News Weakly - 1/18/20

Insanity in the Public Square
NBC did a helpful piece helping us to understand that the pain of menstruation is more than just physical ... for transgender men. Now, "do the math" here. We're talking about biological females who identify as males. The article begins, "When transgender model and activist Kenny Ethan Jones experienced his first period, he faced both physical and psychological pain. Initially, Jones, who had not yet come out as trans at the time, felt like he was losing control and didn’t understand what was happening to his body. However, one thing was clear: He didn’t feel like himself." Does anyone else experience the mental collisions and confusions over such a paragraph? Why would a biological female be surprised at a period? Why wouldn't the fact that "He didn't feel like himself" be a clue that he's not a 'he'? Why is it that clear medicine and science doesn't scream "This just isn't right, folks"? How does removing the female symbol from sanitary product packaging help at all?

In other news, Michigan is considering adding a "non-binary option" to their driver's licenses. If you identify as a different gender, they'll allow it. In addition, in order to be completely equitable, they will allow for optional names, addresses, races, and birth dates just in case the driver wishes to identify as someone else. Oh ... no? Huh. I wonder why not? Why are they so rigid?

True Colors
Elizabeth Warren offered a new plan to eliminate student loan debt if she is elected president. While most presidents have to deal with Congress -- you know, the rule of law -- Warren plans to bypass Congress because clearly she is not concerned with the rule of law. There is, reportedly, a real problem with student debt in America. More than $1.5 trillion, apparently. Nobody knows how that happened. It looks like unscrupulous forces just assigned debt to people merely because they went to college. We'll get to the bottom of this economic travesty as soon as we replace Trump, I'm sure.

Art-Diversity
Writer Stephen King was blasted this week for tweeting that he didn't consider diversity when determining the quality of art. When it came to the gender or racial make up of a movie, he didn't consider it. He merely consider whether or not he thought it was good art. Loser. Doesn't he know that art can't be good if it doesn't include diversity. Doesn't he know that Michelangelo painted with black people and sculpted with Asians to make such great art? Doesn't he know that the quality of a piece is determined by whether or not a proper mix of race and gender is included? What's wrong with that guy?

Change That Matters
Virginia has become the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment to our Constitution. This amendment has been around a long time. (It was introduced to Congress in 1923 and offered to the States in 1972.) The rule is if 38 states (75%) approve an amendment, then it becomes part of the Constitution. There is still a question of the timeline. The window for state action is long past. We'll see how this goes.

Note that we're in a bit of a crisis here. The amendment is designed to guarantee that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." Sounds good. But between 1972 and 2020 things have changed. "Sex" used to mean "male" and "female" and it no longer does. "Rights" used to be limited to some sort of law, but they no longer are. (Think, "right to a living wage," for instance. Or consider that "Art-Diversity" story above.) So the ERA, once intended to hand normal rights to both genders, will now hand extraordinary rights to nonexistent genders ... and, in all likelihood, remove existing legal rights from some that currently have them. (Imagine going to jail -- loss of the right to freedom -- for not using the "proper pronoun." It has happened elsewhere based on "gender" and "rights.") Given the current insanity of American thinking on matters of gender and rights, this does not bode well for us.

The End is Near
So, the House has sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi told the trial managers, "This is about the Constitution of the United States and it's important for the president to know and Putin to know that American voters — voters in America — should decide who our president is." Now I'm confused. The House impeached Trump for trying to get the Ukraine to sully Biden's name before the election and for obstruction of Congress. Where is Putin in all of this? Didn't Mueller clear that whole thing up? This isn't about collusion with Russia. Why is she talking about Putin? Jerry Nadler said, "If the Senate doesn’t permit the introduction of all relevant witnesses and of all documents that the House wants to introduce because the House is the prosecutor here, then the Senate is engaging in an unconstitutional and disgusting cover-up." You mean like the House which didn't allow Republicans or the president or any of the possible testimony that might have disagreed with their findings? Sounds a lot like a double standard to me.

(Please keep in mind that I am not opposed to the Senate impeaching the president. To tell the truth, I'd be happy with that. "President Pence" has a nice ring to it. I'm just calling shenanigans as I see them.)

Unclear on the Concept
The story begins, "An abandoned baby rescued from a bin in Singapore has aroused widespread sympathy, drawing several offers of adoption." While I, of course, applaud those who step forward to help this child, I don't know why it's a story. I mean, everyone knows that you don't toss a baby into a bin if you want it, and aren't we all agreed that a baby that is not wanted is not a person? What's up with that?

What Is Wrong With You People?
The headline reads, "Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-gay adoption bill." First, I'm pretty sure that he did not say that. "Yes, I will sign this anti-gay adoption bill." Second, a bill that allows faith-based foster care and adoption agencies to receive funding even if they exclude LGBTQ families is not an "anti-gay" bill; it is a religious freedom bill. If the bill restricted adoptions to heterosexual couples only, they might have a case. It doesn't. But we know the current media positions and we know that American sheeple will follow their lead.