The NAVY makes a tribute video of Bush’s service:
FLASHBACK (April):
Former President George W. Bush on the death of his mother, Barbara Bush:
“I hope you don’t feel sorry for any of us, particularly me – I am at peace with what took place, and the reason why is my mother was at peace for what took place.” pic.twitter.com/aiI8SgkYE7
— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 18, 2018
Progressivism, communism, and fascism are three similar responses to the crisis of Marxism.
Dennis Prager discusses some destruction of Western Civilization, namely, language. THE DAILY WIRE has a good story on this in their post entitled, “‘Latinx’ Is Not A Real Word.” Prager also discusses near the end a professor who enlightens us as to what going to university “is.” HINT: It is at odds with the following:
Alexander W. Astin dissected a longitudinal study conducted by UCLA started in 1966 for the Review of Higher Education [journal] in which 290,000 students were surveyed from about 500 colleges. The main question was asked of students why study or learn? “Seeking to develop ‘a meaningful philosophy of life’” [to develop a meaningful worldview] was ranked “essential” by the majority of entering freshmen. In 1996 however, 80% of the college students barely recognized the need for “a meaningful philosophy of life” and ranked “being very well off financially” [e.g., to not necessarily develop a meaningful worldview] as paramount. [1, 2]
[1] Alexander W. Astin, “The changing American college student: thirty year trends, 1966-1996,” Review of Higher Education, 21 (2) 1998, 115-135.
[2] Some of what is here is adapted and with thanks to Dr. Stephen Whatley, past Professor of Apologetics & Worldviews at Faith International University… as, they are in his notes from one of his classes.
Excerpt from THE DAILY WIRE:
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary managed a woke trifecta this month, simultaneously denying sexual difference, degrading the English language, and infecting a foreign culture with Anglophonic leftism. Webster has replaced the Spanish-derived words “Latino” and “Latina,” which describe people of Latin American descent, with the “more inclusive” alternative “Latinx.” This solution in search of a problem confronts a facet of romance languages missing in our own — namely, gendered nouns. The difference between male and female inheres in the Spanish language, which lacks a neuter noun form. But the modern Left denies the reality of gender altogether, and so it has invented a new word that “purposefully breaks with Spanish’s gendered grammatical tradition.”
“Latinx,” clunky as it is, at least improves on the Left’s previous effort to castrate Spanish with the term “Latin@,” wherein the final letter was replaced by a symbol used almost exclusively in email addresses. Linguistic colonizers abandoned that early effort, not because it was unpronounceable, but because it excluded “those outside the gender binary,” whomever those mythical creatures may be. (As for hermaphrodites, “Latin@” seems to offer the ideal linguistic bastardization by combining both genders in one seamless symbol.)
Unbeknownst to Merriam-Webster, the English language already offers a gender-neutral form of “Latino/a/x/@/£/etc.” The word is “Latin,” as in, “Pedro is Latin American.” English speakers dine at Italian, not “Italiano,” restaurants. We drink French, not “Français,” wine. Americans on the Left and Right alike anglicize foreign words because we speak English.
[….]
Unfortunately for woke white liberals, their ugly jargon hasn’t attracted much use. Webster admits, “Though Latinx is becoming common in social media and in academic writing, it is unclear whether it will catch on in mainstream use.” Neither credibly prescriptive nor descriptive, “Latinx” is not a real word. The Left has long relied on silly jargon to defend ideological fantasy, masking inhuman ideas in “politically correct” language. Americans seem to have caught on to the lies, and two years ago they elected a “politically incorrect” president, who uses harsh language to describe illegal aliens but at least has never called them “Latinx.”
~ FLASHBACK ~
Dennis Prager talks about the ruining of whatever is touched by the Left. Art, music, economies, freedom, you name it. This example deals with how the left — almost systematically — ruined language. (Uploaded June 2, 2011)
The article Dennis Prager was reading from is via BLOOMBERG’s article, “Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost.” The gender gap is getting wider because of the #MeeToo Movement. Women are struggling with the corporate world MORE because of the Left. Per the Modus Operandi of Dems, they make the issue that they address, worse. Which leads to political power over others.
(Hat-Tip to CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE) Political analyst and commentator Dan Bongino has a great dot-connecting podcast today that outlines the players, motives, moves and intentions surrounding the ongoing Deep Administrative State battle.
It is an excellent presentation in all facets, with one minor gear slightly askew – which CTH will explain. The content is very well presented. Everyone should listen to the podcast.
Steven Crowder provides a full rebuttal to Vox’s recent claim that Republicans “broke politics.” SPOILER: Nope.
Hitting the top five ways the left pushes and over-sexualizes children. And WHY they do it.
THIS is an amazing instruction from the Court! It is maddening! This is America!
What allows this thinking are the millions of voters who just think that someone’s feelings override the dignity of what it is to be human. What either nature has honed for millions of years (for sake of the argument) or what God has created. And this is what the Left is doing… the base of the Democrat Party expresses their hubris in thinking it can control both weather and gender through legislation and the courts. ASININE! That entire Federalist article by Walt Heyer should be read. (So should Walt’s book, PAPER GENDERS.)
Walt Heyer, in the article, notes the similarity of his story and James (the boy at the center of this FUBAR):
…Somewhat like James, my cross-dressing occurred under one adult’s care, but away from grandma’s I was all boy with my mom and dad. Also, just like James, I found my way into the office of a gender therapist, who quickly started me toward transition.
When his mother, a pediatrician, took James for counseling, SHE CHOSE A GENDER TRANSITION THERAPIST WHO DIAGNOSED HIM WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA, a mental conflict between physical sex and perceived gender. James’ precious young life hinges purely on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a therapist who wraps herself in rainbow colors, affirms the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and dismisses evidence to the contrary. Remove the “rainbow” from James’ diagnosis, and it crumbles under the weight of the criteria for the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
The diagnosis is critical, because labeling a child with gender dysphoria can trigger a series of physical and mental consequences for the child and has legal ramifications in the ongoing custody case. Get it wrong and young James’s life is irrevocably harmed.
James Does Not Fit the Gender Dysphoria Criteria
The criteria for a diagnosis of childhood gender dysphoria are that a child be persistent, consistent, and insistent about being the opposite sex. James’s mom is “all in” on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and assisting with social transition. She used the name Luna to enroll him as a girl in first grade, and provides only female clothes.
Meanwhile, Dad isn’t seeing signs of gender dysphoria. In the father’s home, James appears to be a normal boy and doesn’t identify as a girl. He has a choice of boy’s or girl’s clothes there, and he chooses to dress as a boy. The fact that James changes gender identity depending on which parent is present makes the diagnosis of gender dysphoria both dubious and harmful.
The transition therapist has observed that James is not consistent, insistent, or persistent in the desire to become “Luna.” For example, a dossier filed with the Dallas court says that, under the skilled eyes of the therapist, the child was presented two pieces of paper, one with the word “James” and one with the word “Luna,” and asked to pick the name he preferred. When the appointment only included his mother, James selected Luna, the name and gender he uses at his mother’s home and in his first-grade classroom. When the appointment was only with his father, however, James pointed to the boy name James, not the girl name.
The glaring disparity between a child’s preferred identity when in the presence of one parent versus the other should cause a therapist to reassess, perhaps nullify the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and terminate any steps toward transition. But in the case of James, this hasn’t happened….
WHEN TRANSGENDERS SEE REALITY
Obviously, as an evangelical Christian I would want a different path for Blaire to be realized. However, THAT BEING SAID, his approach to reality will distinctively help with the psychological angst many transgenders feel about their gender (i.e., gender dysphoria).
MORE
[fbvideo link=”https://www.facebook.com/TheRealDonktum/videos/1929299457184088/” width=”691″ height=”400″ onlyvideo=”0″]
Video Description: But guess who actually treats everyone, regardless of skin color, like they have a brain cell and a half to rub together? That’s right, my friends, it’s us. I’m totally shocked (except I’m not.)
The WASHINGTON TIMES has an article that reads in part:
White liberals present themselves as less competent when addressing minorities, while conservatives use the same vocabulary no matter what the race of their audience, according to a newly released STUDY.
Yale and Princeton researchers found that white Democratic presidential candidates and self-identified liberals played down their competence when speaking to minorities, using fewer words that conveyed accomplishment and more words that expressed warmth.
On the other hand, there were no significant differences in how white conservatives, including Republican presidential candidates, spoke to white versus minority audiences.
“White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites — that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent,” according to the study’s abstract.
Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management, said she was surprised by the findings of the study, which sought to discover how “well-intentioned whites” interact with minorities.
“It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Ms. Dupree said. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”….
(See also HOT AIR and the WASHINGTON EXAMINER for more info) Here are two videos to bring the point home:
But this is my PERSONAL favorite example of how Leftists view black persons:
This is another ground motion visualization showing the motion of the ground recorded by the USArray during the Anchorage earthquake (https://t.co/RIcNz4bgWq). #AnchorageEarthquake #earthquake pic.twitter.com/5ZbzvXOj5l
— IRIS Earthquake Sci (@IRIS_EPO) December 1, 2018
I posted a link to a WASHINGTON TIMES article discussing the alarmist aspects and possible connections to those that swallow whole the anthropocentric aspect of global warming in the writing of the most recent “National Climate Assessment.”
…The report lists more than 200 authors and contributors, most of them federal employees but also dozens from universities, advocacy groups, foundations, think tanks and consulting firms specializing in advising governments and businesses on climate change adaptation and resilience.
The advocacy groups include the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and Arctic Institute. Others involved with the report are affiliated with the Brookings Institution, the Paulson Institute, and the Rand Corp., as well as the Kresge and Packard foundations.
Absent were prominent scientists affiliated with top research universities who have challenged catastrophic climate scenarios, such as John Christy, Judith Curry, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roy Spencer….
This is the response I got from a friend:
First, the idea that Trump replaces people in total is silly. But that red-herring aside, this comment led to a typical conversation where I ask for a dialogue, and insults and appeals to authority are the mainstay. I wish to share it as it may illuminate your conversations and the directions it should and maybe even should not go. (I may edit slightly the conversation and add media for presentation value, FYI.) Here is my first response — I will emphasize my repeated requests for dialogue:
So you say you have a myriad of experts and I have a myriad of experts…. pick a topic from the report that you think convinces you that man-made or guy that global warming is true. And let’s debate that one topic. because over the past week I’ve readquite a few reports by specialist/scientists it’s that refute that report. But no matter what they say we should look at the evidence.
Here is a non-technical readable article discussing the matter in this new report: Latest Climate Report Feeds into Alarmist Fearmongering (NATIONAL REVIEW)
RT responds:
This is a reference to the “consensus” many people believe because of the brainwashing of their minds by the media. This “consensus” has been disproved soo many times by specialist/scientists/statisticians to the laity. I ignored this discussion as I have PROVEN this to him time-and-time-again in the past. Instead, I want a dialogue. My response:
RT, about a third say that man is not driving global warming. about two-thirds say man is making an increase in global warming. Half of them say it’s no big deal the other half says it’s detrimental to our future. But I know you like to have others guide your life for you. That’s why you are really a Democrat at heart. So the original question is what piece of evidence -name one- that makes you think the man is contributing heavily to AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming).
I am trying to separate RT from his reliance on others to do his heavy lifting. You see, in the end, he comes to my Facebook wall to merely “tell the world” he like committing logical fallacies:
An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence for an argument’s conclusion.
RT responds. And as you will see, a dislike for Republicans and Trump seem to always enter the conversation… stuff totally unrelated to my continued plea for dialogue:
You can really be an ass-hole, most if the time. You sit up on your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing,self-absorbed and self-important pedestal. You’re a far right conservative that no matter how much evidence is thrown in your face, you’ll always be a run of the mill classic denier in chief. We’ve had this discussion (?) in the past. I’ve seen evidence first hand on a huge scale. You’ve only read about it.
And honestly, the wimp factor aside, Democrats as a whole are a helluva lot nicer folks. Starting to lean back in that direction. My votes in the last election were mostly Democrats. Nevada put out a lousy Conservative candidate for Governor and waffling Dean Heller (helluva guy)no longer had Nevada’s best interests at heart. Threatened by Trump and he caved. Our stalwart Governor Sandoval despised our Right Wing Attorney General Adam Laxalt (Adam,You’re not your Grandfather, the Great Senator Paul Laxalt. Reagan was his greatest fan.) Adam defied the Governor at every turn and he cried during his loser’s speech. Wimpy ass NAVY dude.
I explain later in my responses why I quoted Larry Elder, but here is my response followed by his:
RT:
You’re reading the wrong “facts.” Alice in Wonderland is a fairy-tale.
And nobody really cares about Larry Elder. Even to the concrete 28% that are stalwart Trump fans, few would even know the name. Why is it that the educated folks in this country are overwhelmingly in support of global warming facts? Maybe not happening as quickly as Gore predicted, but it is happening.
He simply responded “no.” He said he has been-there-done-that. But he really has not. All his conversations are like these. He thinks he has made a point using facts to support generalization, but in reality just state his personal opinion in a way HE FEELS is like a dialogue. He feels like he has shared a deep meaning when in fact he has only meandered into unrelated territories.
In the previous conversation I was driving and using a hands free app. So the following is now when I am home, AND ONE SHOULD NOTE that I am about to show RT how to take positions in the negative and positive modes:
When I quote Elder, it is for this reason… not only does the Left have an aversion for the truth… they ALSO have a love in generalizing their opinions and solidifying them as true WITHOUT a single evidence suggested (a truth stated). Ergo, you run from a real dialogue because it would demand you take a position and defend it — scared that facts would cloud your idyllic vision.
(POSITIVE) Here for example are just two evidences I would posit to suggest global warming is a plus for nature/mankind: we have a record number of Polar Bears, and almost all islands are growing, not disappearing.
(NEGATIVE) Here is an evidence that a main pillar of the AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming) is wrong. Mankind has produced more CO2 in the past two-decades than the previous 100-years before it.
1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature?
2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?
(22)
And temperature has stalled and is again in the past two decades is decreasing a bit. Why? Two reasons: CO2 is not an important driver of climate, and two, sunspots are.
…Data from NASA’s TIMED satellite show that the thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking, literally decreasing the radius of the atmosphere.
To help track the latest developments, Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center and his colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index.”
The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) tells how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (meaning “Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (meaning “Cold”).
“Right now, it is very low indeed … 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle,” says Mlynczak
(ICE-AGE NOW [BTW, I have read his book pictured to the left with the same title. Good stuff] | More at the SPACE WEATHER ARCHIVE)
AND my discussing your propensity to allow “experts” guide your beliefe based on failed computer models versus the evidence of climate, is just one of the many aspects of “what it means to be on the left.” Here are two of Prager’s six aspects dealing with “EXPERTS/MEDIA”:
— The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, “Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried,” liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming.
It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is “question authority,” so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education.
— The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts — such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, “expert” has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.
That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title “Nobel laureate.” The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver.
These are the three things one has to believe in order to be…well… you, I presume:
(Prager Again) ….“In the belief that there are people on the left who are more interested in understanding the right rather than in simply dismissing its decency, I would like to briefly explain why many thoughtful people are skeptical of the claims made on behalf of global warming.”
Those claims are:
One must believe all three postulates, otherwise the issue is moot. So, for example, even if one believes the Earth is warming but doesn’t believe this will lead to worldwide catastrophe, then global warming is irrelevant.
I don’t believe that all three postulates are true. And, more important, neither do many thoughtful scientists. The notion that virtually every scientist believes that man-made carbon emissions are leading to a global warming that will have apocalyptic consequences — in other words, that “the science is settled” — is repeated so often by the liberal media that many people believe it.
But it is not true [see my post on this]. Many distinguished scientists and many scientists who are not well known but who are in climatology and related fields question this alarmist thesis….
SO RT, rather than deal with any one inconvenient FACT, you belittle by saying my position is “Alice in Wonderland.”
You can really be an ass-hole RT, most of the time. You sit up on your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed and self-important pedestal. You’re a far left kook that no matter how much evidence is thrown in your face, you’ll always be a run of the mill classic denier in chief.
RT’s response? No response:
What his response failed to do is offer any evidence. Which I will note in the following response to how the Left and the media refuse to report about the falling temperatures in the past two years showing that the sun (not CO2) is the main driver of climate, and why one should be concerned about the cold and not warming.
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.“
Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.
[….]
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.
Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsvilleshowing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.
How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?
Crickets….
Not only that, but the man that programmed most of the satellites NASA uses to measure temperature (he is one of about three people that can do such a task) shows the same:
But remember, facts don’t matter. Just Trump Derangement Syndrome does. No worry about what evidence supports or refutes a position, just name the Donald and act as you brought information for others to be able to digest in supporting the claims initially stated further up in the conversation.
In fact, since we got out of the BIG ICE-AGE, temperatures have been fairly stable:
