you smug little nugget of ####.

Facts don't care about your feelings... or your soiled diaper.

Via Baseball Crank, the linked two-minute clip pretty much sums up why the folks here and ultra-MAGA types alike are increasingly worried sick:

Yeah, I can see why "Baseball Crank" would appeal to you, given his description of himself:

Dan McLaughlin
@baseballcrank
Senior Writer @NRO
. Reaganite, Catholic, Mets fan, New Yorker, ex-lawyer.

And I love his comparison of DeSantis to two future U. S. Presidents**

It's not an accident that the guys [DeSantis] resembles in terms of rhetorical style are 90s-era Giuliani & Chris Christie, both of them with backgrounds as prosecutors.

** Well, maybe not the immediate future (smile)

401. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: February 23, 2023 at 12:09 PM (#6118300)

you smug little nugget of ####.

Facts don't care about your feelings... or your soiled diaper.

   401. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: February 23, 2023 at 12:09 PM (#6118300)
[ Ignored Comment ]

there. that's better

If all has gone according to schedule, then today federal officials from the U.S. Forest Service climbed into helicopters with high-powered rifles and set their sights on cows. A planned “lethal removal” of about 150 un-owned cattle roaming New Mexico’s Gila Wilderness in Gila National Forest was set to begin Thursday and run through Sunday, February 26.

there. that's better

Nah, I like seeing how big of a douche he can be. BIG.

I have a weakened immune system. I catch every cold that goes around. I did not catch COVID. My wife did. I didn't. I attribute this to the 5 COVID vaccines I have had. His assertion that the vaccine doesn't prevent infection is one the douchiest things I've heard anyone say...and, sadly, the dancing monkey isn't the only one saying it.

Nah, I like seeing how big of a douche he can be. BIG.

as a general rule, i try not to be offended on behalf of other people, but [401] did that, while also managing to offend my own more delicate personal sensibilities.


why is this person here if they're going to ignore good faith arguments and belittle the personal experiences that people have shared in this thread? oh, right, the reason they're here is to be a smarmy little nugget of #### on the sole of my boots. but i have no need for that in my life right now and so they can #### the #### off. this has been my ted talk.

Facts don't care about your feelings..

Heh. You lecturing people on facts. Funny.

393. The Good Face Posted: February 22, 2023 at 08:50 PM (#6118244)

Also, the fact that people here apparently honestly believe that somebody like Snapper is "far right" is legit hilarious

- he's only far right in his religious beliefs/positions - "freedom of religion" is ok as long as laws everyone has to follow are the catholic religion ones. once you get off religious stuff, he is most definitely NOT far right

and we all know this

cmon

if JE wants to believe that vaccines against covid are the same as getting a shot of saline, well, thats his thing - until he wants to stop me from getting MY covid shot

both Husband and i are covid virgins and we just got boosted again. one of my friends just got covid for the 3rd time a few months back and she is just starting to start to get a little better. i hope. but then again she is doing better than a whole lot of people i know who didn't survive.

maybe it is just easier to keep on pretending that covid is just a cold and it only kills those stupid useless old people and those non-Whits so who cares

398. That's one non-spicy meatball. JE, your passion inspired me to open that link. You're persistent, dogged and consistent in terms of posting. If a guy believes that much, let me take a look. So, I spent my time, based on your passion to watch Gov D's speech (an excerpt). You, JE, could give a better speech than that. I've never met you; have no idea what you look or sound like. But, I can feel your persistence and passion through the keyboard. I respect that level of passion and commitment. But after spending three minutes listening to Gov D, meatballs are at least spicy. That's one non-spicy meatball. What did he say? What was the point? For a guy with a tremendous academic background who was a trial lawyer, it's flat. I thought it was dubbed or not in sync. He spoke a bunch, but what did he say?

Baseball crank unwittingly gets the issue:

DeSantis will never be a great set-piece orator like Reagan or Obama, he'll never have Reagan's humor, & he'll never match Reagan or Clinton for emotional bonding with the audience. It's in this sort of in-the-weeds setting where his prosecutorial jackhammer approach excels.

--

Now, JE, he ain't even a rubber mallet. You're smart, you pay attention to detail, what prosecutorial argument do you think is more powerful:
1. Murder is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought. It requires that the killing be willful deliberate and premeditated to be first degree murder. I must prove all of those elements of first degree murder. I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Smith is a murderer. I have done so. Joe Smith intentionally killed Mary Jones. He was willful. He was deliberate. He was premeditated. Mary Jones is dead.

2. Jackhammer Joe Smith is a vicious killer who murdered 90 year Mary Jones hitting her with a hammer while she slept

Which one do you find more compelling JE?

Sure both prosecutors will likely win with those facts, but who inspired passion?

President Trump is a master orator. I heard part of his speech from East Palestine about how the people are forgotten, overlooked dismissed, while Biden is in Ukraine, when he gets back will there be any money left for you; fantastic emotional appeal (I admire it; not endorse it). But, then again, leave the emotional, who is responsible for train safety? Trump's administration, the current one, both? But, I'm from the government and I'm here to help with the regulation of hazardous materials via interstate commerce. It is a lot less emotional, but you can bet all your money, billions, millions or thousands that the rail company spent its money on getting deregulated. But it was all about your freedom.

