Monday, February 27, 2017

Fake news.

Fake reaction.

With the left, it's astroturf all the way down.

As I've always said, men make the best women.

...or "So what?  I'm waiting for the day when a transgender girl takes the boy's wrestling championship."

Uproar as Transgender Boy Wins Texas GIRLS’ Wrestling Tournament

Are there any pictures of this dude from the waste down in his wrestling tights?

Also, what did the girl who lost, and her family, think?  Or are they too tired from being declared unpersons by the Compassionate Left to speak out?

NB: The girl is actually a girl on steroids "transitioning" to a boy.

Yeah...that's totally fair.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

The Snowflake Diaries.

Either leftists are particularly weak or the LAT Times likes catering to drama queens, or both.

No one of normal disposition and humor can read this article without a hearty chuckle for the bathetic self-indulgence that drips from every line.

// In her 35 years as a therapist, Arlene Drake has never heard so many clients talking about the same issue. Week after week, they complain of panic attacks and insomnia because of President Trump. They’re too anxious to concentrate at work. One woman’s fear turned into intense, physical pain.

“It’s just a nightmare,” said Drake, who practices in West L.A.

Drake was trained not to reveal her personal beliefs, but now will agree with clients if they say they don’t support Trump.

“If this were just another session, if this weren’t such a big thing, if this weren’t so evil, I wouldn’t,” she said. “But I have to stand for what I stand for and that does cross over into politics.” //

Drake's clients should sue her if she isn't treating for "narcissism."

Friday, February 24, 2017

The reason that science is superior to philosophy is that its results can be replicated....

...around 30% of the time.

//Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.
This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

From his lab at the University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

"The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results."

You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.
The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies' findings.

Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.
"It's worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity," says Dr Errington.

Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.//

I love science, but we need to keep the limits of science in mind.

The urban elites get together and have a bit of a chuckle...

...about how the rest of us are a bunch of dangerous fascists who should not be allowed to have any say in their democracy.

Qelle Francais!

Check out the cognitive dissonance of these two (unfunny) quips:

//Portion Control

The reason French women seem to be able to indulge in so many sinful treats and stay trim is their immaculate portion control. Learn to stop after just one serving of Twitter, cable news, or video of a Nazi getting punched and you can enjoy these choice indulgences every day.//

So, punch them fascists, French lady!

That's funny!

On the other hand:

//Take Off One Thing Before You Leave the House

Do you really need mace, a rape whistle, and nunchucks every time you go outside? Probably yes, given the prevalence and normalization of violence against women and minorities since Election Day. But it’s much more chic to pick just one for the good fight.//

So, when them fascists are being punched, they might be rapists, so better bring along a weapon of violence in case you run into someone who might have voted against the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua.

Urban liberals fantasize about being tough, urban guerrillas is about as realistic as a nerd looking the mirror fantasizes that he sees a chiseled Adonis.

The told me that if Trump was elected, immigrant minorities would be denied their right to participate in democratic self-government....

... and they were right!

Republican locked out of California Assembly for speaking truth about Tom Hayden's complicity with totalitarianism.

//After trying to make a statement about the late Tom Hayden and his opposition to the Vietnam War, Sen. Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove) was removed from the floor of the state Senate on Thursday, a tense scene that ended in a slew of angry accusations from both Republicans and Democrats.

Nguyen, who was brought to the United States as a Vietnamese refugee when she was a child, said she wanted to offer "a different historical perspective" on what Hayden and his opposition to the war had meant to her and other refugees.

Hayden, the former state legislator who died last October, was remembered in a Senate ceremony Tuesday.

Nguyen's comments were interrupted by the Senate's majority leader, Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel), who said she was "out of order." Nguyen, however, refused to stop talking. The presiding officer for the day, Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), then instructed the Senate's sergeants-at-arms to remove the Republican lawmaker from the floor.//

In the One-Party State of California, there can be only one historical perspective.

The Senator's Statement is here:

"Dear Senators and the People:

I and the children of the former South Vietnam soldiers will never forget the support of former Senator Tom Hayden for the Communist government of Vietnam and the oppression by the Communist Government of Vietnam for the people of Vietnam.

After 40 years, the efforts by people like him have hurt the people of Vietnam and have worked to stop the Vietnamese refugees from coming to the United States, a free country. We will always continue to fight for freedom and human rights for the people of Vietnam.

Members, I recognize today in memory of the million of Vietnamese and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees who died seeking freedom and democracy. I recognize that on Tuesday you had an opportunity to honor Senator Tom Hayden. With all due respect, I would like to offer another historical perspective.

