> Trump released a video in which he said abortion should be a matter for the states. It was a vague statement, and hardly a fully fleshed-out policy on abortion.
How is that "vague" or "[not] fleshed out" at all? It's EXTREMELY clear, extremely easy to implement (or rather, it's already implemented). These things shouldn't be federal issues. I get it's not the position the left or the hard right wants to see, but it's about as clear and concise a position as you can possibly get.
Exactly my reaction to this ridiculous assertion. “Leave it to the states” IS a fully fleshed-out policy, the left’s desire for a federally guaranteed right to commit infanticide notwithstanding.
Oliver apparently wanted Trump to specify the number of weeks abortion should be allowed in each of the fifty states and eight-odd territories, and also what exact exceptions he supports, as well as which doctors- BY NAME! - should perform the abortions.
Because Oliver has never heard of our greatest Amendment, the Tenth.
This is why red states Kansas, Kentucky, Montana and Ohio already had ballot measures passed to protect abortion rights. Florida, Arizona and Arkansas are well on the way. It will be just like with gay marriage. Infanticide will be eventually extremely clearly legalized on the state level. Then what?
Uncharitable Take: They want Trump to give specifics so they can use it to turn people against him. If he picks a number there will be some group that doesn't like it. By leaving it to the states (the correct answer) he doesn't let himself get pinned down so they can take pot shots at him.
Considering how rarely politicians actually live up to what they say, it really shouldn't matter what most politicians say on most things unless they actually have the integrity to follow them.
Agreed and they also seem to not understand that the 10th amendment is a good thing. If you live in the state I don't live in, you can make laws I don't agree with and as long as they are not against the constitution then I do not need to let it control me. I'm a voter in my own state that has laws and decisions I don't agree with. I vote against it. However I don't have time to worry about every law in every other state. If Arizona wants to ban abortion and they voted for it then ok that is what the voters decided. I think we have lost the ability to understand we don't need to have an opinion on everything everyone else does or believes. I'm sure their own state has enough issues to work on that they don't need to worry about anyone else's "problems".
There are few spectacles more disgusting than 75 year old childless women who have lived on the public treasury for a decade or more, loudly advocating to end the future of the society via rampant abortion and castration.
Overall I don't want the Federal government doing much beyond enforcing the constitution, protecting us from outside threats, and likely a few other things I am not thinking of right now.
By and large I think the further away from the individual you are, the less power institutions should have over you. The states happen to be where we rested a lot of power, but even they should likely be reigned in, in favor of local laws.
It’s been a system of government that has worked well for a long time, but as everybody knows, criminals don’t care about laws nor about their neighbors.
Indeed they’ll gladly destroy the future for their own pleasure.
You're right. And they shouldn't be state issues either.
Gynecological care, which includes the right to terminate a pregnancy, is a matter between a woman and her OB/GYN and, if she has one, her loving, faithful husband.
The religious beliefs of Catholics and Evangelicals have no place in our United States laws -- federal, state, or municipal.
Religious Catholics and Protestants need to butt out of my Greek Orthodox family's medical matters.
This is a commonly repeated argument among the pro-abortion on demand crowd. The only objection one could possibly have to a woman killing her baby at 24 weeks is religious.
I'm an atheist. There is no god. We're in this together. Alone.
I assure you I have no personal desire to control any woman's body. However, there has to be some kind of limit on the killing of an unborn child. I think somewhere around 15 weeks is a reasonable limit. With the obvious exceptions and caveats for life and physical health of the mother.
My wife, who is also not Christian, at all, is even more restrictive in her opinion on abortion.
So, find an argument that matters. Or just admit you're all for the free-wheeling murder of unborn children. Or clarify what your position actually is.
The Arizona Supreme Court brilliantly brought the draconian abortion law to the forefront precisely to force the state to deal with it legislatively. Courts are not in the business of creating laws.
Ironically, Arizona might become one of the more lenient states following the referendum in November, where the state is asking voters for an abortion ban after 24 weeks. 400,000 signatures are needed to add the initiative to the ballot and already 600,000 signatures have been submitted. That, with exceptions for the health of the mother and fetus, seems like the right approach for every state to follow.
My position is that anything can go wrong with a pregnancy at any time, and when that happens, even at seven months, a woman's heartbreak doesn't need to be compounded by red tape and the possible disapprobation of government clerks whose job it is to "allow" whatever medical procedure is required.
But that appears to be talking about health issues related to a pregnancy. That's not a pro-abortion argument and seems to be a separate, smaller issue.
The vast majority of pro-lifers believe in exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Just not some vaguely worded nonsense that includes her mental health - like this pregnancy is making me upset, kill the baby.
“The health of the mother” is an argument that doesn’t hold up past the stage of viability. At that point, there’s no physical condition that abortion could cure that an emergency c-section wouldn’t.
Getting an emergency C-section for a pre term otherwise healthy baby to protect the health of the mother can present grave risks to the baby, which is why I assume some staunch pro lifers are against it. It’s not like you reach 24 weeks and BAM viable, fine to take it out.
It's called a discussion. It's how we come to understand different points of view.
I really want you to understand that objections to what you propose are not generally based on religion or some weird desire to control women's bodies.
Ok. And it appears that your perspective is that if a woman wants to kill her unborn child, up to and including the moment of birth, you're fine with that. I think you and I have vastly different systems of morality. I think killing people is bad. You think that the mother should be able to kill a person without even having to file paperwork.
At what age should it be illegal for a mother to kill her child? Can she drown her 4 month old because the kid is dragging down her life?
Your position is fine if you ignore there are two lives involved. Not being religious, I can agree that at the early stages of pregnancy, the embreo is a clump of cells. But that's certainly not true at 24, 30 or 40 weeks, when the small human is fully formed and able to live outside of the womb. (My grandson was born at about 34 weeks, had no medical problems and went home from the NICU two days later.) I don't think a woman should have to risk her life for her fetus. If her life is in danger, an abortion is a type of self-defense. But today abortion is often used as a form of birth control and that's not a good enough reason to kill a viable child.
The old timers on this BBS know my feelings on abortion. I am an atheist and I used to be prochoice until I saw a sonogram of a friend's fetus and saw the heartbeat. It was an epiphany, a road to Damascus moment for me and in that moment I became prolife.
That fetus is a human being and as such should have all the rights and privileges of any other human in the US. One of those rights is to be protected against murder. We can't protect everybody from being murdered but we can sure try.
I will not stop a woman from having an abortion and I will not castigate or demean woman for aborting a healthy fetus but I sure will vote prolife.
It never has been that way. When my friend's baby died (in the late 80's) in utero at 5 or so months, the docs went in and "cleaned her out" for lack of a better term. A woman can't carry dead flesh in their body without harm.
The medical procedure is called Dilation & Curettage, or D&C. I had one after a late term miscarriage. The body doesn’t always expel everything that needs to come out, so the doctor has to do it for you. Anti-abortion laws should never be so strict that physicians feel like they can’t perform a needed D&C without getting arrested or having their medical license revoked.
I couldn't remember if a D&C is what it's called. Thank you. You are so right a doc should never have to be concerned if a D&C is the right course to take.
Half true. Aborting a viable fetus is murder. We are all struggling to find a balance between a woman's rights over her body and a viable fetus's right to life. Given its execrable track record in the pandemic and with "gender affirming care", fewer and fewer people trust the medical "profession" or the snake oil salesmen at big pharma that controls the medical profession.
The right to die is increasingly the new drumbeat of the left. I think the argument goes like this: The climate apocalypse is coming, if we want suicide we should have it in spades with assistance, let’s kill babies too, why stop at 40 weeks, post term abortions are probably fine too, just don’t talk about the death penalty! That’s sacrosanct and verboten.
Viability is 23-24 weeks. Most folk here are adopting an extremist position with post-hoc wafflegarble. Even if there were a lower bound; the US healthcare system not being a "universal " model, free at the point of delivery, isn't equipped to make such a lower bound possible or safe.
Wait. Are you suggesting that limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks is an "extremist position"?
Cause around that number is mostly what I'm seeing people say here.
Also, you seem to suggest that you would be open to 15 weeks if we had universal healthcare. Sorry, I'm just trying to work through all your wafflegarble to get at what you are actually saying.
I think UK law about right. I know of plenty of people unaware they were pregnant when they went into labour. Fifteen weeks that number goes ballistic.
Why do you think religion is the only possible basis for objections to abortion? I am agnostic and have believed that abortion is a moral quagmire that can't be reduced to absolutes since I first understood what it was. The biological facts of conception indicate that two human bodies are involved in the abortion decision, not just one. God doesn't have to be involved to conclude that concern and respect for both human beings should inform that decision.
Given what we know about DNA and fetal development, it's every bit as extreme and absolutist to argue that the fetus should never be recognized as human and deserving of legal respect and abortion should be free of all legal restrictions as it is to argue that all abortion should always be banned. The same is true for your position that only those who support untrammeled legal abortion should have a voice, and those concerned about its moral implications should "butt out."
To my non-religious mind, Dobbs is a decent way to balance the impossible moral conflict. State legislatures get to decide: that means both sides get to advocate for their cause, and neither side gets to silence the other. Yes, that also means neither side gets an absolute victory -- but unwanted pregnancies don't deal in absolutes. Respect for both sides on this terrible conundrum is more likely to get us to some kind of imperfect solution that our society can live with than positions like yours -- or your opposite numbers -- that depend on one side bullying the other into silence. Neither side will ever accept silence; it's too important.
When anyone's niece or daughter or granddaughter finds herself with an ectopic pregnancy, she should not have to worry that some dull-witted clerk will think, Now, does that gal REALLY need to abort?
Neither religion or lack of it is a reason to intrude on a private matter. Mostly it's religious people whose voices are loudest against abortion, but no one's voice except the quiet voice inside the woman in need of terminating her pregnancy should be listened to.
The termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion.
But way to move the goalposts to a very niche case. That's 1.4% of the cases. And there are already carve outs for it in every state. Though, I will grant that there are some idiot politicians who don't understand the medical science involved who have said and done some stupid things.
Miscarriages are not relevant. “B.” already knows that but is frantically throwing out every dismal argument trying just to stay in the ring but it is filled with heavyweight champions and it is impossible
floing! There goes Flying B. Breeeng! There goes B. again, over the ropes and sailing over the crowd. Wham! Down goes B.! Down goes B.!!
