, and managed the largest instrument store in our county until I was an adult). My favorite song of his: RC

My cat is a menace to everyone. Crawling into my arms, I cradle her gently, and take a pic of her -- looking, as usual, incredibly irritated. She's a walking bombshell of hypervigilance. I sent my best friend a pic and he sent me back a perfect companion pic. This made me laugh. :-) RC

ROFL That may be the single funniest post I have read on the internet in months at least. I suspect people often THINK this but most aren't plaintive enough to actually SAY it. :-) RC

If he can truly predict the weather, he might actually be good for something. Love a man who knows what he believes. ;-) RC

That seems injust to me. He said, as you quoted, but some of which you didn't: Why is it insulting that he is saying he believes in 'race' and 'sex' and that these things differ between us, but that he is not 'prejudiced' - a meaning added to the word which he is questioning? And since there are people including those considered expert in the field of study who believe in IQ differences between races, even if this is totally wrong, why would believing in such research stats (there is more than just that study) make him so bad? Maybe he's wrong on that point, but that doesn't make him a bad person for believing it. I might add that if we talk about research, one thing about stereotypes (or similar paradigms) is that they are generally displaced the moment someone becomes an individual for interaction. They are the labeling all our brains do for many good reasons naturally. They usually exist (not always, but usually) for a fairly good reason, but they exist only because some basic mapping definitions must if there is no other information to displace it. Even people having them -- and I posit everyone does in some fashion -- doesn't make them prejudiced "in practice" -- they may have an expectation (e.g. that asians are often smart or hard-working or both) but it's going to vanish or be set aside when comes an individual they interact with. An opinion has to be a really power "pathology" to NOT be displaced by "more information" that interaction brings. I think our culture is suffering that we do not have a better language or use of the language. We do tend to glom many meanings together and pollute words with that, which then have so much 'baggage' their lexicon meaning is buried under the weight of it. Stereotypes are not bad, they just are, UNLESS held "rigidly" enough to mess up, say, who you call for an interview, or how you interpret someone asking you for the time. And that isn't about the stereotype, it's about the extreme psychology that individual has attached to it. On their own, stereotypes are just "placeholders for lack of more/better information." RC

