fauxlaw

NY schools are sending the message of white abolition. The woke generation, which is transgenerational, unfortunately, is demonstrating that no generation [chronologically] is immune to ignorance and bigotry. They have distinguished "white" people [never saw anyone who is white in my life, not even an albino is white, nor are few Blacks actually black, which means all such labels are ignorance incarnate] into seven separate categories, demonstrating, once again, we are adept at segregating and criticising one another more than we are inclusive and celebratory of our differences.

Does anyone comprehend the attempt by the 15A to collect ourselves together? Apparently, the Constitution is not woke, and, thank God. Maybe the Census ought to have the mentality that it began with in 1790, because there were damn few demographics, then. Maybe we should not have any at all. Does the road care what I am? Should it? As for the census, I am a nose. Count it, and the rest be damned.

Congratulations, greenies. You've just had a setback of monumental proportion, by nothing more menacing than your own, misguided "science." Who knew that in Texas, and, likely elsewhere, anywhere in which the temperature goes south, that your holy GND has failed so miserably. You need... what? to bail you out?

Answer: That other renewable energy resource we have had for almost 200 years and is, contrary to your misguided claims, r-e-n-e-w-a-b-l-e. The Earth has been making it for more than a billion years, and likely two, or more, and still does to this day. Isn't that what renewable is? You do not countenance it, but I don't care what you countenance. You're wrong. Petroleum sourcing is renewable sourcing and it will continue as long as living things die and decompose on planet Earth, including your sorry flesh and bone, and mine, too. At least I recognize the source of the first renewable energy on Earth. You? Wind? Commercial wind and solar power? Sure, it has a place, but, as we have now seen, it is not entirely dependable, is it? So, what is it, again, that is saving your hide? Black gold.

Net zero, my ass!

With  frozen windmills in TX, is anyone wondering what the freezing temperature of natural gas is? Or that the mysterious science of dehydration will prevent it?

Or, is anyone still wishing it was called "global warming?"

When it comes to covid related to "normal" society functions, it appears we need to find "science" earlier in the dictionary than in the 'S's. Joe Biden is credited with the new PC of following principles he maintained in his campaign, but, no one should be surprised that Biden is confused by words. After all, during the campaign, he said he had "Solutions" to covid. Now, he says solutions have escaped us. It appears that science, as well, has escaped him in favor of politics, as in "School," which also is a S-word. Seems Biden is consistent with word confusion in the 'S's. This malady may spread its contagion to other letters.

Too bad climate change is also spelled p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s.

Article I

Congress shall make law respecting the cancellation of religion and the free exercise thereof; the freedom of speech; and of the press; and permitting the right of certain people to riot in the streets without fear of retribution, and to censure all others by whatever means necessary.

No further rights, no further legislation, and no further justice need be enumerated.

The rest is summarily cancelled.

Sounds good, yeah?

What's the list that I top? The number of total debates with no-vote tie decisions by percentage of debates. My next nearest competitor for this top spot is RationalMadman, with whom I have had 3 debates of my total of 54 finished, to date. One of those 3 was, coincidentally, on the subject; "Resolved: debates should not end with a no-vote tie." Guess what? Yes, that debate ended in a no-vote tie.

Stats:        Years on DART     Number of finished debates        Number of ties          Number [and %] of no-vote ties

Rational         2.5                                310                                                         28                                   18              5.8%

fauxlaw          0.9                                  54                                                          10                                     7             12.9%

My issue is not with RM, with whom I have had good debates. I enjoy the stimulating competition with him. My angst is with the rest of you who do not bother to vote. On the other hand, someone must lead this unrated issue [I think it does not factor into rating, but, who knows. It would be nice to have some idea of that formula]. But, I would not envy anyone at the top of this list, even though they would have naught to do with the outcome of no-vote ties. I have been on this site, as noted, for 11 months, and I have 115 debate votes to my credit [10th ranking]. The other nine have all been on this site longer than me, so, of the top voters, in consideration of my membership on the site, I also rank highest in votes per time served. So, what of the lot of you? 

I have previously proposed the formation of a group of people to serve as voters who are committed to preventing no-vote ties. I personally attempt to act in that role. As the leader of that particular distinction, I re-assert that proposal. It sees to have little interest among the people who influence policy.  What gives? For the time invested in  creating debate arguments, it's disappointing to face apathy in voters.

I consider the value of adding a proposal that debaters who do not also vote lose some privilege of debating.  What better way to improve one's own debate skills than by analysis of how others debate? Only voting will do that.

There are actually two others [seldiora* & Type1] who have more ties than mine, but neither are current members.

*Seldiora exists now as gugigor, with 5 debates and 0 ties.

Does the above phrase from Article I say that the Senate is compelled to use that power, even in a case for which that body has original jurisdiction? If you agree, why do you also agree that the Supreme Court, also in a case of original jurisdiction, was not compelled to hear a case before it? Voilà, the contradiction of the progressive so-called mind.

Some may recognize this phrase by Lorenzo Snow. "...may become" because it is destiny, but not all will reach it, because some just cannot work without setting limits on themselves. It is indicative of the idea of eternal progression, the role of God and man, and the purpose of our mortal lives working toward immortality and eternal life. Eternal life is not just everlasting life, but specifically, everlasting in the presence of God, who intends that we become like him, while he continues progressing, himself. There is no end to becoming perfect in all things. Like knowledge, it is without end. Perfection, like any single skill, has its degrees of accomplishment. Perfection, like eternity, is a boundless, borderless accomplishment, ever expanding, ever advancing. We try to limit the definition because we have, at present, finite minds. It will not always be so. Then, as the British once though of their empire, the sun will never set on us.

Well, well, well. A consequence that is hardly surprising. I challenged a debate: «Resolved: In the United States, the survival of democracy depends on social censorship»

but no one wanted to take it up. Your prog leaders have said as much: Hillaryous Balloon Girl, Nancy Pelostomy, Chucky Shoofly, Barry Oba'a, and the utterly forgettable [he forgets himself half the time], Joe Hidin' Biden.  What, you don't like my monikers for these folks? Who among you use your own names? Including me.

So, I sit, waiting, in vain, for someone to take up your gauntlet. What, can't find the evidence that you know is there? Don't want to defend your heroes? Not even your current President, a former, two wannabes, and a mindless, defender of the faith who is happy to exhibit premature efactulation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOXFOpqkC88

Some defenders of the faith. You must be proud.

Or, does someone now, in the immortal, inciting words of Pelostomy, have "arrows in our quiver, and are ready to use them?"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pelosi-says-she-has-arrows-in-my-quiver-on-court-fight-but-unclear-what-they-are-11600725484

Sorry; you're too late. I've proven my point and am done.

Hidin' Biden told you he could solve Covid. Now he says he cannot. You voted for him. What did you elect? A liar? So, what's changed, in your book? Because he's your liar, it's okay?

This string was inspired by Fr. Franklin's topic from a year ago, "AI will kill us all." In this string, I am saying the GND will also kill us all. Here's why:

In a movie from 2019, "Io" [as in Jupiter's volatile moon]

"In a post-apocalyptic time, the earth has been rendered toxic, and most of humanity has abandoned the planet and colonised one of Jupiter's moons, IO. But young scientist Sam Walden has stayed behind and dedicated herself to finding a way for human beings to survive on Earth." [from a film critic  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3256226/

Another critic said, "The amount of the stuff happens in this movie is perfect for a short film. Unfortunately it is now just 90 minutes of boredom."

What I found fascinating is that in the first two minutes of an obvious morality tail about the sins of environmental destruction, which only the GND will solve, Sam, our intrepid female scientist, gathers water from a puddle in the street on toxic Earth to test it. The test doesn't matter because Sam, in an absent moment not edited out of the morality tale that should have been on the cutting room floor, tossing the wrapper of the glass vial... in a recycling bin? God, no! on the street, of course!

When we actually do land on Mars to colonize it, we will discover, to our shame, an ancient, long-since decimated intelligent culture. We will find record of the sad story of their effort to revive a dying civilization due to something they called "climate change," and had something similar to the GND. They succeeded in eliminating all emissions, reaching a net-zero condition by eliminating all sources of methane emission: all living things. Congratulations. life finds a way, even if it must come from Earth, and all our recycling.

Biden's firsr EO was a mandate to wear masks while on federal property:  https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2021/01/on-day-1-biden-to-issue-mask-mandate-for-federal-employees-reinstate-diversity-training/

Hours later, Biden is at Lincoln Memorial, maskless - a visual gaffe:   https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/biden-maskless-at-lincoln-memorial-hours-after-mandate/

The Lincoln is no longer federal property. As Jim Nabors once said, "Shazam!"

Joe Biden's inauguration highlighted walls.

There were walls to keep Americans away from the traditional Inauguration parade.

Biden issues an EO to stop building the border wall to allow free passage of caravan aliens into the country.

This is supposed to be unity. Unity of whom? This is the United States of America, not the United States of the World.

With Trump no longer a a valid target, and with making movies a foregone failure if Tom Cruise has his way, who will Hollowood attack? Biden or Kammie?

Who wins the Silly Bowl?

Who is the halftime show? The "wanna buy a car" clown?

I'm taking bets on Kammie's engagement of the 25A, in fulfillment of the predicted [by Biden, for one] Harris administration. My personal bet: by 30 April, 2021; 100 days from inauguration.