Ectopic pregnancies are generally diagnosed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, well within the time limits proposed for abortions. That diagnosis falls well within the for the "health of the mother" rationale for an abortion.
The 60s radicals who took over our government and media threw out a lot of babies with the bathwater because they were rooted in or correlated with religious beliefs. Things like “don’t have kids without being married,” or “it’s good to have children and not kill them.”
I've seen plenty of ultrasounds. I'm looking at those of my niece and nephew as I speak. I got all warm and fuzzy when shown them; it didn't make either a baby though. Most of the time whoever takes the sonogram has to walk you through what you are looking at.
You do not have to be a Christian to entertain the possibility that an unborn child 6 months in the womb is a human being. I was adopted as an infant in 1954 from a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy. Today, I would probably have been aborted. I like to think I've been a net positive to society. How many millions of other net positives have we lost due to unlimited abortion "rights" since then?
A sane country would have a discussion around developing a support system for unwanted children and a legal system that would support parents of choice as well as a culture that applauds that decision. Alas, we are not that country.
Actually, the only thing I was interested in convincing you of is that people can object to abortion on grounds other than the religious. I in no way expected to sway your actual opinion on abortion. That would have been utterly futile.
After that my interest was trying to understand your perspective. I'm probably like a lot of folks here: I'm curious. Otherwise, why would I bother reading these articles and diving into the comment section.
I do find it amusing that you consider conversation where your view point is challenged as yapping. I suppose you must spend a lot of time in a bubble where most people smile and nod at your sagacity.
"B" referred to the conversation around about what he/she wrote as "Yap, yap, yap". "B" has continually moved the goal posts, suggested we didn't understand the words he/she used, and demonstrated a "fine, I'll take my ball and go home" attitude to the argument.
Given all of that, it seems like "B" is unused to having his/her views challenged. That is what I mean by living in a bubble.
Being a lone voice of poorly thought out dissent doesn't mean one doesn't primarily live in a bubble. Especially when he/she clearly is unable to articulate their viewpoint and object to having to explain it.
Unless you are suggesting that I'm living in a bubble because most other posters seem to be on my side. If that is what you mean, I would first like to suggest that you remember this is a liberal news source created by people who definitely and absolutely believe in a woman's right to abortion. Just by being here, I'm outside of what could be considered my bubble. I'm also very interested in other people's opinions and viewpoints.
The comments here are overwhelmingly dominated by right leaning people. Look at the top comments on almost any article. Look at the meltdown in the comments anytime an article even hints at a criticism of Trump or praise of any liberal. Look how anyone expressing anything resembling a liberal viewpoint in these comments is challenged and often mocked.
I don’t know if you’re in a bubble or not in your life - but I do know that accusing B of being in a bubble when he expressed a viewpoint that is in the extreme minority on this discussion - which I’m sure he knew it would be since he’d been commenting here for awhile - is ironic to say the least.
A brief there might be, but very few Greeks have seen it -- or would care if there were. No Orthodox priest I've ever heard has gotten up on Sunday and thundered against abortion or homosexuality. I've never seen Greek churches sporting anti-abortion billboards although I have seen them in the front yards of other churches. Just an observation. Anecdotal, if you'd like.
I come from a family that supports abortion. That includes my Republican mother. It never occurred to any of us that any woman needing an abortion needed to have people tell her what to do, or condemn her probably difficult decision.
We are an understanding religion. Our priests marry unless they seek higher office. We're allowed to divorce and remarry in church.
People deal with life's pitfalls, they make difficult choices, and the Greek Orthodox church tends not to scold them.
"When" an abortion is performed is in many ways beside the point. When it's needed, it's needed, and conflating the life of a fetus with that of a newborn baby, or a toddler, is dogmatic.
I've known women (and men) whose children have died -- at 17 years old, and at 12, at 58, at 23 years old -- from disease, from accidents; and one in the Twin Towers. Their hearts broke; life was never the same for them. Very different from having a miscarriage. (Or an abortion.)Those women I know whose pregnancies failed at 3 or 7 months were saddened, surely, but they hadn't lost a child they had nursed through childhood diseases, taught to read and to sing, and sent off to kindergarten for the first time.
Losing a sentient, beloved human being is a tragedy.
I know all about Greek Orthodox, as I’m married into a family of Greeks and attend Greek church regularly. It doesn’t matter what *your* priest does, the office stand of the church is pro-life and has been for millennia. It’s fine if you want to argue for infanticide, just don’t bring your faith (which you don’t know anything about) into it.
This is why there are so few intelligent conversations to be had about abortion: because anti-abortion absolutists like you accuse those of us who understand that sometimes people's decisions are difficult, of supporting infanticide.
I'm way old enough to have known lots of Greek priests in my lifetime. As did my pro-abortion family. But, as the new generation says, you do you.
But…you don’t know the official stance of the Greek church and you claim orthodoxy as being pro choice. It’s not and never has been. So don’t claim a religion that you don’t know anything about. Abortion *is* infanticide. Why do you think people have a problem with it? You refuse to acknowledge the thing you promote and that shameful.
*Libertarian urges rising* Sadly I do have to question most state licensing boards. I worked for years at 2 different Associations and saw how the lobbied to make their licenses benefit the people who currently had them, and not be as concerned with the actual public/customers.
While I do agree that some kind of quality body would be a good idea, I do not agree that the state is always the best ones to do that.
We paid for the courage, truth and "Common Sense" in the Free Press. Instead we are served up large dollops of the pathetic Wiseman. Wake up, Bari. Your subscribers are not fans of Olly.
The small core group of FP commenters seems to be dominated by folks in the Eastern time zone who can't wait to get to their keyboard before breakfast. Some of these early risers post thoughtful and articulate comments; many of these posters can be crude. They are united in their passionate disdain for Democrats, characterized as "liberal-left-commie-Marxist-treasonists." A moderate or left-leaning reader of FP refrains from commenting, not wanting to be pounced on. Those voices are silenced, "cancelled" in modern parlance. There are many Never-Trump Republicans, Moderates, Independents, and True Lefties who read and digest FP but keep their thoughts to themselves, bewildered by the prevailing vitriol.
I’ve only ever been engaged in one ‘dispute’ here, and I tried to keep it respectful. Can’t say the same for the person who was hurling insults, but I have a pretty tough skin.
Go ahead and voice your opinion; I think if done in a considered and respectful manner you’ll find plenty others who are willing to engage. I always welcome an educated debate and personally find a variety of opinions welcome.
There's an entire Reddit thread of TFP readers who refuse to even look at the comments because they're so toxic. TFP comments do not reflect the readership as a whole.
Ever been canceled by a conservative friend? Now ask a conservative about liberal friends. Very few comments here calling someone on the left a commie Marxist treasonist ( most of us conservatives focus on issues and we do not all agree) . Now let's look at the MSM or elected leaders calling people Maga extremists, nazis, etc etc. Here's a question for you: is a person a better or worse person based on if they are liberal or conservative? And how would MSNBC or a Harvard or Yale professor answer that question. Let's stick to issues and policies and let go of the name calling.
Ahhh... but the "Never-Trump Republicans, Moderates, Independents, and True Lefties who read and digest FP" can go to the comments sections of WAPO, NYT, Vox, Atlantic, etc to air their thoughts and be elated (as opposed to bewildered) by their preferred vitriol.
I wish people would comment regardless of their politics. Most ppl use fake names so it’s not really personal. If someone else “ pounces” there is no obligation to respond. Only good comes with the exchange of ideas and exposure to the views of others.
They know exactly how many people are reading which articles. If someone really doesn't like their output, canceling is the best way to let them know.
Based on the TGIF posts I suspect there are a large number of people that like the fluff. There are likely, also, a fair number of more left leaning folks here that don't find fault with the biased ways that some of their contributors portray certain things. The very nature of what their supposed goal is here means we are going to have a varied bunch of opinions.
I also try to keep in mind that the Oliver and Nellie stuff isn't the stuff with a bunch of time and research put into it. Those kinds of articles take time. So in between the good ones, we get more fluffy pieces.
I think the question is whether or not he would sign a national ban if it would make it through Congress. A lot of people are concerned about a bait and switch. As much as I love DeSantis, in 2022 he signed the 15 week ban the year of his election. Most people in FL were fine with this, but then he gets reelected and signs a 6 week ban last year. Most people in FL feel this is too extreme. I think this one of the reasons he didn't do well in the primary.
It's clear that America does not support restrictive abortion bans, but Republicans have made it clear they don't care and are willing to throw the government to Leftist totalitarians over extreme abortion positions.
That is very true and the idea of late term abortions is abhorrent. However, most women would never consider aborting a healthy fetus after viability. Abortion after 12 weeks is rare, and then only for medical reasons. A permissive law has zero impact on my baby because I wouldn't abort my baby...ever. A restrictive law could force me to carry a non-viable pregnancy at the risk of my own health because a judge decided my life wasn't sufficiently threatened. I don't want to imagine being forced into such a terrible position, but I do know that politics should have zero impact on complex medical situations. Liberal abortion laws will have no impact for most women and their children, but restrictive laws do.
I would favor a national law banning abortion of a healthy fetus after viability, and banning laws that interfere with complex medical issues for the mother and the fetus. Apparently, we can't have common sense prevail in America.
Deb, that is untrue: “Democrats” have no position on abortion other than support for reinstating Roe v Wade. I suggest that you read that case. Justice Powell argued carefully that there are balancing interests between the rights of the mother (effectively only in the first trimester); the mother and the State (2nd trimester); and society’s preponderant interest in the child (3rd trimester). That’s over-simplified but basically correct. I think he got it right, but for the wrong reasons based on an implied right to privacy, when it should be a due process question under the 14th Amendment. Note that Powell never got hung up on when there is a life - for him, it was about when is the foetus viable, hence his focus around 24 weeks. That too, seems about right.
thanks for that comment. You are correct. Trump took the Nikki Haley line on abortion (which was pitch perfect) and turned it into his own language. He's right, but a lot of people can't see it.
This is because the left hates the notion that Trump made a "rational" statement. They can't handle it. They need the specificity of irrationality. They need people to scream "trans-women are women" without questioning why they need the prefix "trans" to make the assertion in the first place...
