1
1
11
By my personal perspective, being a Boomer, the “existential crisis” we faced in the 50s was the end of access to petroleum by the 70s. Following shortly thereafter, still within the half-century mark, came our crisis of over-population.
Within that 70s decade began a meme that has changed its moniker at least twice, both invented by the same guy in a 1975 article which gave us both Global Warming and Climate Change. [Wallis Broecker, “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”, Science, vol. 189 [8 August 1975], 460-473]
The term, “existential threat” became common vernacular. The threat, by the dawn of the 80s, was also a 20-year doomsday, by which date, the great plains would be on fire, and Manhattan would be inundated by AlGore, the prophet of inconvenient truths that turned out to be neither inconvenient, nor truth. Oops. That’s Hollowood
In the late teens of our 21st century, with the plains still producing food in abundance, and Manhattan still had Broadway, our 20-year existential threat is now 12-year cycles: 2030. First, was our climate demise unless we embraced Green Energy. We’re 30 months from that demise, but Green is still just 21% of our US energy grid, yet, according to fools, we could eliminate fossil fuel by the end of Biden’s term. Oops. He didn’t end cancer, either. Still doesn’t know what he’s run Ning for [told us in. 2020 & 2024 he was running for Senate. Multiple times, each].
Now, the 12-year crisis is our demise by A.I.: 2038.
That’s just 60+ years beyond Marion King Hubbert’s oil demise prophecy.
That’s just 40+ years beyond Al Gore’s alleged inundation of Manhattan.
But the New Democrat Party [aka DSA - American socialists] wlll keep trying to carry the 12-year demise fixation banner:
Occasional Cortex [she of House District NY14][aka AOC] is still beating the drum of Woke2.
Maxine Waters [House Dist. CA43] in still reclaiming her time.
AlGore has yet to invent AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum.
So, what crisis?
4
If you do not live in the U.S., this post is of no effect to you. Your commentary is, never the less, invited, because this issue is a worldwide concern. What's wrong with insisting AI be controlled by U.S. congressional legislation? Because we already have an enshrined Constritution with Article I, Section 8, clause 3, the "Commerce Clause." Within that construct, there are already numerous congressional statutes passed and activated to protect us from products that may cause personal injury, death, or financial loss directly attributed to a product. These should already include the potiential of A.I. to be cause of those results of our use of that product. We are already personally responsible to for our prudent use of A.I.
Frankly, surrenduring our own agency is nonsense. Why would we do that? "The devil made me do it?"
Absurd. Individual responsibility should always have greater influence on us than anything else.
1
On this day of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, I specifically remember that morning waking up from a dream of my father, who died the previous year in the week of Thanksgiving. My dream had him walking down a curved staircase we never had in any home I've ever lived, He stopped mid-way down and said to me [We were alone together], "Wake up. There's something happening." It was not yet 6am the morning of the 11th, a Tuesday in our home in CA. The North Tower was already struck 15 minutes earlier, of which I was unaware. My wife was already awake and downstairs in our family room, watching the news on TV. When I came down the stairs, she just said, "Hurry, sit down, We're under attack." Before I could sit down, I watched UA flight 175, from Boston, headed for L.A., where we lived, fly with purpose into the South Tower. Something happening, indeed! I've wished since then Dad hadn't awakened me. Our daughter, a college student, sat on the other end of the sofa where I then sat. She was about to leave for class. She said, "Didn't we go to those towers when I was 6?" Yes. we did. The tops of both buildings were now consumed in thick gray smoke.
We all know what happened.
What I didn't know for another 10 years was that all four of the directly affected flights [two into the Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into the field in PA] were intended to fly to CA; the first three to L.A., the 4th to San Francisco. Both cities I've called home, but I knew no one on any of those flights.
On that morning, my brother and his wife, flying from Amsterdam to NY, was 1 hour out of Amsterdam when their piot announced simply that the air space throughout the U.S. was closed, so the flight was returning to Amsterdam. International flights did not offer regular news programming in-flight until a year or so later, so passengers were left to wonder why our air space was shutdown. My brother and wife were delayed returing home for four or five days.
I was scheduled to fly to Hong Kong on Wednesday, 9/12; that flight was cancelled, and I never did go. By Friday, I was advised that my company was downsizing. Within a month, we went to what we thought was a a temporary two-three week visit with my wife's parents out of state because her father was not doing well. By Thanksgiving week, with my position now severed permanently by the end of October due to severe business reversal with many companies doing business overseas, includiong mine, my fasther-in-law passed away. We immediately decided to put up our house for sale, move in with my wife's mother, who had a 5,000 square-foot home on 13 acres, and in desperate need of assistance.
