. . . when engine motor oil filters were mounted vertically, so it didn’t make such a f(ornicating) mess when you changed your oil.
From The New York Times:
January 20, 2018
The Women’s March is back. A year after millions of women took to the streets en masse to protest President Trump’s inauguration, marchers are gathering again this weekend in hundreds of cities across the country and the world, as they try to build on a movement that has only grown in its ambition.
A deluge of revelations about powerful men abusing women, leading to the #MeToo moment, has galvanized activists to demand deeper social and political change. And in the United States, progressive women are eager to translate their enthusiasm into electoral victories in this year’s midterm elections.
Here are some highlights:
• Thousands of protesters turned out on Saturday in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Rome and hundreds of other cities and towns.
• The marches were dominated by women who are critical of President Trump. The president said in a tweet that it was a “perfect day for all Women to March.”
• Read our analysis of how activists have tried to sustain the energy from last year’s marches — and the challenges they face next.
Of course, there’s more.
There are 1,096 more days of the Trump Administration, with a possibility of 1,461 after that. As much as conservatives despised President Obama and his eight years in office, I can’t recall the right going nearly as nuts as the left have over President Trump.
I did not vote for Mr Trump, but I’ve got to admit: it’s just a massive case of schadenfreude watching the apoplexy of today’s leftists.
Learning More about an Organization before Donating Cash
Charity groups of all sizes rely on donors to fund their programs and services. Without the goodwill of people who empathize with or believe in the cause, these entities could not exist.
As reliant on donations as they are, however, they still have an obligation to be transparent with the public about their functions and to what individuals or campaigns they themselves give money. Before you donate to a group like Greenpeace, the United Way, or the National Endowment for Democracy, you might want to research its primary mission statement and discover what functions it undertakes during a typical fiscal year.
Disbursement of Cash
The donations that people give to a charitable organization are typically part and parceled out for specific purposes. While a certain portion might be kept for covering administrative costs or paying employees’ wages, the other portion is often directly sent to people or entities that the charity supports.
It is this disbursement that you might be interested in as a donor. You presumably do not want your cash going to causes you do not support and political systems with which you do not agree.
Before you donate any money to the Goodwill, Catholic Charities, or the National Endowment for Democracy business committee, you can find out where the money goes and what systems it funds by reading its resource summary reports. These reports disclose important facts like how much money the group has received and where the money was spent throughout the fiscal year. Based on these findings, you can decide whether or not to donate your own cash or in what increments if you prefer.
Understanding the Reasoning behind the Funding
You might wonder after reading the report why a particular political system or campaign had to be funded in the first place. After all, cannot democracy be implemented without a huge cash flow to finance the mission? Is it not just a matter of the citizens voting for the candidates they want in office?
In fact, setting up and maintaining a healthy democracy is much more complicated than mere voting. It does in fact require a healthy flow of cash coming into the campaign and sustaining the system that leaders want to put in place of existing forms of government.
The money provides a mean for getting the word out to citizens and setting up facilities that will allow for easier voting. Without the money, people may be ignorant about the cause or have no way to cast their votes at all.
These funds can be particularly critical in places in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa where democracy tends to be more fragile if not poorly financed. Fraud and corruption run rampant in nations where people earn small incomes and barely make ends meets. They are easily intimidated and lied to by leaders who are hungry for power.
The money that you donate to political organizations behind democratic campaigns overseas protects burgeoning democracies from fraud and intimidation. You can contribute to a better way of life for people who otherwise would be at the whim of corrupt dictators who give little if any recognition to the will of the voters. You could directly have a hand in creating democracies where these people have a say in the governance of their countries.
The person formerly known as Bradley Manning is running for the United States Senate representing Maryland:
By Jenna Portnoy | January 17, 2018 | 6:00 AM EST
In her first utterances as a U.S. Senate candidate, Chelsea Manning declares war on establishment politicians, proclaiming, “We don’t need them anymore” in a video that includes clips of white supremacists, police assaulting protesters and grinning congressional leaders meeting with President Trump.