Wow, halfway down in the article’s topics and ABORTION is the first topic of comment. Me Like.
Anyway, it was my first topic of comment, too, so figured this is as good a place to post as any.
It’s interesting, a law from 1864, 150’ish years ago, which was the basic law of the United States for 100’ish years, was resurrected from the dead in 2024. 🤔 interesting.
1864, we were at the tail end of the War between the States in which we were killing Americans on both sides of the Divide in order to either 1) free other Americans and recognize their personhood, or 2) continue to enslave those Americans and keep them in bondage thereby denying their personhood under our constitution. If I remember correctly, and I usually do, politically this came down to Republicans (Party of Lincoln) opposing Democrats, Jefferson Davis.
Interesting, 150’ish years later we’re in the midst of another, so far mostly bloodless, political civil war, in which REPUBLICANS, the party of life and liberty, are fighting to ensure the personhood of unborn Americans while, as usual, demonratz, the party of death and servitude, battle to assert their power over the innocent and powerless unborn amongst us, past present future.
I’ll be honest, as one born in the furthest reaches of the Union States, raised south of the Mason-Dixon and identifying as an Appalachian Hillbilly (i. e., Southerner), i have come to believe we did our future selves a serious disservice when we didn’t use the excuse of reconstruction to eliminate/purge the horror of the Demonrat party from our future path - much as Germany outlawed NAZIs from their future.
As for the 1864 law itself, i wonder if its enactment while AZ was still a territory will lead to its undoing?
Fun fact i just learned: AZ became a state on the 14th day of Feb in 1912 — yeah, Valentine’s Day. How kewl is that!
Been reading a lot of the comments and have yet to see someone mention adoption as an alternative to abortion. If a woman doesn’t want to be a mother, fine, but should she be allowed to kill her baby? If the mother or baby’s life is in danger, that’s one thing. But I do not understand a woman carrying a normally-developing fetus and aborting it when there are so many couples wanting a child who can’t have their biological own. It really staggers my mind. And yes, I do have an adopted son. From Romania, after communism fell and all the stories came out about the horrible conditions in the orphanages. I never tried to get pregnant (long story that I won’t bother you with), in large part because Marius has developmental disabilities from living in a Romanian orphanage for nearly eight years, and I decided to give him all my motherly attention.
The pro Hamas Berkeley law school students who staged a demonstration at the Professor’s dinner party, exemplify the hateful, self entitled anti semitic obnoxious nature of this movement. It has never been about land or borders. It’s always been about annihilating the one Jewish state that is at the same time a pluralistic open and tolerant country.
The Rupa’s essay on the CASS report is excellent. However The Free Press posted it in yesterday’s evening post and gave it very little space this morning. What is going at The Free Press who has backed away from this scandal in spite of helping to break the story a year ago. TFPress published the two whistleblower accounts and the Psychiatrist from Finland.
This essay did not mention the WPATH files which Shellenberger and his staff released more than a month ago.
There is more than enough damning evidence to state there is no need for a bipartisan commission at this time. To protect minors the prudent path is to shut down this industry first. When EColi is found in a pkg of chicken , the plant is shut down and there is a massive recall of the product. The same with finding a problem with a child car seat. Protect the publuc( in this case minors) first, stop these drs and therapists from practicing ( at least a temp suspension of licenses) and then study how this was allowed to happen, how to handle these troubled kids( also explore the explosion in a new cohort of kids with GD since early 2010s),how to deal with the doctors and therapists who lied and committed this fraud.
This scandal will not go away.The Free Press has not explained why it has backed away from being at the forefront of exposing the scandal or from reporting on the intricacies of the ramifications to these kids and their families. There is wide variability from state to state. Following the money trail, etc.
Thank you for the link. Great article that holds to account the group of drs and politicians and educators, journalists who are not the activist bullies but are complicit in this scandal.
Thanks. Read the piece. Tell me about Unheard if you don't mind.....Are they US or UK based? How do you see Unheard differently from TFP? I am interested in supporting real journalism and defeating radical leftism.
Unherd (https://unherd.com/), founded in 2017, is a UK-based publication, providing insightful coverage of both UK and US issues, with a focus on balanced reporting and featuring talented writers. In my opinion, the UK press in general does a better job of reporting fairly about US issues than our own press. Several of the Unherd writers have been featured in TFP in the past year.
I agree with most of your post but don't see how TFP has backed away from being at the forefront of this issue. Will you see anythig about the Cass report in your local paper or elsewhere in the MSM?
TFree Press published the whistleblowers and the psychiatrist from Finland.Then nothing when the NHS stared reporting big problems. Nothing when Shellenberger published WPATH files.The article on the CASS report came out last PM ( less well read than the AM ) and barely a link to it this morning.It should be a no brainer ton shut the pediatric gender clinics down with this overwhelming evidence of fraud, lies and harm . But in this country the trans cult has the institutional power so it is going to be a difficult battle.
WPATH and the American Peds assoc and endocrine soc. has been silent . I suspect they are counting on it blowing over and it will be business as usual for them. We need The Free Press( which has a huge reach and influence to keep the pressure on the power structure.That Bari and Nellie are a lesbian couple means their voices reach the gay and lesbian community in ways that others can’t. This is not about hating trans people.I support their right to live with respect. Maybe The Free Press is feeling pressure to not be so out front on protecting minors and female spaces?
I am convinced that truth, facts, science and best practices of Evidence Based Medicine can stop harming kids. The majority agrees but the loud bullying trans activists hold the power.
The loud activist community has done much harm to both the troubled youth, female sports and trans adults who want to live in peace .
He's their main editor. They hired him away from The Spectator precisely to do this job. There's an AXIOS article on how TFP is currently structured and what the plans are for the next two years. Most of what they're planning is stuff the comments don't like. Once they secure the outside investors they are seeking they really won't care what the comments don't like because they will no longer be dependent on the subscription fees the commenters pay to participate in the comments.
That's depressing, and at the same time enlightening as to how we are being manipulated and used. They are several sites that I'd like to read and they are behind paywalls. As is usual, if you don't have enough money, you're left outside.
Remember, you can read 90% of what TFP has to offer without paying. The two main things that paying gives you is access to the comments and TGIF. It may also allow you access to some of the podcasts or videos, but the daily newsletter anyone can read for free, which I did for months before joining so I could get beat up on in the comments, haha.
In the article it states that TFP only has 77,000 paid subscribers out of now 600,000 plus subscribers. The vast majority don’t pay anything. Right now the comments finance the content. So when people say, “It’s worth it to me to pay just for the comments even if I don’t like the articles or the writers (or Olly)”, I think well that’s just being stupid because you paying to be in the comments allows Bari to hire the writers she wants to write the articles she wants.
If you don’t like the idea of the “live debates”, well there are more on the way, it’s part of the plan. Once that private investment money rolls in there will be more Olly, more debates, more everything. I’m convinced Bari wants to hit the 1 million readers mark because that’s what the investors she’s courting are looking for, eyeballs.
Please stop. OMG just stop. Even if it's true, STOP! It's this type of over-the-top rhetorical horseshit that is the worst part about modern journalism.
Democracy must be saved! It's a priority says Cackles the Yellow Bus VP and all of the people claiming anything but the re-election of this dysfunctional, absolutely narcissistic, incompetent, self-absorbed, clueless, money grabbing, society destroying, American Freedom hating administration and its clown show supporters say. I am assuming they would not lie to Americans?
"Speaking of WWIII, Matt Pottinger and Mike Gallager argue that America still isn’t taking the threat from China seriously enough."
That tends to happen with a president whose pockets are stuffed with ChiCom cash. Wake the F up. The senile imbecile befouling our White House is a traitor.
Regarding Lukianoff’s disagreement with Haidt on IDing kids to enforce Socisl Media Terms of Use.
1. There’s a drinking and smoking age because the government rightly* thinks that businesses should not have the freedom to profit from exposing kids to alcohol and smoking before they are 21 (giving parents a better chance of influencing their kids) why shouldn’t the same be true for preventing social media companies from profiting from exposing kids to porn, bullying, illegal drug pushers, human/sex traffickers, and alcohol “influencer” ads which aren’t legal before 9pm in legacy media.
2. Would he feel differently about enforcing age if there were a new ID that was anonymous - I.e., it verifies ownership of id and age without identifying the person or their actual age?
3. If the Age restriction were enforced on Social Media, there would be less justification for interfering with adult free speech.
* rightly thinks businesses will design alcohol and cigarette products to make them more addictive to make more money. Why wouldn’t technology companies also do this?
Here’s the scoop. I hope someone at The FP thinks about covering this:
The grapevine is telling me that IDing users (authenticating ID ownership and age verification without revealing who someone is or their age) to enforce existing terms of use age restrictions in social media (and other adult websites) is not only possible it is a question of when not if.
European regulators are heading in this direction. Facebook is looking to acquire existing for profit companies in this space. All this will be discussed at the Internet Identity Workshop next week in Mountain View. It is an Unconference, so there will be lots of discussion groups about many different topics. If you need help finding the right discussion group to participate in or to interview, ask for Kaliya Hamlin. There’s a lot of lessons learned about the risks of digital IDs from India and other places that will probably be discussed. But the good news is that this is not a new discussion, it has evolved a lot.
That’s a good question. If you are near Mountain View, CA next week, you can go to IIW (internet Identity Workshop) it’s an unconference so anyone can pose a question like this. https://internetidentityworkshop.com/
California? I'd get cooties. :-) I'm in England besides. ;-)
Besides besides: programmers and other folk with Extreme Bloke Syndrome that can't tie their own shoelaces or be trusted to cross the road on their own. I still await a search engine or word processor that hasn't been "designed" by someone that gives feckin' eejits a bad name. YMMV. ;-)
There’s a bank in the UK using one of these privacy protecting ID authenticators called Yoti. I don’t know how good it is at authenticating ownership so a kid can’t use grandmothers ID but this is a matter of when not if. Especially in Europe where regulators are already working on this. The reason no one knows about this possibility is because there hasn’t been a lot of demand, now maybe there will be.
Polling and the Election- My electoral cynicism meter is sounding alarms about Presidential polls. As we approach the election, the Democratic machine cannot allow polls that show Trump with large leads because it will make their vote fuckery too obvious. The true poll margin for error now is keeping Biden within the range that would allow for only marginally obvious vote manipulation. There are only so many votes that can be magically created before it becomes clear to the electorate what happened. If every poll in October shows Trump up 4% and yet Biden magically wins that would be too visible a big fat middle finger in America’s face.