All that due to 9/11. It changed my life completely.
21
Bud Lite and Nike valuation now, compared to even just two years ago, is evidence that woke [either 1 or 2] is DOA.
Both decided to premier woke values as advertsing camapaigns and have discovered, to their chagrin, that woke is not a money-maker. Conservatives buy beer and running shoesd in big numbers; big enough that both companies have lost big value.
One might add Jaguar to that list, which featured a clear diversion to woke advertising in late 2025 with garish models, body movement, 60s psychedelic colors, etc. In April 2025, they sold all of 49 cars, worldwide, compared to over 2,000 in April 2024. They claim that reduction was not due to the woke ad camapign, but a near zero producrion of ICE [internal combustion engine] in favor of development of EV. Well, what says EVs are no woke?
29
What if U.S. Billionaires were charged at 100% of their annual taxable income? How about 63x their annual taxable income?
There are about 989 U.S. citizens who deserve the label: "billionaire."
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
20% of that number, 198, are at or beyond 80 years of age, but we'll not use that reduction in these calculations, just to maximize the dire straits the woke2 are who believe billionaires should "pay their fair share" in income taxes to increase tax revenue.
The average taxable annual income of U.S. billionaires is $99M
The current annual spending by the US government is $6.2T
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
At the avg billionaire annual taxable income of $99M, 989 of them would pay $98B, collectively, towared the annual US government payout of $6.2T. That's just a little bit shy of the total nut, isn't it? And you, who ask that they must pay "their fair share" would take 100% of their taxable income, not just an elevated amount you claim is "a fair share."
Don't you think, if you did, that our 989 billionaires wouild need to fork over more than a fair share, because what you are asking is that "their fair share" needs to be 63x their average annual taxable income at a 100% tax rate. How "fair" is that?
And that 63x doesn't even cover your demands of "medicare for everyone," let alone coverage of any other DSA demand. Y'all truly flunked math.
7
Just ran across an article speaking to a recent woke2 rage event: the boyfriend illiteracy test. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/03/boyfriend-literacy-intelligence-test
Women give their boyfriends a list of words to vocally pronounce. Some words are:
“epitome,” “challah,” “fuchsia,” “conscientious," “colonel,” “regime,” “faux pas,” [I'll add "faux law"],and “hors d’oeuvres.”
If men are offended by this test [and you may be if there is no background in Hebrew, Greek, or French langauges]. "Challah" stumped me. I have very little background in Hebrew. I sympathize.
However, I have a retort for you: recall a few years ago in the Harvey Weinstein affair, a woman testified that in his hotel room, "...he told me to take my clothes off, so I did." That launched her as the "#metoo" poster girl, a classic woke1 event.
5
What goes up must come down. That's not always a simple, safe exercise; we only know for certain that the up/down is a necessary sequence of anything that leaves the ground with the intent that it return to the ground safe and secure.
That it sometimes does not return safe and secure is what makes the result tragic. In the case of Prime Air, it was the landing that failed; all deaths [5, at present] occuurred with the plane already on the ground. How to stop tragedy? Well, like banning guns, such action will not eliminate death from ocurring by banning flight. Going up in the air by rebound from a trampoline can and does have tragic result. Is the air too dangerous? Or the trampoline. Not oftren enought to ban them.
The NTSB activity has resulted in new tech to resolve some recurring problems. As a result, it is demonstrated that we are now safer boarding an aircraft, flying in it, and returning to the ground in frequent, safe occasions that makes airline travel one of the safest, secure modes of travel for people and for goods.
Peole are fallible; always have been, always will be.
5
Climate [existental] change? Climate [science]
Long before we thought we knew what climate was, and that it is existentially changing, was a pair of events between 2.somenting billion years ago, and about 580 milion years ago. A pair of ice ages, both so severe, the entire Earth was buried in ice. Yet, therre was active volcanism. Real, erupting volcanoes, with ejected ash and gasses in to the air, corrupting the atmosphere to a greater degree than we observe now, even though man was yet to set foot on the Earth. Lomg before. Imagine that. Natural-caused greenhouse gasses? Yup.
And ice covered for so long, nothing but single-celled creatures survived while that last severe ice age was retreating, finally. Yup. No man, but catstrophic climate, anytway.