The transgender former Army private convicted of passing classified government documents to WikiLeaks is challenging Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, a two-term senator and the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Her candidacy brings drama to an otherwise staid primary and gives Republicans an opportunity to stoke divisions among Democrats. But analysts say Manning’s maverick approach may not play well in Maryland, a progressive but establishment state that is home to the National Security Agency and went for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders by a large margin in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.
“Challenges like this rarely succeed around the country, much less in Maryland,” said John T. Willis, a political-science professor at the University of Baltimore. “Maryland is a fairly strong party state, and the political culture is one that rewards experience and familiarity in the political world.”
Manning’s unlikely entry into the race could draw a different kind of national attention to Maryland in a year when Democrats are trying to unseat Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who has distanced himself from Trump, the GOP’s biggest electoral liability in a blue state.
There’s more at the original.
In 2014, Bradley Manning won a court order allowing him to legally change his name to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, and the United States Army, then holding Mr Manning as a prisoner at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, did not raise any objection. Therefore, Chelsea Elizabeth Manning is is full, legal name. The First Street Journal recognizes that to be his legal name, but we do not choose to use it. Further, this site recognizes reality: that Mr Manning was born male, and regardless of how many hormones he takes, or what surgical mutilation he undergoes, he will always be male. While I have not corrected the Washington Post article, which uses female pronouns to refer to him, this site will continue to use the pronouns which reflect his sex.
We will also note that while Mr Manning remains a male, he is not, and never was, a man.
This could prove an interesting race. It would be my guess that Mr Manning’s candidacy will draw a lot of cash from the looniest among the left, the establishment Democrats will funnel large amounts of money to Senator Cardin; the last thing that they want is to face a Republican candidate in the general election with Mr Manning as their standard bearer. Even those Democrats who believe in ‘transgenderism’ are going to have a difficult time voting for someone who betrayed his country, and his oath as a soldier.
But Mr Manning is absotively, posilutely the ideal Democratic politician. He is clearly delusional, not being able to recognize his own sex, and he is apparently has “believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” In a time where Baltimore has a record-high number of homicides, Mr Manning wants to disarm the police. He called Immigration and Customs Enforcement “literally the new gestapo,” for trying to enforce immigration law, and he even claims to be a veteran, when, under 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1 (A), §3.1(d), he isn’t, due to having been dishonorably discharged.
And so it is for much of the Democratic Party, which sides with illegal immigrants over American citizens, which is full of people supporting socialism, despite what socialism has actually accomplished in the world. The problem for the Democrats isn’t so much Mr Manning as the face of their party as it is that so many Democrats believe what he believes. No wonder President Obama commuted his sentence.
Despite his notoriety, Mr Manning is the perfect Democratic candidate!
From The Washington Post:
By Josh Dawsey | January 12, 2018 | 7:52 AM
President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.
“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.
Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.
In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.
“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”
There’s more at the original.
The Democrats were gleefully, self-righteously aghast, of course, and the left has piled on with the obvious claims, ‘Donald Trump is a raaaaacist!’ Thankfully not-President Hillary Clinton tweeted:
The anniversary of the devastating earthquake 8 years ago is a day to remember the tragedy, honor the resilient people of Haiti, & affirm America’s commitment to helping our neighbors. Instead, we‘re subjected to Trump’s ignorant, racist views of anyone who doesn’t look like him.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 12, 2018
NBC News dug up another story, which supposedly confirms that the President is a racist. There are so many that to link them all would be a waste of time.
Two things are very apparent:
- President Trump has no ‘filter;’ and
- President Trump was right.
President Trump says what he thinks, without seeming to worry or care how others will take his words. He is very, very different from past politicians, in ways that the Washington elites — of both parties — still cannot grasp, but in ways his base very much appreciates.
And in describing Haiti, in particular, as a ‘shithole,’ he was telling the truth. Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the island of Hispaniopla, the second largest island in the Caribbean, but they are very different.
