winsor

My choice of Charlie Manson over Hillary Clinton was partially based on the idea that BOTH sides of the aisle would do everything in their power to keep a leash on the sonofabitch. I figured that The Donald was a suitable stand in for Charlie. What I lost track of was that Charlie Manson and Trump actually have followings that buy into their drivel. Some of Trump's antics were mildly amusing, and it was/is entertaining to see how those opposed to him wax rabid in their hatred of him. Having said that, I can't wait for the moment when he is out of the limelight for good. He has a knack for making everything he says sound like utter bullshit - even when he's spot on (a stopped watch is right twice a day). For him to worry about his reputation is akin to Bill the Cat's (of Bloom County) trying to maintain the image of a total degenerate in the face of allegations that he is actually a decent guy. Ironically enough, Bloom County absolutely nailed Donald Trump's persona over 30 years ago. I have to be careful, however, since every time I have thought "they couldn't do worse than this asshole..." I've been wrong. BSBD, Winsor

I guess the Reign of Terror is a more apt analog to the Woke paradigm of today: https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/12/wokeness-an-evil-of-our-age/ I'm not sure what "American Greatness" has to offer otherwise, but in the '70s such magazines as Penthouse actually published some quite legitimate articles that would not be picked up elsewhere (yeah, the pictures were awesome as well) so being on a particular website does not invalidate the points made by default. Again, Woke qualifies nicely as a communicable form of mental illness, though it is somewhat more pathological than most mainstream religions. Of course, as 'fundamentalists' routinely demonstrate, the fundamentals of most religions are rather evil. As the article notes, the appeal of Woke is the best of intentions of those who speak well of it. The regimes supplanted by seriously evil revolutions were generally quite flawed, and Western society is hardly without its inherent bugs. Having said that, whatever the very real problems are to be addressed, Woke, far from being a cure, is all that much worse. BSBD, Winsor

We've been feasting on the seed corn for some time now, and the statistics used to define 'recession' and 'recovery' are meaningless in the long term. I liken it to some of the current crop of Oncology medications, which temporarily give the impression of remission but result in Stage 5 (death). I had someone raving about her hair coming back, the tumors going away and everything coming up roses. Two weeks later she was pushing up daisies. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against enjoying the hell out of the 'recovery' while it lasts. Having said that, it's a good idea to prepare for the 'everything bubble' popping in the foreseeable future. Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think. BSBD, Winsor

Reading Comprehension 101: 'Comparative Religion' ok, 'Fundamentals' of Scientology' not so good. Teaching anybody's religion as "The Truth" (tm) is pretty much verboten. Since religion is a communicable form of mental illness, 'Woke' meets those criteria well. A Disease of Denial, the mental malware that is 'Woke' fits the religious paradigm nicely: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/woke-virus-spreading-7-signs/ What Woke shares with the Cult of the Magic Jewish Zombie and the Cult of the Illiterate Pervert Psychopath is that any correlation between the ism and reality is happenstance. If claims are verifiable, that 'PROVES' it! If claims are verifiably false, THAT PROVES NOTHING! Whatever floats your boat. BSBD, Winsor

Teaching religion in public schools is proscribed in this country. Thus, noting that CRT ideology is a system of belief makes its removal from the curriculum no big deal. If you want to teach ABOUT it the way one does a 'Comparative Religion' (or "Applied Bullshit' as the case may be), fine. At least the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, has some entertainment value. BSBD, Winsor

Thanks.

Ever been to Kansas?

Belgium has WA beat by a kilometer at least.

If someone has a basis to support another standpoint, great. If all they have is abuse, it tends to suggest that they are given to a mediocre thought process - if any. The whole good/bad thing is, of course, subjective. Mutual loathing does not imply that one side is better or worse than the other, just that they are not compatible. I do not consider my standards to be universal, and have no expectation that I should ever get full agreement. If someone disagrees and sees fit to make their case in a coherent manner, I will certainly take it under advisement. BSBD, Winsor

Boy, do you ever bring a lot of insight to the discussion...

I am seeing more and more parallels between Woke ideology and the Cultural Revolution. It turns out that I am hardly alone. https://newdiscourses.com/2021/04/rise-woke-cultural-revolution/ BSBD, Winsor

The problem with trying to parody religion is that it is generally impossible to say anything that is clearly more idiotic than the fundamental tenets of said religion. This is a case in point. Is this serious or a joke? Six of one, half a dozen of the other... BSBD, Winsor

I am nor alone in viewing the Woke crowd as sanctimonious and humorless: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/new-puritans-mob-justice-canceled/619818/ Woke mis a joke, but not the funny kind. BSBD, Winsor

So you see MLK in the mirror? Heady stuff, that. Actually, MLK was one of the good guys (but you knew that). BSBD, Winsor

Good racism, I get it.

I really shouldn't have gone down that particular rabbit hole. From the standpoint of the workplace, the only thing that matters is if I trust their work. There are people I don't particularly like, and I avoid conversing with them, but I would stake my life on their numbers. There are people I like a lot that I wouldn't hire. BSBD, Winsor

If you have anything to add, great. Abuse I can get anywhere.