OK, I was reading the thread Ralis mentioned, but I'm on page two and you guys are just killing me. If it gets any worse you'll be arguing about the meaning of the word IS. Besides, it's all distractors. It doesn't matter what words we use when the issue that brought it to argument is merely the idea that people actually DO vary by genetic group/sub-group which is "generally" recognizable by what we call race. We all know what that means, regardless of what pedantic and semantic detail could be argued about terminology or whatever. And the fact that there may be a lot of (even more) variance 'within a genetic group' than that group compared to others, does not mean that there is no difference between that group on average and some others on average. There are physical differences between genetic groups that are basic facts about biology, and what we do know suggests there is more we likely don't. Molyneaux said in the OP quote -- though I think it's being deliberate misconstrued -- that the original meaning of the word racist is or should be simply one who believes in or studies the differences in genetic groups we call race, but the term has gradually devolved to carry multiple baggage meanings all bad, including "is a bigot" and "believes white people are inherently better" and so on, which are a totally separate thing from simply having a belief that "genetics matter" and that race -- for lack of a better word -- matters.That doesn't mean one is better or worse, merely that "it matters." HOW it matters is a whole separate topic. As an example that I hope is less controversial than some -- because it's now officially ok to take every natural *ism humans have and levy it thusward it seems (alas) -- let's talk about obesity and genetics. Couple decades ago the big news was that "obesity had doubled" in the USA and so on. It was nearly hysterical from the media all the time for awhile. Dr. Jeffrey Friedman is a molecular biologist who runs a genetics lab at Rockefeller U. He runs the team that discovered the hormone Leptin, which makes him one of the rock stars of modern science. In an interview, he had this to say about genetics and obesity. At the time their lab was studying (among many other things) very closely huge people who'd had bariatric surgery. So as it turns out the "obesity has doubled!" was true but hype; really the 'average weight' increased 7-10#. However, what this doesn't mention but I've read about in research elsewhere, is that what really REALLY changed, is that the people on the far right side of the bell curve -- those who gain weight easily and do not lose it easily if at all -- the "degree of change" is very high. So for example, in the US, we are likely to see people who weigh 300-600# vastly more often now than 50 years ago. The last 20 years in particular just keeps finding more tragic evidence that the impact on children based on prenatal conditions, and based on the mother in general, and the grandmother in general as well (geez!) is pretty big. So for the genetic subgroups at the far side of the bell curve, the results on how fat is added and not lost becomes "exponential." (And that doesn't even start on Lipedema, which affects an estimated 10-11% of women in our pop, yet is not taught in medical school though established in 1940, and creates indefinitely stored fat that cannot be lost through undereating even starving, through exercise even insane amounts, etc. Or gut bacteria which is directly correlated to weight loss/gain at this point and is wrecked by antibiotics so only the last few generations suffer its overprescribing.) The fact that the super-obese are "concentrated in particular ethnic groups" is a big deal. For example there is often public discussion about whether authorities should seize superfat young people from parents who are assumed to be force feeding them oreos or something to make them that way. In Australia one couple otherwise healthy and financially stable were denied adoption because the woman (who worked on her feet 40 hours as a pro chef so was obviously not inert or anything) was 'too overweight.' But what this really means is that it biases heavily against people of certain races, as we call them, "ethnic groups" as Friedman puts it -- some are very unlikely to be huge, some very likely. Gary Taubes in his amazing book 'Good Calories, Bad Calories'[1] gives the example of the Pima indians in the US who were farmers and ridiculously healthy when the land was first getting resettled and they were encountered, eventually ended up on government welfare with flour-sugar-etc. and at this point tend to be huge, have massive diabetes problems, etc. [1] Stupid title. Great book. You really gotta be a serious reader for it though. It's an interesting review of a century of study on "the process of science" in a few areas. It's not a diet book. So two different people can eat the same things, same amounts, exercise the same amount (btw, amount of energy 'burned' by exercise can vary *radically* with the individual, and is less for former-higher-weight people), and at the end of a year, one person may be the same or slimmer, and the other 40# fatter. Multiply this by multiple years and you have a disaster on your hands, for the one person. (It's kind of a not-conspiracy-just-business related to our agri-chem-food-medical systems intertwine to a great degree.) And while these people can be anybody, the one that's uber-fat is very likely to be in SOME genetic groups (e.g. the Pima native american) more than others. So the point I'm making here is that this one topic alone (and there are tons of them) makes clear that people really DO differ between "ethnic groups." If they differ in this way, and other ways we know of, then it doesn't seem like rocket science to say that they may differ in ways everybody seems too afraid to talk about. I don't think I believe that 'raw' IQ varies based on race for example; but I do believe that the "response to cultural food" can vary based on ethnic subgroup, and I do believe that the response to food can have a fairly dramatic effect on nutritional status of the body and hence the development of every part of a person -- which could certainly affect intelligence. So this not only examples people physically differing based on ethnic groups, but differing specifically *in response to cultural food supply.* I think it is a mistake to have a knee-jerk reaction to studies that indicate a difference in IQ (there are quite a few by now) between 'races' -- even though all of us immediately know that 'environment' and more is a huge part of that, the people that do this stuff actually do consider those things, and research with people adopted as infants, or growing up in different environs/economies and things like that, comes in here and has also been done. For example, if the food supply -- particularly wheat and sugar, or artificially processed lipids -- have an even slightly disparate impact on one ethnic group versus another, that would be important to know! But we're never going to learn anything if we keep pretending nothing related to 'race' can possibly be anything but racist and untrue. It's a huge disservice to human beings if we prevent science, funding, attention, etc. for something that might, actually, end up helping people. RC