On Tuesday, instead of participating, I chose to step out of the chamber out of respect to his family, his friends and to you. In contrast to your comments on Tuesday, I want to share what Senator Hayden meant to me and to the over 500,000 Vietnamese Americans who call California their home, as well as to the over 1 million Vietnamese Americans across the United States.

As you may be aware, Tom Hayden chose to work directly with the Communist North Vietnamese Government to oppose the efforts of United States forces in South Vietnam.

Mr. Hayden sided with a communist government that enslaved and/or killed millions of Vietnamese, including members of my own family. Mr. Hayden’s actions are viewed by many as harmful to democratic values and hateful towards those who sought the very freedoms on which this nation is founded.

Were it not for the efforts of the thousands of men and women who served bravely in the United States military and the South Vietnamese military, as well as the efforts of millions of Vietnamese citizens who resisted the communists, I would not be standing here on this Senate floor humbly representing the residents of the 34th District.

In addition to the sacrifices made during war, the efforts of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s allowed many Vietnamese like me to seek refuge in the United States.

In contrast to the great many people who fought to defend freedom and democracy, Mr. Hayden supported a Communist agenda and traveled to North Vietnam during the war.

He believed that those who protested the human-rights violations of the Communists were tools of the CIA. It is known that he believed that the war was a conflict between Imperialism, led by the United States and the “free” people of North Vietnam. Former Senator Hayden was profoundly wrong in his support of the Communist.

Members, to this day, the government of Vietnam continues to violate the basic human rights of its citizens. They systematically continue to oppress freedoms of expression, religion and assembly and incarcerate those who speak out for freedom and democracy.

Thank you for allowing me to make my comments. I proudly stand before you as a Vietnamese-American who appreciates the freedoms that so many around the world do not enjoy."

Totally politically incorrect.

Narrative fail.

I thought Denmark was the secular liberal non-religious paradise that secular liberal non-religious Westerners aspire to.

Maybe it is?

"Danish man who videoed himself burning the Quran charged with blasphemy
Case is first time Danish prosecutors have charged anyone with blasphemy in 46 years"

Thursday, February 23, 2017

My hope was that the election of Trump would cause the political elite to see the wisdom in rolling back state power.... appears that Trump may be doing that on his own.

//Lost in most of the coverage of President Trump’s decision to rescind the Obama administration’s transgender mandates is a fundamental legal reality — the Trump administration just relinquished federal authority over gender-identity policy in the nation’s federally funded schools and colleges. In other words, Trump was less authoritarian than Obama. And that’s not the only case. Consider the following examples where his administration, through policy or personnel, appears to be signaling that the executive branch intends to become less intrusive in American life and more accountable to internal and external critique.

Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, a man known not just for his intellect and integrity but also for his powerful legal argument against executive-branch overreach. Based on his previous legal writings, if Gorsuch had his way, the federal bureaucracy could well face the most dramatic check on its authority since the early days of the New Deal. By overturning judicial precedents that currently require judicial deference to agency legal interpretations, the Court could put a stop to the current practice of presidents and bureaucrats steadily (and vastly) expanding their powers by constantly broadening their interpretations of existing legal statutes.

For example, the EPA has dramatically expanded its control over the American economy even without Congress passing significant new environmental legislation. Instead, the EPA keeps revising its interpretation of decades-old statutes like the Clean Air Act, using those new interpretations to enact a host of comprehensive new regulations. If Gorsuch’s argument wins the day, the legislative branch would be forced to step up at the expense of the executive, no matter how “authoritarian” a president tried to be.

Trump nominated H. R. McMaster to replace Michael Flynn as his national-security adviser. McMaster made his name as a warrior on battlefields in the Gulf War and the Iraq War, but he made his name as a scholar by writing a book, Dereliction of Duty, that strongly condemned Vietnam-era generals for simply rolling over in the face of Johnson-administration blunders and excesses. In his view, military leaders owe their civilian commander in chief honest and courageous counsel — even when a president may not want to hear their words.

When the Ninth Circuit blocked Trump’s immigration executive order (which was certainly an aggressive assertion of presidential power), he responded differently from the Obama administration when it faced similar judicial setbacks. Rather than race to the Supreme Court in the attempt to expand presidential authority, it backed up (yes, amid considerable presidential bluster) and told the Ninth Circuit that it intends to rewrite and rework the order to address the most serious judicial concerns and roll back its scope.

Indeed, if you peel back the layer of leftist critiques of Trump’s early actions and early hires, they contain a surprising amount of alarmism over the rollback of governmental power. Education activists are terrified that Betsy DeVos will take children out of government schools or roll back government mandates regarding campus sexual-assault tribunals. Environmentalists are terrified that Scott Pruitt will make the EPA less activist. Civil-rights lawyers are alarmed at the notion that Jeff Sessions will inject the federal government into fewer state and local disputes over everything from school bathrooms to police traffic stops.

