Saturday, October 15, 2016

News Weakly - 10/15/2016

(Someone asked me recently about the title, "News Weakly". It is a product of my odd humor. I'm thinking of a "news weekly" -- a once-a-week news post -- and how "weak" my news posts are. See? Odd humor. I wanted to be a mapmaker in Arizona, but it turned out I had a poor sense of Yuma.)

Serious Confusion
Here's a story for you. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sex. The current application is pushing us not toward equality but obscurity. That is, not gender equality, but gender equals gender.

Meet Harrison Browne. "Browne, a rising star on the Buffalo Beauts of the National Women's Hockey League, is the first openly transgender player in American professional team sports." How's that? "'I identify as a man,' Browne said in an interview in New York City."

Ummm, okay, now we're going to have problems. Setting aside pronouns for a moment, it identifies as a man playing in the National Women's Hockey League. Which is it? Or is this just the end of "Women's Hockey" (and any other sports with a gender attached)? I'd ask them to make up their minds, but I don't think there is sufficient clarity of thought to do it.

"Being a little harsh, aren't you, Stan?" You tell me.
The plan was to medically transition after college -- but the creation of the NWHL in the spring of his senior year led to a decision to put off the transition. Browne acknowledges he is in "limbo" as a transgender man on a women's team but "you have to be your authentic self to be happy ... hockey makes me extremely happy."
Which is it? Which is it? Is it "authentic self" to transition or to not transition in order to play women's hockey? Even Browne acknowledges she is in limbo, but we applaud her being her "authentic self" ... whatever that is ... at this moment ... to whatever she thinks her advantage is. There is indeed confusion here, but it's not gender confusion ...

This is what I was talking about
Some time ago I wrote about my concerns that Trump could do more damage to America and conservative values than Hillary could. In one headline we find that Trump has declared war on the Republicans. (Ironic, I think, that he referred to McCain as "foul-mouthed".) Clearly he's a "if you're not with me, you're against me" kind of guy, with a menacing "and there will be consequences" added in. The consequences in this case could be withdrawal of support for good candidates for the senate and congress because of their lack of support from Trump. That is, it could impact keeping control of Congress. And if Hillary wins and Trump's supporters give away Congress to the Democrats, we're looking at a worst case scenario. (Note, by the way, the inconsistency of Trump. "I'm the Republican candidate so you must support me. I, on the other hand, have no requirement to support Republican candidates.") That's the kind of damage I was talking about. In another story Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argues that if Trump has done anything at all, "he has snuffed out the Religious Right." (If you want to know why he says that, you'll have to go to the article.) On the minus side, Moore says Trump has killed the religious right in politics. On the plus side, there are valuable lessons to be learned from it.

Christians tell me (with horror in their voices), "You don't want Hillary in office, do you?" One friend said, "I think of it this way. When I wake up the morning after the election, one of two people will be our next president. Which one will do the least damage? That's how I'll vote." And, in fact, I can see his logic. It's just that I cannot tell which of the two would be that "least damage" -- the loud opponent from her father, the devil, or the friendly guy holding a knife behind his back? One cartoonist asked, "Do I want to be pushed off a cliff or run over by a monster truck?" I can't decide.

Conspiracy Theory
So, Sheriff Joe, the self-styled "Toughest Cop in America", will face criminal charges for contempt of court because of his immigration patrols. Fine. So he was only trying to enforce federal laws. Fine. So it looks like he willfully ignored the judge's orders. Fine. So he failed to enforce the law in a proper manner. Fine. So this news comes out just weeks before the election for his office ... you know, the classic "October surprise". Fine. So his initial hearing is the day before the election. Fine. So it took four years for the feds to decided to press charges. Fine. So Arpaio was not one of Obama's supporters and had run ins with him in the past. Fine. And Hillary is an Obama favorite and is getting a pass from the feds on all her stuff. Fine. After all has been said and done, I'm not a great Sheriff Joe supporter anymore. Still, it's really, really hard to imagine that this isn't personal on the part of the federal government versus Sheriff Joe. The man's arrogance is, indeed, only exceeded by Hillary's, but I cannot imagine that, after all this time and after all the ridiculous fighting from Washington against Arizona enforcing federal law that this, timed as it is, is merely "the wheels of justice". Or maybe I'm just seeing a conspiracy theory where there is none. Fine.

Seriously?
Did you know that the United Nations had an "Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls"? I did not know that. Well, they've appointed a new one: Wonder Woman. Because they're really, really serious about empowering women and girls. (Hey! I hear you snickering over there!)

3 comments:

Danny Wright said...

There was a "religious right" in politics? If it actually has been kilt, then the thing to learn is, if anyone notices or not. Perhaps it can take a seat beside the black left. They both get about the same amount of "respect" from their perspective parties, and about the same amount of advanced policy ta boot, which I'd say is just about zero.

Stan said...

I think the religious right has been a pretty strong component of the Republican party. Even Trump met with them. Sure, they're the "crazy rich uncle" that no one likes to talk about, but he does have some pull, so they have to acknowledge him.

Of course, the majority of the "religious right" just don't vote ...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Wonder Woman?!? This is another perfect example of the uselessness of the United Nations for anything other than propagating LEFTIST ideology.