I am going to take some liberties in talking about oromagi's singular debate loss, as I feel somewhat responsible for turning the tide against his win by voting against his arguments. The debate was https://www.debateart.com/debates/2564-thbt-wikipedia-is-a-more-reliable-source-for-information-than-fox-news. with Fruit-Inspector. I won't raise the debate discussion; that is immaterial to my commentary here.

First, let me assure that I highly respect oromagi for his debate skill. I call him relentless, and he is a formidable opponent from whom I have learned much. We disagree on much that is discussed here, and that's ok; I still consider him a friend.

oromagi represented my first debate loss, of which I have nine, at present, of 49 current completed debates iin my 10 months of membership. That loss had nothing to do with my vote RFD in his debate noted above. I never expected to have an unbeaten record, so although first, it was just another loss. Our debate was a brilliant stroke on his part.

The above debate, not so much, and the purpose of this post is to equate it to a series of chess matches I once had with my oldest brother, who is now in the long beyond. My brother was a master chess player, able to play multiple matches simultaneously, and almost always won. His IQ approached 170. He taught me how to play when I was 5 [he, 13] I never, ever beat him until I was 16, but I considered the win flawed because our mother constantly interrupted his play, but he was too honorable to complain. I won by her distraction, so I don't count it. 2 years later, in an uninterrupted match, I played him to a draw. I saw the possibility four moves in advance. Once seeing it, it was utterly dependent on his making moves that would not deter the outcome. He didn't see it until my last, decisive move that trapped his king in the one safe square on the board, and with no other moves of other pieces available. When he saw it, and realized what my move meant, tears came to his eyes and said, "Well done. Did you see it before you made it happen?" "I did, four moves ago," i said. "Very well done," he replied. He was very proud of me. However, he and I never played another match but that he turned from the table, never seeing his or my moves. The matches were played entirely out of his head while I played looking at the board. I never beat him again.

That is how I feel about oromagi's debate play, and his being distracted, I think, on his one loss.  "Well done, oromagi."

So, as Democrats in the Senate lick their chops, now that they will officially control the Senate after inauguration [because until inauguration, Kammie is not the tie-breaker] over a trial on impeachment...

Wait, that may not happen at all, because in spite of an ill-advised second House impeachment of Trump, it must be decided, by interpretation of the Senates power to try an impeachment after the President has left office - and the Constitution is fairly clear, since "removal from office" would not be a consequence as of noon tomorrow...

... is disqualification an automatic? No, the Senate votes on that issue separately. Are both issues automatic, i.e., removal and disqualification from holder future office? No, because of the last answer.  Can the Senate not vote to remove, but still vote to disqualify, i.e., remove, or disqualify?  No. The operative word is "and," not "and/or," or simply "or,"  therefore, if the Senate takes up the trial, their must be a conviction/acquittal vote, and only then would the Senate decide to vote on disqualification. That is, unless you want to treat the Constitution like a cafeteria, in which the words can be altered at will. But, that's how Democrats read the Constitution, anyway.

Too bad, Nancy. Got to plan accordingly for these things. But, doing your hair is so much more important in a pandemic, isn't it? Maybe she needs more removed? Is her hair doing her thinking for her these days? See Joe. He knows hair.

I've heard many claim that Jesus was a socialist. I don't think he thought politically, but, if he did, it wasn't socialism. So before I launch a discussion of what I think were Christ's politics, I'd like a clear explanation why y'all think Jesus was a socialist. Cite whatever you like as justification, but I'd like clarification because, well, I'm not satisfied with unjustified declarations. It's like claiming someone is a racist, but no one offers their justification. "He/she just is." Sorry, that's not good enough. But, this string is not about anyone else. Keep your focus on Jesus and his own words.

The next four years will be, if anything, entertaining. All I need say is, "Joe did it again," and y'all will know what I'm taking about.

In reply to a question to Joe Biden posed by Peter Doocy, Joe replied 'You're a one-horse pony."

Will one of you more familiar with Joe's euphemisms please tell me how many horses ponies are supposed to have, since Joe's reply was clearly an insult? While you're at it, tell me what face a lying pony soldier should have. And, tell me why Joe is fixated on horses, because his commentary certainly compares to what comes from their backends. Is it that they're hairy?

Do you have your Covid-19 Immunity Passport? Well, do you? 

Are you one of the progressive elites who will soon demand that we each have one in order to be an acceptable member of society? Elite society? A society able to move about in society, travel, hob-nob, eat indoors in restaurants in NYC, party... and whatnot? Do I hear whispered echoes of a similar "passport" from 30 years ago when you were worried about AIDS in a sexual frenzy that suddenly went cold turkey until you had proof of clearance from that plague? What do you want to bet that some elites in the 15th century had such "passports" to prove immunity from the Black Plague?

Yup. I hear your elite passport scanning apps on your smartphones coming down the pipe; lighting you up like Christmas trees.