You can make money by selling a product at more than the cost to produce, right? What if you can make money by selling the same product for the same price at lower cost? Great; you make even more money. Not always. What if you make that money by avoiding the costs to yourself and putting them on the townspeople of East Palestine? Well, it's still great for you, your shareholders and yourcorporate officers. Not so much for the common good though. But, it takes a lot of thinking to go there. Thinking is hard man (I demonstrate that; I have a tough time).

maybe it is just easier to keep on pretending that covid is just a cold and it only kills those stupid useless old people and those non-Whits so who cares

Alternatively, we could avoiding ridiculous strawmen claims, particularly those sprinkled with race baiting.

Yeah, I can see why "Baseball Crank" would appeal to you, given his description of himself:

Meanwhile, did your face got fire-engine red as soon upon learning Crank was a Mets fan? (smile)

398. That's one non-spicy meatball. JE, your passion inspired me to open that link. You're persistent, dogged and consistent in terms of posting. If a guy believes that much, let me take a look. So, I spent my time, based on your passion to watch Gov D's speech (an excerpt). You, JE, could give a better speech than that. I've never met you; have no idea what you look or sound like. But, I can feel your persistence and passion through the keyboard. I respect that level of passion and commitment. But after spending three minutes listening to Gov D, meatballs are at least spicy. That's one non-spicy meatball. What did he say? What was the point? For a guy with a tremendous academic background who was a trial lawyer, it's flat. I thought it was dubbed or not in sync. He spoke a bunch, but what did he say?

Three "meatball" references in one paragraph? Impressive!

That said, "Meatball Ron" will likely splatter much like other snorefest attempts "DeSanctimonious," "DeSanctus," and "DeSoros."

Trump's East Palestine was easily his most astute maneuver since leaving office two years ago, particularly when juxtaposed with the next day's Secretary of Transportation's Dukakis-in-a-tank look. (How unfortunate for Pete to discover the hard way that a Cabinet Secretary position isn't identical to a no-show carpenter union job.)

That said, Trump is way more comfortable kvetching about an election he lost to a dementia-ridden opponent embracing GND policies so it's reasonable to expect the moaning and groaning on TruthSocial to resume very soon.

Likewise, I deserve being dinged for uttering "That said" twice in a single post. It's kind of late... or early here.

I have a weakened immune system. I catch every cold that goes around. I did not catch COVID. My wife did. I didn't. I attribute this to the 5 COVID vaccines I have had. His assertion that the vaccine doesn't prevent infection is one the douchiest things I've heard anyone say...and, sadly, the dancing monkey isn't the only one saying it.

The evidence does seem to suggest that vaccines are not as effective on the current types of COVID, though they still offer a lot of help. But too many on the right ignore the effectiveness, as well as ignore that the COVID we have now is much different than the earlier versions, which were much more lethal. Vaccines did a ton with those versions. But rather than admit that, they have to pretend that the COVID variation we have now is what we have always had to deal with.

Amusing watching the Vichy lickspittles pretend to be all brave and unTrumpy for a few months... as if they think everyone will just forget their cowardly transformation into pliant excuse-makers in the petite petain days.

The evidence does seem to suggest that vaccines are not as effective on the current types of COVID, though they still offer a lot of help.

They certainly offered -- past tense -- a lot of help. It's less clear that this is still the case, as the excess mortality rates of the unvaccinated and vaccinated are converging. That's not to say nice things about the wisdom of choosing a case of the flu over a vaccination to get that precious degree of immunity, but here we are.

at least ron desantis will have plenty of conversation starters if he ever goes to ghyna:

Independent experts, skeptical of Beijing’s official data on COVID deaths, have been forced to calculate their own estimates—which indicate much higher and more disturbing numbers than the government claims. These estimates range from about 1 million to 1.5 million deaths, suggesting that, in absolute terms, China may have suffered more fatalities from COVID in two months than the U.S. did in three years.

By any reckoning, a terrible tragedy unfolded in China in recent weeks. That we’re left guessing about its scale is important as well. If the Chinese leadership can hide a million dead, what else can it conceal from the world?

BTW -

Baxter and others on the stock trading ban... An interesting piece some might want to read.

I.e., there *are* actually lots of places that track trades and let you basically try to mirror officeholder portfolios/trades (there's a timelag, of course, due to reporting periods). There are also now ETFs emerging to do the same.

Setting aside the morality and ethics- and even the "so what, still looks bad" aspect - the interesting thing is that actually you're probably not doing very well if you mimic officeholder trades, ESPECIALLY if you're more of a long-term buy-and-hold investor.

If you're a day trader engaging in a lot of options and shorting, the signal is a bit more mixed and inconclusive.

But in any case - and I'll see I can find the link over on Discord - when we kicked this around some time back, there was a study that showed that if you actually tried to match the congressional/government whales? Over the long-term, you'd have been better off parked in a simple index ETF... If you do a simple S&P benchmark (or whatever) - the politico whales, whether they're abusing their position and insider info or not, are actually *pretty bad* at doing it.

Ultimately, I'm a Buffett guy on investing... "Never buy anything for 10 minutes that you can't see yourself owning for 10 years" which means with very few exceptions, the sort of "insider info" available to most officeholders is only really useful if you're doing serious day trading. Any long-term/buy-and-hold investor would see it as meaningless noise.

Ultimately, I'm a Buffett guy on investing... "Never buy anything for 10 minutes that you can't see yourself owning for 10 years" which means with very few exceptions, the sort of "insider info" available to most officeholders is only really useful if you're doing serious day trading. Any long-term/buy-and-hold investor would see it as meaningless noise.

Isn't there a whole lot in between those extremes, and that's where insider information would be the benefit? Buying something, and then selling it a few weeks later after some law/regulation is enacted is neither day trading not long-term investing.