Advanve to 1869. American geologist, John Wesley Powell observes, to his surprise, an anomoly on the Grand Canyon wall, sediment that is set on a severe angle, representing the first thrust of the Rockies, and, immediately below it, horizontal sediment deposts. No surprise there; this has been witnessed repeated times around the globe on canyon walls. The problem, Powell discovered, was that the upper, diagnonal deposits, dated at 580M years ago. Immediately below, the horizontal deposit dated at 2.something billion years ago. How and why the intrerruption in dating? To make a long story short, the anomoly was called the Great Nonconformity. It is theorized that as that last long-enduring ice age ended, and with continued volcanism in play, the glaciers were warmng rapidly, melting and moving from the Great Lakes south and west, grinding and removing 1.2B years of sediment layers. Poof. Ground and gone, to be covered once again by more sediment layers [oin Bonneville Lake, a vast sea in its ancient time that extended from east of the evential Mississippi River to the thrust of the Rockies. Man is estimated to make the scene much later, around 100-200k years ago. In geologic time, a blink.
WHAT? Climate change before man? Damn!
31
In California, in the Mojave Desert, was a health spa resort at the end of a road, 4.5 miles from I-15 to the resort. The name of the road is Zzyzx Road. In the alphabetical list of roads in the U.S., this road is the last. The resort is no longer there, but the road remains. The man who established the resort, and had the road paved and named, was thought eccentric. Though a resident of CA for 58 years, I have passed the freeway exit to Zzyzx Road countless times, but never took the exit to see the end of the road.
I use this road example to ask the title question, which refers to a road that is not as bizarre by name, but exceeds bizarre in attitude.
The road? That of human gender by declaration rather than by science. Now, the argument is one I would have thought, when I played scholastic sports in high school [and I was hardly alone in 1965 - 1967], utterly insane, not merely bizarre. Now, I must reset the bizarre/insane threshold. Here it is:
Imagine a guy dressed in an eagle suit, feathers, talons, beak, who swoops out of the sky on a guy in a cocker spaniel puppy suit, takes the puppy in his talons and flies away with it, killing it savagely to eat later at the nest.
The police are called in by the people who own the puppy, They show the blood on the ground, pictures of the puppy, and the fact that the puppy is now missing. They show the door cam footage capturing the eagle's actions taking the puppy. The police find the eagle, the remains of the puppy in the nest, and arrest the eagle for murder.
The eagle protests, and several people protest the arrest, supporting the eagle's side, declaring him an eagle merely doing what eagles do naturally.
But he's not an eagle, he's a human man, the D.A. replies, who has indicted the man for murder, and has confiscated the eagle suit as evidence [it has blood on it, identified as human blood, although the victim was dressed in a dog suit.
Absurd, you say? Well, having already argued that a man belongs in women's sports, just how far down that road are you willing to go?
36
The title of this string is a quote from 19th/20th-century philosopher George Santayana. He was talking about how we escape, to our peril, from embracing what is uncomfortable fact by satisfaction with theory.
Theory, such as what was once called "global warming," because we thought, then, that each year, the average world temperature was rising. That claim was debunked when, in 2018, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accord, a climate change UN directive established in 2016, under the Obama administration, to which the United States was contributing the greatest percentage of financial support, because we were convinced climate change was an existential threat.
When we pulled out, the world cried foul, screamed at the moon, and tore their hair out for the U.S. affront to their sensitive brains, making more sensitive, still. One would think by now, that NOOA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] would have standardized by the same measurement method and equipment and locations, alloweiong for technical improvement of measurement. However, NOOA says of itself
"NOAA's global temperature records have never been collected using the exact same measurement methods, equipment, or unchanging station locations for any length of time, because the global observing network has continuously evolved and expanded since records began in 1850. Instead of relying on identical static equipment or fixed locations, scientists maintain long-term consistency by tracking temperature anomalies (the difference from a long-term average) rather than absolute temperatures." https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaaglobaltemp.html
By the way, while one would think NOOA resides within a technical cocoon, it is actually within the U.S. Department of Commerce. That's science? It's commerce, certainly, but...
Carl Jung once said, "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong."
1
El Sayed is taking a walk-back tour to apologize to Jews in MI. That will have the effect of walking back the few fractional percentage points by which he won the primary.
Typical Democrat Party strategy: be sure every platform plank has its antithesis.
Good plan.
