How is Dennis Prager still around?

Today, while browsing through Twitter, in between arguments about whose Memorial Day Tweet was the tackiest and Chuck Woolery defending himself from charges of anti-Semitism by saying "hey, you know who else is a Jew? That Bernie Sanders! (Hashtag #Jew, I kid you not.)" I discovered something. Dennis Prager is still around. And someone is paying him to write stuff.

Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump

‌

by Dennis Prager May 30, 2017 12:00 AM

Okay, first of all, I can't really think of a single prominent conservative that has "attacked" Trump. Well, maybe Joe Scarborough, although he sure as hell fluffed him during the campaign. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and bet that Prager doesn't name any of these so-called "anti-Trump comservatives" anywhere in his column.

Trump is too far from their ideal leader for some conservatives to support him.

When people you know well and admire, and who share your values, do something you strongly oppose, you have two options:
(1) Cease admiring them or (2) try to understand them and change their minds.

Or you could grow the fuck up and realize that you don't have to agree on everything to be friends? Or you could publicly denounce them and excise them from your life? Or you could maybe take a moment to consider that maybe you are the one that's wrong? Honestly, there are way more than two options.

In the case of my conservative friends who still snipe (or worse) at President Trump, I have rejected option one. The reason — beside the fact that I simply like many of them — is what I refer to as “moral bank accounts.”

Every time we do good, we make a deposit into our moral bank account. And every time we do something bad, we make a withdrawal. These conservatives have made so many deposits into their moral bank accounts that, in my view, their accounts all remain firmly in the black.

Well, as we like to say here at the Daily Irritant, name one. Name one positive thing that any of your conservative friends has done.


via GIPHY

That's what I thought.

That means my only choice is option two. But to try to change their minds, I must first try to understand their thinking.

‌

I have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today.

Oh! Oh!~ I know! Is it because they realize that Trump is a walking personality disorder with neither the experience, intelligence nor temperament for the office?

Or wait, wait, is it because their suspicions about Trump's inability to do the most difficult job in the world were confirmed by his laughable performance so far?

The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake.

Oh. Okay, I was never going to guess that. But in all fairness, you didn't tell me that the mystery took place in 1862.

While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.

Ooohhh. so the problem is that they aren't paranoid or delusional enough?
 Or is it that they don't understand what Trump's supporters get instinctively, that this could be their last chance to turn this country back into a Jim Crow, theocratic white man's paradise?

That is why, after vigorously opposing Trump’s candidacy during the Republican primaries, I vigorously supported him once he won the nomination. I believed then, as I do now, that America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president.

Oh, of course. Gosh, we still may never recover from the growth and prosperity of the Bill Clinton administration, or Barack Obama's righting of the economic ship.  Hopefully, another Bush-style recession can save us!

With the Supreme Court and hundreds of additional federal judgeships in the balance; with the Democrats’ relentless push toward European-style socialism — completely undoing the unique American value of limited government; the misuse of the government to suppress conservative speech; the continuing degradation of our universities and high schools; the weakening of the American military; and so much more, America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly. 

Oh, yeah. It would be awful if all thoise things that never happened at all even once were allowed to continue to, um. . . happen?
Can you give one example - just one - of the government suppressing Conservative speech? No, you can't. Because it never happened.
Can you give a single example of our military becoming weakened? No, you can't. Because it never happened.
And how many Democrats are pushing for European-style socialism? Even if you caount Independent Bernie Sanders, that's one. You think friend-of-Wall-Street Hillary Clinton was going to push for socialism? I wish! And before you spit on European socialism, I suggest you travel a bit in Europe. Because I've been a few times and people seem perfectly happy there. If European socialism was so dreadful, the citizens of these democratic countries could easily vote to replace it. The fact that

The “fundamental transformation” that candidate Barack Obama promised in 2008 would have been completed by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And by "fundamental transformation," you mean more people now having the ability to see doctors and get medicine.  Because that's really the biggest change I can think of from the Obama Administration. Oh, my God, what if Hillary had completed this? What if even more people got access to doctors? And medicine?

To my amazement, no anti-Trump conservative writer sees it that way. They all thought during the election, and still think, that while it would not have been a good thing if Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn’t have been a catastrophe either.

Wow, that really sums up Hillary Clinton in a nutshell. Wouldn't have been great, but not terrible. As opposed to electing a narcissistic man-baby conspiracy theorist with the attention span of a gnat.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Many conservatives, including me, believe that it would have been close to over for America as America if the Republican candidate, who happened to be a flawed man named Donald Trump, had not won. Moreover, I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton.

So you'd rather have a senile sociopath with serious impulse control leaking classified information all over the globe than a dull, middling centrist who might do what, nominate a judge who would uphold Roe v Wade?

In other words, I believe that Donald Trump may have saved the country. And that, in my book, covers a lot of sins — foolish tweets, included.

Really. This guy?

This is the guy you think is going to "save America?"

Not this guy:




But this guy?

The Never Trump conservative argument that Trump is not a conservative — one that I, too, made repeatedly during the Republican primaries — is not only no longer relevant, it is no longer true.

Really? He became a conservative in 6 months? And you think this mercurial, capricious nature is a positive attribute?

Had any Never Trump conservative been told, say in the summer of 2015, that a Republican would win the 2016 election and, within his first few months in office, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court; begin the process of replacing Obamacare; bomb Russia’s ally Assad after he again used chemical weapons; appoint the most conservative cabinet in modern American history; begin undoing hysteria-based, economy-choking EPA regulations; label the Iranian regime “evil” in front of 50 Muslim heads of state; wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall;

Um. . .

 I'm not really sure why you get bonus points for knowing the proper headgear to wear to one of Israel's holiest sites, but if you're giving out these points, you gotta give 'em to the last couple guys too.

Also, I don't know why you get any points for appointing the judge that Heritage and the Federalsit society told you to appoint. I mean, contrary to what Mitch McConnell may say, appointing judges is just part of the president's job. And when your party controls the Senate, it's not even a challenging part.
And why anyone gets any points for removing rules that keep the air breathable and the water drinkable and keeps rivers from catching fire is beyond me.

 And you neglected to mention that he also appointed the least qualified cabinet in history.

Anyway, it goes on for a while and I have to turn in, but let me just note for the record that nowhere in this ridiculous screed does Prager mention a single "anti-Trump conservative." So I win that bet!

a a

Bad Ads -- Tecate

None of this makes sense.