So, why are you same people so averse to having proof [a "passport"] for voter i.d.? Hmmmm?

Election Conspiracy Theory
 
One might think I am going to debunk presidential  election conspiracy theories as a sudden reversal of my known thinking with regard to this presidential election season. No. I have thought, still think, and will continue to think Joe Biden is the worst presidential candidate since Hillaryous Balloon Girl. Neither one are anything to shout about, truth be told. Neither had the sense to conduct an expected campaign, and it is hard to tell which had more absurd ideas on running the country.
While, with Hillaryous, I merely shook my head for the stupidity of putting your opponent’s name smack in the middle of your campaign [remember Love Trumps Hate?], I laughed constantly at Hiden’ Biden’s forced, repetitive faux pas, even avowing, at one point, twice, that he was running for U.S. Senate, not to mention the also twice-repeated mantra that he was to be in the Harris administration. Another killer was his claim that he would beat Joe Biden. Of course, the MSM quickly came to his defense: he did not say “beat Joe Biden,” but said he would “be Joe Biden.” I thought that was worse; who was he, then, if he was not Joe Biden? The Grinch? The amalgam of the Three Stooges? Something like that.
 
But, no, that’s not it, either. I tire of Joe’s continuous demonstration of his listless mind. I accept it: Hidin’ Biden is senile, at best.
 
First election conspiracy theory is simple: No one can describe why, in the string of the last 14 presidential elections [back to FDR in 1944] Ohio has backed the elected President in all but 2 elections [remember, Ford was never directly elected; he took over when Nixon resigned from his 1972 re-election in 1974 – so he was never directly elected, and lost to Carter in 1976], FDR to Trump’s re-election, Ohio backed the loser only twice: Nixon in 1960, and Trump in 2020. That is a remarkable string of predictable election behavior that baffles statistical probability, particuarly since every state in the country has swapped blue/red often. I know; I am  Six Sigma Black Belt. I breathe statistics.
 
Second election conspiracy: In PA, 2016, there were some 200K mail-in ballots; the first time PA flirted with mail-in ballots. IN 2020, PA had 2.5M mail-in ballots, a >100-fold increase. Of course, all lazily point to Covid-19 imposed restrictions, but the same restrictions applied to OH, FL, and other states coincidentally won by Trump, and states who have longer experience with mail-in balloting, and who had not near the troubles PA had with handling their over-bearing increase in this ballot type. What makes this conspiracy particularly troubling for Democrats to explain is why, with all the troubles of PA’s novice effort, their percentage of erroneous, discarded ballots dropped significantly from 2016, which was in the 20th percentile of erroneous ballot discards, whereas 2020, with a 100-fold increase in mail-in ballots, the erroneous, discarded ballots dropped to just 3% of the total number of ballots cast. Explain that phenomenon, Democrats. It also baffles statistical probability.
 
Third election conspiracy: In PA, the count of same-day election ballots plus absentee ballots [not the same as mail-in ballots, as the mail-ins were not requested, they were just sent out] resulted in an election that Trump won at 48.2% to Hillaryous 47.5% - a 0.7% spread.  The 2020 election result of just those ballots resulted in a similar spread, also favoring Trump, wherein 95% of Republicans voted for Trump and 5% for Hillaryous. However, the mail-in ballots resulted in a much larger spread for Biden wherein we are expected to believe that 21% of registered Republicans switched their vote to Biden, and only 79% voted for Trump. Statistically, the comparison of same-day/absentee to mail-in is, as well, baffling to statistical probability.
 
Are we beginning to see a trend?  There’s more, but that’s enough for now to get you started. I am purposely leaving off my researched sources. I want you to find them yourselves. I’ll tell you now, you will not find them in MSM; not if you only read headlines, which is the extent of much of the research I see hear. No, don’t look on Fox, either. I didn’t. Nor on Newsmax, where many Former Foxers went. Sorry, it’s the truth. I’m inclined to think you will not do it anyway. It isn’t that I have more time on my hands than many of you – and I do - it’s that you don’t care to be shown the facts. Therefore, find them yourselves. Maybe then you’ll believe them. Either you care, or you don’t. 

So, the other day, I happened to Google the question above, exactly as written above. Try it yourself. Was I surprised, or what? Who knew?

The first hit said "1 S Boston Ave, Tulsa, OK 74103" So, if you're from Tulsa, tell us how it feels being the center of everything.

Problem is, the address is not even the center of Tulsa. oh well, maybe the universe is off-center, too.

Yeah, I saw it, too. A map identifies some facility as "The Center of the Universe." Very cheeky.

IF

[if, because no one is President-Elect until the Electoral College declares a winner on Dec 14: - the media be damned because it was never up to them]

Joe Biden becomes 46:

the time to answer my question from last spring comes due: Who will be the President if Joe Biden is elected?

