“In case your iPhone battery died and your foot has been caught in a crevice on a remote mountainside and you haven’t quite finished gnawing through your own shin, here’s what you missed…”
“…United could have avoided the Sunday night debacle if it increased the compensation offered to customers who opt to give up their seats on overbooked flights. “Whatever it cost—$1,000, $2,000, $3,000—would have been far cheaper than the cost to its reputation and the loss of business,” he said.“
Frankly, Hobica’s suggested course of action was far and away the right way to go, as it would have saved United untold amounts of pain, torment and money. After all, they could have chartered a plane to take their flight crew to Louisville for a helluva lot less money than this fiasco cost them.
Then again, given this…”doctor’s”…rather checkered past, we’re far from certain he was of sound mind…
…to begin with.
And please, spare us the “69-year-old grandfather” routine; the guy lost his license to practice medicine for 10 years after being caught in only his pants while soliciting gay sex for oxycontin. And when his license was finally restored in 2016, the good “doctor” was limited to “practicing” medicine only one day per week. So we find his requirement to be in Louisville Monday morning to “see patients at a hospital” highly suspect. As if any hospital would willingly admit Dao on its premises other than as a patient.
Two things are for certain: were we gasping like a gaffed grouper with a sucking chest wound, and Dr. Dao were the last physician on the planet, we’d self-medicate.
Second, as Bill Meisen so quaintly observed, given this clown’s behavior, what little sense Dao had left after his “gay sex for oxycontin” days, O’Hare’s finest obviously knocked it out of him.
In any event, this one truly leaves us torn. On the one hand, we believe security should have acted with more restraint; on the other hand, Dao’s refusal to give up his seat as required by the terms of his contract with United leaves us wondering: how many times must authorities, acting within the law, kindly request a person comply with their legal demand(s) before using physical coercion to enforce the law? By all accounts, the security officers twice asked Dao politely to vacate his seat; Dao refused.
It brings to mind Heather Mac Donald’s reception at Claremont McKenna College; why was an invited speaker forced to leave rather than the protestors? Why not disperse the mob police determined was a threat to Mac Donald rather than compel the innocent to flee?
Or consider the case of illegal immigrants, who, rather than deported are rewarded for breaking the law? Why should anyone respect the law when those who flout it prosper?
Just sayin’.
In any event, United was swift to take action:
And in a related forward from Balls Cotton, Duffleblog reports…
President Obama left his successor many time bombs—think chemical weapons in Syria and the collapsing Affordable Care Act. But a burning fuse that gets less attention showed its first signs of the explosion to come in Friday’s Congressional Budget Office budget review for March: Rising net interest payments on the national debt.
CBO reported that the federal budget deficit rose $63 billion in the first half of fiscal 2017 (October-March) to $522 billion from a year earlier. But here’s the especially bad omen: Net interest payments rose $7 billion, or 30%, in March from a year earlier.
If that seems small, consider that interest payments rose $28 billion for the six months of fiscal 2017 to $152 billion.That’s a 22.2% increase, among the biggest in any single spending item highlighted by CBO.The increases reflect the growing debt but in particular the Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates after years of near-zero rates.
While Mr. Obama was doubling the national debt over eight years, the Fed’s monetary policies spared him from the fiscal consequences…
…All of this is set to explode on President Trump’s watch, and it will complicate the task for Republicans as they try to reform the tax code within tighter budget constraints.
Mr. Obama didn’t expect a Republican to succeed him but we doubt he regrets this result. He was able to live off the eight years of accommodative Fed policy while seeding the federal fisc with ever-higher spending from interest payments and the Affordable Care Act after he leaves office. Mr. Trump is stuck with the bar tab.It’s one more mess Mr. Obama left others to clean up.“
We disagree on only one point: it’s our children…and our children’s children…and their children…
To put things in perspective, Whittle recorded Eat the Rich back in 2011…and the Visual Capitalist helped us understand the size of the national debt back in September of 2016…well before the Obamao left office…and Janet Yellen marked the occasion by finally bowing to the inevitable and beginning to raise interest rates.