Isn't there a whole lot in between those extremes, and that's where insider information would be the benefit? Buying something, and then selling it a few weeks later after some law/regulation is enacted is neither day trading not long-term investing.

I would consider long-term investing to mean literally "long" on any given position (which means, hold it for 12 months or it gets taxed short).

Doesn't mean I *never* sell anything I've held under 12 months, but the only real exceptions are more "beyond my control" (i.e., I've got a robo-managed ETF account that regularly does some tax-loss harvesting... and among my individual equities, can't control something like an M&A... etc).

If you're ever buying something and thinking you'll sell it in the next few weeks? I don't think you're in-between, I think you're a short-term investor that is much closer to a day trader than long-term investor... and yes, I'm anti-WSB/meme stocks.

OK fair enough, I thought "day trader" was more a specific thing than just a short-term investor.

That said, Trump is way more comfortable kvetching about an election he lost to a dementia-ridden opponent

By contrast, thank God we had Ronny Jackson to certify that Trump “has absolutely no cognitive or mental issues”, and that “Some people just have great genes.” You could've fooled a lot of people who've heard him run on like a six pack of gonorrhea.

sounds like snapper has a new favorite lawmaker:

Not even sure what to say here. Rep. Eastman says it’s a benefit to society when children who are victims of abuse die “because there aren’t needs for government services over the course of that child’s life” when they die as a results of abuse. #akleg
pic.twitter.com/0hV4o7AzTY

— The Alaska Landmine (@alaskalandmine) February 21, 2023

oh, and maybe je has some claim to this ####### guy too:

Eastman insisted Wednesday that it is "outrageous" to suggest that he is in any way supportive of the murdering of children, approximately 48 hours after saying aloud the words, "In the case where child abuse is fatal, obviously it's not good for the child, but it's actually a benefit to society," in that exact order.

Snapper wants them to survive so priests can sample their goods

Yes, yes, think of the poor priests who will be missing out on all of those underage genitals.

At least those kids kept their genitals. That's more than you're willing to allow them.

Snapper wants them to survive so priests can sample their goods

come on, this is classless.

come on, this is classless

It is indeed.

Almost as classless as suggesting that rape by priests is a better fate than transition. I await your admonition to the person who posted that lovely sentiment.

That said, Trump is way more comfortable kvetching about an election he lost to a dementia-ridden opponent

Lol much like Carter did? Or didn't.

Person, woman, man, camera, TV!!!

I have had success both in my private and professional life in mending fences, as it were, among opposing souls.

but as I read this thread, I am reminded not only that I would have no chance at that (based on previous experience), I don't even think there is an audience for it anymore.

I see lots of misinterpretations of what I think various people are actually trying to say, and I can't tell if that's deliberate.

is this what Facebook and other social media hath wrought? is there a road back home - or is that a pipe dream?

I see lots of misinterpretations of what I think various people are actually trying to say, and I can't tell if that's deliberate.

"And some of them are fine people...There are fine people on both sides."

I have had success both in my private and professional life in mending fences, as it were, among opposing souls.

but as I read this thread, I am reminded not only that I would have no chance at that (based on previous experience), I don't even think there is an audience for it anymore.

I see lots of misinterpretations of what I think various people are actually trying to say, and I can't tell if that's deliberate.

is this what Facebook and other social media hath wrought? is there a road back home - or is that a pipe dream?

"a person who stands for nothing will stand for anything."


howard:
you see these things as rhetorical arguments.

some of us do not have that luxury.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: #### the new york times.

Last week, hundreds of New York Times contributors signed a letter criticizing the paper's coverage of transgender issues, specifically its reporting on healthcare for trans kids.
[...]
NewsGuild members at the Times have been called into "investigatory meetings." The Daily Beast also reports that "some Guild members who signed the letter critical of their paper’s coverage have been called in for questioning, with disciplinary proceedings apparently under discussion." A current New York Times staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by management, confirmed this to Defector, saying that multiple people who signed the initial letter have received an email from HR asking them to confirm that they signed the letter; they were then called into meetings with management in which they were scolded for speaking out about their workplace, and warned not do so again. The New York Times did not respond to a request for comment.

Apparently those NYT employees thought they were so special, or valuable, that they could inaccurately publicly criticize their employer & colleagues without repercussions. Seems that was incorrect, going by all the whining.

Almost as classless as suggesting that rape by priests is a better fate than transition. I await your admonition to the person who posted that lovely sentiment.

There's no such thing as "transition". A male can't become female, and a female can't become male. "Gender" does not exist separate from sex. XX is female, XY is male. No one know what "it feels like to be a man/woman", so no one can know that they "are the wrong sex". We only ever experience what it feels like to be one individual, who may exist on a huge range of experience across stereotypical sex behaviors. Surgically removing healthy body parts in a vain attempt to cure mental illness is barbarism. There's zero evidence that "transition" improves mental health or reduces suicide and other negative consequences of the mental illness.

419. Tanx; I dug the fund names; but a .75 vigorish would be a bit much. You may be right that is there no effect. I mistrust the influence of money in politics; could be wrong.

434 Mr. Snapper; I wonder, you seem like resilient, robust person; you give and you take on this board; some sharp words get tossed your way and you still keep plugging at it.
What about this issue stirs your passion? I mean, I know a couple adults who transitioned, one fairly well. Each of them was OK w/me as a he and is fine now as a she. If it's someone's kids, I figure it's the parents' business. The pronoun stuff, I don't know about you, but I don't like to be told what to do; also I'm a grammar pedant, so the they/them thing kind of throws me for a loop. It's also new and I have trouble adjusting to new things; maybe you're more flexible. Also, my memory's going; I like to call someone "Miss or Mister [last name]" because I often forget the first name. I think it would be rude to the person to call them by the wrong name. If a person wanted to be addressed a particular way, like "them," well if I can remember to do it, what's the harm? I welcome your viewpoint.

thanks for your consideration.