A president is “authoritarian” not when he’s angry or impulsive or incompetent or tweets too much. He’s authoritarian when he seeks to expand his own power beyond constitutional limits. In this regard, the Obama administration — though far more polite and restrained in most of its public comments — was truly one of our more authoritarian.

Obama exercised his so-called prosecutorial discretion not just to waive compliance with laws passed by Congress (think of his numerous unilateral delays and waivers of Obamacare deadlines) but also to create entirely new immigration programs such as DACA and DAPA. He sought to roll back First Amendment protections for political speech (through his relentless attacks on Citizens United), tried to force nuns to facilitate access to birth control, and he even tried to inject federal agencies like the Equality Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into the pastor-selection process, a move blocked by a unanimous Supreme Court. In foreign policy, he waged war without congressional approval and circumvented the Constitution’s treaty provisions to strike a dreadful and consequential deal with Iran.//

Reflections on the "I fucking love science" crowd:

Two great quotes:

//If today’s leftists pride themselves on anything, it’s their supposed rationalism. Leftists see themselves as enlightened and logical. They “fucking love” science and reject religious hokum, in contrast to the superstitious buffoons on the right, who live in, to quote Carl Sagan, a “demon-haunted world” of their own making. With every leftist I know, this is the characteristic about which they are most proud: They are rationalists and skeptics, with shibboleth-shorn minds free of bewitchment. The problem is, leftists who consider themselves rational and non-superstitious are like scrawny nerds who look in the mirror and see a chiseled Adonis in the reflection. One almost feels bad for people so possessed of a delusion.//


//Never forget that the voodoo priests of the left banned the most effective types of asthma inhalers because they were “killing the earth,” even as leftist billionaires were allowed to continue flying private jets all over the world in order to play golf and screw fashion models and conduct similarly important business. There is no way this is any saner than the faith healing and tongue-speaking of the charismatics and evangelicals. Indeed, it’s worse, because it’s way more invasive, way more intrusive, in the lives of bystanders. No right-wing Christian ever forced me to anoint with oil. But leftist charlatans posing as scientists banned the only type of inhaler that helped my elderly mom’s asthma, because the act of her going “puff puff” so she wouldn’t die was bringing about the end of days, while Al Gore’s totally unnecessary private jet oddly had no effect on the environment.//

Monday, February 20, 2017

That's what's supposed to happen when you flush news down the memory hole.

Reporter has no idea what the reference to "Obama told Russia that he would be more flexible after the election" means.

Tur is reliable on The Narrative, so don't expect NBC to upgrade to a smarter version.
When America elected a dangerous radical on the issue of immigration... 2008.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Bill Maher commits lese majestie against Progressive Liberalism.

Bill Maher demonstrates a real commitment to real liberalism by permitting ungood badthought guest to appear on his show, saying "If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims—and he might be—nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.”

Good for Maher, who I usually find to be as welcome as a cold sore, although I have to grudgingly admit that he does seem to be the last liberal believer in a kind of free speech, albeit a free speech where he packs the room with people who agree with him..

On the other hand, this Daily Beast column is shocked - shocked! - by such a refusal to conform to progressive liberalism and repeatedly insinuates that Maher has let down the Good People by not pressing Milo on such objective and timeless questions as whether Amy Schumer is funny:

//We have both been disbarred at Berkeley,” said Maher, addressing how Yiannopoulos apparently “makes liberals crazy—for that part of liberalism that has gone off the deep-end.”

“You’re literally the only good [liberal],” replied a toadying Yiannopoulos. “Your side has gone insane. The Democrats are the party of Lena Dunham. These people are mental, hideous people. The more that America sees of Lena Dunham, the fewer votes the Democrat Party’s ever going to get.”

“Let’s not pick on fellow HBO stars,” said Maher.

Yiannopoulos then singled out Amy Schumer and Sarah Silverman as “people who used to be funny before they contracted feminism,” before Maher, instead of pressing his guest, decided to change the subject again.

“Let’s talk about your humor,” said an extraordinarily accommodating Maher, “because I think a lot of people do miss your humor. And I’m a guy who always defends jokes, right up to the point where they pointlessly hurt people.” //

Interesting possibility: what if Maher agrees with Milo on these points?

Obviously that's inconceivable to the writer of the Daily Beast post.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

If it wasn't for double-standards....

2008 - Hey, those conservatives talking about secession are dangerously unhinged and a threat to public decency.

2016 - You know, California secession is not such a wacky idea.

Sorry, Salon, it is a "wacky idea" no matter who is pitching it.

It shouldn't take a Civil War to prove that point.

Who links to me?