You project as a matter of course. "A man sees in others what he knows of himself." Socrates If a writer makes claims that violate the laws of thermodynamics, or bases their thesis on demonstrable falsehoods, it is a fool's errand to 'study' their work. So it is with CRT. The 'field of study' is not 'worthless,' it is of negative net value. You have yet to say anything to dispute the observation that CRT is based on racial differences and is thus divisive. BSBD, Winsor

? When jumpers came off student status, up jumpers were told to jump with them and keep them safe. Attractive women were problematic in that some guys would pay more attention to impressing them than to their safety. There was a shorter list of jumpers that would be assigned to them, where the sole point was to develop safety skills. I feel badly that one of my charges later married a BASE jumper, and she died from a cliff strike. It was like losing a little sister. Upon reflection, it was no less gratifying to have a male neophyte, who had become frustrated with the sport, tell me that they learned to relax and enjoy themselves by jumping with me. My point is that regardless of whether I found someone attractive or not, they got the same attention to safety and having a good time jumping. Equal treatment. BSBD, Winsor

Bad guess. The issue is not so much that I don't agree that various things are problems, but that I differ greatly regarding what constitutes a 'solution.' Gays having to be closeted is not okay, and making a big deal about it is not much better. I'd rather have someone vote for or against the new sewage plant on it's merits, not because they are part of a particular voting bloc - be it Irish Catholics, or Gays or Masons or whatever. Making a big deal about 'racism' has the unintended consequence of entrenching racial divides, which is a bad thing from where I sit. If someone wants to live the role of the opposite sex, I don't see the harm in it. Enough people have regretted surgical 'transition' for me to look askance at vivisection as part of the deal, particularly if I'm expected to pay for it. People have undergone cosmetic surgery to achieve all sorts of effects, and I am wildly indifferent to the mass majority of it - so long as they pay for it out of pocket. Effecting 'transition' on little kids or before the age of majority, however, is a REALLY BAD IDEA. I know people who thought they were straight until adulthood, people who came out as straight as adults, and what have you. Adolescents have a poor track record of making long term decisions, and if someone still wants to live life as something else once they reach majority, fine. I have reported to, and had report to me, people of a pretty wide range of race, sex, sexual preference and so forth. Since I never dated at work ('don't put your meat where you get your bread'), whether the women with whom I worked were lesbians or breeders was immaterial. Actually, you're much more likely to hear about family issues, good and bad, amongst straight women; the lesbians with whom I have worked have been very professional and kept their personal lives to themselves. If someone is an Ed Wood type, who is straight but likes to wear pretty things, or wants to think of themselves as a 'woman,' it's h a matter of indifference in and of itself. When the papers breathlessly announced that a 'man' had given birth, I was impressed until I found out that this person had an uterus. Forgive me if I call bullshit on that story. I don't have any problem jumping with someone I trust in the air, and that has nothing to do with sexual preference, what they wear besides a jumpsuit, what their great grandparents went through and so forth. I was routinely assigned to mentor stunning females just off student status because my sole focus was keeping them alive. I took to Al Gramando's policy that dating people for whom you are responsible is unprofessional - and grounds for instant dismissal. I reserve the right to determine what is important TO ME. I do not claim that my position is universal, but will certainly call bullshit if someone actively wants me to buy into make-believe. BSBD, Winsor

In Grad School there was a Doctoral Candidate who fancied himself to be a real gearhead. He bolted a fiberglass body kit onto a VW Beetle chassis and was very proud of his handiwork. When he tried to register it as a '1938 Frasier-Nash,' the response was "dude, it's a fucking Volkswagen," and it was registered as such. Another example that comes to mind is the 'Jock Frat' during Undergrad days. These guys fancied themselves as real badasses, and four of the football player types went into Ye Olde Lamplighter, a bar situated on the Wrong Side of The Tracks (literally), halfway between Sheldon's Harley Davidson and the Hawg Shop. The sign on the front said "No Hats, No Helmets, No Colors" - our basic outlaw biker bar. Four of the frat boys took a table and, after a couple of beers, began to talk about how Kawazukis were much better than Harleys and so forth. A table full of Huns flipped a coin with a table full of Vigilantes, and the Huns won. The frat boys were duly hospitalized with various fractures, contusions, concussions and whatnot. The point to this exercise is that it is all well and good to imagine yourself as something you are not, and if it makes you happy that's great. To expect people to buy into it - beyond the requirements of being polite - is unrealistic. The flight attendant who decided to transition from male to female only crossed the line with the other employees when he got OUR insurance to pay for it. The fact that medically justified procedures were out of pocket, but the company decided to fold on this one really annoyed much of the rank and file. I know of NOBODY that cared one way or another who was straight or gay, and I doubt if anyone would have cared if he had coughed up for the surgery out of his bank account. If people want to play make-believe, they should take care who they expect to buy into it. BSBD, Winsor

I stumble across all sorts of things, some of which are from sources of which I do not approve. If you have reason to dispute the underlying claims, have at it. I learned long ago that, just because I loathe someone it does not make everything they say wrong. Similarly, sources I admire greatly don't always get it right. I have found that various editors filter out quite accurate data that don't fit amongst their agenda, and also include data that turn out to be quite false. Having said that, I can't bring myself to read the tabloids at the checkout counter - even the covers are depressing. I do not treat any source as Gospel (including the Gospels), and take under advisement pronouncements from the NYT, NEJM and whatnot. The major difference between the Daily Bell and the Washington Post is slant. One reports stories breathlessly while the other is gagging - switch topics and switch who's reacting quite how. I have come across stories from more sober reporters that noted complaints and suits against the policy of locking up 'women with penises' (or whatever you want to call them) in the general population. Again, if you dispute the data, present your case. If you simply have issue with the source, feel free to cross reference the story with someplace you find more reliable. BSBD, Winsor

I'm not sure if the authorities are using 'self identification' as a source of entertainment at the expense of the prisoners: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/lgbtq4gf150-propaganda-roundup-the-injustice-of-transgender-inmates-housed-in-female-prisons/ They seem to be taking their cues from South Park. Maybe I was wrong about the Woke ideology being humorless and it all really is a joke. BSBD, Winsor

"You have a dirty mind!" " What do you mean? You're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"