There's zero evidence that "transition" improves mental health or reduces suicide and other negative consequences of the mental illness.

In the hopes that your lack of knowledge is an honest result of your failure to consume wide-ranging sources of unbiased media:

Evidence!

More Evidence!

Harvard Evidence!

If your only counter is a flawed article from a conservative think tank, you should expand your sources of information.

I find your statement of absolute certainties fascinating. If there's one thing being human has shown, it's that we're wrong about many - I'd say most - things. Hundreds of years ago, people were *certain* the earth (and then, sun) was the center of the universe. They executed those who disagreed. They were also flat wrong. Decades ago, people believed smoking was healthy for pregnant women. Mothers died and unborn children suffered as a result of the ignorance. But still, some people insist they know everything, without listening openly and with curiosity to the voices of others. Some have said you are religious; Jesus told us not to judge others so I'll refrain from judging you. I will only point out Jesus' primary messages were of compassion and understanding, not harsh judgment and intolerance.

We only ever experience what it feels like to be one individual,

This is true. And yet, you claim to know with absolute certainty how *every* individual feels and deny their experience. And you're willing to risk their (but not your) lives on the idea that you know their better than the know their own.

436 Very thought provoking; but you are too optimistic

Decades ago, people believed smoking was healthy for pregnant women.

Did people believe that or did they believe what they were fed? Edward Bernays was a genius; it certainly doesn't mean that what he did was socially useful.
Certainly it was useful for his clients, the tobacco companies, to convince women to smoke; doesn't mean it was useful for society.

I make enough mistakes myself; hopefully I can learn from a few of them so that they become lessons.

In the hopes that your lack of knowledge is an honest result of your failure to consume wide-ranging sources of unbiased media:

There are no long term studies. There are only surveys asking people how they feel reasonably soon after they had something done that they really wanted done. Surely, you can see the flaw there? Especially when the person involved is mentally ill. Giving them what they want may make them happy for some time, but it doesn't necessarily cure anything.

You also have the problem that there are no skeptics in these fields anymore; they've all been drummed out. Ever surgeon and psychiatrist practicing "gender transition" is an activist. The idea that a therapist can only confirm their client's belief makes any kind of real therapy impossible.

This is true. And yet, you claim to know with absolute certainty how *every* individual feels and deny their experience. And you're willing to risk their (but not your) lives on the idea that you know their better than the know their own.

No. I don't know how anyone feels, I don't know what it feels like to be a man. I know what I feel like, and I know I'm a man. It's totally possibly that my feelings are very different than the average man, or every man on earth.

The problem is, there is no mechanism by which a person can be "born the wrong sex". Every cell of our bodies is recognizably male or female. There is no materialistic explanation how an obviously male brain could actually contain a woman's consciousness and personality. The obvious answer is that the persons who think this are mentally ill, and should be treated to bring their thoughts into alignment with reality. Not given dubious medical treatment to try to create a simulacrum of reality that resembles their thoughts.

To defend your position you have to posit that a person has a soul (for want of a better word) that has a different sex from its body. Now, I can accept the existences of the soul, if you can, but that leads us to acceptance of God. And I'm pretty sure God gives you the soul and body He wants you to have.

If gender dysphoria is a mental illness, perhaps one could view transition as a treatment for it. That certainly better than the suicide and addiction, often both, that results from it.

And I’m not saying it is or is not a mental illness, just extrapolating from your certainty that it is. Surely your god nor his son would never condemn people to suffer an untreated illness, right?

But the real issue here is the god thing. God is not real. No god ever had been. Not Jehovah, not Zeus, not Ra, none of the Hindu gods, none of them. God is your imaginary playmate and the two thousand year old book of fairy tales you use to justify your worldview is simply that: a fairy tale.

I have no illusion that you’re going to suddenly turn from fantasy and toward reason. But how about this? How about actually following the second half of this book of fairy tales? The part where the guy whose mother with a much older boyfriend that she did not have sex with commands love, forgiveness, charity, and tells us not to judge others. Simply taking your own advice, however flawed, would be a far better, not to mention kinder and more Christ-like, path than what you’re on about now.

If you’re gonna play the god card, play it right.

How about actually following the second half of this book of fairy tales?

No we don't have to do that because we are not perfect beings so as long as we say we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior we will be forgiven for whatever bad things we do, and so are free to do bad things. Just as long as we confess our sins and do our penance. It's quite a racket.

If gender dysphoria is a mental illness, perhaps one could view transition as a treatment for it.

you don't treat mental illness with medical or psychological consultations.

you treat mental illness by binge drinking.

434. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 24, 2023 at 10:35 PM (#6118557)

There's no such thing as "transition". A male can't become female, and a female can't become male. "Gender" does not exist separate from sex. XX is female, XY is male.