List of givens:

1. Joe Biden, much as much as he has tried, is not a Progressive; he's an ordinary liberal [there is a distinction]

2. The Progressives occupy the majority of the House and Senate Democrat seats.

3. Joe Biden has declared he is the Party, but his sensibilities are as noted in #1.

4. Joe Biden faces a wall of manipulating Progressives [including his VP pick] who demand that he bend to their will.

5. Joe Biden's dogs are not all barking anymore, and that is daily becoming more obvious - too many gaffes for a forthright leader of a party.

Do you honestly think Joe Biden's ordinary liberalism will push back against the pressure of the Progressive [read Socialist] agenda? Has your utter hatred of Trump blinded your vision of the next four years? All I'll say is your bed is prepared and you best be willing to sleep in it.

I have been advised to use the next seven days, culminating on Thanksgiving Day, to take a moment each day to express gratitude for my many blessings, whether or not they are deserved. I look upon blessings, not as rewards, but as challenges to do better, to be better, to seek better today than yesterday, to make tomorrow a greater blessing than today. In that perspective, I am grateful for the advice of Malachi, that last prophet of the Old Testament, whose wisdom included the recommendation to not just expect blessings, but to prepare a place for them, lest most be wasted for the lack of preparing for them. If we hope for a circle of friends, we'd best prepare the circle such that they have place to dwell in our hearts if they cannot be with us, or prepare the table in advance of their coming. This year, that may not be as possible in person as in years past, or, hopefully, as will be in the future. Prepare anyway, or the blessing will be wasted. Sermon over.

So, today, I am grateful for the many expressions of friendship from you. Though I personally know none of you, I'm grateful for your comments, ideas, suggestions, and even your challenges. You make me a better person, and I hope that is reciprocal. Tomorrow, another gratitude.

I challenge you to do the same, and see if, after the week, we are not all healed of some of our misgivings, trials, ills, and just plain malaise. just by being more grateful then than we are today.

Assumption: Biden has a popular vote advantage of roughly 6M votes, doubling Hillaryous Balloon Girl.

Assumption: Biden will be the President-Elect [he's not yet because the Electoral College has not yet spoken, and the Constitution does not acknowledge the press' opinion]

Assumption: A popular presidential pick has coattails for down-ballot success.

So, why has the Democrat House lost seats, and the Senate leadership depends on a run-off race if all the above are true? 

Blue wave? Nope, but there sure is a lot of hot gas from regions I'd prefer to ignore. And y'all complain about GHGs affecting climate change? Are you kidding me?

With the suggestion that we put nuclear-powered generators on the Moon and Mars, how long before greenies start to complain that a non-renewable energy resource will cause climate change. Hint: there is no climate on the Moon, and a damn little on Mars. And what there is of climate on Mars, it's more than one ideal climate that whackos seek on Earth.

So, what is the difference between a duck?

While watching the launch of the "Resilience" SpaceX dragon capsule tonight, and a recurring discussion of the possibility of at least billionaire civilian tourist travel into space in the near future, I wondered whether the tourist launch would precede a Mars expedition? Thoughts? Why?

Well, my least favorite source, wiki, says, speaking of the apparent winner of a presidential election, "There is no indication when that person actually becomes president-elect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect_of_the_United_States   

I beg to differ, and couched in the beg is my complaint that wiki says of itself that it is not reliable: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source.

Wiki is a collection of self-appointed editors, on whom we trust to do necessary research, and their commentary in the first eiki citation above indicates just how poorly they do that job, because the answer to their question, "there is no indication..." happens to be in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 3 [Amended by the 12A]: "The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates [from the previously mentioned vote of the Electoral College], and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President [when he is later inaugurated the following January, and until then, he IS the President-Elect, officially declared by the President of the Senate who is the current Vice President], if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed..." That happens after the Electoral College vote, which is established by law to be the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December of a presidential election year.

If I can do that research, and figure to begin with the Constitution rather than a collection news articles, why can't wiki? Because it's not reliable, and says so, that's why.

Hidin' Biden said he wanted to speak to the nation tonight. Didn't happen. What happened? Did Wilmington have a brownout, so the basement teleprompter was a no-show? Did SloJoe forget the Pledge of Allegiance again? Was Jill in a Friday night coffee-clutch, and couldn't be there to hold him up?

No. All good excuses that can still be used, but, tonight, it was a question that nailed him to the phone: "How many votes do I need in these States, and when are they going to be manufactured." Answer: "Sorry Mr. Vice, but they're on a slow boat from China."