The U.N. ranks the Dominican Republic 90th out of 182 countries on its human-development index, which combines a variety of welfare measurements; Haiti comes in at 149th. In the Dominican Republic, average life expectancy is nearly 74 years. In Haiti, it’s 61. You’re substantially more likely to be able to read and write if you live in the eastern two-thirds of Hispaniola, and less likely to live on less than $1.25 a day.
The reasons are varied: different cultures, different languages and different political histories. Both countries are majority non-white, though the racial demographics are different: Haiti is 95% black, and 5% either white or mixed race, while the Dominican Republic is 73% mixed race, 16% black and 11% white. Because of this, the President’s comments were immediately attacked as racist. When Mr Trump asked about having more immigrants from Norway, a very ‘white’ country, there was simply more fodder for the left.
The cited Time article states that the island’s terrain gives less rainfail, but Port-au-Prince’s annual 54 inches is not significantly different from Santo Domingo’s 57. There is little physical reason why the two nations should have such disparate economic results, but there certainly is a cultural one.
Haiti is poor, and getting poorer. When Haitians immigrate to the United States, they are unlikely to have the employment skills that would fit well into the American economy. More Haitian immigrants means, to put it bluntly, more welfare recipients.
Norwegians? Norwegians, and Europeans in general, are far more likely to be decently educated, share Western cultural values, and be able to fit in to the American economy. Obviously there will be differences among individuals, but, in general, immigration from European countries would be far more beneficial to our economy and our society.
The United States ran a wryly ironic deficit in FY2017, $666 billion, and we’re looking at yet another half-trillion deficit for the current year; how does it make any sense at all to allow the immigration of people who will more probably wind up on some form of public assistance? The President expressed it poorly, but he was still right.
by Patrick Gillespie | January 9, 2018 | 1:02 PM ET
Venezuela has more oil than any other nation in the world, but it keeps pumping less and less.
Oil production fell in December to one of its lowest points in three decades, further depriving the cash-strapped country of its only major source of revenue and adding to the suffering of its people.
Venezuela produced 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, according to S&P Global Platts, which polled industry officials, traders and analysts and reviewed proprietary shipping data.
That’s the lowest since 2002, when a failed coup temporarily took hold of the government-run oil company, PDVSA.
Other than that, oil production is the lowest in 28 years. It’s down 27% just since 2014, when the country’s economic crisis took hold, according to OPEC and S&P figures.
There’s much more at the original.
Petroleum exports make up 95% of the Bolivarian Republic’s export revenues, and the country has become desperately poor; people are losing weight due to malnutrition, and medical care has been plagued by chronic shortages. The country has already defaulted on $1.2 billion in debt, and Venezuela and PDVSA, the nationalized oil company, owe around $60 billion in outside bond debt. Repudiation of the debt, the kind of thing one expects from socialist nations and dictatorships would simply mean that no one else would lend Venezuela more money, and money is what the country so desperately needs.
This is what socialism does! Socialism brings formerly prosperous countries to their knees, leaving the vast majority poor, with only the men with guns retaining any wealth.
From the Ace of Spades:
Of Course: Straight Singer Accused of Being “Transphobic” For Refusing to Entertain Dating, and Refusing to Kiss, Trans “Woman”
From BET. I have changed the pronouns to reflect actual reality rather than polite indulgence of fantasy self-conception.
Singer Ginuwine has sparked a heated debate on Twitter after a recent episode of Celebrity Big Brother UK. In the latest episode, Ginuwine seemingly rejected fellow housemate India Willoughby.The controversy stems from a conversation between Willoughby and the “Pony” singer, in which [he] asked whether he would date a trans woman. “You would date me, yeah,” Willoughby, who is a trans woman herself, asked.
“Not if you were trans,” Ginuwine replied. After Ginuwine replied that he would not date a trans woman, Willoughby attempted to plant a kiss on the singer. When [his] advance was rejected, Willoughby stormed off.
See Twitchy (the first link above) for the Twitter reaction, of people claiming this was “transphobic” on “Ginuwine’s” account, and other people noting, quite rightly, that this guy specifically told this other guy (who claims to be a woman) he was not interested in a sexual relationship with him, but then the guy tried to forcibly kiss him anyway.