Abortion- Letting the states decide is the right decision. I say that knowing that it increases the chances of a D Senate and House, at least in the short term. Anti-abortion people, and I am one, need to stop trying to nationalize a state issue and focus on grassroots, local campaigns. Politics is the art of the possible. You can do good and save some children but if you try to be perfect you can end up saving none. Focus on states where the issue is in flux and make the country 90% anti-abortion. That will turn pro-abortion people into the extreme.
I've thought the same thing. Every poll will be just "close enough" to account for a plausible 3 AM victory. Polls are just another way to push an agenda.
I think warmongering republicans like Linsey Graham keep braying about federal abortion laws so they stay in the minority. Their worst fear is that Trump wins the presidency. The dems get their Marxist policies enacted, neocons get their wars and both get an ever increasing security state Blob
So the decrease in the inflation rate was TRANSITORY. Who could have predicted that? Maybe Paul Krugman or another economics maven at MSNBC. Look at the incremental interest on the 34 Trillion of national debt as a result of the increase in interest rates( 1% is 340 BILLION - ANNUALLY) . Even math is racist lecturers and modern monetary theorists can compute that a 3% increase in interest rates is greater than 1 TRILLION. PER YEAR. Imagine how much worse this would be if Joe and Chuck had not rammed through the Inflation Reduction Act.
Really pleased to see Lisa Davis's article on the Cass Report. There is more major fallout in the UK.
The Health Minister has ordered an investigation/review of the Adult Clinics and their practices after they failed to cooperate with Cass. They are also ordered to release the data. Fool around and find out. Basically as the novelist Philip Henser pointed out twitter the Adults Clinic said “We’re not going to supply you with data for your research because we think you’re going to criticise us.” P.303 of the full report. https://twitter.com/PhilipHensher/status/1778338224068329561
And of course the PO scandal inquiry (really watch Mr Bates v the PO on Masterpiece Theater) continues to provide popcorn eating revelation about how badly the PO behaved in the Horizon scandal. Including the ex PO boos apologizing for celebrating the conviction of a pregnant subpost mistress. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/11/post-office-inquiry-live-latest-updates/
The article on transgender studies takes great pains to analyze the statistics of suicide attempts made by teens who sought or were given transgender medical interventions. This is backwards. What is really in need of study is why we have so many suicidal teens, and why they are being steered to puberty blockers and surgery to address their suicidal tendencies. There is a tacit assumption that psychiatric therapy is unable to address these troubled teens' issues, so drugs or cutting off healthy tissue is the only path forward. Teen years are difficult, and that difficulty is amplified by social media. I know this is already in the discussion, but the absurdity of gender affirming care (itself an oxymoronic term) is still lost on American medical and psychiatric experts.
They have cause and effect backwards for sure. It’s similar to the number of “damaged veterans” milking the VA for 100% disability for life (while working a full time government job). Most/many were damaged before they joined up. Most saw little to no action. The people who saw combat are better adjusted.
Chris, I have personally heard from several of my Democrat acquaintances, and I quote, “I would rather see America fail than vote for Orange Man Bad” Whelp, they are getting from Biden what they bargained for!
Good question! Leftist democrats have turned into brainwashed sheep; they don't even know why all of a sudden they harbor such hatred for the Bad Orange Man. When he was just a Rich Guy/TV star, everyone loved him, Big, The Apprentice. It was only after he decided to take on the Anointed One, who thought being the first woman president was her birthright, that half the country lost it's mind overnight.
If you think about it though, it's not surprising - Bush was a Nazi, McCain, a war criminal, Milquetoast Mitt was going to "put y'all back in chains". The Bad Orange Man was the biggest threat to the democrat machine because as he saw it all from the inside (Dave Chappelle has a great joke about this).
Exactly, Chris! The Trumps, like Elon were “Darlings of the Democrats” and there are many photos of Oprah, the Clintons + other politicians & the Rick & Famous to prove it! They ALL wanted to be invited to Trump’s parties at Mar-a-Lago or at Trump Towers.
Predictably, when he came down the escalator and announced he was running for president, as a Republican, the gloves came off! “HOW DARE HE NOT SUPPORT HILLARY! It was HER TURN! Trump ISN’T even a POLITICIAN” blah, blah, blah! ONLY SWAMP DWELLERS WELCOMED!
Assange - Isn't it time to move on from this whole episode. All seems a little mute by now.
Curb Your Enthusiasm - Never have watched it and probably never will. So I guess my life will stay incomplete.
The Dead are starting to be polled by Reuters/Ipsos and that is why numbers are changing. The dead love Sleepy Joe and the Mistress. Great times had by so many people dying in wars and unrest worldwide under them. But they will get to the bottom, oh wait, we are pretty close to there already. Nice job fools.
Parts of it are funny but overall it’s a very nihilistic worldview. Hard to sustain laughter with the overtones that everything is meaningless. Seinfeld managed to do that with a little bit of heart. Without Jerry, Larry’s glass it too much half full.
Larry David not only jumped the shark, but it ate him, when he lionized Alexander Vindman (the brave Trump Ukraine call "whistleblower") as a "hero" in an episode. It was like seeing the decline of NPR, but on steroids. Now totally unwatchable, though it provides valuable insight into the shallow dark world of the Hollywood elite.
Well spoke. Re: Mr Assange -- he broke the law. You walk because your cause is just (not that I believe that) is the stuff of fairy tales, not Actual Life. If his cause is just, he would face the music and air it out. Re: CYE -- spot on. Re: Raising the Dead -- since Easter is offishully some PC bullshit day, I guess the dead can be raised any old day.
“… From there it’s unclear what happened. The government admits it didn’t know whether the password was ever cracked.
Not that it changes much for Assange: The charge is that of conspiracy. If he did offer assistance to help Manning gain access to U.S. government systems and encouraged the then intelligence analyst to leak files, the charge still stands...”
“… Following Assange’s arrest, however, various journalists have said on Twitter that any incitement to hack organizations or steal documents was far from normal and risked breaking the law...”
> Trump released a video in which he said abortion should be a matter for the states. It was a vague statement, and hardly a fully fleshed-out policy on abortion.
How is that "vague" or "[not] fleshed out" at all? It's EXTREMELY clear, extremely easy to implement (or rather, it's already implemented). These things shouldn't be federal issues. I get it's not the position the left or the hard right wants to see, but it's about as clear and concise a position as you can possibly get.
Exactly my reaction to this ridiculous assertion. “Leave it to the states” IS a fully fleshed-out policy, the left’s desire for a federally guaranteed right to commit infanticide notwithstanding.
Oliver apparently wanted Trump to specify the number of weeks abortion should be allowed in each of the fifty states and eight-odd territories, and also what exact exceptions he supports, as well as which doctors- BY NAME! - should perform the abortions.
Because Oliver has never heard of our greatest Amendment, the Tenth.
Because the left LOVES the Federal STATE telling you what to do and think.
Who is committing/pro-infanticide?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sybrZXnWx60
Careful, there are still 11hrs to go. You might inadvertently make another intelligent comment. ;-)
All of them have been. Which is why no one on here has ever been able to debunk/defeat them.
This is why red states Kansas, Kentucky, Montana and Ohio already had ballot measures passed to protect abortion rights. Florida, Arizona and Arkansas are well on the way. It will be just like with gay marriage. Infanticide will be eventually extremely clearly legalized on the state level. Then what?
Uncharitable Take: They want Trump to give specifics so they can use it to turn people against him. If he picks a number there will be some group that doesn't like it. By leaving it to the states (the correct answer) he doesn't let himself get pinned down so they can take pot shots at him.
Considering how rarely politicians actually live up to what they say, it really shouldn't matter what most politicians say on most things unless they actually have the integrity to follow them.
Agreed and they also seem to not understand that the 10th amendment is a good thing. If you live in the state I don't live in, you can make laws I don't agree with and as long as they are not against the constitution then I do not need to let it control me. I'm a voter in my own state that has laws and decisions I don't agree with. I vote against it. However I don't have time to worry about every law in every other state. If Arizona wants to ban abortion and they voted for it then ok that is what the voters decided. I think we have lost the ability to understand we don't need to have an opinion on everything everyone else does or believes. I'm sure their own state has enough issues to work on that they don't need to worry about anyone else's "problems".
Indeed.
There are few spectacles more disgusting than 75 year old childless women who have lived on the public treasury for a decade or more, loudly advocating to end the future of the society via rampant abortion and castration.
And you are one of those spectacles. Sorry, I can't resist open goals. :-)
hahahahahaha
not I, I can assure you but that's funny
So it can’t be a considered opinion which coincides with the Supreme Court ruling and with the public view at large?
Overall I don't want the Federal government doing much beyond enforcing the constitution, protecting us from outside threats, and likely a few other things I am not thinking of right now.
By and large I think the further away from the individual you are, the less power institutions should have over you. The states happen to be where we rested a lot of power, but even they should likely be reigned in, in favor of local laws.
It’s been a system of government that has worked well for a long time, but as everybody knows, criminals don’t care about laws nor about their neighbors.
Indeed they’ll gladly destroy the future for their own pleasure.
"These things shouldn't be federal issues."
You're right. And they shouldn't be state issues either.
Gynecological care, which includes the right to terminate a pregnancy, is a matter between a woman and her OB/GYN and, if she has one, her loving, faithful husband.
The religious beliefs of Catholics and Evangelicals have no place in our United States laws -- federal, state, or municipal.
Religious Catholics and Protestants need to butt out of my Greek Orthodox family's medical matters.
This is a commonly repeated argument among the pro-abortion on demand crowd. The only objection one could possibly have to a woman killing her baby at 24 weeks is religious.
I'm an atheist. There is no god. We're in this together. Alone.
I assure you I have no personal desire to control any woman's body. However, there has to be some kind of limit on the killing of an unborn child. I think somewhere around 15 weeks is a reasonable limit. With the obvious exceptions and caveats for life and physical health of the mother.
My wife, who is also not Christian, at all, is even more restrictive in her opinion on abortion.
So, find an argument that matters. Or just admit you're all for the free-wheeling murder of unborn children. Or clarify what your position actually is.
Roe/Wade said the first trimester. That’s 12 weeks. Not many people know that. Now the pro-infanticide crowd think that’s draconian.
Who is advocating for killing babies after they are born?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sybrZXnWx60
Roe was ban on abortion!
The Arizona Supreme Court brilliantly brought the draconian abortion law to the forefront precisely to force the state to deal with it legislatively. Courts are not in the business of creating laws.
Ironically, Arizona might become one of the more lenient states following the referendum in November, where the state is asking voters for an abortion ban after 24 weeks. 400,000 signatures are needed to add the initiative to the ballot and already 600,000 signatures have been submitted. That, with exceptions for the health of the mother and fetus, seems like the right approach for every state to follow.
My position is that anything can go wrong with a pregnancy at any time, and when that happens, even at seven months, a woman's heartbreak doesn't need to be compounded by red tape and the possible disapprobation of government clerks whose job it is to "allow" whatever medical procedure is required.
But that appears to be talking about health issues related to a pregnancy. That's not a pro-abortion argument and seems to be a separate, smaller issue.
The vast majority of pro-lifers believe in exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Just not some vaguely worded nonsense that includes her mental health - like this pregnancy is making me upset, kill the baby.
“The health of the mother” is an argument that doesn’t hold up past the stage of viability. At that point, there’s no physical condition that abortion could cure that an emergency c-section wouldn’t.
Getting an emergency C-section for a pre term otherwise healthy baby to protect the health of the mother can present grave risks to the baby, which is why I assume some staunch pro lifers are against it. It’s not like you reach 24 weeks and BAM viable, fine to take it out.
Any woman who just ups and decides not to have a baby at seven months isn't fit to be a mother. And we have enough unfit mothers in this country.
I just do not think that a pregnant woman who needs or wants to abort her fetus should have to jump over bureaucratic hurdles.
But enough arguing.
It's called a discussion. It's how we come to understand different points of view.
I really want you to understand that objections to what you propose are not generally based on religion or some weird desire to control women's bodies.
Ok. And it appears that your perspective is that if a woman wants to kill her unborn child, up to and including the moment of birth, you're fine with that. I think you and I have vastly different systems of morality. I think killing people is bad. You think that the mother should be able to kill a person without even having to file paperwork.
At what age should it be illegal for a mother to kill her child? Can she drown her 4 month old because the kid is dragging down her life?
Just trying to see where you draw the line.
Abruptly terminating an argument you lost is a concession of failure.
You can never answer the fundamental truth that she should have either used birth control or abstained.
Your position is fine if you ignore there are two lives involved. Not being religious, I can agree that at the early stages of pregnancy, the embreo is a clump of cells. But that's certainly not true at 24, 30 or 40 weeks, when the small human is fully formed and able to live outside of the womb. (My grandson was born at about 34 weeks, had no medical problems and went home from the NICU two days later.) I don't think a woman should have to risk her life for her fetus. If her life is in danger, an abortion is a type of self-defense. But today abortion is often used as a form of birth control and that's not a good enough reason to kill a viable child.
The old timers on this BBS know my feelings on abortion. I am an atheist and I used to be prochoice until I saw a sonogram of a friend's fetus and saw the heartbeat. It was an epiphany, a road to Damascus moment for me and in that moment I became prolife.
That fetus is a human being and as such should have all the rights and privileges of any other human in the US. One of those rights is to be protected against murder. We can't protect everybody from being murdered but we can sure try.
I will not stop a woman from having an abortion and I will not castigate or demean woman for aborting a healthy fetus but I sure will vote prolife.
Facts don't give a fuck for feels.
Huh?
It never has been that way. When my friend's baby died (in the late 80's) in utero at 5 or so months, the docs went in and "cleaned her out" for lack of a better term. A woman can't carry dead flesh in their body without harm.
The medical procedure is called Dilation & Curettage, or D&C. I had one after a late term miscarriage. The body doesn’t always expel everything that needs to come out, so the doctor has to do it for you. Anti-abortion laws should never be so strict that physicians feel like they can’t perform a needed D&C without getting arrested or having their medical license revoked.
I couldn't remember if a D&C is what it's called. Thank you. You are so right a doc should never have to be concerned if a D&C is the right course to take.
Half true. Aborting a viable fetus is murder. We are all struggling to find a balance between a woman's rights over her body and a viable fetus's right to life. Given its execrable track record in the pandemic and with "gender affirming care", fewer and fewer people trust the medical "profession" or the snake oil salesmen at big pharma that controls the medical profession.
The right to die is increasingly the new drumbeat of the left. I think the argument goes like this: The climate apocalypse is coming, if we want suicide we should have it in spades with assistance, let’s kill babies too, why stop at 40 weeks, post term abortions are probably fine too, just don’t talk about the death penalty! That’s sacrosanct and verboten.
Viability is 23-24 weeks. Most folk here are adopting an extremist position with post-hoc wafflegarble. Even if there were a lower bound; the US healthcare system not being a "universal " model, free at the point of delivery, isn't equipped to make such a lower bound possible or safe.
Wait. Are you suggesting that limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks is an "extremist position"?
Cause around that number is mostly what I'm seeing people say here.
Also, you seem to suggest that you would be open to 15 weeks if we had universal healthcare. Sorry, I'm just trying to work through all your wafflegarble to get at what you are actually saying.
I welcome your clarification or correction.
I think UK law about right. I know of plenty of people unaware they were pregnant when they went into labour. Fifteen weeks that number goes ballistic.
“Gynecological care, which includes the right to terminate a pregnancy…”
Because you say so? That’s a baby, not a polyp. Abortion is not birth control.
Sadly, it's being used as retroactive birth control.
Why do you think religion is the only possible basis for objections to abortion? I am agnostic and have believed that abortion is a moral quagmire that can't be reduced to absolutes since I first understood what it was. The biological facts of conception indicate that two human bodies are involved in the abortion decision, not just one. God doesn't have to be involved to conclude that concern and respect for both human beings should inform that decision.
Given what we know about DNA and fetal development, it's every bit as extreme and absolutist to argue that the fetus should never be recognized as human and deserving of legal respect and abortion should be free of all legal restrictions as it is to argue that all abortion should always be banned. The same is true for your position that only those who support untrammeled legal abortion should have a voice, and those concerned about its moral implications should "butt out."
To my non-religious mind, Dobbs is a decent way to balance the impossible moral conflict. State legislatures get to decide: that means both sides get to advocate for their cause, and neither side gets to silence the other. Yes, that also means neither side gets an absolute victory -- but unwanted pregnancies don't deal in absolutes. Respect for both sides on this terrible conundrum is more likely to get us to some kind of imperfect solution that our society can live with than positions like yours -- or your opposite numbers -- that depend on one side bullying the other into silence. Neither side will ever accept silence; it's too important.
When anyone's niece or daughter or granddaughter finds herself with an ectopic pregnancy, she should not have to worry that some dull-witted clerk will think, Now, does that gal REALLY need to abort?
Neither religion or lack of it is a reason to intrude on a private matter. Mostly it's religious people whose voices are loudest against abortion, but no one's voice except the quiet voice inside the woman in need of terminating her pregnancy should be listened to.
Ectopic pregnancies are not abortions. Not even for the Catholic Church.
The termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion.
But way to move the goalposts to a very niche case. That's 1.4% of the cases. And there are already carve outs for it in every state. Though, I will grant that there are some idiot politicians who don't understand the medical science involved who have said and done some stupid things.
Miscarriages are not relevant. “B.” already knows that but is frantically throwing out every dismal argument trying just to stay in the ring but it is filled with heavyweight champions and it is impossible
floing! There goes Flying B. Breeeng! There goes B. again, over the ropes and sailing over the crowd. Wham! Down goes B.! Down goes B.!!
Ectopic pregnancies are generally diagnosed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, well within the time limits proposed for abortions. That diagnosis falls well within the for the "health of the mother" rationale for an abortion.
I'm an atheist and agree with you completely.
The 60s radicals who took over our government and media threw out a lot of babies with the bathwater because they were rooted in or correlated with religious beliefs. Things like “don’t have kids without being married,” or “it’s good to have children and not kill them.”
Even in the last trimester?
Even if the infant is born to be left to die on the gynecological surgeons table?
Should we really continue to fund those? America is the one and only country to allow full term infanticide.
You don't have to go to church to know a baby when you see one.
All the babies I have ever seen have been outside womb; this seems a pretty good rule of thumb to me. /s
you're free to go to an ultrasound clinic. I'm sure they can set up a tour, or you could find a friend and go with them to an appointment.
I've seen plenty of ultrasounds. I'm looking at those of my niece and nephew as I speak. I got all warm and fuzzy when shown them; it didn't make either a baby though. Most of the time whoever takes the sonogram has to walk you through what you are looking at.
Then you know better
You ever been to a fetus shower?
It is not only a religious factor. Billions of people in this world honestly believe it is murder.
And you are welcome to your ignorance. Just keep your tanks off of my lawn and we'll be hunky dory.
Why ignorance? I merely state a known fact.
As far as tanks, I don’t have any and nor do I advocate their use.
Thread TL;DR -- News flash! This just in! "IT" IS HUMAN!!! Biology 101! No religion required!
You do not have to be a Christian to entertain the possibility that an unborn child 6 months in the womb is a human being. I was adopted as an infant in 1954 from a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy. Today, I would probably have been aborted. I like to think I've been a net positive to society. How many millions of other net positives have we lost due to unlimited abortion "rights" since then?
My sister is a product of a rape. I can't even imagine my life without ever having her in it!
A sane country would have a discussion around developing a support system for unwanted children and a legal system that would support parents of choice as well as a culture that applauds that decision. Alas, we are not that country.
To all who have responded to my comment (and responded, and responded):
You just won't let it go, will you. You have to convince me that you are right. You have to lecture.
Yap, yap, yap.
That's why I stand by my original statement -- as if I needed further proof.
I'd hate to be a woman in need of an abortion and have to seek approval from you.
Actually, the only thing I was interested in convincing you of is that people can object to abortion on grounds other than the religious. I in no way expected to sway your actual opinion on abortion. That would have been utterly futile.
After that my interest was trying to understand your perspective. I'm probably like a lot of folks here: I'm curious. Otherwise, why would I bother reading these articles and diving into the comment section.