Okay, the first couple seconds, where he's punching a beehive I kinda get, but the rest?
First of all, why does Stallone feel like he has to use what I assume is his entire Spanish vocabulary to tell the other guy that his black eye is not good? I've had a black eye, I assume most of you have had one at one time or another (judging by your disrespectful attitudes!) everyone knows that a black eye is not "bueno."
Then he tells him to "be bold" by putting the steak on his eye. How is that bold? Hasn't this been a folk remedy for a black eye since forever? Also, does it even work?  * Okay, it doesn't matter if it works, there's just nothing "bold" about putting a steak on a black eye. It's just a thing people do.

Then the other guy, who seems to speak English by the way, so I don't know why Stallone feels he has to pantomime things for him, tosses the streak on the grill and replies "be bolder!" How does that make any sense? How is using a steak for its intended purpose "bold?" Like, I could put the steak on my eye, but I'm going to do something, well. . . a little bit risky. You might think I'm crazy, but I'm going to take this slab of meat and cook it! And then presumably eat it. I know, I know, but nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? Fortune favors the bold!

And this is somehow supposed to make me want to buy their beer? I don't get it.

* according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology: Despite what you see in movies or on television, you should never put a raw steak or other raw meat on a black eye. The bacteria on raw meat poses a high risk of infection, and this method of treating a black eye has no scientific basis.

Moving On

I know I said I would continue the previous post re: the kid who dropped out of college, but then somoeone much wiser than I gave me pause.

Debra She Who Seeks said...

I hope his parents are able to convince him to see a mental health specialist. Seriously, he sounds like he's in a manic phase. Young adulthood is often when mental disorders manifest. I don't condemn this young guy but I fear for him.

And of course, she's right.
So now I feel bad about mocking this kid.
Sp we will move on to other topics and let's speak no more of it,

Douche of the Day

Seriously, this guy is in the running for douche of the decade!

The Valedictorian of University of Maryland drops out of school two weeks before graduation

Gio Managadze

Entrepreneur

Okay, let's start with the fact that this putz identifies himself as "Entrepreneur."  Generally, that term refers to someone who has risked his personal fortune to start a business. It is generally not used to refer to self-impressed little schmucks who have yet to accomplish a goddamm thing in their lives.
And this little jackass was two weeks shy of actually accomplishing something -- not anything entrepreneurial, but still -- and he quits? How much money did your parents invest in your college education, and you quit with 2 weeks to go?
Also, he refers to himself in the third person in that stupid headline.


And he writes this smug, self-satisfied open letter to the University of Maryland and his infortunate parents:

Dear University of Maryland, 
I was your Valedictorian until about a month ago and almost gave the Main Commencement Speech at graduation, but instead of giving the speech, I decided to follow my dreams, fail all my classes this semester, and drop out of school two weeks before graduation without getting a degree. If you would like to know why your Valedictorian dropped out of school, you're welcome to read my email to my parents below:

Yeah, I'm guessing they don't care to know. They have your parents' money, if you want to leave early, how is that any skin of their nose?

Dear Mom and Dad, 
I finally found my destiny this semester in college.

My destiny was to not only disappoint you and waste your money, but to then go on and embarrass you publicly!

I have finally understood how leadership, happiness, and fearlessness actually work.
Leadership is very simple. 
All you need to have is a lot of confidence and a lot of empathy both at the same time.

Pictured: Three men known for their empathy.

You know, it's great to have a lot of confidence and empathy, but you know what else helps? Having some fucking clue what you're doing!

You need confidence to know what you want to do and do it. 
You need empathy to understand other people’s perspectives, emotions, wants, and desires so you can lead them and help them achieve their goals. 
You make yourself happy and you make everybody around you happy.

Hey, you know who usually end up being great leaders? Guys who think "hell, this'll be super-easy!"

I have learned that there are only two real emotions in life: love and anger.

Absolutely. As long as you don't count fear.
Or joy.
Or sadness, disgust, hatred, contentment, envy, want. . . but yeah, really just two.

Life is not as complicated as people make it out to be as long as you’re not lazy. 
Life is actually very simple. 
We are always mentally at either peace or war. 
You show love to your friends in peace and anger to your enemies in war. 
That’s it. 
Peace or War. 
People are also easily divided in two categories: real friends or enemies.

Oh, that attitude will really serve you well in the world of business. Other business-people aren't independent actors with whom you can possibly make deals in mutually beneficial ways. They are either your real friends or your enemies. That's totally not the kind of perspective that lands you in bankruptcy court over and over again.

This is what a real friend is: he supports you in every way possible, makes you feel better no matter what you’re going through, never judges you, never makes fun of you in a bad way, and always has your best interest in mind. 
Every “friend” that does not fit this description is a fake friend.

Sounds like a page from every 13-year-old's diary!

You need to get rid of fake friends immediately. They’re only slowing you down. 
Either try to convert them to your real friends or just completely ignore them forever.

Get rid of them IMMEDIATELY! Or, you know, try and see if you can cajole them into being your true besties!

I have finally also understood what passion really means. 
Every human being on this planet only really has one passion - the passion of life. 
If we are mentally at peace, we are passionate about life by doing what we love.
If we are mentally at war, we are passionate about life by fighting for it and protecting it.

Somewhere at the University of Maryland there is an intro to philosophy professor whith his face in his hands groaning "no, that's not what I meant."

Very simple. 
You’re always happy, though.
Happiness is a choice.
You’re happy in peace. 
You’re happy in war. 
You’re always happy.

What? How does that even. . . what kind of a psychopath is happy in a war?
And that is not how emotions work. You can't just say "oh, my girlfriend broke up with me? I choose to be happy! Oh, my mom just died? I choose to be happy! Oh, my son is a nincompoop who's dropping out of college because he thinks that at 21 he's figured out the secret of life? I choose to be happy!"

If you stop being lazy, stop listening to haters, and take control of your mind and all its thoughts and emotions, you can literally choose to be happy all the time. 
From right now, till the second you die, you can always be happy if you want to.
Happiness is a choice.
I’m always happy, no matter what happens.

You think you need a reason to be happy? 
I’m happy because I’m alive. Period.

There are no other emotions in life other than love and anger.

And happiness. Love, anger and hap - three emotions! There are only three emotions!

Fear? 
What is fear?
Fear doesn’t make any sense to me.

Yeah, what doesn't make sense to you would fill a dictionary, but go on.


Fear is not an emotion. 
You can’t feel fear.


Really? You can't? I mean, I guess if you're a full-on sociopath, maybe you can't but the rest of us?