You know — like men are losing their jobs for in Hollywood. But I guess here, a man is allowed to attempt to forcibly kiss another man because Trans “Women” have special rights to commit Sexual Assault for Equality.
There’s more at the original.
If a heterosexual man even looks sideways at a woman, it’s practically sexual harassment these days, if not actually sexual assault. But, for the left, people of ‘minority sexual orientation‘ are protected groups, so their sexual behavior is not quite as constrained, as viewed by the left. I note that Kevin Spacey’s defense on the accusations against him was to come out as being homosexual, and the left were quick to say that Mr Spacey using the homosexuality ‘defense’ should not be used to smear all homosexuals. There were plenty of articles published stating that men who refused to consider male-to-female transsexuals as romantic partners were bigoted.
And, of course, some colleges are falling in line with ‘gender inclusive language,’ attempting to require people to use the gendered pronouns that the person referred to prefers, rather than what the speaker may see as reality.
The problem is simple: transsexuals believe that they are the opposite sex from the sex they were born, and believe that they have a right to require other people to accept their definitions. To refuse sexual activity, even so little as a kiss, due to someone being transsexual, is to refuse to accept transsexuals’ definitions of themselves, and that’s something the transsexual community simply cannot abide. To ‘misgender’ by using the pronoun associated with the person’s actual sex rather than his perceived one is seen as an injury, and cannot be tolerated.
If there is one area in which the left have been enormously successful, it has been in the control of the terms of the debate. Whether it has been cutting taxes being referred to as stealing from the poor to substituting the word gay, which means happy and carefree, for homosexual, conservatives have been too willingly accepting of such terminology. For conservatives to win the debates must mean taking back the language of the debates.
From The Wall Street Journal:
The rules of collegiate debate are also coming under attack as racist and patriarchal.
By Steve Salerno | January 2, 2018 | 7:19 p.m. ET
From the land that irony forgot—which earlier gave us microaggressions and trigger warnings—comes a new and surprising movement, this time to combat civility. Civility, you see, is a manifestation of the white patriarchy. Spearheading this campaign are a duo of University of Northern Iowa professors, who assert that “civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm.”
Their article in the Howard Journal of Communications, “Civility and White Institutional Presence: An Exploration of White Students’ Understanding of Race-Talk at a Traditionally White Institution,” describes a need to stamp out what they call “whiteness-informed civility,” or WIC. The pervasiveness of WIC, it seems, erases “racial identity” and reinforces “white racial power.”
Their thesis can be a tad hard to follow, unfolding as it does in that dense argot for which academia is universally beloved. But their core contention is twofold: One, that civility, as currently practiced in America, is a white construct. Two, that in a campus setting, the “woke” white student’s endeavor to avoid microaggressions against black peers is itself a microaggression—a form of noblesse oblige whereby white students are in fact patronizing students of color. Not only that, but by treating black students with common courtesy and expecting the same in return, white students elide black grievances, bypassing the “race talk” that is supposed to occur in preamble to all other conversations. Got it?
Something similar is happening in collegiate debate, where historically high standards of decorum are under siege as manifestations of white patriarchal thinking. So are the factual and logical proofs that debaters are normally expected to offer in arguing their case. Some participants are challenging the format, goals and ground rules of debate itself, in some cases refusing even to stick to the topic at hand.
Again the driving theory is that all conversations must begin by addressing race. As one top black debater, Elijah J. Smith, writes, debate must, before all else, “acknowledge the reality of the oppressed.” He resists the attempt on the part of white debaters to “distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day.”
There’s more at the original, but I’d raise a point the author didn’t include. The author, a journalism professor who lives in Las Vegas, was setting up an argument decrying the loss of civility based on race, on campus, even among black students who are, one supposes, trying to become part of the educated ‘elites’ in our society, but are rejecting the ‘rules’ of the elites in academia.