I do find it amusing that you consider conversation where your view point is challenged as yapping. I suppose you must spend a lot of time in a bubble where most people smile and nod at your sagacity.
Interesting you think he’s the one in a bubble, when he’s more or less the lone voice on here expressing this dissenting view.
"B" referred to the conversation around about what he/she wrote as "Yap, yap, yap". "B" has continually moved the goal posts, suggested we didn't understand the words he/she used, and demonstrated a "fine, I'll take my ball and go home" attitude to the argument.
Given all of that, it seems like "B" is unused to having his/her views challenged. That is what I mean by living in a bubble.
Being a lone voice of poorly thought out dissent doesn't mean one doesn't primarily live in a bubble. Especially when he/she clearly is unable to articulate their viewpoint and object to having to explain it.
Unless you are suggesting that I'm living in a bubble because most other posters seem to be on my side. If that is what you mean, I would first like to suggest that you remember this is a liberal news source created by people who definitely and absolutely believe in a woman's right to abortion. Just by being here, I'm outside of what could be considered my bubble. I'm also very interested in other people's opinions and viewpoints.
The comments here are overwhelmingly dominated by right leaning people. Look at the top comments on almost any article. Look at the meltdown in the comments anytime an article even hints at a criticism of Trump or praise of any liberal. Look how anyone expressing anything resembling a liberal viewpoint in these comments is challenged and often mocked.
I don’t know if you’re in a bubble or not in your life - but I do know that accusing B of being in a bubble when he expressed a viewpoint that is in the extreme minority on this discussion - which I’m sure he knew it would be since he’d been commenting here for awhile - is ironic to say the least.
We can all stop, the argument is over, B. has spoken. Thus Spake B. Then he/she/ze took his/her/zis ball and went home.
lol. “I can’t handle people disagreeing with my opinion.”
You’ve certainly lost the debate, and bigly.
The Orthodox Church *also* opposes abortion.
Here is a brief filed on behalf of the Orthodox Church against abortion: http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/abortion.asp
Please don’t claim to be orthodox or Christian and then argue for abortion.
A brief there might be, but very few Greeks have seen it -- or would care if there were. No Orthodox priest I've ever heard has gotten up on Sunday and thundered against abortion or homosexuality. I've never seen Greek churches sporting anti-abortion billboards although I have seen them in the front yards of other churches. Just an observation. Anecdotal, if you'd like.
I come from a family that supports abortion. That includes my Republican mother. It never occurred to any of us that any woman needing an abortion needed to have people tell her what to do, or condemn her probably difficult decision.
We are an understanding religion. Our priests marry unless they seek higher office. We're allowed to divorce and remarry in church.
People deal with life's pitfalls, they make difficult choices, and the Greek Orthodox church tends not to scold them.
"When" an abortion is performed is in many ways beside the point. When it's needed, it's needed, and conflating the life of a fetus with that of a newborn baby, or a toddler, is dogmatic.
I've known women (and men) whose children have died -- at 17 years old, and at 12, at 58, at 23 years old -- from disease, from accidents; and one in the Twin Towers. Their hearts broke; life was never the same for them. Very different from having a miscarriage. (Or an abortion.)Those women I know whose pregnancies failed at 3 or 7 months were saddened, surely, but they hadn't lost a child they had nursed through childhood diseases, taught to read and to sing, and sent off to kindergarten for the first time.
Losing a sentient, beloved human being is a tragedy.
I know all about Greek Orthodox, as I’m married into a family of Greeks and attend Greek church regularly. It doesn’t matter what *your* priest does, the office stand of the church is pro-life and has been for millennia. It’s fine if you want to argue for infanticide, just don’t bring your faith (which you don’t know anything about) into it.
Yes, absolutely, I'm in favor of infanticide.
This is why there are so few intelligent conversations to be had about abortion: because anti-abortion absolutists like you accuse those of us who understand that sometimes people's decisions are difficult, of supporting infanticide.
I'm way old enough to have known lots of Greek priests in my lifetime. As did my pro-abortion family. But, as the new generation says, you do you.
But…you don’t know the official stance of the Greek church and you claim orthodoxy as being pro choice. It’s not and never has been. So don’t claim a religion that you don’t know anything about. Abortion *is* infanticide. Why do you think people have a problem with it? You refuse to acknowledge the thing you promote and that shameful.
Returns a 404 error. Punting to your invisible fiend never works.
*Libertarian urges rising* Sadly I do have to question most state licensing boards. I worked for years at 2 different Associations and saw how the lobbied to make their licenses benefit the people who currently had them, and not be as concerned with the actual public/customers.
While I do agree that some kind of quality body would be a good idea, I do not agree that the state is always the best ones to do that.
We paid for the courage, truth and "Common Sense" in the Free Press. Instead we are served up large dollops of the pathetic Wiseman. Wake up, Bari. Your subscribers are not fans of Olly.
Some are, some not. Lots of FP subscribers. Small group of commenters.
The small core group of FP commenters seems to be dominated by folks in the Eastern time zone who can't wait to get to their keyboard before breakfast. Some of these early risers post thoughtful and articulate comments; many of these posters can be crude. They are united in their passionate disdain for Democrats, characterized as "liberal-left-commie-Marxist-treasonists." A moderate or left-leaning reader of FP refrains from commenting, not wanting to be pounced on. Those voices are silenced, "cancelled" in modern parlance. There are many Never-Trump Republicans, Moderates, Independents, and True Lefties who read and digest FP but keep their thoughts to themselves, bewildered by the prevailing vitriol.
I’ve only ever been engaged in one ‘dispute’ here, and I tried to keep it respectful. Can’t say the same for the person who was hurling insults, but I have a pretty tough skin.
Go ahead and voice your opinion; I think if done in a considered and respectful manner you’ll find plenty others who are willing to engage. I always welcome an educated debate and personally find a variety of opinions welcome.
There's an entire Reddit thread of TFP readers who refuse to even look at the comments because they're so toxic. TFP comments do not reflect the readership as a whole.
Ever been canceled by a conservative friend? Now ask a conservative about liberal friends. Very few comments here calling someone on the left a commie Marxist treasonist ( most of us conservatives focus on issues and we do not all agree) . Now let's look at the MSM or elected leaders calling people Maga extremists, nazis, etc etc. Here's a question for you: is a person a better or worse person based on if they are liberal or conservative? And how would MSNBC or a Harvard or Yale professor answer that question. Let's stick to issues and policies and let go of the name calling.
Ahhh... but the "Never-Trump Republicans, Moderates, Independents, and True Lefties who read and digest FP" can go to the comments sections of WAPO, NYT, Vox, Atlantic, etc to air their thoughts and be elated (as opposed to bewildered) by their preferred vitriol.
Sorry to disappoint, Ken. Commenting from Phnom Penh and reading the newly arrived TFP with dinner.
Thnx for the long distance comment!
The vitriol only comes out for lightening rods. I like that the fuckwits, left or right, out themselves.
The ratio of hearts to bubbles tells a story.
It might, but if you write in Serbo-Croat...
I wish people would comment regardless of their politics. Most ppl use fake names so it’s not really personal. If someone else “ pounces” there is no obligation to respond. Only good comes with the exchange of ideas and exposure to the views of others.
They know exactly how many people are reading which articles. If someone really doesn't like their output, canceling is the best way to let them know.
Based on the TGIF posts I suspect there are a large number of people that like the fluff. There are likely, also, a fair number of more left leaning folks here that don't find fault with the biased ways that some of their contributors portray certain things. The very nature of what their supposed goal is here means we are going to have a varied bunch of opinions.
I also try to keep in mind that the Oliver and Nellie stuff isn't the stuff with a bunch of time and research put into it. Those kinds of articles take time. So in between the good ones, we get more fluffy pieces.
in the meantime, I think it's time to can Cupid. Rhymes with...
Don’t you know presidents aren’t supposed to listen to the Supreme Court? They just do whatever they want in the land of Joey B.
I think the question is whether or not he would sign a national ban if it would make it through Congress. A lot of people are concerned about a bait and switch. As much as I love DeSantis, in 2022 he signed the 15 week ban the year of his election. Most people in FL were fine with this, but then he gets reelected and signs a 6 week ban last year. Most people in FL feel this is too extreme. I think this one of the reasons he didn't do well in the primary.
It's clear that America does not support restrictive abortion bans, but Republicans have made it clear they don't care and are willing to throw the government to Leftist totalitarians over extreme abortion positions.
Americans also don't support the overly permissive attitudes of the Democrats. Who advocate for abortion until birth.
That is very true and the idea of late term abortions is abhorrent. However, most women would never consider aborting a healthy fetus after viability. Abortion after 12 weeks is rare, and then only for medical reasons. A permissive law has zero impact on my baby because I wouldn't abort my baby...ever. A restrictive law could force me to carry a non-viable pregnancy at the risk of my own health because a judge decided my life wasn't sufficiently threatened. I don't want to imagine being forced into such a terrible position, but I do know that politics should have zero impact on complex medical situations. Liberal abortion laws will have no impact for most women and their children, but restrictive laws do.
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out the crazy, on the other side.
I would favor a national law banning abortion of a healthy fetus after viability, and banning laws that interfere with complex medical issues for the mother and the fetus. Apparently, we can't have common sense prevail in America.
Common sense, was replaced with a collective sense.
Deb, that is untrue: “Democrats” have no position on abortion other than support for reinstating Roe v Wade. I suggest that you read that case. Justice Powell argued carefully that there are balancing interests between the rights of the mother (effectively only in the first trimester); the mother and the State (2nd trimester); and society’s preponderant interest in the child (3rd trimester). That’s over-simplified but basically correct. I think he got it right, but for the wrong reasons based on an implied right to privacy, when it should be a due process question under the 14th Amendment. Note that Powell never got hung up on when there is a life - for him, it was about when is the foetus viable, hence his focus around 24 weeks. That too, seems about right.
Also, the state constitutional amendments, passing by referendum, even in red states, are better written than any of the laws I’ve seen.
thanks for that comment. You are correct. Trump took the Nikki Haley line on abortion (which was pitch perfect) and turned it into his own language. He's right, but a lot of people can't see it.