- actually, wrong

there are genetic states where persons with XY are born looking like females because there is something wrong with their cells and they can't use any testosterone, so they are actually male, according to you. very very few of these humans WANT to transition to male although they really are. they have no female organs at all. do you have a problem with them living their life as female although the gender assigned at birth is "wrong"?

there are genetic states where someone has XX but is born looking like a male because there is something wrong with their hormone system. they have no working testicles or prostate but do have a penis. do you think these humans should be forced to have surgery turning them into females? they were full of testosterone since fetushood and have a "male" brain

there are persons who are XX/XY combo specials. should they have a choice seeing as how they actually DO swing both ways? i know someone like this (blood is XY and cheek swab is XX, or maybe the other way around) who looks like a 14 year old male (well, 6' tall) with broad shoulders, chest and narrow hips and walks like a guy. they got outer genital parts that look like a 10 year old girl and found out at age 7 they got no uterus, vagina, ovaries but this person feels like they are a girl. do you think they should have to be turned into a boy? after all, this person is not a "real" girl.

and people do ALL kinds of surgery to themselves as adults. their faces, their chests, butts, stomachs etc. they have the legal right to do this. XX females have the right to remove their breasts if they choose. they have the right to remove uterus, fallopian tubs, ovaries if they choose.

seriously, do you think you have the right to forbid people over 18 to have any plastic surgery procedure they CHOOSE done?

people can change their name to anything they want to unless it is for fraud (IANAL, so may have this a leeetle off)

am VERY unclear why you have a problem with these people. and btw, people who have been diagnosed with mental health issues , which is not saying that trans people are your definition of mentally ill, have the right to take herbs which are not meds, not take meds at all, choose shock to brains, choose all KINDS of weird stuff and also have the RIGHT to choose to not be what YOU would call normal. if they are not harming other people, seriously, who are you to dictate what they should do?

and pls,
do NOT talk about "parents rights" out one side of your mouth and then say they can't give their kidz medications their doctor recommends out the other side

i am still amused that so many folks are beyond horrified about trans WOMEN but couldn't care less about trans MEN in mens bathrooms or mens sports teams

do you even KNOW any transmen? can you even TELL they were not born male XY? because i sure can't because the big muscles and beards and big ol feet fool me bigly

do you have a problem with people who dress and walk and talk so you can't really be sure if they are male or female if you can't see any private parts and they have a name that swings both ways like "taylor"

Heh, I haven’t read one of these threads in awhile, and I think the opinion I closest align with is Howie’s in 429. I have my own takes on most of these topics and none of them really align completely with any particular political ideology, because I think most of the issues here are very complicated and require a lot of nuance to discuss. Though as I get older, I do tend to draw my line in the sand about free speech being absolute (though in the context of the original topic of the thread, there is something to be said for what is appropriate to be taught/available in schools).

I will say though on the trans issue that it has always been very odd to me that generally speaking, folks with a religious affiliation want to reduce human experience to a matter of physical biology and self-professed atheists argue for a grander life experience than what your body appears to be. Both seem somewhat incompatible with each other… but it’s far from the only time that I feel like certain stereotypical attributes of the left and right are internally logically opposed.

come on, this is classless.

"How dare you not show me sufficient empathy and also agree with me 100%, f*cking Christ-lover" is an, er, unorthodox attempt at dialogue and persuasion, I'll grant him that.

Apparently those NYT employees thought they were so special, or valuable, that they could inaccurately publicly criticize their employer & colleagues without repercussions. Seems that was incorrect, going by all the whining.

Even most left-wing New York Times employees (forgive the redundancy) refused to wear the ribbon? How about that?

Let's not forget that among the principal reasons why First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon resigned earlier this month were promoting legislation greenlighting irreversible trans surgery for 16-year olds and allowing convicted sexual predators to be placed in women's prisons.

But rather than admit that, they have to pretend that the COVID variation we have now is what we have always had to deal with.

So if folks here are going to stand by the "science evolves" mantra and not admit any fault in eschewing data that emerged about the reduced effectiveness of the vaccine, where is the outrage over visitors to the United States *still* being required to have proof of vaccination? Why is the administration still fighting in court to keep other draconian mandates in place?

* Visitors with visas, that is.

My oh my...

Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, U.S. Agency Now Says:

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress.

The shift by the Energy Department, which previously was undecided on how the virus emerged, is noted in an update to a 2021 document by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines’s office.

Our friend Esoteric responds:

The "'lab leak" theory went from "too fringy to mention in public unless you're a right-wing crank" to "most likely origin of COVID-19" so naturally that it feels scripted.

So where does Tom Cotton (not to mention those whose voices were proactively whose views got suppressed or even censored) go for an apology?

This is still another reminder that the clowns here are all about projection, bleating about nonexistent "censorship" of innocent books in Florida while they cheered on the suppressing and deplatforming of dissenting views from doctors, researchers, scientists, etc. that were subsequently shown to be prescient.

And yes, it's increasingly evident those in our government who were followers of Faucism knew it all along.

I'm sure that's an interesting article. Too bad you have to be a WSJ subscriber to make it past the headline. Other websites have paywalls that are easy to get around, but not the WSJ.

So if folks here are going to stand by the "science evolves" mantra and not admit any fault in eschewing data that emerged about the reduced effectiveness of the vaccine

Not what I wrote. But I do agree that with changes in COVID, we should be rolling back a lot of the measures.

So where does Tom Cotton (not to mention those whose voices were proactively whose views got suppressed or even censored) go for an apology?

So the guy that offered an unsupported and irresponsible accusation with no proof is now owed an apology by those who pointed out that it was an unsupported and irresponsible accusation with no proof? Yeah, no.

The WSJ article says that the DOE report is explicitly “low confidence” and adds that other agencies have concluded animal-linked outbreak.
Cotton will have to wait for his apology, while JE willl have to find something else to be up in arms about

Cotton will have to wait for his apology

Again, no apology deserved. Making a wild ass guess based on no evidence that may turn out to be correct is not anything deserving recognition.

And yes, it's increasingly evident those in our government who were followers of Faucism knew it all along.

So many conspiracies!

So many conspiracies!

They're all conspirators except thee and me.


And sometimes I wonder about thee.

in related news, the department of child services has released a report stating that cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and etherium should be regulated as securities.

Further to 451

New intelligence has prompted the Energy Department to conclude that an accidental laboratory leak in China most likely caused the coronavirus pandemic, though American spy agencies remain divided over the origins of the virus

And:

Some officials briefed on the intelligence said that it was relatively weak and that the Energy Department’s conclusion was made with “low confidence,” suggesting its level of certainty was not high. While the department shared the information with other agencies, none of them changed their conclusions, officials said.

So Energy's conclusions were not convincing to other agencies and they don't feel very confident about it themselves. The FBI is on the same page as Energy and everybody else is (also with low confidence) that it was natural transmission. And the most sensible take I've seen from any of the many agencies that have looked into this is, " [We] just don’t have enough information to be sure."

#455 The only reason Energy's take is interesting (yes, they have zero expertise in the matter) is that they have good connections (direct and indirect) with lots of labs.

The article reads to me like parsing some of the institutional gossip they get access to. They're not putting forward any kind of lab study. And the story explicitly says it's not based on traditional spycraft (which again Energy has zero expertise with)

The idea that a therapist can only confirm their client's belief makes any kind of real therapy impossible.

I guess that's correct in theory, but those therapists are not real people. How many children and adults (who have experienced gender dysphoria) have you spoken with, to understand the pain of their journey? That at first, they didn't understand the source of their suffering. And that, as the disconnect slowly became apparent, they tried to squash it/run from it/hide it, for myriad reasons?

The people I know who've been down this road have all had unique journeys that have ended in various places - from adults who pursued full-on transition to my child eventually embracing their physical body. They've all had understanding therapists that are nothing like your fictitious agenda-pushing "convert them all" phantom (who would've been quickly rejected by the parents I know who are supporting their kids through this process). And those have ended up in hormone therapy have taken those steps cautiously, after lengthy counseling and careful consideration and reflection on the ramifications of that choice, balancing it against the harm of doing nothing or getting loaded on "traditional pharmaceuticals" that primarily blunt awareness.

Side note: the trans people I know in real life and on-line are compassionate, vibrant, open-hearted people. Small sample size to be sure, but they mostly want to be left to live their lives as they choose. I struggle to understand why people are so scared/intolerant/violent towards a group that isn't causing harm.

Also: Major applause to BBC for the science lesson. Kleinfelter's is but one of many conditions that confound the idea that gender is a simple binary expression.

Eye color is also a function of genetic expression. We categorize eye color into "brown" "green" "blue" etc but have all met people with eyes that defy categorization. It may be simple and comforting to believe that gender is far less complex than eye color, but it is unlikely to be the truth.

#458 I think Christina Kahrl's first public appearance after transition was at the Toronto SABR. I do know Chris Dial went out of his way to greet her with the kind of subtlety you'd expect from him. And I am pretty sure that Christina -- who couldn't have been sure what kind of a reception she'd get -- was glad to get a gregarious welcome from Chris.

So where does Tom Cotton (not to mention those whose voices were proactively whose views got suppressed or even censored) go for an apology?

Did you bother to read the story? That is a minority opinion in the government.

Our friend Esoteric responds:...

Via Baseball Crank...

What's with all the citations and credit? When you take comments from this site and post them on Twitter you just say, "Overheard" followed by the BTF comment. Don't you remember these from the past few months?

I assume A-Rod will slide over from his current seat to accommodate Jeter?

Charles III has begun to clean house.

What? You embarrassed about something over here? So much you have to redefine overheard?

What? You embarrassed about something over here? So much you have to redefine overheard?

lol

Did you bother to read the story? That is a minority opinion in the government.

I think more broadly that there is no real meaningful difference between natural origin and accidental lab leak. China's not paying reparations or whatever.

I do know Chris Dial went out of his way to greet her with the kind of subtlety you'd expect from him

He's a treasure.

sexuality and orientation, explained for republicans and children.

Just FYI:

Nate Silver

@NateSilver538
·
8h
Welp. The behavior of a certain cadre of scientists who used every trick in the book to suppress discussion of this issue is something I'll never forget. A huge disservice to science and public health. They should be profoundly embarrassed.

He has more to say on the subject on Twitter, for those interested.

I have no interest in what Nate Silver has to say about anything other than his field of expertise. His commentary outside of that narrow field is garbage.

I have no interest in what Nate Silver has to say about anything other than his field of expertise. His commentary outside of that narrow field is garbage.

eh; there was a time when silver's political acumen could be dismissed in a similar manner because he was just a baseball nerd talking about politics, so i do hesitate to throw the baby out with the bath water.

that being said, nate silver seems like a big "respectability politics" kind of guy, so it doesn't shock me to see him have shallow, but very triangulated musings on current events.

No, Silver's punditry has been ridiculed, and rightfully so, for years. he's a very good poll aggregator and statistical molder based on his aggregations, but that's where his political acumen ends. He knows no more about those subjects than Mike Trout knows about predicting Hurricane tracks. To be fair, neither do I, but I have the good sense to know it's nothing more than an uninformed opinion, colored by bias. Holding up Nate Silver's musings as some sort of appeal to authority is a sure sign of the weakness of one's position.

Yeah, once Nate gets out of his comfort zone, he's like Bill James talking about politics.

No, Silver's punditry has been ridiculed, and rightfully so, for years. he's a very good poll aggregator and statistical molder based on his aggregations, but that's where his political acumen ends. He knows no more about those subjects than Mike Trout knows about predicting Hurricane tracks. To be fair, neither do I, but I have the good sense to know it's nothing more than an uninformed opinion, colored by bias. Holding up Nate Silver's musings as some sort of appeal to authority is a sure sign of the weakness of one's position.

to be clear:

i did not use the phrase "respectability politics" as a compliment. i am very much of the belief that "bad gays are good".

I don't know what that means, and I don't care to find out. All you do is speak in code and I'm not interested.

Well, at least Nate Silver can recognize a government-led, media-facilitated, disinformation-based censorship effort. Some here, not so much, which is a bit ironic given the original topic of this thread.

I don't know what that means, and I don't care to find out. All you do is speak in code and I'm not interested.

good talk.

Well, at least Nate Silver can recognize a government-led, media-facilitated, disinformation-based censorship effort.

You forgot to add "in the service of Fauci's Chinese overlords", but I guess you just ran out of space.

Oh c’mon Andy. How can you still defend the failure to properly investigate the Lab Leak Theory? It was always an amazing ‘coincidence’ that the Covid virus crossed over from bats to humans in the same Chinese city where a research lab was conducting gain of function research on bats, funded by the United States no less. Instead of a proper investigation, those raising the issue, even well-credentialed scientists, were labeled ‘racist’ in a campaign secretly orchestrated by those who funded, served as a conduit, or received those funds. Defend that with whatever remaining credibility you may have, but you would be well-served by taking a closer look at the facts. A coverup is a coverup.

See, Clapper? Now even Nate Silver is either a far-right snapper groupie or center-left psychopath! Or both!

Did you bother to read the story? That is a minority opinion in the government.

And yet the ground has shifted in favor of the lab leak theory since the Cotton op-ed got published.

The WSJ article says that the DOE report is explicitly “low confidence” and adds that other agencies have concluded animal-linked outbreak.
Cotton will have to wait for his apology, while JE willl have to find something else to be up in arms about

And what had been the DoE's conclusion prior to the updated report?

And yes, Traderdave, we see how you heartily approve of censorship, deplatforming, and suppression when it involves views that don't jive with your own.

Turley:

However, for my part, the most alarming aspect was the censorship, not the science.

There will continue to be a debate over the origins of COVID-19, but now there will be an actual debate.

For years, the media and government allied to treat anyone raising a lab theory as one of three possibilities: conspiracy theorist or racist or racist conspiracy theorist....

President Biden accused President Donald Trump of fanning racism in his criticism of the Chinese government over the pandemic, and his administration reportedly shut down the State Department investigation into the possible lab origins of the virus.

When Biden later revived an investigation into the origins, he was denounced as “sugar-coating Trump’s racism.”

The categorical rejection of the lab theory is only the latest media narrative proven to be false. The Russian collusion scandal, the Hunter Biden “Russian disinformation,” the Lafayette Park “photo op” conspiracy, the Nick Sandmann controversy, the Jussie Smollett case, the migrant whipping scandal.

On the lab theory, media like the Washington Post piled on senators like Cotton and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for mentioning the lab theory, only later to admit that it could be legitimate.

Not that the clowns here care, of course. They will repeat any disinformation and cheer on censorship, plus never show a modicum of regret, even years later.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7982270/

And yes, Traderdave, we see how you heartily approve of censorship, deplatforming, and suppression when it involves views that don't jive with your own.

Please cite a post -- on any topic from any thread -- in which I have ever advocated for "censorship, deplatforming, and suppression."

Please cite a post -- on any topic from any thread -- in which I have ever advocated for "censorship, deplatforming, and suppression."

Dude, look at your earlier comment in response to my Cotton comment. Even as you laughably decry "censorship" with regard to books in grade school libraries, you handwave away the concern about what happened to those who raised concerns in response to the Faucist version of the origins of the virus.

First, to accurately cite the text of an article that states clearly that DOE report is A) explicitly labeled "low confidence" by the org releasing it and B) contrary to other reports from other federal orgs is in no way advocating for "censorship, deplatforming, and suppression." Well I guess it is one way: the way that runs in your very weird, semi-literate head. But not in any other way under the sun.

Second, please cite any comment I have made, herein or elsewhere, that contains a single word about books in grade school libraries.

Third, and I am surely far from the first to recommend this: get help.

he's just saying what we're all thinking, right:

“... Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people … because there is no fixing this.”

- dilbert guy

his field of expertise

Matt Wieters?

Shant Mesrobian, former strategist for Obama:

For me the news about the lab leak theory is just a sad reminder that it doesn't really pay to be right any more. In our hyper-polarized environment, no one is "vindicated." If you called the lab leak theory a "fringe conspiracy theory" and smeared people for it, you are still probably in a better place than the people who you smeared. Today, it's much better to have been wrong in the right way than to have been right in the wrong way.

First, to accurately cite the text of an article that states clearly that DOE report is A) explicitly labeled "low confidence" by the org releasing it …

Moving the goal post quite a bit there. The issue isn’t the precise certainty there now is on the Lab Leak Theory, or even what there may be in the future, but rather why it wasn’t seriously investigated in the first place, and why were those involved in funding gain of function research in China able to get others to derail reasonable efforts to investigate the matter by false claims of racism and other dubious tactics. Again, a coverup is a coverup.

Third, and I am surely far from the first to recommend this: get help.

It remains adorable how you crave empathy here while in the very next breath hurl cheap insults.

When I see a person in obvious distress with an unknown source or cause, I suggest they seek help. It's a minor courtesy.

When you get a moment, though, do please cite where I commented on school libraries or advocated censorship. It would make my day.

The issue isn’t the precise certainty there now is on the Lab Leak Theory

There is no "precise certainty" no matter how many times you crow about 1 minority low-confidence report.

We still do not know with "precise certainty" who/what is right. Different sources have different guesses. It could be natural, it could be accidental leak from lab. I feel fairly confident it was not an intentional leak, cuz that's crazy talk.

Best guess **at this moment with the info we have** is natural animal linked outbreak simply because a preponderance of sources with knowledge & ability say that, but it's a guess, and no rational party has ever had anything other than a guess based on available evidence. Hell, there is still debate about the origin of the 1918 flu. The frothing anger over one low confidence report that doesn't move the needle in any substantive way is....curious

464. /muteself 57i66135 Posted: February 26, 2023 at 04:46 PM (#6118752)
sexuality and orientation, explained for republicans and children.

- that is freaking AWESOME


so, those of you that believe in the Wuhan lab leak theory

- let's suppose it is absolutely 100% correct and proved every way there is to all scientists of all political persuasions so anyone who disbelieves is a flat earther

this is going to do exactly what? justify a war with china? justify getting rid of CDC and government research and public health?

- curious - why do you CARE whether or not the virus escaped from a lab? you would find and punish the person who effed up like HOW?

and what should have trump done besides what he DID do? no matter HOW the virus got here his decision to make vaccine ASAP was not stupid. and this NOT trump luvvver supports him doing operation get vaccine superquick beyond belief, even though she hardly every agrees with a word he says. bigly

When I see a person in obvious distress with an unknown source or cause, I suggest they seek help. It's a minor courtesy.

LOL. Why, because I may have confused you with jacksone or one of the other wacky lefties here? If so, apologies.

But meanwhile, let's stop spinning about a WSJ report that further undermines Faucism. And to be clear, Cotton didn't argue in his op-ed that the virus was deliberately leaked.

re: #490,

No matter how you truncate my post, you can’t disguise the fact that the issue is the coverup, not whether the Lab Leak Theory has been proved to your, or my, satisfaction.

When more than one official organ of the government has published an opinion (in this case, DOE and FBI saying leak) how on earth is that a coverup?

so, those of you that believe in the Wuhan lab leak theory

- let's suppose it is absolutely 100% correct and proved every way there is to all scientists of all political persuasions so anyone who disbelieves is a flat earther

this is going to do exactly what? justify a war with china? justify getting rid of CDC and government research and public health?

- curious - why do you CARE whether or not the virus escaped from a lab? you would find and punish the person who effed up like HOW?

and what should have trump done besides what he DID do? no matter HOW the virus got here his decision to make vaccine ASAP was not stupid. and this NOT trump luvvver supports him doing operation get vaccine superquick beyond belief, even though she hardly every agrees with a word he says. bigly

See, the victims of these smear jobs are the real enemy. "Why do you CARE?!?"

LOL, BBC. Your comedy routines here are beyond precious.

EDIT: Of course, the PRC covered up the origins of a killer virus and refused to allow for outside inspections, thereby hampering the global response. Of course, we all know you'd similarly shrug and yell, "Why do you CARE?!?" if Russiagate!!! weren't a Clinton campaign-generated hoax and Putin did throw the 2016 election to Trump, right?

When more than one official organ of the government has published an opinion (in this case, DOE and FBI saying leak) how on earth is that a coverup?

Really? What went on before the recent disclosures?

LOL. Why, because I may have confused you with jacksone or one of the other wacky lefties here? If so, apologies.

I'm a wacky lefty because I don't want to ban books?

495. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: February 27, 2023 at 01:43 PM (#6118869)

so, those of you that believe in the Wuhan lab leak theory

- let's suppose it is absolutely 100% correct and proved every way there is to all scientists of all political persuasions so anyone who disbelieves is a flat earther

this is going to do exactly what? justify a war with china? justify getting rid of CDC and government research and public health?

- curious - why do you CARE whether or not the virus escaped from a lab? you would find and punish the person who effed up like HOW?

and what should have trump done besides what he DID do? no matter HOW the virus got here his decision to make vaccine ASAP was not stupid. and this NOT trump luvvver supports him doing operation get vaccine superquick beyond belief, even though she hardly every agrees with a word he says. bigly

See, the victims of these smear jobs are the real enemy. "Why do you CARE?!?"

LOL, BBC. Your comedy routines here are beyond precious.

EDIT: Of course, the PRC covered up the origins of a killer virus and refused to allow for outside inspections, thereby hampering the global response. Of course, we all know you'd similarly shrug and yell, "Why do you CARE?!?" if Russiagate!!! weren't a Clinton campaign-generated hoax and Putin did throw the 2016 election to Trump, right?

- i'm confused by your reply

let's say that china actually DID cover up the origin of the killer virus, 100% certainty, no argument left proof, they lied, delayed global response, etcetc. every person on the planet is a victim, no question.

- what in actual realness is your idea of what should NOW happen?

See, the victims of these smear jobs are the real enemy. "Why do you CARE?!?"

LOL, BBC. Your comedy routines here are beyond precious.

EDIT: Of course, the PRC covered up the origins of a killer virus and refused to allow for outside inspections, thereby hampering the global response. Of course, we all know you'd similarly shrug and yell, "Why do you CARE?!?" if Russiagate!!! weren't a Clinton campaign-generated hoax and Putin did throw the 2016 election to Trump, right?

I have the Odious JE on block, but seeing this quoted I can only echo a previous poster...please get help, man.

Flip.