The most obvious examples of success among black Americans, outside of professional sports and rap ‘music,’ would be former President Barack Obama, entertainer Oprah Winfrey and several Hollywood figures. (There are many successful black businessmen, such as Kenneth Frazier, CEO of Merck & Co., Inc, Ursula Burns, CEO of Xerox, and Kenneth Chenault, CEO of American Express, but they simply aren’t that widely known about.) These are examples of successful black Americans who fully maintained civil relations with larger society. By rejecting traditional civility, these college students are rejecting the path of most successful people, white or black, in our society. If you happen to be 6’11 and can dominate on the basketball court, you have a different success path ahead of you, but very few people happen to fit that mold.
Nevertheless, the elephant in the room is President Trump. He succeeded, when no one thought he could, by not being civil, by refusing to abide by the norms of political discourse expected of political candidates. He baffled ‘Lying Ted’ Cruz and ‘Little Marco’ Rubio and ‘Crooked Hillary’ Clinton, he attacked Carly Fiorina’s appearance and implied that Megyn Kelly’s hostility was due to “blood coming out of her whatever,” presumably meaning that she was on her period, he survived a tape of him saying that he could just grab women by their genitals, and he still won.
The lesson seems obvious: when you opponents are playing by restrictive rules, and you refuse to go along with those rules, you can gain an advantage that you opponents may not be able to overcome. It worked for President Trump, and, to judge from Dr Salerno’s article, it’s working other places as well.
She was at Fort Bliss after returning from Kuwait, and is now in Atlanta, awaiting her fight to Lexington.
Update: Not only is she home, but it appears that she didn’t tell us everything, not wanting to worry us. She volunteered for a Corps of Engineers project at Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan.
Getting a Fair Divorce Settlement in Arizona is Easier than Ever
If you are thinking of getting a divorce in Arizona, your options are good. It’s up to you to do everything in your power to get the best possible settlement for your divorce. You can do this by hiring a Scottsdale Divorce Attorney to represent your case. If you have assets that were yours before you signed on the dotted line, you certainly don’t want to sacrifice them when you separate permanently from your current spouse. Hiring the right divorce attorney for the job is the best way for you to make sure that all of your property will still be yours when your marriage ends.
A Scottsdale Divorce Lawyer is Your Best Bet for a Fair Settlement
The most important priority on your list should be to make sure that the settlement you receive is a fair and just one. If there are any children that came from the marriage, you will certainly want to make sure that your rights as a parent are fully respected. You may wish to file for primary or sole custody of the children so that you can be recognized as the legitimate caregiver. You will need the help of a qualified Scottsdale divorce lawyer to have yourself certified in this fashion. There may also be other issues that your lawyer can help get resolved on your behalf.
Your Divorce Lawyer Will Help You Make Your Point in Court
There are many reasons why most divorcing couples do not represent themselves in court. The main reason is because you want to make sure that your side of the story is presented in the most compelling and convincing manner possible. This is a tall order for the average person to fill, especially because the average man or woman on the street is not a trained legal professional. It’s always best for you to hire a fully qualified and experienced divorce attorney to handle your case and present your argument to the court.
Your Divorce Attorney Will Know What Evidence to Present on Your Behalf
One of the most important things that your Scottsdale divorce lawyer can do on your behalf is to present all of the necessary documents and other evidence that you need to prove your point. If you are in possession of assets and property that predate your marriage, you certainly don’t want to surrender it. In order to keep it, you will need your attorney to help you produce the necessary proofs of ownership so that these bits of property don’t end up being allocated to your soon to be former spouse. This is definitely a task that should be left to a qualified divorce attorney.
Hiring an Attorney for Your Divorce is Easier than Ever
If you are ready to put an end to your marriage, the time to hire a qualified divorce lawyer is now. Don’t wait until your soon to be former spouse hires their own lawyer. The sooner you make a proactive stand, the better. A divorce attorney can help you get your case ready in advance so that everything you need is in order at the moment you actually file for divorce. This is the best way to make sure that you will win a fair settlement.