THE DAY’S HEADLINES (Wednesday)

THE DAY’S HEADLINES (Wednesday)

– ‘Fake’ Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl Pleads guilty to Serving With “Honor and Distinction” (No word if Obama attended the plea)

– Is ‘Miss Peggy’ Noonan seeking a gig on MSNBC; She was on ‘Morning Joe’ Wednesday (Look Out George Will and Kathleen Parker)

– NFL “Knee Jerks” and Trump’s condolence call take the spotlight off what is very likely the most dangerous and shocking scandal of the Obama tenure yet…the sale of 20% of US uranium, following large contributions to Clinton Foundation by, wait for it…RUSSIANS; covered up by FBI?!

DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Trump condolence critics — All hat, no cattle

  • “New what he was getting into”  is a compliment to the man’s courage

 Trump-slammed-insensitive-phone-call- Niger-widow       Via Daily News:

President Donald Trump has come under fire for his ‘insensitive’ choice of words when speaking to the pregnant widow of one of the four U.S. Special Forces soldiers killed in Niger.”

(What is it about “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”?)

Trump phoned Myeshia Johnson on Tuesday afternoon to give his condolences over the death of her husband Sgt. La David Johnson, according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.

During the five minute call, Wilson said, Trump told Johnson that her 25-year-old husband ‘knew what he signed up for… but when it happens it hurts anyway.’

The remark – delivered with a car full of people listening on speakerphone – drew instant condemnation, but Trump said Wednesday morning that it was entirely made up.

ALL HAT, NO CATTLE?

Nothing discovered under Rep. Frederica Wilson’s cowgirl hat?

Another self-serving congressperson that black voters unwittingly send to Washington to represent them…and get back nothing but inane, divisive rhetoric of no benefit to their community but serves the representative quite well.

This person thinks President Trump needs help…?

“A profile of Rep. Frederica Wilson

Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, a reliably liberal Democrat, has been a member of Congress since 2011.

Wilson, 74, was among more than 60 Democrats who skipped President Trump’s inauguration in January. At the time she said her god-daughter’s wedding conflicted with the event.

The perennially cowboy-hatted lawmaker has earned a reputation for missing other events as well – notably, votes on the House floor.

The Broward New Times reported in 2011 that no member of Florida’s congressional delegation missed more votes that year than she did. . . .”

Additionally, the Broward New Times says “Wilson is among the Florida congressional delegation’s wealthiest members, reporting more than $1.5 million in assets on her government financial disclosure form.”

DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 4 Comments

McCain gives half-baked spurious speech while getting dubious award

McCain gets Liberty Medal from National Constitution Center

  • Decries “half-baked spurious nationalism”  — another swipe at Trump and his deplorable supporters
  • McCain’s record one of fully cooked globaloney
  • Incredible as it sounds, “Constitution” organization is chaired by Joe Biden
  • Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton recipients, not Ronald Reagan
  • National Constitution Center should have its charter revoked

John McCain, who has lied in the way of repeal of the constitutional obomanation of Obamacare, who has suggested Trump is somehow dangerous with allegations of bellicosity while by his own predilections frequently calls for the U.S. military to get involved in problem areas around the world —  gets an award from an organization supposedly dedicated to the Constitution, and at the hands of the likes of Joe Biden.

Others will further and ably critique the authenticity of McCain’s devotion to the Constitution. But as regards receiving the award at the hands of Joe Biden, he should have talked to his daughter.

And who can forget the scholarship background of the Chair of the National Constitution Center:

Joe Biden’s devotion to the Constitution and individual freedom includes ( via a 2013 post by Ed Morrissey writing at Hotair) :

. . . Vice President Joe Biden insisted that people who question this administration on gun policy — like Kate Ernest did just prior to this appearance — aren’t really speaking for themselves, but for “opponents” of gun control and the Obama administration. “No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America,” Biden thunders, “has any fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed in any way. None. Zero.”

Well, that’s an easy conclusion to reach as soon as you assume that the Kate Ernests are figments of your imagination

Biden’s grasp of even the structure of the Constitution has been problematic, as VP Dick Cheney pointed out“He also said that all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution,” Cheney said in a interview that was conducted on Friday. “Well, they’re not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch.”

Besides McCain, here are the other likes of the National Constitution Center   

What is the Liberty Medal?

The Liberty Medal is awarded annually by the National Constitution Center to men and women of courage and conviction who have strived to secure the blessings of liberty to people the world over. The Medal’s roster of recipients includes many of the men, women, and organizations that have shaped and guided the world through the past two decades, including Nelson Mandela, Sandra Day O’Connor, Kofi Annan, Shimon Peres, and Colin Powell.