You should be. Prop 16 would have repealed a current constitutional provision that made it unlawful for California's state and local governments to discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, ethnicity, national origin or sex. Prop 16 wold return racial quotas. I thought Progressives opposed such matters. I'm involved in a debate right now that argues against such stuff. But, I'll wager you're upset. Take a read from the following website if the Sanders Institute: https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/towards-a-socialist-theory-of-racism

If the word "subsume" escapes you, look it up. Note, too, in this Institute, it's leading members. Some faces should be familiar. Yes, if you are a true Progressive, the defeat of this Proposition should worry you, but, I'll bet it doesn't, because you don't really understand what Progressive really is, just as you don't understand what Biden means by raising your taxes by repeal of the TaxCuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Amy Coney Barrett is a celebrated professor of the law, and judge, a woman with children in school, and a stellar woman in the workforce. So why do Democrats hate her? Because it was Donald Trump, an alleged illegitimate President, and, therefore, not empowered with the constitutional endowment to nominate a Supreme Court Justice candidate within the full four years of his duly elected term. Somehow, suddenly proximity to a presidential election is a qualifier for this nomination power. That qualifier is not constitutional.

She is going to overturn, apparently all on her own, the ACA. That expectation is a faithless suspicion about the integrity of our Legislature. If the ACA is that well constructed as law, how does a single case accomplish that? Do the Democrats have that little faith in the law they, alone, passed? If aso, maybe it deserves replacement, but more Justices than one will do it.

She is going to overturn, apparently all on her own, Roe v. Wade. That expectation is a faithless suspicion about the integrity of our Judicial. If Roe v. Wade was that poorly decided,  but has withstood the test of time for 47 years, that a single case would unilaterally dissolve it by a single Justice's decision, then perhaps that 1973 decision was not as sound as we believe. If so, maybe it should be overturned, but more Justices than one will do it.

Are Democrats really that weak, naive, and faithless? Maybe they do not deserve the White House, yet.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D-CT] has declared there will be consequences if the Court is not cured of its ideological balance. Before making a fool of himself, he ought to do some research; my favorite activity. As in, first asking if there is an ideological imbalance on the Supreme Court. Is there? According to the Cornell University Legal Information Institute 2015 study of the historical results of Supreme Court findings from its inception, 59.2% of all cases have been decided by unanimous decision [since 1869, that’s 9-0].
Tell me how an ideologically imbalanced Court arrives at a unanimous decision a clear majority of times it renders decisions? I’ll educate Blummie, who generally appears clueless: The Court is successful, much more so than Congress, to render decisions based on the Law, not by ideology. It is also clear that this is not descriptive of Congress, nor should it be. Blummie ought to understand why there is a separation of powers in a government that uses differing measuring sticks to do each branch’s job. Blummie has not yet learned this, and probably never will. How’s that for consequence?

Three months ago, I finally caved and allowed my renter in Silicon Valley to purchase my rental home, making a substantial profit. Since then, the value of the property has dropped due to the exodus from CA. Count me lucky and happy to have made the best decision at exactly the right time. Considering I'm probably within 15 years of cashing my chips, my daughter is very happy, too.

I am bothered by the relevant rise is verbal ridicule to physical assault [the legal definition of same] as it regards the wearing of a hat by some citizens that happens to advertise the acronym, MAGA, or the name TRUMP, by supporters of the left who are offended by the wearing of this particular item of clothing, and seek to rid their confrontation with it. There are currently cases before courts of people assaulted for wearing such a hat, and beging removed from airliners for the same "offense." I quote the 4A: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

"Secure in their persons" by at least Roe v. Wade [1973] is defined as "privacy," as well as Katz v. U.S. [1967]. The latter has also defined "effects" as  "personal property," to be distinguished from "real property" [land, and anything constructed on it].  The presumption is that personal property has the right to be considered as protected by right of privacy. A hat is an item of personal property, and the fact that some hats contain discernible messaging such as "MAGA" and "TRUMP" fall under the protected class of both "effects" and "creed" [as in political preference, among other creeds]. 

Any questions?

I have an old, but abandoned idea for presidential debates. They used to be done like this a century, two centuries ago, but not since the coming of age of media and television. It's very simple: Lose the moderator[s]. It is obvious to me, and has been for several election cycles [I've seen a few]. The moderator, typically being a media type, is becoming unashamedly biased. In the first Trump/Biden debate, Trump recognized that he was in a 2-on-1 debate. I know a little bit about that. Chris Wallace was a disgrace. Savannah Guthrie wasn't much better. It is the evidence of weakness on the heavy side, that the added weight is deemed necessary, and in this particular case, badly needed by that side. 

A secondary reason: why do moderators think they have to pontificate a question with background information. Just ask the bloody question! They take up as much time as the debate participants. These people act like they've never been on TV before, and want all the time. Better to just eliminate the problem instead of making them shut-up but for a posed question without the fluff. Instead, let the participants ask questions of each other, any subject, no prior notice to either one. That way, they are truly held to thinking on their feet; the way it should. That's how negotiation with other world leaders goes, why not in their pre-election debates.