Pictured: Wendy acting strangely for some unknown reason.

Fear is generally recognized as one of humankind's most primal emotions. If humans did not feel fear, we'd all have been eaten by sabre-toothed tigers aeons ago. Fear is absolutely necessary for survival. It's why you don't walk up to a bunch of Hell's Angels and tell them that motorcycles are for weiners.

Fear is all in your head.

Yeah, that's where all emotions are.

If it’s in your head that means you can completely block it out. 

Maybe, but if you do that it will inevitably lead you to making stupid decisions like trying to climb into the lion enclosure at the zoo to pet the cubs or dropping out of college with two fucking weeks left because you think you're some sort of brilliant genius-guru or something.

This semester I was able to block out every single fear I had in my head about absolutely everything.

I’m literally, by definition, fearless, and you can be too if you want to.

So, if you were confronted by, say, an angry bear, or a gun-toting lunatic or a 20-ft tsunami, you'd just block that fear out of your head? So you'd have no motivation to try and flee the danfer? So you'd be dead? Hell of a plan there, Sparky!

What are you afraid of?

1.
Are you afraid of other human beings?
What?
Why?
What does that even mean?
Why would you fear someone of your own species?

Really? Why? Um, maybe because members of my species commit 100% of the murders, assaults, and batteries that happen ever?

Because some of the more notorious members of my species include Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Dick Cheney?

How is this confusing for you?

Why would you fear someone of your own species? 
If someone is a threat to your happiness in any way, then they are an enemy.
Aggressively defend yourself from your enemies, but also show mercy. 
Just because somebody is your enemy, does not mean you necessarily have to hurt them. 
You should do your absolute best to solve all your problems without unnecessarily hurting others.
Other human beings should not be your enemies. 
Life is a collaboration, not a competition.

You just said --JUST SAID-- thast anyone who is not your true friend is your enemy. Yous just said that like 5 minutes ago. And now you're going to sit there straight-faced and say "
Other human beings should not be your enemies."
And "life is a collaboration, not a competition."?

 These are your real enemies: cancer, hunger, homelessness, all other diseases, the fact that we're running out of resources and haven't colonized other planets yet, the fact that we haven’t discovered life somewhere else in the universe, etc.

How is the fact that we have yet to discover life on other planets my enemy? I'm perfectly fine with that. It would be pretty cool if we did find little green men on Mars, but it doesn't really impact my life that we haven't.
I would say that I have more to fear from the fact that we've never found the Zodiac than the fact that we've never found space aliens.

 

              

  Okay, I can see that this is going to need to be a two-parter. Maybe three. But this has gone on long enough already. I'll try to pick this up tomorrow.

 

                                                                           

Tammy Bruce is a Terrible Person.

So the gleeful jackals at FOX showed a video of a kid telling Mike Pence that he owed him an apology for accidentally "bopping" his nose. Pence wasn't offended, he readily apologized and hugged the kid. If you didn't know better, you'd think he was a decent human being! Anyway, Pence may not have been bothered, but the nasty little kitten-stompers at FOX sure had a problem with this boy!

Tammy Bruce took special delight in sneering at this kid, complaining that "we're giving birth to 'snowflakes' now." I don't really even know what this whole "snowflake" thing is. Seems like about a year or so ago, right-wing assholes adopted this word as a sort of catch-all insult for anyone who's maybe a bit liberal for their taste or something? I don't know, it used to be a term that people used when someone was claiming to be special or unique, like "well, aren't you a special little snowflake," but now I think it is supposed to imply weakness or over-sensitivity or something.

Anyway, Tammy decides to jeer at this kid, saying something about him needing a "safe space." Yeah, Tammy. He's a CHILD! Of course he should have safe -- every place should be a safe space for a child! What kind of monster thinks that children needing to feel safe is some sort of indictment of modern society or a sign of parental weakness or whatever?

Fox News called a child with autism a ‘snowflake’ pic.twitter.com/bGUpegNzSH

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) May 17, 2017

And the apology? Please! She actually sits there with a straight face claiming "we never meant to hurt a child or his mother." Yes you did! Of course you did! You just feel bad now because you found out he's autistic and the son of a veteran. You had no problem insulting that child and his mother before you knew that. It's like you mug a guy on the street, then you find out he's a disabled Vietnam Vet and you feel shitty, but instead of saying "I never would have robbed that guy had I known he was a disabled vet," you have the balls to sit there and say "it was never my intention to rob anyone!"




And she says "as a gay woman and a feminist, I have spent most of my adult life working to improve the lives of women and children. . ." Which sounds great, but if you really are a feminist lesbian, what the fuck are you doing on FOX?
Apparently, Ms Bruce was once the head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW and was involved in ACTUP, but like so many before her, she figured out which side the money is on and now she writes books like these:

Books

• The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds (Prima, 2001) ISBN 0-7615-6373-3
• The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values (Random House, 2003) ISBN 0-7615-1663-8 ^[13]
• The New American Revolution: Using the Power of the Individual to Save Our Nation from Extremists (Morrow, 2005) ISBN 0-06-072620-2

Oh, and she writes a column for the right-wing nut-job purveyor of conspiracy theories and hate-speech World Net Daily.
And, according to her Biography page: In addition to her media work, Ms. Bruce speaks to a variety of groups nationwide, including college, business and civic organizations with her speech, “Contrary to Popular Belief: How Conservative Ideas Empower Women, Gays and Blacks.”


So, I guess she's making up for whatever amount of time she spent working for women, children and the disenfranchised.

And speaking of her Biography page, there's this little unrelated tidbit:

A free-speech and Second Amendment advocate, an important contributor to her position on the issue comes from her experience as a radio talk show host. The “Tammy Bruce Show” premiered in 1993 in Los Angeles and was nationally syndicated in 2005, enjoying over 200 terrestrial affiliates. In 2009, in a move to gain more freedom, Ms. Bruce took her radio show independent, making it an exclusively New Media program available online and via podcast. Tammy Radio remains the #1 program on the worldwide internet radio hub TalkStreamLive for 3 consecutive years.

Wait. You're telling me that she had a nationally syndicated radio show and thought "you know what, I'm just gonna do this as a podcast instead?" Because she wanted "more freedom?" Like the freedom from making money?

Oh, but she's the number one show.
On the internet.
Oh, wait.
The number one show on something called "Talk Stream Live" which I've never heard of and I listen to podcasts a lot. I'm familiar with Nerdist and Earwolf  and TYT  and Soundworks, but I have never heard of this "Talk Stream Live."