Established in 1988 to commemorate the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, the Liberty Medal is awarded annually to men and women of courage and conviction who strive to secure the blessings of liberty to people around the globe. The medal was first administered by the National Constitution Center in 2006, when Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were honored for their bipartisan humanitarian efforts on behalf of the victims of the tsunami in Southeast Asia and the hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. Other past Liberty Medal recipients include Nelson Mandela, Shimon Peres, Kofi Annan, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Bono. Seven recipients of the medal have subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize.

• 2017 – Senator John McCain
• 2016 – John Lewis
• 2015 – His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
• 2014 – Malala Yousafzai
• 2013 – Hillary Rodham Clinton, Former Secretary of State
• 2012 – Muhammad Ali: Champion of Freedom
• 2011 – Robert Gates
• 2010 – Tony Blair
• 2009 – Steven Spielberg
• 2008 – Mikhail Gorbachev
• 2007 – Bono & DATA
• 2006 – George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton
• 2005 – Viktor Yushchenko
• 2004 – Hamid Karzai
• 2003 – Sandra Day O’Connor
• 2002 – Colin Powell
• 2001 – Kofi Annan
• 2000 – Dr. James D. Watson & Dr. Francis Crick
• 1999 – Kim Dae-jung
• 1998 – George Mitchell
• 1997 – CNN International
• 1996 – King Hussein & Shimon Peres
• 1995 – Sadako Ogata
• 1994 – Vaclav Havel
• 1993 – Nelson Mandela & F. W. de Klerk
• 1992 – Thurgood Marshall
• 1991 – Médecins Sans Frontières & Oscar Arias Sanchez
• 1990 – Jimmy Carter
• 1989 – Lech Walesa

A few in the list are deserving of recognition for devotion to constitutional freedoms, others not so much.  What a Washington establishment organization it is. Consider its standards:

Sandra Day O’Connor, at the time of the award by the way was a sitting Supreme Court Justice, there were no other possibilities?

CNN International (Ted Turner representing)?

Bill Clinton, and tyrant enabler Kofi Annan?

Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev but not Ronald Reagan!

We presume Reagan said no thanks.

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

There’s collusion goin’ on alright

We’ve been harping on this story for weeks but we’ll give it one more shot given that the Wall Street Journal has offered some clarification on what is going on and how it can be brought into the bright light of legitimate congressional/media exposure.

As with most events occurring today on the national scene, us shlubs out here in the heartland only know what we are able to learn from intensive review of reporting by media sources across the political/ideological spectrum…and what common sense and a reasonable degree of intelligence enable us to interpret.

In Saturday’s editorial the Journal revisits the stonewalling and distortions by the media and both sides of the political aisle.

It notes that the media is predictably ignoring the matter that triggered this whole ‘independent’ Special Counsel “Russian collusion” investigation.

Unless you are an exclusive PBS, MSM viewer/ listener, you know that the real purpose of Robert Mueller’s “investigation” is to bring down the properly elected administration of Donald Trump and essentially nullify the votes of more than 60 million Americans.

Congress has attempted to obtain the facts on the event that apparently led former and disgraced FBI director James Comey to successfully push for the appointment of his buddy, Mueller as Special Counsel…the so-called “Steele Dossier”:

“The House Intelligence Committee recently issued subpoenas to Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that paid for the dossier that contained allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump and ties to Russia. The dossier’s details have been either discredited or are unverified, but the document nonetheless framed the political narrative about Trump-Russian collusion that led to special counsel Robert Mueller.” (WSJ, 10/14/17)

For some not-so-strange reason, the Justice Department and the FBI have resisted and stonewalled all such efforts, as they have any attempts by Congress to find out exactly how corrupt those entities themselves were in covering up and abetting the widespread wrongdoing of and during the Obama administration.

To us the real issue and what should be a matter of the most serious concern to the American people, is why a Republican majority congress and with a Republican executive branch would be so easily blocked from uncovering the facts of dangerous criminality within the ranks of the country’s pre-eminent law enforcement agency, the FBI.

We think we can make a pretty good guess.

These agencies are effectively controlled by deeply entrenched ‘holdovers’ from the very entity… members of which should be investigated and brought to justice…the Obama administration:

“The real question is why Democrats and Fusion seem not to want to tell the public who requested the dossier or what ties Fusion GPS boss Glenn Simpson had with the Russians in 2016. All the more so because congressional investigators have learned that Mr. Simpson was working for Russian clients at the same time he was working with Mr. Steele.”