6
What a woman! As much as I denigrate "science" as it relates to Earth-bound climates, a deserving woman of a more mature science, astronomy, is honored this week as the leading edge of space-based astronomy, who, among other accomplishments, spearheaded the Hubble telescope project. A new telescope, named in her honor, will soon launch to examine, more accurately than any telescope in space or on Earth, the nature of dark matter.
Nancy Grace Roman now has a supreme view of all, having passed from us on Christmas Day of 2018. In her beginning career, she earned her PhD at the University of Chicago, and spent several years thereafter, but never attained tenured status, only because she was a woman! Nancy left to join NASA in 1959. The rest is historic. Here's her story:
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/roman-space-telescope/who-is-nancy-grace-roman/
6
This week's disastrous flooding in Nepal [suggested to have been caused by earthquake] is a testament to our poor ability to respond preventively to natural disasters.
No climate change wizardry, no dollar contribution to the Green New Deal would have prevented this disaster. To think we could have predicted this with any accuracy of timing or preventive action is about as wishful thinking as if we had any ability to clean the clouds.
In terms of what science can do, in this regard, we're still trying to figure out how to plant corn and expect to harvest a crop.
Climate science? That's what you really think it is? An infantile science, at best, right now. Hell, predicting the weather by the detail of neighborhoods accurately, hour-to-hour, is still beyond us, let alone an event like what happened this week in Nepal. God bless those people affected, and succor those in desperate need now, and in their grief for those they have lost.
4
There is a constant argument in America that indigenous tribes should have retained land authority over the colonists' claims of sovereignty. This issue is not unique to America. All over the world, this conflict has plagued humanity. Civilization has meant conflict in land domination, even when the world population was much smaller than today, when land was abundant all over the world, [frankly, it still is, but that's another subject] and until sovereignty organized nation-states.
Both Western and Eastern civilizations from antiquity [Greece in the West; China in the East] up to and perhaps even earlier than 5,000 years ago when written language, the root of civilization, began, primarily with Sumarian Cuneiform and Old Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs. Language allowed the creation of society, and society quickly learned that rule of law needed to be developed, including what constituted nation-states from random collections of populations. Rule of law created sovereignty.
This is why the indigenous peoples [tribes] failed to establish sovereignty, because they did not develop organized, written rule of law, and the colonists did. Until the 1960's, they continued to refer to themselves by their tribal names, and not as cohesive, unified "Native Americans."
6
In trying to reply to my friend, Sidewalker using the reply option in Forum posts [lower-right option] a post does not reply to him. I'm having to write his username manually within the message field as if it's a general comment. He assures me he has not blocked me.
1
The Democratic Party's "Big Tent" is ripping. Three big rips, in fact, at least, and there are tributaries from the main rips as divergent as are the Party factions.
One rip dates from the day the Party decided to put Biden out to pasture one month prior to the National Convention, in July of '24. Not to mention that one month before the party's dismissal was Biden's disastrous debate against his expected election opponent, Trump.
The Democrats offered their intent, after the '24 election loss, to do a complete autopsy of their loss. The autopsy never happened. Or, if it did, they fired the scriptwriter and hired a cartoon character to write a serious script that blamed [and still does] everybody but a Democrat. Chiefly, the blame lands on Trump, who is the decided villain [who used to be a Democrat!]. And their election loser, Kamala Harris, currently leads the pack of pre-Primary and pre-Convention candidates for the '28.
That leads us to the second big rip. It's called "Democratic Socialists of America." You already have my honest opinion of that organization ion 23 parts elsewhere on this Forum. No need to say more, except that as of now, the DSA is the voice of the Democratic Party. The naysayers within are a couple of mice. Usually, donkeys do not have the legendary fear of mice, as is the elephant meme. The Donkey meme is brave and territorial against smaller animals. Mice are so small, however, that the donkey kick lands far above the level of a mouse, so... mouse survival, but not necessarily mouse victory.
A third rip is becoming a thing just when we thought its demise was final. It's called Woke 2. But, since woke is past tense, no need to describe it generatively any further. It goes the way of all MeToo's; down a dusty road to oblivion. MeToo was just the downfall of a once very strong feminism. Now, feminism doesn't know the definition of a Woman. That's a little over half the population of humanity. There's a tent rip for you!