Anyway, the point is that Tammy Bruce is a horrible person and when she and the guy that introduced her phony apology claim that they totally agree with leaving kids out of it, they are lying. Because that would rfequire a bit of human decency.

Trump to graduates: 'No politician in history... has been treated worse'

By Dan Merica, CNN

New London, Connecticut (CNN)President Donald Trump, amid his own swirling controversies, advised United States Coast Guard Academy graduates that while things aren't always fair, "you have to put your head down and fight, fight, fight."

"Look at the way I have been treated lately, especially by the media," he said. "No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.

 

 

 

 

 

Now you can have all the negative consequences of drug use without any of that pesky "getting high!"

From WXIA, Atlanta's NBC affiliate:

Georgia now has more than 250 officers with special 'drug recognition expert' training.

So what does that mean?  It means that you can be pulled over, pass every roadside sobriety test and these special officers can look at you and "recognize" that you are on drugs because I guess they're psychic or something? And you can be arrested for DUI even though you have passed the sobriety tests because this psychic cop decides that even though there's no evidence that you're high, you're high!

I don't know if this video is going to embed properly, but you can watch it here: http://www.11alive.com/news/investigations/the-drug-whisperer/437061710
You can skip ahead to about the 20:15 mark when the officer, AFTER the driver has passed several sobriety tests, asks her if she's been smoking marijuana. She says no, he says that she's "showing indications" that she has and proceeds to cuff her.




The conversation, in part, goes like this:

Officer Carroll: "I'm going to ask you a question, okay? When was the last time you smoked marijuana?"
Katelyn Ebner: "Oh, I don't do that. I can give you a drug test right now."
Officer Carroll: "You don't smoke marijuana?"
Katelyn Ebner: "I do not, no."
Officer Carroll: "Okay. Well, you're showing me indicators that you have been smoking marijuana, okay?"

And then she's arrested.

Katelyn Ebner: "I'm going to jail for marijuana?"
Officer Carroll: "No, ma'am -- not possession, unless I find any in your car. I believe you're impaired by the marijuana you've smoked."
Katelyn Ebner: "Okay, so when I do a drug test, I'll be free to go, correct?"
Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."

She's arrested with no actual evidence of having committed any crime other than the fact that this particular cop has been given the right to decide that she seems like maybe she's high because he can read some sort of bullshit "indicators." How do I know they're bullshit?

The waitress spent the night in jail, had her alcohol server's permit revoked because of the arrest. After four months, prosecutors dismissed all her charges -- because the blood test came back completely clean.

[emphasis added. By me.]

"You had to spend months -- and thousands of dollars --  proving your innocence," Keefe said.
"I did," Ebner said.

So this woman had her life fucked up pretty bad because this one officer thought he could magically determine her drug status because he had some magical training.



So what kind of training do these officers receive in order to become "drug recognition experts" (DREs)?
Well, I found this on the website of the International Association of Chiefs of Police:

The DEC Program trains law enforcement officers and other approved public safety officials as DREs through a three-phase training process:

1. DRE Pre-School (16 hours)
2. DRE School (56 hours)
3. DRE Field Certification (Approximately 40-60 hrs)

The training relies heavily on Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), which provide the foundation for the DEC Program. 
 (DEC stands for Drug Evaluation & Classification)

Not a lot of detail, except that the basis seems to be the standard roadside sobriety tests which any police officer can do, so what makes DREs special? I don't know.


 I did find this training video on YouTube:






In this video, the officer talks about checking the suspect's pulse and pupil size. I had an experience with this years ago, when I was a young single fella. My girlfriend and I had just left a bar where we had gone to see a band. I had had one beer. We were in the parking lot of a public park across the street which must be the site of  some drug activity, I guess. Anyway, just as I was about to start the car, a police car pulled up with lights on and the officer asked for my license & registration. He asked had I been drinking. I told the truth, one beer over an hour ago. He asked what other drugs I had taken. I told him "none." He did not believe me.

He got out his pupil measuring card, shone his light in my face, checked my pulse and told me I was definitely on something. He asked me why, if I wasn't high, was my pulse so fast and my pupils so large. I told him my pupils are just naturally large, they always look like that (which is true) and my pulse is fast because you're making me really nervous.

I gave him permission to search my car. By now another police car had pulled up and there were three officers all telling me that I was definitely on some drug or other. I offered to take a breathalyzer. I offered to take a blood test, a urine test, any test they had. I made this offer several times and none of the cops responded or acknowledged that I had said anything.Eventually a third police car arrived on the scene like I was Al Capone or something.

They did not find anything incriminating in my car, and eventually, after about an hour, and after one officer told me that I was probably "coming down," but he knew that I was on something (and as angry and frustrated as I was, I had to bite my tongue to keep from laughing. "Coming down?" Am I in an after-school special?" This was the 1990's!) anyway, after about an hour, they finally let me go with the recommendation that my girlfriend drive as I was obviously impaired. I didn't say anything, but I thought that if they were so convinced I was high, they had no damn business letting me get back in the car with just the advice that I have her drive. What kind of irresponsible bullshit is that?


Anyway, thank God they didn't have the DRE program back then, or they'd have cuffed me and taken me in. And I was way too pretty to go to jail!

The same thing happened to college student Princess Mbamara two weeks earlier -- on Good Friday.
Officer Carroll: "When's the last time you smoked weed?"
Princess Mbamara: "I don't smoke weed."
Officer Carroll: "You don't smoke weed?"
Princess Mbamara: "No. Not at all."
Officer Carroll: "Okay."
                 
[And yes, this is the same Officer Carroll]
 Princess Mbamara: "Wait -- okay, hold on sir."
Officer Carroll: "Just one second -- Just give me one second."
Princess Mbamara: "You're arresting me!?"
Officer Carroll: "That's correct."
Princess Mbamara: "Sir, hold on one second. I'm complying."

 Princess Mbamara was also jailed. She fought the DUI-drug charges for half of 2016.

Mbamara's toxicology screen came back and only showed positive for lidocaine -- an over-the-counter local anesthetic used in transdermal patches to treat back pain, insect bites and other types of pain and discomfort



And again,I'm not sure if this video will embed, so here's a link to where you can watch it:
http://www.11alive.com/news/investigations/raw-princess-mbamara-dashcam/438127977

Months later, it happened again to an Auburn University student.
Officer Carroll: "You're giving me indicators that you have consumed marijuana, okay? So at this time, I believe that your failure to maintain lane was the reason for that -- so you're being placed under arrest for DUI, okay?"
The prosecutor filed a dismissal of the DUI-drug charge five months later: "Defendant performed well on FSEs (Field Sobriety Evaluations) and blood and urine were negative."

So what kind of consequences have their been for this officer? Well, from what I could find online:

Due to this special training and his high ate of making arrests, Carroll got a promotion and a merit raise in 2016. According to 11Alive, he got top marks for making the proper arrest or don’t arrest decisions regarding whether drivers were impaired.
However, as 11Alive noted, the three innocent people he arrested for allegedly driving under the influence that year — Ebner, Mbamara and an unnamed student from Auburn University — were not mentioned in these glowing reports.

I have not found any reports of any of the falsely arrested persons being compensated at all.

DRE programs exist in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Happy motoring!

Why do they keep letting him do interviews?

I'm sure I'm probably about the 5 millionth person to comment on the interview tRump did with the Economist, but holy shit, that was fucking nuts!


It's bad enough his handlers let him do interviews with soft-headed lunks like the Fox & Friends crew, but this is the Economist. You have to know how far out of his league he is here, right?


Actually, I guess they did know, because they sent a couple of what passes for ringers in this administration to try to help him through it.

DONALD TRUMP, the President of the United States, along with Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, and Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, sat down for a conversation with editors from The Economist on May 4th, 2017.

 Ladies and gentlemen, the A-team!

What is Trumponomics and how does it differ from standard Republican economics?
Well it’s an interesting question. I don’t think it’s ever been asked quite that way.

Really? Are you sure it's never been asked in that obvious straight-ahead way before?
Oh, I bet he means no one's ever asked him that question with an English accent before!

But it really has to do with self-respect as a nation. It has to do with trade deals that have to be fair, and somewhat reciprocal, if not fully reciprocal. And I think that’s a word that you’re going to see a lot of, because we need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals.

Someone got a word-a-day calendar!

 . . .  if I said I’m going to put a tax on of 10%, the free-traders, somewhat foolishly, they’ll say “Oh, he’s not a free-trader”, which I am, I’m absolutely a free-trader. I’m for open trade, free trade, but I also want smart trade and fair trade. But they’ll say, “He’s not a free-trader,” at 10%. But if I say we’re putting a reciprocal tax on, it may be 62% or it may be 47%, I mean massive numbers, and nobody can complain about it. It’s really sort of an amazing thing.

 Okay, let me see if I got this. You're all for "free trade" and also all for "fair trade" two concepts which are mutually exclusive. Also, the the "free-traders" get upset about a 10% import tax, but they have no complaint about a 62% or 47% tax? Have I got this right?

Or would it be fair to say that you just think "reciprocal" is a magic word that makes everyone approve of whatever you do?

So that’s the story. It very much has to do with trade. We have so many bad trade deals. To a point where I’m not sure that we have any good trade deals. I don’t know who the people are that would put us into a NAFTA, which was so one-sided. Both from the Canada standpoint and from the Mexico standpoint. So one-sided. Wilbur [Ross, the secretary of commerce] will tell you that, you know, like, at the court in Canada, we always lose. Well, the judges are three Canadians and two Americans. We always lose. But we’re not going to lose any more. And so it’s very, very unfair.

**sigh** You don't know, do you? You have no idea how your economics differ from standard GOP economics, do you?

One last question on trade. Do you think you’ve permanently changed the Republican Party’s position on trade?
No. Because there’ll always be someone that comes along with another idea but it’s not a better idea. We have the better idea. But yeah, I think that a lot of the, like for instance today, health care. Very big thing. Very big. And it wasn’t two bites of the apple. It was one bite. Somebody set a time limit and that was mistake, I said never set a time limit but somebody set a time limit. So when they didn’t meet that time limit they said, “We didn’t get it there”, well, they shouldn’t have set a time limit.

Who was it that set that time limit? Who was the fool that said he was going to do this in the first 100 days? Who was that guy? I can kinda picture him. . . orange skin, bad combover, tiny hands. . . Oh well, whoever it was was certainly a dolt!

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan’s tax reform didn’t.

Oh, fuck! I take it back. This idiot is definitely in tRump's league if he thinks Reagan's tax policies didn't increase the deficit.

But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?
It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll…you understand the expression “prime the pump”?
Yes.We have to prime the pump.
It’s very Keynesian.
We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?
Priming the pump?
Yeah, have you heard it?
Yes.
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.

For God's sake, he just told you that he has heard that expression before. You can't turn around and say you just made it up!  I mean, I guess you can. You just did, but Jeezus, you look like an idiot when you do that.

But let's go back to something you just said a moment ago: "we're the highest-taxed nation in the world." Yeeeeeah. . . not so much.
I mean, we totally are unless you count Australia.
And the UK
And France, Portugal, Belgium and Spain.
But other than that, we're the highest taxed country in the world other than Japan.
And Finland.
And the Czech Republic.
And Denmark, Greece, Canada Switzerland and one of the Koreas.
But we're definitely taxed more than Germany and Poland. So there's that.

So you would have a bigger deficit, a stimulus, to prime the pump that would lead to faster growth?
So I happen to think that 3% is low. But you can’t do it if your companies are leaving the country because taxes are too high.

 Or, and hear me out here, I'm just spitballing, but maybe they leave the country because they can pay Third-World workers starvation wages, have no safety or environmental rules and can have employees arrested for saying the word "union" out loud?

I don’t know if you saw what’s happening. Ford has announced massive expansions in the United States. General Motors cancelled a big plant in Mexico and a big plant in Europe. They’re all cancelling plans because I told them, I said…I get along with them great. But I said, “Look, we don’t mind if you leave the country. You can build all you want out of country, I hope you enjoy your plant. But when you build your car, you’re going to have a 35% tax when you bring it back in.

And they were all so impressed with me that they went back in time and put these expansion plans on the books during the Obama Administration!

So I mean, I have, it has, I haven’t been given massive credit for it yet, but I have been given some because I just see polls out in Michigan and different places, that really are affected by this, have been unbelievable, you know, much bigger than election day.

Um, any polls that show you gaining popularity in Michigan are #FakeNews. I haven't been able to find a single one. It may be that your handlers are making up fake poll numbers to keep you from sulking.

The other thing, just in case we…I believe it could be anywhere from $4trn to $5trn outside, you know don’t forget we’ve been talking about $2.5trn for four years now. I’ve been using $2.5trn, the same number we’ve all been using for years. Well, you know, it grows. I think it…I wouldn’t be surprised if it was $5trn but, you know, we’re close. We’re letting that money come back in. And that has two barriers which you have to watch. It’s got a barrier of the tax, which we will take care of. We’re going to make it 10%. Now it’s 35%...
Sorry, 10%? The repatriation taxes?

You know the interview is going well when the reporter has to hazard a guess as to what the fuck you're babbling about!




Sorry, 10%? The repatriation taxes?
The repatriation. Inversion. The corporate inversions, which is a disaster, with the companies leaving. But they want to bring back their money. Number one, the tax is too high but the other thing that’s too high is the bureaucracy.
Mr Mnuchin: Correct.
President Trump: I have a friend who said even if you wanted to bring it back in you can’t because you have to go through so many papers, so many documents, so many…
Mr Mnuchin: We’re going to make it simple
President Trump: You have to do…Steve, they told me you’ve got to sign books and books of stuff, you pay millions of dollars in legal fees and they almost don’t allow you to bring it back in.

So some guy I know said this and I have absolutely no reason to think he might be exaggerating or bullshitting or maybe doesn't know what he's talking about or maybe is a guy that I made up who doesn't exist. But I'm sure he's right. Anyway, it's not like I have access to the tax codes or to any economic experts who could explain them to me or anything. It's not like I could just call the IRS and ask them to send someone over to walk me through the actual process. I'm just a humble, ordinary private citizen who. . . I'm not? Really? The President? Of what? America? Hoo boy, we're all in trouble!

I just love this idea that these CEOs are hiding all this money in offshore tax havens because, while they'd love to bring it back to their country, it's just too darn complicated! How could these simple salt-of-the-earth businessmen ever figure out how to move money back into the US? I mean, moving it out of the US sure - any fool could transfer profits to a shell company with a subsidiary in the Caymans while re-assigning all expenses and losses to the American parent company. That's what we pay the bean-counter for! But bringing it back? My God, you should see all the paperwork!


Oh my God, this interview keeps going and going and I can't take any more! Maybe I'll pick this up tomorrow.

Things are getting weird.

There has been some weird stuff going on the last couple of days.






First of all, the New York Times - The NEW YORK TIMES!-- ran a column asking their readers to say something positive about Trump. Seriously:

Search

Sunday Review

By MICHAEL KINSLEY

April 29, 2017

Opinion | Say Something Nice About Donald Trump

The establishment press has been vicious about Donald Trump. He’s portrayed, day after day, as a narcissist, personally obnoxious, with a policy agenda to match. He deserves most of this criticism.

If, as you acknowledge, he deserves this criticism, how is the press being "vicious?"
And tRump is a personally obnoxious narcissist. Pointing this out doesn't really count as criticism, let alone vicious criticism. I mean, it wouldn't be particularly vicious to point out that he is a racist, a failed businessman, and a conman who has bragged about committing sexual assault. If all they're doing is pointing out that he's obnoxious, I'd say they're letting him off pretty easy.
Also, I can't really recall any instances of the "establishment press" even doing that. I do remember much of the media spending the campaign season fluffing him like a gay-for-pay pornstar, but maybe I missed something.

But does he deserve all of it? Does he never do anything right? Say anything wise? Are all his schemes to reform this agency and abolish that regulation utterly misguided? Can “President Trump’s America” really be compared to Vladimir Putin’s Russia?

Well, to be fair, no, his America can't really compare to Putin's Russia. Mainly because Il Douche has only been in office about 20 weeks, and Putin is just a lot better at doing, um, everything really.

Surely, if there is a “party line” among the establishment media in the United States, it is anti-Trump, not pro. That doesn’t make it wrong. In fact, it’s largely right. But the venom, the obsession, the knife-twisting are hard to understand.

   SERIOUSLY?

You don't get why someone would have a visceral reaction tn unhinged, juvenile narcissist who has brought neo-Nazis into the goddamm White House and wants to take away people's ability to see a doctor? You seriously don't understand why people might feel venomously towards someone who wants to deport millions of our friends and neighbors while turning refugees away at the border? What's not to understand?

It must be partly a matter of bad timing. Mr. Trump came along just as the mainstream media, especially newspapers, were trying to come to terms with the internet. Hoary concepts like “objectivity” and “balance” were giving way. This was a good thing, believe it or not. Reporters no longer had to pretend that after spending weeks or months on a story, they had emerged with no opinion about it. The word “I” could now be used to refer to oneself, rather than “a reporter.” Mr. Trump, already dislikable, became the first test case of the new mind-set.

WHAT?!?!?!? Like we haven't had an entire cable "news" network and nearly all of talk radio dedicated to trashing the last two Democratic presidents? You think the Obamas and the Clintons have been treated "objectively" and with "balance" by the FOX-Limbaugh-WSJ matrix? What rock have you been living under?

But yeah, obviously bad timing. If only the internet hadn't been invented, the American public would welcome an incompetent, childish sociopath who sees the presidency as just another long con. Oh, we'd have welcomed him with open arms! We'd have strewn flowers in his path while singing songs of praise about his shady ties to Russia, his use of the office to enrich himself, and his encouragement of violence against his detractors.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, though, and even Donald Trump can’t be wrong all the time.

With that in mind, we’re looking for a few positive words about the president, and we’re asking for your help. This is not about Trump the family man. It’s not another forum for debating the issues. It is a place to point out positive things Mr. Trump has said or done from the viewpoint of The New York Times and its readers.

Um, okay. Let's see. . . As far as we know, he has never acted on his sexual attraction to his daughter.
Um. . . he hasn't nuked anyone yet.
And, uh, he hasn't ridiculed a disabled person for a while now.
And I'm out of ideas.

Anyway, the column goes on a bit but I've already spent too much time on it. I will leave you, though with the last sentence of the column: We’ll be revisiting this theme regularly in Sunday Review.

Yeah, because this is gold! You want to milk this theme for all it's worth!


Another weird thing

On Tuesday, Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, celebrated the six-month anniversary of the election by tweeting a screen grab of the late night phone call in which Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton called to concede to Republican candidate Donald Trump. Scavino promised to share video of the conversation, which he said came via a Nov. 9 phone call at 2:30 a.m. from longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin to Trump’s then-campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway.

"I have on video & will share that in the near future."

 

What would be the point of that? Why would anyone want to hear a recording of a concession call. Does he think that this will embarrass Hillary Clinton? Probably. That is exactly the type of petty, spiteful petulance we've come to expect from this administration. You would think if anything, they'd want to try and embarrass any potential 2020 opponents, or maybe someone in the House or Senate who is opposing his agenda, but no. Hillary had the temerity to run against him, he "won" and her4 face must be rubbed in it at any opportunity. 