The very security of this nation depends upon getting the facts of its corruption out in the open and insuring that justice is attained!

Our “real question” is, Who is running the Justice Department?

We have long regarded Jeff Sessions as an honorable, fearless, and honest, dedicated seeker of justice, well before President Trump named him to be Attorney General. (We cannot say the same for Christopher Wray, the newly confirmed FBI Director, however. Wray got more than 40 Democrat confirmation votes and we are pretty sure he will not involve his bureau in any investigation of the Obama administration. Does anybody think all those Democrats would confirm a guy who would give serious attention to all the incompetence and corruption that a lot of actual evidence strongly suggests pervaded the entire previous administration? I don’t! ).

But what about his boss, Mr. Sessions?

That comes back to our question. Who is running the Justice Department? Rod Rosenstein? Andrew McCabe? David Hardy (who?)?

Rosenstein, as we all recall, became ‘acting’ AG when Sessions recused himself from the “Russian thing”. Rod’s first official act was to appoint Mueller as “Special Counsel”, with virtually unlimited power and money to go after the Trump administration. Does that sound like a guy who would allow a probe of Obama, Clinton, Democratic Party wrong doing?

And Andy McCabe, still a Deputy director of the FBI? An Obama guy with deep ties to the Democrats.

And then there’s the keeper of the FBI records section, David Hardy, an Obama appointed bureaucrat, who determined there’s no “public interest” in pursuing anything to do with Mrs. Clinton’s email, er, mistakes. (Does Hardy ever read a newspaper? Ever venture out of his cubicle to hear what ‘regular’ people talk about?)

Nuf said ?                          DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Can this profession be saved?

IF THIS IS A “PROFESSION”, PROVE IT! IS IT OK TO EXPRESS PERSONAL POLITICAL OPINIONS WHILE PRESENTING ONESELF AS AN “EXPERT” ANALYST?

The American Psychiatric Association seems to be abandoning its “Goldwater Rule” in its code of ethics which cautions “against making public statements about public figures whom they have not formally evaluated”.

According to the “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law“: “We conclude that the Goldwater Rule was an excessive organizational response to what was clearly an inflammatory and embarrassing moment for American psychiatry.”

They (THE JAAPL) see it as a problem because it precludes “…the right to speak one’s conscience regarding concerns about the psychological stability of high office holders…” and conflicts with “… competing considerations regarding one’s role as a private citizen versus that as a professional figure.”

BUT, IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE MARCHING AS “PROFESSIONALS” RENDERING A PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT!   Our commentary below photo.

Shrinks take to streets to demand ‘narcissistic’ Trump’s ouster  

No doubt the ensemble includes kazoos and knee mounted cymbals

In the ‘old days’, one would be able to say with widespread support and agreement that these so-called “mental health professionals” are actually mental health cases.

However, by today’s very elastic standards, the American Psychological Association would be more likely to determine they are just suffering “Trump Dysphoria”.

While abandoning their “profession’s” own rules of conduct (e.g.. the “Goldwater Rule) they appear to be behaving worse than their most unhinged patients. The “new definitions” the APA seems to be generously adopting these days would characterize this group’s behavior not as symptomatic of a serious emotional disorder but rather that of victims of “professional dysphoria”.

According to the APA, “dysphoria” is when a person exhibits many of the characteristics of a mental disorder… ” distress, disability, etc”… much like what these people are exhibiting in the extreme as they march in public demanding, on the basis of a ‘mail order’ diagnosis, the removal of the duly elected president of the United States.

Ah, but not so fast, the APA might say. These proud members of this “profession” are actually experiencing most or many of those symptoms of a disorder not because they are unhinged, but actually only because the general population sees them and treats them as a little “nutty”!

It is likely the APA would apply the same newly adopted definitions they’ve applied to transgenderism in redefining their colleagues’ condition as “dysphoria” rather than “disorder”:

“Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault.
These experiences may lead many…. to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than (non-liberal, our term) persons.”

So see, these “mental health professionals” aren’t nutty…it’s just you darn people see them that way!

DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

The Nina Burleigh’s are shocked

CLARICE DOES A SCATHING ANALYSIS AND REBUKE OF THE WELCOME GROPING BY HARVEY W. OF THE HOLLYWOOD/DEMOCRATIC PARTY ESTABLISHMENT!

Hollywood and the Democrats have happily performed “Nina Burleighs” on Harvey for decades…and now, all of a sudden they are stampeding to the mouthwash.

Clarice article includes many quotes absolutely nailing the left for their years of hypocrisy and worse.

Take Back Your Diamonds, Take Back Your Pearls, What Makes You Think I Was One of Weinstein’s Girls?

These items came over the transom  this morning.  Thank to Hugh Pries for the captioned item  and Vic Metcal for the laugh line.

Hillary was asked if Harvey Weinstein’s behavior compared to that of her husband Bill. 
Hillary responded, “Close, but no cigar”.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Pope Francis’ carelessness undermines credibility of other Popes . . .

  • Wow, the Magisterium got it totally wrong all this time
  • His pronouncements call into question the reliability of longstanding, indeed original Christian doctrine justified by scripture

Pope wants Catholic opposition to death penalty increased 

– Essentially declaring his opinions the correct ones, Pope Francis labelled the Church’s current position in support of “judicial” capital punishment, in appropriate circumstances, to be “doctrinal errors”!

– How many other long-standing tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are “erroneous” in the view of Il Papa?

As the Vatican’s “chattiest” Pope in modern times:

– He has been an outspoken opponent of capitalism, sovereign borders, fossil fuels, Donald Trump, the United States itself…

– Pope Francis has also established himself as a supporter of “social justice” and “liberation theology”, an ideology which opposes the concept of private property, and portrayed himself as essentially, not an opponent of Marxism.

– the Vicar of Christ has also come very close to correcting what he must perceive as a Church doctrine “oversight” in failing to condemn “climate change deniers” as sinners seriously in need of redemption!

– We await the Pontiff’s opinions on gun control (we can guess), the “Black Lives Matter” movement, and the NFL’s active disrespect for the symbols of a free and compassionate America, as well as any other “doctrinal errors” the Church has made over the last few centuries. (He may also have thoughts on Harvey Weinstein he’ll want to share.)       DLH

Related reading:

By  Pete Baklinski  writing at LifeSite News  (bold emphasis ours)
Pope ‘seems to be contradicting traditional teaching’ on death penalty: Catholic prof  

October 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis’ recent statements about the death penalty being “contrary to the Gospel” seem to be a departure from previous Catholic teaching, a Catholic professor says.

“When Pope Francis says that capital punishment is ‘in itself contrary to the Gospel,’ and ‘inadmissible … no matter how serious the crime,’ he seems to be contradicting traditional teaching,” said Dr. Edward Feser, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in California, to LifeSiteNews.

Pope Francis made his controversial remarks during an October 11 speech to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, which gathered to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II (read full speech here).

Dr. Feser is an expert on the morality of capital punishment. Together with Dr. Joseph M. Bessette, who is an ethicist at Claremont McKenna College in California, he published in March a Catholic defense of capital punishment titled By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed.

“The Church teaches that scripture is divinely inspired, that it cannot teach error where matters of faith and morals are concerned, and that it must always be interpreted in the way the Church traditionally has understood it. But many passages of scripture clearly teach that capital punishment is legitimate, and have always been interpreted by the Church as teaching this,” he said.

Both the Old and New Testaments indicate that the death penalty can be legitimate. For instance, Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” Or again, St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans teaches that the state “does not bear the sword in vain (but) is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.”

Feser said previous popes have “consistently” reaffirmed the legitimacy of capital punishment and have “insisted that accepting its legitimacy is a requirement of Catholic orthodoxy.”

One such pope would be Pius XII, who in 1955 defended the authority of the State to punish crimes, even with the death penalty. He argued that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture because “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.”

“Even Pope St. John Paul II taught that capital punishment is not always and absolutely wrong,” said Feser.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his classic defense of capital punishment in the Summa Theologica, argued that “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.”

The Catholic professor said the Church also has “always taught that popes are obligated to preserve traditional teaching and never to contradict it.

“When Pope Francis says that capital punishment is ‘in itself contrary to the Gospel,’ and ‘inadmissible … no matter how serious the crime,’ he seems to be contradicting traditional teaching,” he said.

“If that is what he is doing, then he is flirting with doctrinal error, which is possible when a pope is not speaking ex cathedra, even though it is extremely rare. There are only a handful of cases in Church history of popes who are possibly guilty of this, the best known cases being those of Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII,” he added.

Feser said that if Pope Francis is reversing past teaching on capital punishment, then he is “implicitly saying that every previous pope and scripture itself were wrong.”