This is because the left hates the notion that Trump made a "rational" statement. They can't handle it. They need the specificity of irrationality. They need people to scream "trans-women are women" without questioning why they need the prefix "trans" to make the assertion in the first place...
The left is hopeless.
Wow, halfway down in the article’s topics and ABORTION is the first topic of comment. Me Like.
Anyway, it was my first topic of comment, too, so figured this is as good a place to post as any.
It’s interesting, a law from 1864, 150’ish years ago, which was the basic law of the United States for 100’ish years, was resurrected from the dead in 2024. 🤔 interesting.
1864, we were at the tail end of the War between the States in which we were killing Americans on both sides of the Divide in order to either 1) free other Americans and recognize their personhood, or 2) continue to enslave those Americans and keep them in bondage thereby denying their personhood under our constitution. If I remember correctly, and I usually do, politically this came down to Republicans (Party of Lincoln) opposing Democrats, Jefferson Davis.
Interesting, 150’ish years later we’re in the midst of another, so far mostly bloodless, political civil war, in which REPUBLICANS, the party of life and liberty, are fighting to ensure the personhood of unborn Americans while, as usual, demonratz, the party of death and servitude, battle to assert their power over the innocent and powerless unborn amongst us, past present future.
I’ll be honest, as one born in the furthest reaches of the Union States, raised south of the Mason-Dixon and identifying as an Appalachian Hillbilly (i. e., Southerner), i have come to believe we did our future selves a serious disservice when we didn’t use the excuse of reconstruction to eliminate/purge the horror of the Demonrat party from our future path - much as Germany outlawed NAZIs from their future.
As for the 1864 law itself, i wonder if its enactment while AZ was still a territory will lead to its undoing?
Fun fact i just learned: AZ became a state on the 14th day of Feb in 1912 — yeah, Valentine’s Day. How kewl is that!
This is all the left has left so give Oliver a pass. Logic doesn't work here.
Been reading a lot of the comments and have yet to see someone mention adoption as an alternative to abortion. If a woman doesn’t want to be a mother, fine, but should she be allowed to kill her baby? If the mother or baby’s life is in danger, that’s one thing. But I do not understand a woman carrying a normally-developing fetus and aborting it when there are so many couples wanting a child who can’t have their biological own. It really staggers my mind. And yes, I do have an adopted son. From Romania, after communism fell and all the stories came out about the horrible conditions in the orphanages. I never tried to get pregnant (long story that I won’t bother you with), in large part because Marius has developmental disabilities from living in a Romanian orphanage for nearly eight years, and I decided to give him all my motherly attention.
The pro Hamas Berkeley law school students who staged a demonstration at the Professor’s dinner party, exemplify the hateful, self entitled anti semitic obnoxious nature of this movement. It has never been about land or borders. It’s always been about annihilating the one Jewish state that is at the same time a pluralistic open and tolerant country.
Yes. They are thugs and brutes who have no place in a civilized country. Which perfectly explains why they’ve chosen that side.
The Rupa’s essay on the CASS report is excellent. However The Free Press posted it in yesterday’s evening post and gave it very little space this morning. What is going at The Free Press who has backed away from this scandal in spite of helping to break the story a year ago. TFPress published the two whistleblower accounts and the Psychiatrist from Finland.
This essay did not mention the WPATH files which Shellenberger and his staff released more than a month ago.
There is more than enough damning evidence to state there is no need for a bipartisan commission at this time. To protect minors the prudent path is to shut down this industry first. When EColi is found in a pkg of chicken , the plant is shut down and there is a massive recall of the product. The same with finding a problem with a child car seat. Protect the publuc( in this case minors) first, stop these drs and therapists from practicing ( at least a temp suspension of licenses) and then study how this was allowed to happen, how to handle these troubled kids( also explore the explosion in a new cohort of kids with GD since early 2010s),how to deal with the doctors and therapists who lied and committed this fraud.
This scandal will not go away.The Free Press has not explained why it has backed away from being at the forefront of exposing the scandal or from reporting on the intricacies of the ramifications to these kids and their families. There is wide variability from state to state. Following the money trail, etc.
Error. It is Lisa’s essay not Rupa’s . My apologies
The Cass Report's cowardly converts - UnHerd
https://unherd.com/2024/04/the-cass-reports-cowardly-converts/
Unherd is what theFP could be but isn’t.
UnHerd is UK; lots of good writers - structured more like a daily on-line mag. Moderate / conservative / balanced. Costs less than some substacks
Thank you for the link. Great article that holds to account the group of drs and politicians and educators, journalists who are not the activist bullies but are complicit in this scandal.
Thanks. Read the piece. Tell me about Unheard if you don't mind.....Are they US or UK based? How do you see Unheard differently from TFP? I am interested in supporting real journalism and defeating radical leftism.
Unherd (https://unherd.com/), founded in 2017, is a UK-based publication, providing insightful coverage of both UK and US issues, with a focus on balanced reporting and featuring talented writers. In my opinion, the UK press in general does a better job of reporting fairly about US issues than our own press. Several of the Unherd writers have been featured in TFP in the past year.
Highly recommended.
Thanks Jim.
I agree with most of your post but don't see how TFP has backed away from being at the forefront of this issue. Will you see anythig about the Cass report in your local paper or elsewhere in the MSM?
TFree Press published the whistleblowers and the psychiatrist from Finland.Then nothing when the NHS stared reporting big problems. Nothing when Shellenberger published WPATH files.The article on the CASS report came out last PM ( less well read than the AM ) and barely a link to it this morning.It should be a no brainer ton shut the pediatric gender clinics down with this overwhelming evidence of fraud, lies and harm . But in this country the trans cult has the institutional power so it is going to be a difficult battle.
WPATH and the American Peds assoc and endocrine soc. has been silent . I suspect they are counting on it blowing over and it will be business as usual for them. We need The Free Press( which has a huge reach and influence to keep the pressure on the power structure.That Bari and Nellie are a lesbian couple means their voices reach the gay and lesbian community in ways that others can’t. This is not about hating trans people.I support their right to live with respect. Maybe The Free Press is feeling pressure to not be so out front on protecting minors and female spaces?
I am convinced that truth, facts, science and best practices of Evidence Based Medicine can stop harming kids. The majority agrees but the loud bullying trans activists hold the power.
The loud activist community has done much harm to both the troubled youth, female sports and trans adults who want to live in peace .
Preach! I’ll turn the pages!
Navel gazing Septic "medya". https://brilliantmaps.com/new-yorkers-world/
Remember when the cry of horror from the left was, Trump will start WW III! Now they left says, Bring on WW III!
Does TFP know what the word vague means? Trump's statement about abortion wasn't vague.
Who edits these articles?
No one.
Oliver Wiseman is one of the editors.
Editor? What? This ain’t the 20th century buddy🥸
Another FP where I skipped most of the articles. Does Wiseman have to write every day?
He's their main editor. They hired him away from The Spectator precisely to do this job. There's an AXIOS article on how TFP is currently structured and what the plans are for the next two years. Most of what they're planning is stuff the comments don't like. Once they secure the outside investors they are seeking they really won't care what the comments don't like because they will no longer be dependent on the subscription fees the commenters pay to participate in the comments.
That's depressing, and at the same time enlightening as to how we are being manipulated and used. They are several sites that I'd like to read and they are behind paywalls. As is usual, if you don't have enough money, you're left outside.
Here’s the Axios article: https://www.axios.com/2024/01/16/free-press-raise-bari-weiss
Remember, you can read 90% of what TFP has to offer without paying. The two main things that paying gives you is access to the comments and TGIF. It may also allow you access to some of the podcasts or videos, but the daily newsletter anyone can read for free, which I did for months before joining so I could get beat up on in the comments, haha.
In the article it states that TFP only has 77,000 paid subscribers out of now 600,000 plus subscribers. The vast majority don’t pay anything. Right now the comments finance the content. So when people say, “It’s worth it to me to pay just for the comments even if I don’t like the articles or the writers (or Olly)”, I think well that’s just being stupid because you paying to be in the comments allows Bari to hire the writers she wants to write the articles she wants.
If you don’t like the idea of the “live debates”, well there are more on the way, it’s part of the plan. Once that private investment money rolls in there will be more Olly, more debates, more everything. I’m convinced Bari wants to hit the 1 million readers mark because that’s what the investors she’s courting are looking for, eyeballs.
Thank you for the referal to axiox and your analyses of the situation.
You’re very welcome, Herr. It’s always a pleasure.
"It's Democracy itself"
Please stop. OMG just stop. Even if it's true, STOP! It's this type of over-the-top rhetorical horseshit that is the worst part about modern journalism.
...except when Nellie does it with a wink.
Democracy must be saved! It's a priority says Cackles the Yellow Bus VP and all of the people claiming anything but the re-election of this dysfunctional, absolutely narcissistic, incompetent, self-absorbed, clueless, money grabbing, society destroying, American Freedom hating administration and its clown show supporters say. I am assuming they would not lie to Americans?
Is that a wink or a smirk? (Asking for a friend, of course.)
Why not a wink AND a smirk? :/
Sold!
Argh I mean ;/
"Speaking of WWIII, Matt Pottinger and Mike Gallager argue that America still isn’t taking the threat from China seriously enough."
That tends to happen with a president whose pockets are stuffed with ChiCom cash. Wake the F up. The senile imbecile befouling our White House is a traitor.
Foreign Affairs is talking up a war. They can fuck off and the horse they rode in on.
Awwww! I enjoyed reading the Cupid entries. I’m happily married, but I’d like to be friends with all three!
Regarding Lukianoff’s disagreement with Haidt on IDing kids to enforce Socisl Media Terms of Use.
1. There’s a drinking and smoking age because the government rightly* thinks that businesses should not have the freedom to profit from exposing kids to alcohol and smoking before they are 21 (giving parents a better chance of influencing their kids) why shouldn’t the same be true for preventing social media companies from profiting from exposing kids to porn, bullying, illegal drug pushers, human/sex traffickers, and alcohol “influencer” ads which aren’t legal before 9pm in legacy media.
2. Would he feel differently about enforcing age if there were a new ID that was anonymous - I.e., it verifies ownership of id and age without identifying the person or their actual age?
3. If the Age restriction were enforced on Social Media, there would be less justification for interfering with adult free speech.
* rightly thinks businesses will design alcohol and cigarette products to make them more addictive to make more money. Why wouldn’t technology companies also do this?
How do you enforce it? The toddler will always be showing Granny how to work the VHS.
Here’s the scoop. I hope someone at The FP thinks about covering this:
The grapevine is telling me that IDing users (authenticating ID ownership and age verification without revealing who someone is or their age) to enforce existing terms of use age restrictions in social media (and other adult websites) is not only possible it is a question of when not if.
European regulators are heading in this direction. Facebook is looking to acquire existing for profit companies in this space. All this will be discussed at the Internet Identity Workshop next week in Mountain View. It is an Unconference, so there will be lots of discussion groups about many different topics. If you need help finding the right discussion group to participate in or to interview, ask for Kaliya Hamlin. There’s a lot of lessons learned about the risks of digital IDs from India and other places that will probably be discussed. But the good news is that this is not a new discussion, it has evolved a lot.
That’s a good question. If you are near Mountain View, CA next week, you can go to IIW (internet Identity Workshop) it’s an unconference so anyone can pose a question like this. https://internetidentityworkshop.com/
California? I'd get cooties. :-) I'm in England besides. ;-)
Besides besides: programmers and other folk with Extreme Bloke Syndrome that can't tie their own shoelaces or be trusted to cross the road on their own. I still await a search engine or word processor that hasn't been "designed" by someone that gives feckin' eejits a bad name. YMMV. ;-)
There’s a bank in the UK using one of these privacy protecting ID authenticators called Yoti. I don’t know how good it is at authenticating ownership so a kid can’t use grandmothers ID but this is a matter of when not if. Especially in Europe where regulators are already working on this. The reason no one knows about this possibility is because there hasn’t been a lot of demand, now maybe there will be.
Gotcha! I hear they’re working on a Cooties vaccine. (Just kidding)
Polling and the Election- My electoral cynicism meter is sounding alarms about Presidential polls. As we approach the election, the Democratic machine cannot allow polls that show Trump with large leads because it will make their vote fuckery too obvious. The true poll margin for error now is keeping Biden within the range that would allow for only marginally obvious vote manipulation. There are only so many votes that can be magically created before it becomes clear to the electorate what happened. If every poll in October shows Trump up 4% and yet Biden magically wins that would be too visible a big fat middle finger in America’s face.
Abortion- Letting the states decide is the right decision. I say that knowing that it increases the chances of a D Senate and House, at least in the short term. Anti-abortion people, and I am one, need to stop trying to nationalize a state issue and focus on grassroots, local campaigns. Politics is the art of the possible. You can do good and save some children but if you try to be perfect you can end up saving none. Focus on states where the issue is in flux and make the country 90% anti-abortion. That will turn pro-abortion people into the extreme.
I've thought the same thing. Every poll will be just "close enough" to account for a plausible 3 AM victory. Polls are just another way to push an agenda.
I think warmongering republicans like Linsey Graham keep braying about federal abortion laws so they stay in the minority. Their worst fear is that Trump wins the presidency. The dems get their Marxist policies enacted, neocons get their wars and both get an ever increasing security state Blob
So the decrease in the inflation rate was TRANSITORY. Who could have predicted that? Maybe Paul Krugman or another economics maven at MSNBC. Look at the incremental interest on the 34 Trillion of national debt as a result of the increase in interest rates( 1% is 340 BILLION - ANNUALLY) . Even math is racist lecturers and modern monetary theorists can compute that a 3% increase in interest rates is greater than 1 TRILLION. PER YEAR. Imagine how much worse this would be if Joe and Chuck had not rammed through the Inflation Reduction Act.
Did you see the chart of debt interest in last week's TGIF? Talk about a hockey stick. Interest on the national debt has taken off like a rocket.
I sure did. I was hoping to hear the reacton of AOC but alas she is too busy saving mother earth
Really pleased to see Lisa Davis's article on the Cass Report. There is more major fallout in the UK.
The Health Minister has ordered an investigation/review of the Adult Clinics and their practices after they failed to cooperate with Cass. They are also ordered to release the data. Fool around and find out. Basically as the novelist Philip Henser pointed out twitter the Adults Clinic said “We’re not going to supply you with data for your research because we think you’re going to criticise us.” P.303 of the full report. https://twitter.com/PhilipHensher/status/1778338224068329561
Even the Guardian are reporting on it: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/10/adult-transgender-clinics-in-england-face-inquiry-into-patient-care
This scandal has some way to run yet...
The Scottish Hate Crime Act continues to unravel. Joan Smith has a great piece in Quilette about JK Rowling's role in this: https://quillette.com/2024/04/11/queen-of-the-gender-crits/?s=08
And of course the PO scandal inquiry (really watch Mr Bates v the PO on Masterpiece Theater) continues to provide popcorn eating revelation about how badly the PO behaved in the Horizon scandal. Including the ex PO boos apologizing for celebrating the conviction of a pregnant subpost mistress. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/11/post-office-inquiry-live-latest-updates/
The Cass Report's cowardly converts - UnHerd
https://unherd.com/2024/04/the-cass-reports-cowardly-converts/
Hey Bari? this be a Brit or Brit adjacent who knows of what they speak. You can throw the Oilly Rag now. ;-)
The article on transgender studies takes great pains to analyze the statistics of suicide attempts made by teens who sought or were given transgender medical interventions. This is backwards. What is really in need of study is why we have so many suicidal teens, and why they are being steered to puberty blockers and surgery to address their suicidal tendencies. There is a tacit assumption that psychiatric therapy is unable to address these troubled teens' issues, so drugs or cutting off healthy tissue is the only path forward. Teen years are difficult, and that difficulty is amplified by social media. I know this is already in the discussion, but the absurdity of gender affirming care (itself an oxymoronic term) is still lost on American medical and psychiatric experts.
They have cause and effect backwards for sure. It’s similar to the number of “damaged veterans” milking the VA for 100% disability for life (while working a full time government job). Most/many were damaged before they joined up. Most saw little to no action. The people who saw combat are better adjusted.
I just can't get over the fact(?) that 45.3% people think Joe Biden's performance deserves another term....WTF.
Who are these 45.3%? I'd love to hear why they think Biden deserves another term. And 'hate Trump' is a shabby defense.
Chris, I have personally heard from several of my Democrat acquaintances, and I quote, “I would rather see America fail than vote for Orange Man Bad” Whelp, they are getting from Biden what they bargained for!
Tell me, how do you argue with THAT mentality?!
Good question! Leftist democrats have turned into brainwashed sheep; they don't even know why all of a sudden they harbor such hatred for the Bad Orange Man. When he was just a Rich Guy/TV star, everyone loved him, Big, The Apprentice. It was only after he decided to take on the Anointed One, who thought being the first woman president was her birthright, that half the country lost it's mind overnight.
If you think about it though, it's not surprising - Bush was a Nazi, McCain, a war criminal, Milquetoast Mitt was going to "put y'all back in chains". The Bad Orange Man was the biggest threat to the democrat machine because as he saw it all from the inside (Dave Chappelle has a great joke about this).
Exactly, Chris! The Trumps, like Elon were “Darlings of the Democrats” and there are many photos of Oprah, the Clintons + other politicians & the Rick & Famous to prove it! They ALL wanted to be invited to Trump’s parties at Mar-a-Lago or at Trump Towers.
Predictably, when he came down the escalator and announced he was running for president, as a Republican, the gloves came off! “HOW DARE HE NOT SUPPORT HILLARY! It was HER TURN! Trump ISN’T even a POLITICIAN” blah, blah, blah! ONLY SWAMP DWELLERS WELCOMED!
Your comment just made me LOL
Assange - Isn't it time to move on from this whole episode. All seems a little mute by now.
Curb Your Enthusiasm - Never have watched it and probably never will. So I guess my life will stay incomplete.
The Dead are starting to be polled by Reuters/Ipsos and that is why numbers are changing. The dead love Sleepy Joe and the Mistress. Great times had by so many people dying in wars and unrest worldwide under them. But they will get to the bottom, oh wait, we are pretty close to there already. Nice job fools.
I’m so glad someone else doesn’t get the appeal of CYE. From the clips and couple of episodes I’ve watched—I get the jokes. They just aren’t funny.
Parts of it are funny but overall it’s a very nihilistic worldview. Hard to sustain laughter with the overtones that everything is meaningless. Seinfeld managed to do that with a little bit of heart. Without Jerry, Larry’s glass it too much half full.
I never liked Seinfeld either. And I swear I’m not a humorless robot! I love comedy. But those two shows leave me more bemused than amused.
Seinfeld is my favorite sitcom ever but I could never get into Curb. Maybe I'll give it another try.
My spouse is a fan ..... I have to leave the room (usually to read a book) because it is annoying, as he yells all the time.... so loud!
Larry David not only jumped the shark, but it ate him, when he lionized Alexander Vindman (the brave Trump Ukraine call "whistleblower") as a "hero" in an episode. It was like seeing the decline of NPR, but on steroids. Now totally unwatchable, though it provides valuable insight into the shallow dark world of the Hollywood elite.
Curb is really entertaining in the vein of Seinfeld. I guarantee you will laugh.
Well spoke. Re: Mr Assange -- he broke the law. You walk because your cause is just (not that I believe that) is the stuff of fairy tales, not Actual Life. If his cause is just, he would face the music and air it out. Re: CYE -- spot on. Re: Raising the Dead -- since Easter is offishully some PC bullshit day, I guess the dead can be raised any old day.
Cheers!
What law? He’s not an American citizen. He published leaked documents just like the NYT or WaPo.
He helped Chelsea Manning steal the documents that he published. That's the crime, not the publication.
That's the unproven claim of the "intelligence" "community", lady.
You can know history, or you can trust the government. You can't do both. 💫
Sometimes, dude, it helps to know the law:
“… From there it’s unclear what happened. The government admits it didn’t know whether the password was ever cracked.
Not that it changes much for Assange: The charge is that of conspiracy. If he did offer assistance to help Manning gain access to U.S. government systems and encouraged the then intelligence analyst to leak files, the charge still stands...”
“… Following Assange’s arrest, however, various journalists have said on Twitter that any incitement to hack organizations or steal documents was far from normal and risked breaking the law...”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/04/16/unpacking-the-alleged-assange-manning-password-hacking-conspiracy/?sh=7d3c74836ee8