One of the things I find difficult as a civilian looking on, is that it's simply not always clear what is feasible, or 'now', or not. I often have to compare the presidency to being a CEO walking into a family-owned business on which many of the board members (who could fire the CEO or sell the corp or other things) are related to many of the executives the CEO is forced to work with. So he may be in charge but he doesn't have unlimited power and maybe there are all kinds of things that he either can't do (but could were half the execs not family who resented him for taking Uncle's job) or can do but it's going to require negotiation or time, or can only do in 'compromise' -- I promise to become a christian and shut up about your obsession with assange if... well, whatever. Sometimes it gets down to: do you trust the person to have their own mind and intent and to keep their word. In politics that is "never." Bizarrely, Trump, one of the least qualified political candidates in our history officially, has been better about clearly defining plans and keeping his word than probably just about every president we ever had combined. So generally, I trust him to have a pre-existing idea and intent, and to at least try and keep his word. But there's going to be plenty of times when he has to compromise. And plenty of times when he has to delay what he hopes for, for various reasons. And plenty of times when he is stuck with what is humanly possible given the circumstance. You can write a budget but Congress has to vote it in and they're likely to bicker it to death before they do. You can say what you want about what you'd like a healthcare bill to look like, but if there is no mandate insurers may say get stuffed and there is no healthcare bill, and if there is a mandate your favorite people (and you) hate it, and if there isn't the entirety of congress except your favorite few hate it and it would never pass -- because most your people are nearly as bad as the enemy or at least questionably recalcitrant, because you took Uncle's job -- and no matter what you do at least half the country's going to be irked, and even if it's imploding massively and you improved things, it's still going to be bad because hello, let's take the most egregiously spiralingly overpriced industry in the nation and say hey instead of the barely-exists market competition you already control and prevent keeping you in line we'll just have the government write you a blank check and then tax it out of the people -- yeah, that's sure to end well. So basically that whole topic is utterly, totally screwed no matter what. And of course then there's the entire propaganda arm of the globalists half of which are operating as your own country's major media, and if X million people weren't covered before obamacare, and now X+2 million people aren't covered under obamacare, so it's actually slightly worse, and in the future X-3 people wouldn't be covered by the futurecare (many intentionally or for reason like 'has it elsewhere') which is actually slightly better, the props will still tell the people that you are so horrifically cruel like hitler that you are putting X-3 million people onto the streets to die of leprosy and scurvy (oh, and the potential fraction of a degree change in a century maybe) because that is the evil villian that you are. Talk about a no-win situation. In the past we gave millions and billions in weapons and money to the worst possible countries for reasons which either spell 'corruption related to oil' or 'corruption.' Now, one of the few plays DJT has to bargain with is money and weapons. He didn't give 'em to Qatar but I think if he had stepped in to stop that, there might be other repercussions -- some might be going to our people not theirs; some other countries might think all existing deals are off if DJT won't honor anything at all it might seem -- given he pulled out of other things signed by BO. Or, and this is most likely, he very publicly said something about Qatar because now they know IF they don't start falling in line he MIGHT start yanking their planes; so it's a bargaining chip, I imagine. I tell my kid all the time: you're just going to have to give it time. See how things shake out. And you're just going to have to accept that even if someone is good on their word, their position is going to make it impossible to act like God. Typical of either her age or her politics I'm not sure which, she will on one hand be ghastly offended that Trump did something he promised, got voted in on, reminded-assured of, and then made good on; while then being hideously offended that he is working with congress on things where he is legally required to work with congress rather than waving a magic wand and making it happen like he hoped; while then insisting that something should be done regardless of the peoples' will or vote because people are stupid and she knows best, as if the president acting like that wouldn't truly be the worst kind of tyrant she accuses him of; there is pretty much no logical path to her perspective so I just say... GIVE IT TIME AND WE'LL SEE. Recently she was saying something and I said, "Oh, I rather like Steve Bannon." She was so shocked and upset she literally ran to her room. My best friend jokes if I want my nearly-21 year old to move out I should put pictures of Reagan, Trump and Steve on the wall with some flowers and maybe a small candle LOL!! RC

I've spent a good deal of time around Mr. Madila -- the many instance-incarnations of him. :-) That was truly hilarious! RC

Addressing various of the last couple days: 1 - Boy there certainly were people squirming in their seats. Pretty sure the majority of that congregation of "50 countries' leaders" would happily have hacked off his head if the King of Arabia weren't his host. To hear him call out the violence totally clearly and then preacher-level extort against it, probably was shocking for them. To compare to other leaders for 'intent': when our soldiers were on occasion seized by one of the militant groups (taliban, isis, etc. - there are many), after being tortured, they'd have their heads sawed off, and photos taken. They would provide info with the bodies that "prior to their deaths they converted to Islam and here are their new islamic names." Forced to give awards to some of these people, the President then (BO) presented their grieving but proud families with their medals of honor. In the names the terrorist torturers who killed them gave them. Rather than their own. If someone sat around for five years thinking of the most totally F'ing insulting thing you could do to a soldier and their family, that would be it. To have this done by the President of all people is nauseating. One of the things that first made me feel positive about Trump was his totally forthright support of veterans both mil serving and retired. 2 - I'm sorry to say but it's true that it's a pretty low common denominator aimed for if you're looking for simple slogans that move the masses. No matter which side we're talking about, or what country of people. Oh and don't forget Bush's "Axis of Evil." Yep, evil's gotta be in there somewhere... 3 - I like Milo. He's a bit messed up in some ways, but like many people, that's just who he is. I don't dislike him for that I just recognize it. He is aggressively anti-feminism, but I have to admit that while I"m not as rude as he is about it, I have seldom disagreed with much he has said on that or other topics I've heard him speak about. He's intentionally polarizing in terms of the shock value but so are standup comedians and some writers, I don't think that's a bad thing -- I think that is often what drives attention and discussion of things, and it might be more heated than without that, but it might not have happened at all without that, too. The new-left's* descent into Legion (separating everyone into warring labels) is devastatingly destructive to our country and it's pretty destructive to human relationships up close, as well. I have never met a self-labeled feminist I did not consider a walking complex of pathologies projected on men and in serious need of therapy, so I have a hard time sympathizing with it also, and I'm a woman, so go figure. * I say new-left because I really feel that the progressive movement has been utterly hijacked by globalists and worse. Take the 'womens marches' for example. So they choose a leader like the woman who is pushing for Sharia law and affiliated with just about every possible muslim and terrorist group. They choose another leader who was imprisoned for murdering a man in part by violently raping him with a foot long metal rod with a couple other people. They choose another leader who was imprisoned for blowing up two innocent 21 year old college students in an act of terrorism. HOW DID THIS BECOME FEMINISM? How did people like this merit being chosen as LEADERS? Then, when women wanted to join the "women's march" who were pro-life, they were refused! Because it's not about being a woman, it's about being utterly for abortion, and not only that but government-funded abortion. SINCE WHEN did feminism become solely about abortion? That movement was utterly hijacked already, but now it's worse; but the left has now been fully hijacked as well. There are plenty of sane, good people who are progressives that I know, and even they wonder where the hell their party went, where the sanity went. They are not in favor of that stuff, and they're as horrified by antifa as anyone, and some of them are utterly pro-life (nuns, who work with the poor, are infamously liberal for example). They see the complete inanity of the talking heads in the news who are endless-term in congress. They're not the craziness we see in the news. That doesn't mean they like Trump, often they loathe him, but most of them were like "yes it's horrible. Yes now I know how conservatives felt about Obama. But the vote's over." If they were in congress they probably wouldn't be abandoning the majority of their job just to focus on trying to hunt for one thing, any thing, they can destroy the president with (I consider EVER dem and rep who has done that so far to be guilty of sedition). They just happen to feel differently about things. And I think it's important to have people who feel differently... I feel that is part of how a country keeps from going to extreme for too long in any one direction. It's just that "feeling differently" and "attempting to usurp or destroy an elected government" are two different things -- and the "new" left, most of whom seem to be rabid, really aren't in the same category. I suspect the left was already gone but Trump's arrival, in addition to destroying the Reps to a good degree, really revealed the dark rotten underbelly of the virulent coup of the progressive left by the globalists, media, pussyists, jihadic influences and other miserable sources. Both the left and the right -- the good people in each -- need a new party, since theirs have been stolen by the lunatics. RC