“This would completely undermine the authority of the Church, and of Pope Francis himself. For if the Church could be that wrong for that long about something that serious, why trust anything else she says? And if all previous popes have been so badly mistaken, why should we think Pope Francis is right?” he said.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is morally permissible.

“The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense … Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor,” states the Catechism (bold added).

The Catholic professor said that if what the Pope said is true that he, in the Pope’s own words, is “not in any way contradicting past teaching” and that his statements “in no way represents a change in doctrine,” then he “ought to issue a clarification, so as to ensure the credibility of the Church’s claim to preserve the deposit of faith.”

The Pope said during his speech that he would like the Catechism of the Catholic Church to change, adding that only a “partial vision can think of ‘the deposit of faith’ as something static.”

The “harmonious development of doctrine demands that we cease to defend arguments that now appear clearly contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth,” the Pope said.

So new understandings control, the judgement of generations is not something actually on deposit, it is nothing to bank on. Doctrine is then dependent not on universal truths as revealed, just emanations from whichever Pope takes it upon himself to interpret and upset?

One Pope’s pronouncements, supposedly in concert with the Magesterium, are opinions which another pope has no duty to uphold. By Pope Francis’ words, visions of truth are always partial, a play on Paul through a glass darkly, — except when it comes to his visions which are better, more encompassing and available to be called doctrine should he choose to do so?

The question arises — if scripture supposedly remains the basis — how so?  We are now told the meaning depends on the emphasis of the moment. The newer interpretations are the more advanced visions, presumably immune from corruption?

If emphasis is to vary on fairly clear matters, thus determining doctrine, there is not much to depend on in scripture.  Different day, different emphasis.

The result is a cacophony of different emphasis, — a biblical babel.  And who is to determine the superiority of one group’s “emphasis” over another? Perhaps by what side the Pope gets out of bed on?

The Pope in his no death penalty argument opines ~~ The execution of a human being was fundamentally against the teachings of Christ because, by definition, it excluded the possibility of redemption, he argued.  Excluded the possibility of redemption!

Excluded the possibility of redemption!  How profoundly presumptive, no, far worse , God limiting!   The person convicted of capital crime has the opportunity to repent and be saved. No sin is unforgivable should God decide to do so. Capitol punishment as it is undertaken by the state is not the result of summary execution or even summary judgement with no time prior to execution.  How can a pope be so lacking in basic Christology and essentially dishonest about capitol punishment as an earthly reckoning?  His comments come off as the theology of  modernism and the perfectibility of man and that this life is all there is  — ignoring the Bible’s injunctions, acknowledgments, prescriptions and promises if they do not quite fit currently politically correct predilections and corruptions.       R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Jimmy Kimmel — the late-night paragon of what’s right *

Via American Update:

Jimmy Kimmel Really Wants Trump on His Show — Here’s Why     

WE THINK HE WANTS TO GUESS WHAT EACH OF HIS GUESTS NEXT WEEK HAVE IN THEIR PANTS!

From the article:

Despite his recent criticism of Donald Trump, Jimmy Kimmel said he would love to have the president on his late-night show.

“I have a lot of questions for Donald Trump,” Kimmel told ABC News’ Amy Robach for “Good Morning America” on Friday. “Maybe this is crazy, but I feel like I could turn him around on a couple of things.” Kimmel, however, warned Robach not to expect any miracles.

“He’s not planning to visit me anytime soon. He and Sean Hannity have date night on those nights,” he said before calling the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. an “idiot.”

Trump is not among the New York-based guests booked for Kimmel’s upcoming week of broadcasts from Brooklyn, his childhood hometown. The week will include appearances and interviews with an impressive lineup of New Yorkers made good including, Bill Joel, Tracy Morgan, David Letterman, Amy Schumer and Howard Stern.

Why should Kimmel be expected to comment?  Harvey Weinstein’s “women problem”? He says he is not in the movie business, except he makes his living off of having those in the business as guests on his show, sometimes making fun of them, just not ol’ Harv in spite of it being shall we say, timely to do so. He says he is not the conscience of America but pontificates about health care and gun control and all manner of items in his monologues, ridiculing this or that scandal or peccadillo.

DLH with R Mall

*this post was in our queue to be published at 9:00 this morning. We were not aware of subsequent articles with similar themes

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Inflicting HIV now as onerous as littering — Californicating law, ethics, and the blood supply

First our favorite trenchant political/social humorist Stilton Jarlsberg, writing at Stilton’s Place, holds forth in essay and pictorial on California’s latest insanity, set forth in its entirety here. Next we add from The Federalist an article by Chad Felix, an HIV positive man, who provides expanded ethical analysis  including as regards the liberal mindset in subsuming biological assault to feelings.  RMall

 

State of Insanity

Say what you will about California, but it’s unquestionably our nation’s greatest, most fertile, and consistently reliable source of really bad ideas.