The current occupation of the Democratic Party by DSA is an association of convenience, because DSA is, by design, a one-generation animal. Since Communism does not know how to create wealth, but only spend it, along with its weaker cousin, Socialism, it will spend all available money made by others, and will crumble as all C/Sisms do. But that leaves donkeys still kicking too high at mice. What attempts to infiltrate Demcratism after the Socialists fail is, as yet, unknown. Whoever it is, it's just another big rip.
1
El Saed el said billionaires should not make money on their money. Really? Really. Granted, investment is a privilege, not a right. Got to have money to invest it. But no current law of the land prohibits anyone from investment. Do you think otherwise?
Does Sharia law prevent it?
Asking for a friend.
3
The 6-3 SCOTUS decision in Trump v. Barbara [2026], the case re: Trump's E.O. to end birthright citizenship misread the language of the 14th Amendment's clause 1, called the "citizenship clause." The 14A was ratified in 1868, after its introduction to the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard [R-IL] in 1866. It reads
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
They also ignored that their interpretation is based on a misinterpretation by the Fuller Court in the case, United States v Wong Kim Ark [1898]. Both the Fuller and Roberts Courts misunderstood what was domicile law from the Naturalization Act of 1790, and older English common law shortly developed after the Magna Carta in 1215. This is truly ancient law, but still binding law as of 1868, and until the flaws 1898/2026.
And many of you are schoolchildren who think historic law is, well, histrionic, but not relevant today. In a word: you're wrong.
In English common law, citizenship of England was coincident, virtually identical to domicile; the legal term for having a permanent residence, a "home." If one had a permanent home in England, one was a bona fide citizen of England. As the early colonists of what became America were primarily British citizens, they were citizens of the same, having started a colony by the immigrants of the Mayflower in 1620, and they brought this common law with them to govern the Colonies: domicile = citizenship. They were, in every way, "subject to the jurisdiction of" the English King. Advance to 1776, when the Colonies declared their independence from England. They became their own sovereignty: the United States of America. All white men who had a permanent domicile in a Colony/State were citizens.
Advance to 1790, the declared States were near the close of their effort to establish the Constitution. In that year, the Continental Congress established the 1790 Naturalization Act, which had three primary statutes:
1. All white residents with a permanent domicile of at least two years of residence therein, and of good character, were citizens of the United States.
2. All naturalized white residents with a permanent domicile, of at least two years of residence therein, and of good character were citizens of the United States.
3. All children of white citizens, and naturalized white citizens with a permanent domicile and of at least two years' residence in the U.S., and of good character, were citizens of the United States.
Observe, again, the necessity of a permanent domicile. In 1795, the two-year minimum was extended to five years.
Advance to 1866 and Jacob Howard's introduction of the 14th Amendment, only the fourth since 1790's coincident ratification of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, so this amendment business was still relatively revolutionary congressional action. However, Jacob Howard was well aware of the conditions of necessary permanent domicile as a necessity for citizenship, and the newly ratified 13th Amendment, freeing the slaves, allowed them to acquire permanent domicile and gave citizenship to them not even one year previous. Congress did not need a description of these necessities of permanent domicile, nor a clarification of what "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant in composing the 14A. Both were settled law for 76 years, at least.
Let's review, again, since the Fuller Court ignored it, as well as the recent Roberts Court with three exceptions [Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch] earlier this year.
The 14A citizenship requirement was stipulated as a two-factor requirement, not just one:
1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
2. subject to the Jurisdiction thereof"
This is a matter of understanding detailed English grammar, namely, the function of those damn little conjunctions, like "and." Speed reading easily overlooks them, but, legally, they have value and precedence of their own. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only Justice on the Roberts Court with an English degree.
In 1866, because the necessity of permanent domicile was still an active legal statute to earn citizenship, along with a residency minimum and naturalization for immigrants and their children, these details were not deemed necessary to include in the amendment. As said, it was already codified federal law.
Advance to today. The 14A is still in force as originally ratified. Federal immigration law still stands, based on the necessity of permanent domicile as in 1790. Illegal migrants are subject to U.S. law for violation of law upon entry into the U.S. However, by breaking the law by their illegal entry, they should not be considered "of good character," nor do they have a permanent domicile. If they have an American sponsor with whom they will live, the permanent domicile belongs to the sponsor, not the migrant[s]. And, having no domicile, their country of sovereignty is that from which they came, not the U.S. Therefore, children born to these migrants while in the U.S. are also subject to their parents' nation of sovereignty, not the U.S. Birthright citizenship is not the law of the land. Whew! I beat the school bell.
25
I just read an article online about a new "thing" among twenty-somethings, whatever generation that is. I haven't a clue, and don't really care. The idea is non-romantic child raising. Both married and unmarried couples are bearing and raising children with no romantic association between the "parents." One or the other, or both may not even be the parent.
It is a wonder to me that these "parents" think the children are not adversely affected by not seeing and experiencing a romance between the "parents." This is worse than a child being raised by a television or the Internet, let alone anything/one else doing the raising care. The Greeks have seven words that detail the definition of the one English word, "love," but in this case, the children have no clue of even the Greeks' seven words, let alone our one. At least we who are native to English know there are adverbs and adjectives to further define the root word, but where the root, itself, is denied by the parents, how can they possibly think they define and represent "family?"
Sounds like pure communism to me. Ever read Marx? If not, "family" is a primary target, to be replaced by an equally insufficient and unloving parent, spelled g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t.
This isn't new, after all. This aspect of "parentage" has been around since the Tree of Knowledge.
7
I was writing a post I just researched for two hours before composing it, wrote it, and clicked to publish, and I was told I had to be signed in to post. I was signed in already. Now the text is gone to smithereens. Much appreciated. This has happened to me before. Why should my time in the site be terminated while I am actively on site? I understrand being signed in only lasts for a certain period of time that appears to count down in days. But can't the system first determine if one is currently on site before closing the connection? Please see about correcting a needless interruption.
33
This post addresses only the Holy Bible, but the title is true, regardless of religion.
Simply put, belief is limited by function. In particular, no function is necessary with belief. We can believe whatever we want, mainly due to our literal free agency. I can believe there are Na'vi [tall, slender, blue-skinned humanoids] on the moon, Pandora, but I am not compelled to do a bloody thing about that belief, or any other. Belief can be a simple noun or verb, "believe."
However, the distinction of faith, as opposed to belief, is that faith demands our personal commitment to action, or it is not faith. Above, belief was shown to be, as for personal commitment, more noun than verb.
Both words are used in scripture. However, they cannot and should not be interchanged by random choice. In fact, in Greek, in the New Testament, at least, [Koine Greek is the apparent original written language], words are used to try to equate the use of one to mean the other. Examples:
All of these translations of the Bible where "faith" ought to be the word used, use instead "belief," or proper noun/verb distinctions of same. This is not correct, because the Greek root πιστεύ [pisteu] means expected action on faith in every instance. It is by personal action on the suggestion given that confirms the truth of that in which faith was applied.
3
You're probably thinking this subject belongs in either sports or politics, but, honestly, I'm not sure many of you know the difference. Some others may insist it belongs in culture, but I'd make the same accusation. I put it in science & tech because at the root, that's where the definition of "W" [woman, in case you've been asleep since Eden, and in fact, since before Eden.] belongs.
The organization, WNBA, has slipped on schooling. Curious, because the commissioner is a woman. Well, Justice Jackson, on her confirmation hearing in the Senate four years ago, and I'm not sure she has yet to figure it out. okay, she's a legal freak, not scientific, so...
The L.A. Times https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-08-18/former-nba-players-troll-wnba-by-demanding-draft-eligibility a few days ago said that the announcement by two retired NBA players to register for the draft in the WNBA is just a bad-faith political/publicity stunt. The WNBA walked right into this argumen ty by their own stunt, and theirs was first.
30
Democrats may have inadvertently handed Republicans an argument they [the Democrats] hardly needed at this juncture in their evolution. Democrats have owned the "murder by gun" argument as a justification since raising their 2A ban effort since almost forever, politically and socially. Now, mostly due to DSA inclusion in the D- bigtent, the Dems have painted themselves into a border crisis corner. It's a boogeyman issue, but by media standards, murder-by-illegal-immigrant is becoming that boogeyman in the closet, and the door is bulging outward. That door is not made of rubber.
7
The quote is by Gustavo Gordillo, co-Chair of the NYC-DSA. It is a throwback to Barry Oba'a, who said in 2010, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." It is a communist anthem to limit personal profit, which would be signal that anyone ought to consider the sky as the only personal limit to which a good communist should aspire. A limit, because communism cannot thrive in an environment of personal wealth.
That last is a joke, because communism does not know how to thrive, period. Where it has been imposed, it has never exceeded one human life expectancy. Never.
One does not ever see an imposed limitation on a free-market economy.
Why do communists think limited potential is such a preferred existence?
1
There are several disassociated current events to which social media is drawn by rabid attention:
The Democrat sprint to socialism in their various House, Senate, and other elections coming up this Fall.
The recently concluded Luigi Mangioni murder trial.
The ongoing trial of Lindsay Clancy, accused of murdering her three children.
The re-trial of convicted murderer, Alex Murdaugh.
All four of these events have become a media circus tent with as much, or more, of believed posits - proposed theories of what's going on - as factual evidence. These posits breech the wall of sensible conclusions to include continued belief in whacko suggestions despite evidence to the contrary.
Beliefs such as:
The Democratic Socialists of America just want the US to be a democracy, because the U.S. is currently an autocracy.
Mangioni is innocent; a victim of "the system." This, despite his own confession of guilt as a witness in the trial.
Lindsay Clancy is a victim of medical failure [this argument was heavily in favor of Mangioni, having dealt with the same medical failures]
Alex Murdaugh is a victim of a failed justice system that allows a miscreant court clerk to sway the jury in the original trial.
What is true, and what is fantasy, is a difficult choice for social media. What they believe is, by their interpretation, the truth. My prediction is that, in an SDA world, they would likely nominate social media to sit on the Supreme Court, and run the USA, AMA, APA, and just about every other A; an overarching Authority.
41
For an event that occurred 5.5 years ago on Jan 6, Democrats have been fixated ever since. It is really much older than 2021 because, without using that word, they began their campaign against DJT in 2014, upon his firing from NBC's "The Apprentice."
"Insurrection" became the qualifier of all Democrat complaints about DJT once Jan 6 was in the headlines.
What is ignored among the woke [Democrats, that is], is that after all the investigations and trials over Jan 6, not a single person, in particular not DJT, but also not one among hundreds of indicted individuals by a rabid Justice Dept, were ever convicted of
i-n-s-u-r-r-e-c-t-i-o-n.
So why do Democrats insist it is an active, accurate word to apply to their 12-year cry of "Foul!" against DJT, and anybody who happened to have voted for him as if voting incorrectly [by their assessment] is suddenly felonious treason?
You think it is no longer said? This is Sunday. Lots of opinion TV on this day, every week. Democrats still use the word, specifically, even just today. Fixated. Also woke, which is past tense.
14
A new cancer is upon us while SloJo, in his 2020 election campaign, promised to eliminate cancer, just as he promised to eliminate fossil fuels.
Well, fossil fuel is alive and well [contrary to "green energy," it is organic, after all], while Joe's cancer condition [both personally and by eradication claim] is... ?
But the cancer may have far more effect on more people than Joe ever thought he might be able to cure. That cancer? Woke.
It has metastasized, now being referred to by the very people who have contracted the disease, as "Woke 1," and they even implicate a "Woke 2," as if it needed to be a numbered series, at all.
Something like Dr[?] Fauci's COVID gain-of-function generations.
God help us if woke acquires gain-of-function!
82
Peggy Flanagan, current Lt. Gov of MN [and as whacko as her milktoast Governor], and wannabe DSA Governor, went through a litany of questions about her political platform. Asked if healthcare ought to be universally applied to all, she replied in the affirmative, using the example of gender fluidity, that the choice of gender was a trans right and part of healthcare.
Is gender choice healthcare? Why? If gender choice is healthcare, then hair color choice is also healthcare, because hair color is also a feature that can be changed daily at personal whim. But gender [should really be called sex, like it was until psychiatry went woke] choice, no matter how whacked it is to claim, is not a personal choice.
41
Many physicists who disavow the existence of God were and are still enraged by the nickname given to the Higgs Boson when that particle was finally demonstrated to exist. Peter Ware Higgs, a theoretical physicist, first announced his theory of the existence of the Higgs Boson in 1964. In 2012, the particle was discovered at the Large Hadron Collider in CERN, Switzerland.
In the 1990s [pre-discovery], another physicist, Leon Lederman, wrote and published a book re: the Boson Particle, and wanted to title his book "The Goddamn Particle," because it was taking a long time with great difficulty to find it [48 years]. The publishers, so the story goes, pulled a clever switcheroo on the author to title the book "The God Particle." This enraged physicists because, as said, many disavow the existence of God, and thought the title misrepresented science because, they claimed, science has nothing to do with religion.
Won't they be surprised to discover, finally, that religion and science are not even two sides of one coin, but co-exist on the same side.