I'm wondering if inanimate objects should express evolution as do living organisms. The recent Twitter kerfuffle has prompted me to wonder if the powder-blue, sweety-tweety-bird image is entirely appropriate, given its new-found predatory nature. Shouldn't it evolve claws and a hooked beak?

"Climate Change" has become a cultural mantra that has turned into a product as a questionable, essential, subject to breakdown, and just the greatest thing around since peanut butter as the internal combustion engine automobile. First, it must be a constant, or the whole idea is something like trying to understand what infinity means. Thus, we have developed the idea that climate change can be solved only by reaching a desired singular, ideal climate that fluctuates only within a low, single-digit range of temperature, and a low, single-percentage range of atmospheric content, and, forgetting that the Earth, even without a single human on it to cause aberrant fluctuation, has not one, but a multiple of "ideal" climates.

That said, the idea that climate change has become a taxable concept that is so akin to the idea of indulgences as a means to redeem humankind from sin, it is amazing that proponents of the idea rankle at it being called a religion. No one said this idea made sense, except those who espouse it. To me, that's religion, in a nutshell.

So, what is this marvelous solution to the question of the meaning of climate change? A clock. Not digital, because most of the digits involved in that model change too quickly to see them change; it's a blur. This image actually helps the idea: climate change is happening so precipitously quickly, it's a blur. That cannot be a good thing. No, my model is the analog clock. The fastest thing in that model is the second hand, and the slowest things, the digits, which don't move at all. That's kind of the point of the model. Think of the separate digits as the Earth, herself; a complete system whose moving parts are, in fact, observable over time, a questionable concept of its own, but we'll ignore that wrinkle. See, all systems have wrinkles, even CLIMATE CHANGE.

If your clock is large enough, we see the minute hand, the longer one, you know, move, advancing in little ratchet-moments through an entire minute. Watching the shorter hand, the hour hand, actually move is more difficult, but it clearly does move. There, boys and girls, is your erfect model of climate change. Some changes are relatively rapid. Like changing cloud formations. Some changes are observable, but happen too slowly to make a habit of focus only on that one thing. Like the sun rising at setting very day, and we note, eventually, that its rising and setting are somewhat synonymous with the passage of twelve hours on our clock; the complete single rotation of the hour hand, and that it does so twice in 24 hours. 

Such is the nature of climate change. It does so, slowly in some respects, more quickly in others. The point is, it is a cycle. It is not in stasis, even an ideal one. Man can effect, but is not the ultimate mover-shaker of the system. You, who espouse the precipitousness of change, just happen to take a five-minute segment of the whole cycle, and say, "See? It's changing!" And you act like Paul Revere. Well, buy a copper pot from him, and let him move on. He is a capitalist, after all, and his warning of impending war has some reason, but it's no reason to think we're doomed. Maybe we'll win the war, and, because we are defending hearth and home, we probably will.

You really want to vote for Hidin’ Biden?
 
He told Ukraine if they didn’t fire their prosecutor, son-of-a-bitch, he wouldn’t release $1B in aid.
He said he’s running for Senate.
He told you if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black.
He said unlike the Hispanic community, the black community is not diverse.
He said Trump’s China and Europe travel bans were xenophobic.
“I will beat Joe Biden.” [The media tried to excuse this by claiming he said [“I will be Joe Biden.” But that’s worse. Who is he now if he’s not Joe Biden?]
He said Trump’s travel bans were a good idea.
He said he has hairy legs. [tmi]
He likes kids running their hands up and down his legs. [TMI!]
He wants to sniff your hair. [TTTMMMIII!!!]
Joe said you should not vote for him.
He applauded the Harris administration.
He said he’s running for the senate. [A second time.]
“I pledge allegiance to United States America, one nation, indivis… under God… for real…”
“Two million… twenty… two hundred thousand…”
He said that when one person sneezes, it travels throughout the aircraft, and, “that’s me.” [What is he? A snot cloud? He said it, not me.]
He said if you do everything right, there’s a 30% chance you’re still wrong. [Is that like truth over facts?]
“Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you.” [said to Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair]
Have you been to a 7-11 lately? Just asking because Joe told you who you would encounter.
“Am I doing this again? My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts.” [Even Oba’a poked him for that one.]
 
Okay, go register your vote for this fool.

Never was there a more deflated balloon of an anticipated announcement than Nancy Pelostomy's invocation of the 25A. Pelostomy fails to recognize there is already "a process" established, and she needs no "commission" to make recommendations. As section 4 of the 25A already establishes [but the latter of options has never been invoked], either the President declares his inability, or the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet declare to the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, their advice of the president's inability, or Congress must pass legislation to declare another body, such as itself, potentially, to make the declaration of the President’s inability to function in office. After all this time [53 years since ratification of the 25A], she should not need a commission. Compose a bloody bill and see if it will pass. But, as usual, though declaring her undying defense of the Constitution [which is not the verbiage of her oath of office], Pelostomy understands not one bloody word of it.

Tonight, I watched an episode of "The Twilight Zone" that first aired in season 1, March, 1960, titled as above. I remember it vividly. It could have been Maple Street in Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, NYC, or Louisville. Anywhere where people allow themselves to be captured by the insidious accusations from which this episode grew. Pogo said it best, not too many years after 1960: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Put that in your social conscience of P.C. speech and incurable re-imagination. There is no new imagination under the sun. But every generation thinks they have cornered the market. No, you haven't. We Boomers, didn't, nor did the Greatest Generation before us. And certainly not Gen-X, Y, or Z, Millennials, or anyone else. Try, sometime, to do and say something new. All the wokeness, all the re-imagine, and all the poundmetoo will never get us there.

You know this game: You have a collection of photographs to which you apply whimsical captions. I did this a few years ago with a collection of Nancy Pelosi photos I gleaned from internet images. You'll have to imagine the photos; I know I can give your reference links, but, honestly, it's too labor-intensive for my likes. Use your bloody imagination for once!

Nevertheless, here are the applied captions. Have fun. Contribute more if you're inclined:

“Never forget the immortal words of Mark Twain: ‘It is better to keep your mouth open to be a fool than to close it to hide what’s in it.’” [Mouth wide open]

“Live long and prosper … and frequent the bathroom of your choice." [fingers of both hands raised and slightly split in the middle - you know how]

“See, according to the palm lines, my head and heart are completely at odds and never correlate; kind of like having to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” [holding one hand up wide open]

“I heard it’s like a bull’s butt at fly time. How’m I doin?” [Mouth open even wider]

“But for this clown behind me, I’d look like her.” [She is pictured with her husband, and a model is also just over her shoulder]

“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.” [Eyes closed and pinched, mouth in a wide-open, toothy grin]

The logic of progressive thinking is sometimes so convoluted, it is often possible to find it turning on itself, interrupting its path toward whatever nirvana they seek in a perfect world. Case in point: the argument against the temporary travel ban of certain nationalities and travelers through those nations. 

It is an argument of rights. Most progressives — not all, it must be admitted, as will follow shortly — assume without legal backing, by the way, that anyone has a right to travel to the United States, regardless of nationality and condition; particularly refugees. The law says otherwise in both the 14thamendment as well as U.S. Code Title 8, § 1182, (3)(A),(B),(C), among others.

The new debate summary page [specific to each debate] is terrific. Agree? Disagree?

Okay, Biden supporters, do you want to make a valid apology for Joe Biden? Something like he really did not say, "Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things," https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/06/joe-biden-latino-african-american-remark-392354. like he didn't really say a few weeks ago that he would BEAT Joe Biden? Go ahead: here's you open mike. Tell me he did not say something that, if Trump said it, you'd immediately accuse him of being a racist. You do, anyway. But, this quote is by Joe BNiden, just like he said a few weeks ago, "You ain't black" if you don't vote for Joe. How many times must he hit you over the head before you realize his mouth mirrors his brain, and Biden's brain is the Dems worst disaster.

I'll predict what you're going to say, and it will begin with, "But Trump..."

Go ahead, because instead of making a valid rebuttal, the last argument of a lost cause is personal attack. You cannot, and will not apologize for Joe Biden by trashing Donald Trump. Make a valid argument FOR Joe Biden. He'll never do it himself. He needs you, but he can trash Trump himself. It's all he can do; he doesn't have another strategy. Don't be stupid like Joe. 

I find a growing debate habit disturbing: Claiming victory in a debate during argument rounds. I am of the opinion that such declarations as "I win because... [plug in any number of reasons]. or worse, declare victory with no justification. I believe the better declaration is something like "My BoP is proven because... [plug point 1, point 2, etc.] Debate participants do not decide victory; voters do. To declare victory in argument rounds is arrogant, even when the opponent forfeits or concedes. Some have argued that concession is a conduct advantage when a participant realizes his burden is not going to be proven. I tend to agree. It is honorable under those circumstances. But for the other participant to declare victory dismisses the point that, otherwise, they may not have presented such a definitive argument, sourcing, S&G and conduct, themselves. Further, I'd argue that  eary claim of victory approaches the severity of vote rigging, because it may encourage a voter to be swayed by the declaration. I suggest we wait for the voters' assessment of victory, and leave it at that. Strange things happen in voting, and it may be unfortunate that debate points cannot be withdrawn, thus resulting in negative points. I believe the suggested conduct would raise the level and value of debating.