As a case in point, Governor Jerry Brown has just signed a law which eliminates felony charges for those who do not tell their sexual partners about having the HIV virus before unprotected sex, and also allows those carrying the virus to donate blood without making staffers aware that they’ve just collected the equivalent of Typhoid Mary in a bag.

In California (and isn’t it funny that, following those two words, we could basically write anything and it would be believable?) it will now be only a misdemeanor for those with HIV to lie about their status and have unprotected sex, even if it’s their actual intent to deliberately spread AIDS.

But surely no one would do that, right? Wrong. Not only is it done, but it’s so common that there’s actually a name for the practice of deliberately infecting others: “stealthing.” And in California, this despicable and potentially deadly act will now be on a legal par with littering.

And as far as tainting the public blood supply with HIV, all we can guess is that Californians will applaud the new diversity in blood products which previously were unlikely to kill you.

Theoretically, this is supposed to be a great blow against homophobia (no pun intended, but geez – it was unavoidable). But to our way of thinking this insanity is nothing less than granting rights (and sanctuary status) to a deadly virus while denying rights to potential human victims.

In other words, business as usual for California.

Author Chad Felix Greene: (excerpt)

California Shouldn’t Make It Easier For HIV-Positive People Like Me To Give Blood And Have Risky Sex

The demand for HIV privacy as an entitlement will create a scenario of predatory behaviors, recklessness, and ruined lives. Gay and bisexual men will be at a higher risk.   . . .

This Is Simply Deadly Political Correctness

Republicans should be reviewing their state laws surrounding HIV disclosure to ensure they reflect both modern medical advances and protect individuals from reckless or malicious behavior. Consent should be the main selling point to the general population as well as moral and ethical obligation to disclose. There should be a firm legal requirement to disclose your HIV status to anyone who is at risk of exposure, but this can and must be done with rational law.

Finally, it must be absolutely imperative that blood donations be protected. Of all the concerns here, this particular issue threatens truly vulnerable people the most. Laws should evolve when necessary, but society still requires them. The Right should be on the forefront of this battle.

Read Greens entire article for much insight.


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

What a laugh newspaper editors can be

Consider this not only above-the-fold but masthead lead story on October 6 in the Dispatch-Argus, not the worst Quad Cities based newspaper but often enough.

The non-byline AP article, which would mean it is intended to be a straight “wire-service” report takes an arguable snipe characterizing the NRA. We think it emits from a presumption at the AP that  new control proposals equates to valuable or effective and Second Amendment rights are a non-issue.  But we won’t argue that  little nuance. Instead, check out the inclusion of the “Mass shootings” graph included with the story, expanded for ease of examination below:

Can  the editor(s) with straight faces maintain that the above graphic has any honest application to the article, or for that matter rates inclusion given the singularity of the Las Vegas massacre? Could it be be intended to suggest at a glance that bump stocks are involved in the trumped up graph and a ban would prevent such an expansive definition of mass shootings? Might it imply visually that comparable “mass shootings” to the Las Vegas massacre are that frequent. Decent editing as claimed to be a standard of the publication (see below) would avoid such unfounded implication in a supposed news story.

The graphic, is in the context of the use of bump stocks in the Las Vegas massacre, however  1) no authority maintains the banning of bump stocks would have prevented the extent of the willful carnage by gunfire of this planned massacre and, 2) there is no statistic indicating bump stocks  have ever been used in any of the other incidents depicted in the graph.

Another corruption is that the information conveyed in the graph does not convey that the singular events include, as is often the case, the death or injury of the assailant by suicide or how many were a combination of police involvement. It does not even clarify whether  the injuries were by targeted (intended victim) gunfire.

With that glaring front page bias only a few days old and others a virtual everyday occurrence, often involving the AP but regardless as such is not an exoneration of the D-A’s editors,  the editorial page editor goes on to set forth in the Sunday edition this truly ridiculous claim (highlighted) about all editing at his newspaper. Read the entire article for several good guffaws. Keep in mind as well that bias is reflected also by failures to follow-up with balanced information when it becomes available on matters under contention and when corrections are made they should be as prominent as the error.

 

 

 

Posted in MEDIA BIAS, UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment