Month: May 2016

Illinois Blues: How the Ruling Party Talks to Voters

Wash Post after Trump for using “gendered language”

What next, not using “person” when you mean “man” or “woman” or child?

The most offensive language, though, came from one of the warm-up speakers [for Trump at New Mexico rally].

David Chavez, a former state lawmaker, compared voting for Clinton because she’s a woman to drinking bleach because it looks like water. “I’ve heard people say: I don’t know who to choose: Trump or Hillary. Even Bill Clinton chose other women. So you should, too,” Chavez said.

(Jenna, our reporter in the room, says the crowd laughed and applauded…)

You can criticize someone, but very carefully. You can’t mock the mockable, ridicule the ridiculous, mind p’s and q’s. In short, you have to be careful what you say and how you say it. There are comfort zones out there with big signs saying Keep out!

Judge gives Justice a whupping

DOJ lawyers tried to pull wool over the judge’s eyes, when it’s justice that’s supposed to be blind, not the judge.

A federal judge in Texas has ordered hundreds of U.S. Department of Justice lawyers to undergo ethics training, accusing the agency of a “calculated plan of unethical conduct.”

The extraordinary order by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen says Justice Department lawyers intentionally misled him in the course of a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other mostly conservative states challenging the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

He scolded, excoriated, them soundly.

Judge Hanen wrote, “Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word ‘Justice.’”

He went on, “In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct. There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations.”

Who do they think they are, mob lawyers?

Rope-a-dopey Obama feds have tiger by tail

Not the first time, needless to say, but this one’s a doozy.

The objection made by many people opposed to establishing a right of the transgendered to use the bathroom or shower of their choice is not so much about the occasional transgendered person using a facility.

It is that by making someone’s gender choice unquestionable, you are actually saying that anyone, at any time, can use the facilities of the other gender, and if challenged, can simply claim to be transgendered.

So any middle aged man who wants to shower with the girls’ soccer team at the local community college will now have a federal right to do so.

And if anyone asks him to leave, they will be violating his legal rights. (Some have argued that social norms will keep people in line in bathrooms; but it seems hardly worth commenting on the uselessness of social norms when the underlying policy is meant to destroy social norms.)

Gender choice out of bounds for discussion. (Just live with it, young ladies taking shower.) 

The bloke makes the claim, no one dare stop him. (DOJ is on his case in the flash of a towel ping, ACLU providing the court case.)

Social norms? Forget about them! Right now!