The best part is, he's not releasing it now. He's waiting. Like this recording is some sort of Ace up his sleeve. Like when the Russia/Comey?Flynn news gets bad enough, they'll be able to whip this out for some sort of positive publicity. Because, like a schoolyard bully, he thinks that humiliating someone else makes him look stronger.

And maybe the weirdest thing yet:

Trump to send senator a letter asserting no business connections to Russia

 

Okay, so apparently Lindsey Graham has gotten the vapors over all this Trump-Russia stuff going on and he does declay-uh that we all ought to have just a tiny little ol' peek at Trump's business dealings, bless his heart.

Trump's response?

Spicer said Trump has "charged a leading law firm in Washington, D.C." with preparing a certified letter to Graham saying he has "no connections" to Russia.

Okay, why a law firm? If you want to say "I have no connection to Russia," that's something you can do in 140 characters. Then you just send it here:

Lindsey GrahamVerified account

@LindseyGrahamSC

The official Twitter feed for United States Senator Lindsey Graham.

I know you're capable of that. You do this all day long when you're supposed to be presidenting.
And what is the point of this letter. Do you think that just saying "I'm not beholden to Putin" (or as you so eloquently put it, "No puppet. No puppet.") isn't going to convince the wily Graham, but a letter! On legal firm letterhead! There's no way he could not believe that!
Oh, and be sure to make a point of sending it certified so he can't pretend like he didn't get it. It's not like you could have someone walk a mile tp the Capitol building and fucking hand it to him or something.

Yessirree, things are getting weird. There are strange things happening every day in DC

Ass of the Day - Nominee # 2

Labrador: ‘Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care’

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article149013339.html#storylink=cpy

How? How do you even come up with a statement like that? It's like saying water is not wet.

Maybe there's some context? Something that would make this statement make some kind of sense?

After a woman suggested that the lack of health care was essentially asking people to die, Labrador had a controversial answer at Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston.
“That line is so indefensible,” Labrador said. “Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article149013339.html#storylink=cpy

Nope, no context!

An email to Labrador’s press secretary late Friday for comment did not receive an immediate response.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article149013339.html#storylink=cpy

No kidding! How could his press secretary possibly come up with a defense for that statement? When he heard Labrador's remark, I assume he reacted like this:

  

Ass of the day - Nominee #1

Marsha Blackburn: 'As A Woman' Hillary Clinton's Lack Of 'Graciousness' To Trump Is Disappointing

 

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) suggested on Sunday that former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a responsibility because of her gender to "model graciousness" after losing to President Donald Trump.

 Why I do declare, as a fine Southern belle myself, it gives me the vapors to see such unladylike conduct! You can certainly see her Yankee roots showin'!

 "I think as a woman who is in elected office, it is disappointing to me," Blackburn complained. "Hillary Clinton has the opportunity to role model graciousness. But she is choosing to live and stew in bitterness. And to blame somebody else."

 Oh, that's interesting. You know, the last time a Presidential election didn't go your way, you co-sponsored a bill to try to de-legitimize and/or humiliate the new POTUS by demanding his birth certificate. You know, "Graciousness!"

"Throughout my career, I've seen over and over again, eventually you say, 'This didn't work' or 'I didn't win' or 'I am sorry.' And you move on. You accept things. You own it. You move on. And she is missing a great opportunity by not doing that."
"Listen to her, it's always somebody else's fault," Blackburn said. "Listen to her, another day for the election and she would have won."

Hmm, funny you should say that. You're backing a President who, after he WON an election, can not stop whining about how he should also have won the popular vote so there must have been "illegal votes" cast. Like 3 million of them. This guy is being a sore loser about a contest he WON! And you have the balls to complain that HRC isn't being a gracious enough loser? So it's only women who have to have good losing etiquette?

How long was I gone? What year is it? Are there flying cars now?

I could have sworn I was gone less than a week. How is there this much shit to look back on?


All this stuff happened while I was gone?

GOP Rep. Says Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Don't Live Right

By Karoli Kuns

 “My understanding is that it will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool,” Brooks said. “That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now those are the people—who’ve done things the right way—that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”

 Like how dare you expect to pay the same as someone who has been living right when you've been ruining your life with booze and cigarettes or being born with type-I juvenile diabetes or sickle-cell anemia  or MS or whatever. Actually, let me re-phrase that. Mo Brooks is a sick disgusting excuse for a human being and I defy anyone to sink lower than him in the healthcare debate.

Well, be careful what I wish for, I guess!

Sorry Jimmy Kimmel: your sad story doesn't obligate me or anybody else to pay for somebody else's health care.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 2, 2017

Yes, that's right. After TV host Jimmy Kimmel went on the air and talked about his infant son's near-death experience and came up with the radical leftist notion that babies shouldn't be allowed to die just because their parents are poor, that was former Congressman and current deadbeat dad Joe Walsh's response.

Naturally, he got a lot of well-deserved shit for that Tweet and, being completely despicable, vile and utterly devoid of human decency, he of course doubled down.

Health care is complicated. Health care is bankrupting America. But instead of thinking thru all of that, we'd rather cry with @jimmykimmel.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 2, 2017

Because if you really want to appeal to today's modern conservative, going after a man whose newborn son is clinging to life in a hospital is really the way to go. That's not even sarcasm, that's actually good advice if you want to follow the Joe Walsh career path.

I'll say it: For a people no longer capable of logic & reason, it's perfect that a late night comedian just decided our health care policy.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 2, 2017

I like @Elise_Jordan, but nobody is ok with dead babies.

Health care is complicated & it's bankrupting America. https://t.co/zH3c8uNnNX

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 3, 2017

Except that you clearly are. You can't say "I ain't gonna pay for that baby to stay alive" and then say "I am not okay with dead babies." You can't get $100,000 behind on child support and have to be sued by your ex-wife and then say "No one is okay with deadbeat dads." You. You are okay with them. You are a deadbeat dad. You are someone who is willing to let babies die rather than have any of your tax dollars help save them. You can't have it both ways you loathsome vermin.


Also while I was gone Cheeto Mussolini tried to talk about American history.  About which he knows next to nothing. To be fair, he did seem to realize that Andrew Jackson was a person who lived and that the Civil War was a thing that happened. Other than that. . .