For more on the evil which is Progressive politics, NRO‘s David French plumbs the depths of…
“At this point, it’s safe to say that Nimrata Randhawa has a far, far better chance to be the first female president of the United States than Hillary Clinton. But here’s the question: When or if Nimrata (she goes by “Nikki”) — a conservative, Indian-American daughter of immigrants who married Michael Haley, became governor of South Carolina, and is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — wins a presidential election, will Hillary’s friends and supporters hail Haley’s ascension to the White House as a tremendous achievement for women? Will the fans of intersectional feminism laud the ultimate success of a woman of color?
Not likely. At this point, we all know the drill. There is one way and one way only for women — especially black or brown women — to take a true step forward, and that’s through progressive politics. Identity politics works like this: Progressives do everything in their power to explicitly and unequivocally stoke race- and gender-related resentments and grievances.Any pushback against identity politics is labeled denialism at best and racism or sexism at worst. Progressive ideas are so self-evidently superior that opposition is best explained as grounded in misogyny or the always-reliable “fear of change.” Opposition, even from women and even from people of color, is proof of the awful and enduring power of sexism and white supremacy.
It’s a poisonous ideology, it’s straining our national unity, and this week Hillary once again did her best to push its narrative right back in our national face. In an interview at the “Women in the World” summit, the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof asked Clinton this:
I have to ask fundamentally, a man who bragged about sexual assault won the election and won 53 percent of the white women’s vote. What does that say about the challenges that one faces in women’s empowerment, that in effect misogyny won with a lot of women voters?
Clinton’s answer was textbook identity politics. After a quick nod to the “cross currents” that impact “any campaign,” she said:
But it is fair to say as you just did that certainly, misogyny played a role.That just has to be admitted.And why and what the underlying reasons why is what I’m trying to parse out myself.
She wasn’t done, not by any means. Hillary continued:
I would just say this: There is a constant struggle — and not just women, women and men — in a time of rapid change, like the one we are living through, between something that is different that may hold out even possible positive consequences, and something that is familiar and something that really is first and foremost about security of what you have right now. And I think in this election there was a very real struggle between what is viewed as change that is welcomed and exciting to so many Americans and change which is worrisome and threatening to so many others. And you layer on the first woman president over that, and I think some people — women included — had real problems.
Hillary also went on to say that Trump “looks like somebody’s who’s been a president before.”
This is a truly extraordinary statement. Let’s be clear: The “change” that Hillary represented was nothing more and nothing less than her gender.During the campaign, she wrapped both of her arms around Barack Obama, pledged to continue all the most important elements of his cultural and political legacy, but to do it — drumroll please — as a woman.In this fictional universe, then, a real-estate tycoon and reality-TV star with exactly zero political experience represents the status quo mainly because he’s a man.
Yet Hillary knows, Kristof knows, and everyone who has the slightest shred of intellectual integrity knows that if, say, Nikki Haley had been at the top of the ticket, she would have won the majority of white women also. She would have won the majority of white men. The alleged racist misogynists would have turned out in force for a woman of color. How do we know this? Well, they certainly did in South Carolina, a state that’s hardly considered a bastion of progressive gender politics.
Here’s a thought. It’s revolutionary, I know, but hang with me for a moment. In the United States of America, the (R) or (D) next to a name matters far, far more to the electoral outcome in any given race than does the (M) or (F) of the candidates’ sex.Let’s go even further (again, I’m going crazy here, so be patient), and even say that the (R) or (D) matters more than the (B) or (W) of the candidates’ race.If Ben Carson or Tim Scott had been the nominee, wouldn’t he have won a majority of the white vote and lost a majority of the black vote?
In the aftermath of the election, the Democrats are doing their own soul-searching, with many of the questions boiling down to a battle between ideas and identities. Did they lose because they nominated a bad candidate who advanced insufficiently attractive ideas? Or did they lose because, in this election cycle at least, there were just too many racists and sexists?It’s understandable and human that Hillary would point the finger rather than look in the mirror, but if her side wins the argument, look for Democrats to do their dead-level best now and in the future to inflame race- and gender-based grievances. They will tell millions of Americans that the color of their skin and their “gender identity” should dictate their thoughts and beliefs, and that opposition isn’t based on reason or logic but rather hate and fear.
Here’s the thing, though — that destructive narrative is so powerful that, next time, it might just win. If it does, Democrats will feel vindicated, triumphant liberal culture warriors will redouble their assault on conservative ideas and institutions, and the national fabric will continue to fray.
Democrats, ignore Hillary Clinton, for all our sakes.
Problem is, absent race and gender-based divisions…including the moral abomination which is abortion…The Left has nothing to offer its grievance-based constituencies.
Moving on, also courtesy of NRO, Howard Slugh records why Republican SCOTUS appointments are oftentimes the gift that keeps on giving…to The Left:
“Does the Constitution grant individuals a judicially enforceable right to order the government to combat climate change? Does it contain a right to engage in “BDSM sexual activity”? What about a right to assisted suicide? Unfortunately, these are no longer fanciful hypotheticals. Thanks to Justice Kennedy, cases alleging such rights are currently being litigated and are coming soon to a courthouse near you.
The cultural, legal, and political consequences of establishing a right to same-sex marriage have dominated discussions regarding Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell decision. Will religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage lose their tax-exempt status? What will happen to vendors whose consciences prohibit them from participating in same-sex weddings? How and when will schools address same-sex marriage? Those consequences are important and merit serious discussion. However, another aspect of the case — Justice Kennedy’s instructions regarding judges’ authority to create new “rights” — will prove equally important in the long run. (Likely far more so.)
In Obergfell, Justice Kennedy did far more than merely discover a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. He wrote that judges have an ongoing “duty” to identify and protect new “fundamental rights.”He maintained that judges should institute new rights whenever their “reasoned judgment” suggests that it is appropriate to do so.
Previously, a Supreme Court precedent titled Washington v. Glucksberg held that judges could recognize constitutional rights only if they were “deeply rooted in” American “history and tradition.” Justice Kennedy dismissed this standard as unduly constraining judges’ power.
This has predictably motivated plaintiffs to demand that judges read inventive new rights into the Constitution. Unless and until the Supreme Court curbs Obergefell’s invitation to create new constitutional rights, self-imposed judicial restraint is the only thing preventing a deluge of new “constitutional rights.” And there are indications that the dam is already starting to crack.
A cased titled Juliana v. United States presents an ominous warning as to what lies ahead. A district-court judge in Oregon used Obergefell’s license to fashion a new individual right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”The judge adopted Justice Kennedy’s “reasoned judgment” standard and wrote, “Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’…I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental constitutional right.
The plaintiffs argued that various government officials violated the Constitution by “causing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise” and “knowingly endangering Plaintiffs’ health and welfare by approving and prompting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion.” They urged the court to order the government to stop violating their constitutional right to a healthy environment and to require it to “develop a plan to reduce CO2 emissions.”
This sounds like a plainly political rather than constitutional question, but under Obergefell’s amorphous “reasoned judgment” standard, anything is possible. The judge explained that under Obergefell, the creation of “new fundamental rights” is not “out of bounds.” The case is ongoing, but the district-court judge has already recognized the existence of the “constitutional right” in question.
It would be comforting to view Juliana as an isolated aberration, but similar events have unfolded in other courts.The common thread in every case is a citation to Obergefell…”
Now you know why we’ll greet Anthony Kennedy’s ultimate demise with the same elation we felt at the passing of the bloated beast who shared his surname:
Which brings us to our next item, courtesy of Bill Meisen and Joseph Backholm writing at the Family Policy Institute of Washington, who highlights…
A story out of Cromwell High School in Connecticut is doing a good job illuminating an obvious but underrated impact of the left’s war on gender. Sports.
The story features a high school freshman named Andraya Yearwood. Andraya is a boy, but now identifies as a girl and recently competed in his first track meet with actual girls as a high school freshman.Take a minute to watch the video (featured below)and the challenges will become apparent. This boy is athletic (his dad was a college football player) and the slight mustache and muscle tone indicates that he’s developing more quickly than other boys his age. Of course that wouldn’t be remarkable except for the fact that he’s now racing fifteen year-old girls.And he’s doing really well.
According to the story, “at her first high school track meet, Andraya won the girls 100- and 200-meter dashes, and helped her 4×100-meter relay team take second place. “She“(emphasis ours)ran 11.99 seconds in the 100 and 26.34 in the 200.”
To provide some context, the fastest woman in college sports last year ran the 100 meter dash in 10.95 seconds. The all-time women’s college record is 10.78 seconds.The world record is 10.49 seconds.In comparison, Izaiah Fields, from Curtis High School in Yakima, WA, has run the best boys high school time in the Washington State so far this year.He ran it in 10.72.While Izaiah is simply the fastest high schooler in Washington State this year, he is faster than any collegiate woman has ever been.
If we pretend Andraya is a girl, he is less than a second away from a collegiate national championship in his first high school track meet. You can count on him going down as the best female track athlete in Connecticut’s history, possibly by the end of his freshman year.
There’s no need to belabor the point about men generally being better athlete’s than women. You’re alive.You know this.
But we are now facing the prospect of a boy in Connecticut repeatedly taking the top of the podium over girls who know that second place is really first place. Everyone will be thinking it, but the pressure not to say it will be enormous.Most will politely applaud and some will comment about how beautiful the Emperor’s new clothes are.(As this poor misguided boy’s parents and the Cromwell High girl’s track coach do in the following video.)
This phenomenon isn’t happening just in high school sports, though. Laurel Hubbard is excelling in women’s weightliftingin New Zealand after transition to being a woman in his thirties. Fallon Fox, born Boyd Burton, is a man now fighting women in mixed martial arts and broke eye socket of an actual woman, Tamikka Brents, in one fight.
Defenders of the policies that allow men to compete with women attempt to mitigate the damage by establishing guidelines. The NCAA, for example, requires men to undergo testosterone suppression treatment for one year before they are allowed to compete with women. There are no restrictions for women who wish to compete as men. Curiously, the NCAA, which does year-round testing to ensure their athlete’s don’t take drugs, will now be testing some athletes to make sure that they do.
In theory, testosterone blockers make you more of a woman and neutralize the natural physical advantages men have. But this begs an obvious question. If your anatomy doesn’t make you male or female, why do hormones?You just got done telling me that some men don’t have a penis but now you’re going to tell me all women have an estrogen level between 40-50 picograms per milliliter? Please.
Either there’s a meaningful difference between men and women that exists independent of how someone is feeling or there isn’t. The left’s attempt to turn a genuine psychological struggle into a civil rights movement is predicated on the belief that there is no tangible, discernible difference.
You don’t get to declare war on rules and then create a bunch of rules to deal with the mess you made by trying to get rid of all the rules. But I understand why you want to.On some level you understand that everything you’re saying is unworkable…”
We don’t envy the task of Progressive parents explaining to their tender little princesses why a muscular, masculine, mustacheoed beast beat them out for the blue ribbon.
Speaking of the unworkable, writing at the WSJ, NeverTrumper Bret Stephens quantifies…
“Last week’s cruise-missile strike against a Syrian air base in response to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons has reopened debate about the wisdom of Barack Obama’s decision to forgo a similar strike, under similar circumstances, in 2013.
But the real issue isn’t about wisdom.It’s about honesty.
On Sept. 10, 2013, President Obama delivered a televised address in which he warned of the dangers of not acting against Assad’s use of sarin gas, which had killed some 1,400 civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta the previous month.
“If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons,” Mr. Obama said. “As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical weapons on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and use them to attack civilians.”
It was a high-minded case for action that the president immediately disavowed for the least high-minded reason: It was politically unpopular.The administration punted a vote to an unwilling Congress.It punted a fix to the all-too-willing Russians.And it spent the rest of its time in office crowing(quite falsely)about its success…”
So much for the truthfulness and judgement of an Administration which once touted the wisdom and efficaciousness of its policies on their purported ability to save the life…
…of even one child.
Turning now to The Lighter Side…
Next up, HeatStreet offers yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, as we learn of an…
“An Illinois man has been arrested for punching a miniature donkey in the head. Police became aware of his abuse of the helpless animal after he uploaded the video of the assault to Twitter so he could brag about his literal reenactment of the sex term, “donkey punch.”
Dietrich was at the farm attending a birthday party when he decided to check out the farm animals, which are accessible to the public for petting. Upon his discovery of the 13-year-old miniature Mediterranean donkey named Amore, Dietrich hit the animal, striking it below the right ear. He filmed the attack and uploaded it to Twitter, to share with his followers…
…the donkey was not “seriously injured” by the attack.“
We won’t soil our column with the definition of “donkey punch”, but suffice it say we’re on board with the wishes of one internet wag:
“Hopefully his cellmates will take turns practicing the donkey punch on him!“
We second that emotion.
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with the Meatloaf Memorial Bat Out of Hell segment, and this just in from Italy:
Which makes her different than any other wife…how?!? Hells bells; possession may be 9/10ths of the law, but when it constitutes legitimate grounds for divorce…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.