President Trump Doesn't Seem To Know Why The Civil War Happened

Tom Namako

BuzzFeed News Reporter

Here's the transcript:

Okay, but all the transcripts leave out the best part. He begins by talking about how people are supposedly comparing him to Andrew Jackson without realizing that that is NOT a flattering comparison. It's like on an old episode of American Idol when Simon told a kid "that was abysmal" and the kid answers "oh, thank you very much!" and then Simon has to explain to him "no, that's not a compliment."  Anyway, he's talking about Andrew Jackson when the interviewer mentions that Jackson's wife had died. Trump says "his wife died? His wife died! They destroyed his wife and she died" as if this reporter wasn't the very person who had just told him this literally 2 seconds ago. He turns it around as if this is something he's telling her! It's so shameless!

And then he talks about "no one asks the question 'why was there a Civil War,'" as if this wasn't discussed in every American history class in every high school, middle school and junior high in America. I will promise you, if you walk into any university with a decent history department, there are entire classes offered in the causes of the Civil War. But in his world, he's the only one who has ever pondered this question!

Also, Andrew Jackson was a lot of things, but no one ever accused him of having a "big heart." He was an enslaver, and he was responsible for the "Trail of Tears" because he was pretty much a psychotically racist piece of shit. But a hell of a swashbuckler, I'll give him that! Oh, and also not alive for the Civil War, but you probably knew that already.


Also, at some point in my absence, it became illegal to laugh?

A Code Pink Protester Laughs Over a Trump Nominee and Is Convicted

By CHRISTOPHER MELEMAY 3, 2017

A jury on Wednesday convicted three Code Pink activists on charges related to a protest at the confirmation hearing of Jeff Sessions for attorney general — including a Virginia woman who said all she did was break out in laughter.

Each of the three protesters faces up to 12 months in jail, $2,000 in fines, or both, depending on the outcome of a June 21 sentencing hearing.

For laughing. Okay, there's got to be more to this story, right?

It was early in the hearing when Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, said that Mr. Sessions’s record of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented,” Ariel Gold, the campaign director of Code Pink, said on Wednesday.

Ms. Fairooz said that, on hearing that, she let out a giggle.

“I just couldn’t hold it,” she said on Wednesday. “It was spontaneous. It was an immediate rejection of what I considered an outright lie or pure ignorance.”

She said when officers came over, she expected to be warned or told to shush and was surprised to be taken into custody.

Well, that's her side of the story. I'm guessing maybe the cops have a different version in which she also committed a crime of some sort, right?

Prosecutors described her actions differently.

Aha! I thought so.

Ms. Fairooz had “let out a loud burst of laughter, followed by a second louder burst of laughter,” the U.S. attorney’s office said in the filing.

Um. . .  but. . . . but it's still just laughing. That can't possibly be illegal. How long was I gone?

The police then tried to “quietly escort” Ms. Fairooz from the room, but she “grew loud and more disruptive, eventually halting the confirmation hearing,” the court papers argued.

Disruptive? If someone disrupts a hearing, aren't they generally just escorted out? What country is this?
So what was she even convicted of? What could possibly have been illegal in her actions?

Ms. Fairooz was found guilty of the two charges she faced: one of disorderly and disruptive conduct and a charge of parading or demonstrating on Capitol grounds, according to her lawyer, Samuel A. Bogash.

 Oh, right. I forgot it's illegal to demonstrate on Capitol grounds without dressing like Paul Revere and holding a misspelt sign.



 Oh, and this story makes me wonder if maybe we haven't gone backwards in time:

President Donald Trump will reportedly be appointing not one but two vocal abortion opponents to the Department of Health and Human Services. 

According to Politico, Teresa Manning — a law professor and anti-choice, anti-contraception activist — will be named deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Population Affairs, which delegates Title X funds to family planning initiatives.

Okay, well that;s no surprise. Of course he's going to appoint anti-choice persons to HHS. But this is where it gets baboon-ass crazy:

 
In a 2003 interview with WBUR Boston, Manning had this to say about contraception in general:

Contraception doesn't work. Its efficacy is very low, especially when you consider over years, which you know a lot of contraception health advocates want — to start women in their adolescent years when they're extremely fertile, incidentally, and continue for 10, 20, 30 years. Over that span of time, the prospect that contraception would always prevent the conception of a child is preposterous.

I can't tell if she actually believes that utter nonsense or if she is just bald-faced lying because she opposes all non-reproductive sex.

I mean, there are studies, right? There have to be. How do you not spend a few minutes in the library, do a Lexis/Nexis search or whatever it's called, and look up a few studies in reputable medical journals?  Instead of just saying "contraception preventing pregnancy? Multiple times? Pfft! Unlikely!"
Oh, right. In our new world, the scientific journals have all been set ablaze in a bonfire on which to burn witches. Or women who understand science. Well, same thing, really!

Well, at least one thing hasn't changed. Major newspapers in America are still doing bs stories where they go find some idiotic Trump voters who (surprise, surprise!) still like Trump! NEWS!

Sunday Review

News Analysis

These Guys Really Like Trump

“When Joe first told me about Trump, I said no, that guy’s a bragger,” Mr. Paslow said. “Then I started listening to him, and I noticed, he’s a billionaire.

Oh for fuck sake. That's the one thing -- the ONE THING-- that everyone knows about Drimpf. Everyone knows that he allegedly is an alleged billionaire. This was something you "noticed" during the campaign? You "noticed" that he's a billionaire? (allegedly) That's the only goddamm thing he ever talks about!

If somebody comes along and says, ‘President Trump, I want to keep my plant in China and I want to close my plant here, here’s $50 million,’ he says, ‘I don’t need your money, mister.’ ”

Okay, first of all, yes he does. He does need the money, because he's (allegedly) not really a billionaire. That's why he licenses his names to cheap con games like Trump University or various shady land development deals. He's not that rich (allegedly). Second, no one needs to bribe the President to keep their factory in China or close their factory here. There are no laws against either of those things. In fact, our recent spate of "free trade" deals seems to encourage that sort of activity.

Mr. Trump came striding into this bleak landscape and offered them hope. He pledged to the crowd that he would bring back the oil and gas industry the very first day he was in office. “Unbelievably, that is exactly what we wanted to hear!” Mr. Paslow said. 

Oh my God! A man running for President came to your town and said exactly what you wanted to hear? Unbelievable! I mean, what are the odds?  What are the odds that a candidate would come into Western Pennsylvania and make vague, unkeepable promises to bring back coal jobs? Serendipity!

And they say journalism is dead!