I was at Disneyland with my son, my friend and her son.
I was off to the side waiting with the two boys, when I noticed a man walk into the restroom.
“Ok there is definitely a very large, burly man in a Lakers jersey who just walked in here. Am I the only one seeing this?" I surveyed the room and saw roughly 12 women, children in tow, staring at him with the exact same look on their faces. Everyone was visibly uncomfortable. We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him…like "What is he doing in here?” Yet every single one of us was silent. And this is the reason I wrote this blog.
He then did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone with their pants around their ankles and v-a-g-i-n-a clear as day.
So yes... there were women and small children using the restroom and this man was walking around knowing no one would say anything. So here I am…writing this blog, because honestly I need answers. We can’t leave this situation ambiguous any more. The gender debate needs to be addressed... and quickly. There have to be guidelines. It can’t just be a feeling. I’m sorry. I wish it could, but it can’t.
Gender just can't be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison, but as a very progressive woman...I'm sorry it can't just be a feeling when there's but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my v-a-g-i-n-a or my children's genitals.
We can not put doubt in women's minds regarding their ability to recognize and identify a man. In a world where 99.9 percent of sexual assault is done by men, we must to have the right to "assume someone's gender". And I will not waiver in that stance.
What about someone who looks like that who cannot afford (due to rising premiums for Obamacare) to get the surgery to change to look like Bruce Jenner? Should ze be able to use the restroom and make biological women uncomfortable in the restroom?
Why don't we just take the logical step and only have one locker room/restroom? No more separation of the biological genders! And no more women/men sports. Just sports. I cannot wait for the gender equality to be pushed by the Democrats ... perhaps even in the Capitol Hill gym first!
Privacy is a different issue. Most American public b...See MoreIt is possible that men who want to attack women in a rest room don't need to make any effort to appear feminine. Keeping transgender people out of the "ladies room" will not improve safety. Keeping violent men out would help, but so few places police bathrooms.
Privacy is a different issue. Most American public bathrooms aren't built for it. It really wouldn't take much to adapt the bathrooms so we don't have to concern ourselves with the person in the next stall.
-ltl
On 3/27/17, Tim Finnegan wrote: > On 3/27/17, Lulu wrote: >> Here's a bigger problem. How did she know what genitalia >> the person she's talking about was born with? It's very >> possible he > was >> a transgender man trying to use the bathroom Republicans >> seem to >> want him to use (the one corresponding to his birth certificate) > and >> checking to see if the stalls were full the way all of >> us born > female >> do. >> >> If you were to see my niece's wife you would never know >> she was >> born male. Someone commenting on their wedding photos >> recently who was aware one of the brides was born male >> commented that the one they assumed was the transgender >> wife could really pass. >> She was pointing to my niece, born with all girl parts! >> >> What I don't understand is why some people seem to feel >> the need >> to create a problem where there wasn't one before. The >> answer is >> not to force people who look like this to use the lady's >> room. > > What about someone who looks like that who cannot afford > (due to > rising premiums for Obamacare) to get the surgery to > change to look like Bruce Jenner? Should ze be able to > use the restroom and > make biological women uncomfortable in the restroom? > > Why don't we just take the logical step and only have one locker > room/restroom? No more separation of the biological > genders! And > no more women/men sports. Just sports. I cannot wait for > the gender equality to be pushed by the Democrats ... > perhaps even in > the Capitol Hill gym first!
well,On 3/27/17, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics wrote: > Heard the author speak on the radio and it sounded interesting.
A former Politics board member, Abigail, recommended that book several years ago. I always meant to read it. If I remember it has to do with partisanship and bias.
Yet, we should not pretend that Obamacare is the answer. It is not, and it too will fail! The best explanation of why Obamacare must be replaced - and the only viable option is Medicare for All - is found in the following quote from the "American Journal of Public Health."
(Quote)
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) extended coverage to 20 million and boosted funding for public health and community health centers. But it offered little help to 90&37; of the population, perpetuated a dysfunctional health care financing system, left 26 million uninsured, saddled covered families with unaffordable deductibles and narrow provider networks, and enriched drug firms, medical conglomerates, and insurers.
(End quote)
That last part about "enriched drug firms" and more is simple to understand. Health care should not be a "for-profit" operation. Just how some think a CEO should get a multimillion dollar paycheck on the backs of people with cancer or some other disease is beyond any sense of humanity. Plus, Medicare for All would provide immediate coverage to the 26 million Americans who are currently uninsured, and would save an estimated 21,000 lives in year one.
EXACTLY. The "academic community" does not want competition. Any "peer review" is suspect for this reason. Why would they be objective since their agenda is to maintain the public school monopoly?
So Cha Cha has lead us to the same place all of these conservative arguments go. That is, we know nothing, so whatever I want to think is fine. This is the climate change argument that climatologists are corrupt because they want the grant money. However now, all academics are corrupt, because "The 'academic community' does not want competition."
Cha Cha has no idea how badly an academic would like to overturn a long held wrong idea with valid data. AW's study is not it.
The other annoying part is, Cha Cha, clearly, did not Google the review title, and do some reading. The review cites several major problems with the study AW cited. Here is one that I found egregious.
(Quote from "Review of On the Public-Private School Achievement Debate")
Another important variable deleted in the PEPG models is the Individualized Education Program (IEP) designation for students with special needs. Public schools serve disproportionate numbers of students with special needs, as evidenced by the PEPG’s own report of the numbers of public- and private-school students who required special NAEP testing accommodations. However, the PEPG analysts deleted the IEP variable from their model, leaving no substitute in its place to account for the large numbers of special needs students in public schools — students who score an average of more than 20-30 points lower than their peers on NAEP (as indicated in the tables of the PEPG paper).
(End quote)
Next Cha Cha will claim the reviewers are making stuff up! As everyone knows, the school privatization group never lets the facts get in the way of what they want to believe.
PS: About that "public school monopoly", that is not the problem. The real problem comes from knowing what the profit motive has done to health care, housing and more. The American economy is no longer based on win-win deals.
PPS: In a different post, Cha Cha wrote "If you live in a wealthy, middle class neighborhood with many educated parents, it goes without saying that the public school kids may test higher." Oh yes, poverty results in lower overall school performance. But we have known that for a long time. Maybe the problem with our schools is found in articles like "Nearly half of American children living near poverty line."
When you watch t...See MoreI understand the corruption of the Clinton democrats, and I do not support them. Most Republicans also understand. However, I cannot figure out why Republicans are so blind. The Republican Party serves the interests of corporations against the people - including against all of the Republican voters that keep them in power.
When you watch the video below, you really have to ponder why anyone supports the Republican Party. They are leading us away from democracy and toward a corporate state.
has an extreme perspective on women's health issues and rights
praised a republican activist behind voter supression efforts
sided with religious employers like Hobby Lobby
Those decisions show that Gorsuch is definitely NOT a moderate.
On 3/26/17, AW wrote: > On 3/26/17, T.E.C. - Iowa wrote: >> I understand the corruption of the Clinton democrats, and I >> do not support them. Most Republicans also understand. >> However, I cannot figure out why Republicans are so blind. >> The Republican Party serves the interests of corporations >> against the people - including against all of the Republican >> voters that keep them in power. > > However, corporations and Wall Street did very well under > obama, even much better than during the bush years. > > Gun manufacturing also had unprecidented sales during the > obama years. > > >> >> When you watch the video below, you really have to ponder >> why anyone supports the Republican Party. They are leading >> us away from democracy and toward a corporate state. > > What spin! Whitehouse, who apparently likes to hear himself > talk, forgot to mention obamacare. 5-4 all democrats > (including the chief justice roberts) > > Kennedy is a swing voter. > > Conservatives --- Thomas, Alito > Liberals --- Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, > Swing/moderates --- Roberts and Kennedy > > Too bad Scalia up and died so conveniently -- supposedly of > natural causes since no autopsy was done. Gorsuch is a the > best nominee the democrats could get. He is IMHO a moderate. > > However, I prefer we don't have people appointed to the > Supreme Court for life. Now judges are just another layer of > politicians. > > An article from the CATO institute suggested a term of 18 > years with the judges terms staggered. In fact, the life term > is not specifically stated in the constitution nor how many > judges we have. I don't think there is even a requirement > that the judge have been a lawyer. > > > > >
On 3/26/17, AW, does a "moderate" judge this way? wrote: > > Gorsuch: sided with corporations in 91&37; of pension cases > > defended Bush's torture policy > > voted against disability rights > > has an extreme perspective on women's health issues > and rights > > praised a republican activist behind voter > supression efforts > > sided with religious employers like Hobby Lobby > > Those decisions show that Gorsuch is definitely NOT a > moderate. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/26/17, AW wrote: >> On 3/26/17, T.E.C. - Iowa wrote: >>> I understand the corruption of the Clinton democrats, and I >>> do not support them. Most Republicans also understand. >>> However, I cannot figure out why Republicans are so blind. >>> The Republican Party serves the interests of corporations >>> against the people - including against all of the > Republican >>> voters that keep them in power. >> >> However, corporations and Wall Street did very well under >> obama, even much better than during the bush years. >> >> Gun manufacturing also had unprecidented sales during the >> obama years. >> >> >>> >>> When you watch the video below, you really have to ponder >>> why anyone supports the Republican Party. They are leading >>> us away from democracy and toward a corporate state. >> >> What spin! Whitehouse, who apparently likes to hear himself >> talk, forgot to mention obamacare. 5-4 all democrats >> (including the chief justice roberts) >> >> Kennedy is a swing voter. >> >> Conservatives --- Thomas, Alito >> Liberals --- Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, >> Swing/moderates --- Roberts and Kennedy >> >> Too bad Scalia up and died so conveniently -- supposedly of >> natural causes since no autopsy was done. Gorsuch is a the >> best nominee the democrats could get. He is IMHO a moderate. >> >> However, I prefer we don't have people appointed to the >> Supreme Court for life. Now judges are just another layer of >> politicians. >> >> An article from the CATO institute suggested a term of 18 >> years with the judges terms staggered. In fact, the life > term >> is not specifically stated in the constitution nor how many >> judges we have. I don't think there is even a requirement >> that the judge have been a lawyer. >> >> >> >> >>
On 3/24/17, Here are several reasons why Trumpcare did not pass: wrote: > > There were NO requirements for Trumpcare insurance > companies to cover: > > 1. Outpatient care > 2. Emergency services > 3. Hospitalization > 4. Pregnancy, maternity and newborn care > 5. Mental health and substance abuse disorder services > 6. Prescription drugs > 7. Rehabilitative services > 8. Lab services > 9. Preventive services > 10. Pediatric services > > Apparently the republicans eliminated 1-10 from being > required to try to get the tea party on board. Didn't > work. > > Someone said Trumpcare covered aroma therapy, but not > chemotherapy. Don't know if that's true, but... > > > > > > On 3/24/17, T.E.C. - Iowa wrote: >> This thread is a debate comparing the bad (Obamacare) and >> the unbelievably bad (Trumpcare). It is still true that >> the use of private insurance companies requires the three >> parts of (1) no pre-existing conditions, (2) individual >> mandate, and, (3) subsidies for the poor. If any part is >> missing the system will collapse. >> >> Obamacare's collapse is likely to be from a different >> cause - monopoly pricing. >> >> All the Republicans have done is run up against the above >> fact - even if, in the end, they still do not know what >> they are doing. Yet, the annoying part is all of the time >> Republicans wasted in the last several years voting over >> and over to repeal Obamacare. >> >> I mean, seriously, with an eye roll, they could have > spent >> that time doing more tax cuts for the rich - which was >> what Trumpcare was really all about. Again, Trumpcare had >> little to do with improving health care in America. >> >> In the end, I regret that Trumpcare did not pass. It > would >> have taken us to Medicare for All in no time at all. >>
:::quote::: The chairman of the House intelligence committee has backed down from his dramatic assertion that Donald Trump and his aides were "monitored," by U.S. spies — a claim the Republicans have cited this week in fundraising emails.
Rep. Devin Nunes told reporters Friday he can't be sure whether conversations among Trump or his aides were captured in the surveillance that has become a source of controversy since Nunes made it public in two news conferences this week.
"He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested from the (intelligence community) about this before he knows for sure," his spokesman, Jack Langer, said earlier.
Nunes continued to refuse to say how he had learned about the surveillance, including whether his source was in the White House.
Langer asserted that Nunes did not explicitly say Trump was spied on when he briefed reporters Wednesday that he was "very concerned," that "the intelligence community incidentally collected information about American citizens involved in the Trump transition."
As for Trump's assertion that Obama wiretapped him, Nunes repeated Friday what he has said previously, telling reporters, "That didn't happen."
However, Nunes on Wednesday had left an impression — widely repeated in the news media — that the conversations of Trump and his aides were picked up by American spies.
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president elect and his team were at least monitored and disseminated out," Nunes told reporters.
On Thursday, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email about Nunes' remarks with the subject line, "Confirmed: Obama Spied on Trump."
Nunes himself said he wasn't making that claim — he said the surveillance was legal and there was no wiretap of Trump Tower. But those sorts of assertions by Republicans raised the question about whether what Nunes did was intended to give Trump cover for his discredited claim that Obama "wiretapped" him.
Current and former officials say that it's possible that Trump or his aides were picked up "incidentally" by surveillance, if a foreign diplomat or other target called them or emailed them. But it is far more likely, they say, that what Nunes was talking about was surveillance of foreigners talking to foreigners, who were speaking about Trump and his aides.
Those conversations were then excerpted in intelligence reports that circulated around the government.
Surveillance of those conversations required warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court if the foreigners are in the United States — as diplomats, for example — or if the communications traverse U.S. cables.
"I think this is overwhelmingly not information from or to an American," former NSA and CIA director Mike Hayden told Chuck Todd Thursday on Meet the Press Daily. "I think this is overwhelmingly information about an American, foreign to foreign, in which they are doing what you would expect them to do."
After any presidential transition, Hayden continued, foreign embassies under surveillance are sending reports back to their capitals analyzing "who's up, who's down."
To the extent that Americans are mentioned in these documents, those names are supposed to be blacked out in any intelligence report that is circulated around the government, unless the identities are needed to understand the intelligence.
That issue appears to be what Nunes is now focusing on. In some of the intelligence reports he reviewed, Nunes said, the names of Trump aides were blacked out, but he could figure them out anyway. In other reports, he said, the names had been "unmasked," and he questioned whether that was appropriate.
Hayden, a Republican, suggested it might have been done to better understand the intelligence.
"You need to put flesh in there," he said. :::end quote:::
(Illinois) sales tax rate is high, and its base is narrow. Our flat income tax doesn’t yield the increased revenue that progressive systems do with greater productivity. We rely very heavily on property taxes to fund our schools. Our motor fuel taxes are set at a fixed number of cents per gallon that not only don’t rise with inflation, but generate less revenue with today’s better-mileage vehicles.
(End quote)
On the other side of the budget the article says this:
(Quote)
Even aside from the pension problem, in recent years policymakers have carried over deficits, delayed payments, used one-time money, and resorted to other budgetary tricks to get from one fiscal year to the next. Simply put, this comes from a short-sighted focus on the next election. The result has been a huge structural deficit that no longer can be ignored. Fixing this requires service cuts and tax hikes, neither of which anyone likes — least of all legislators who have to explain them to voters.
(End quote)
This is a good reason for term limits or something, because Illinois needs legislators who are not interested in the next election. Yet, Lulu is right. This has nothing to do with Obama. A lot of this is political corruption on the state level.
President Trump will need to rebuild his credibility for the next crisis
:::quote::: “Presidents cannot order a so-called FISA wiretap. The language that Mr. Trump used in his unnecessary tweet, likely based on a Breitbart article, was insufficiently specific and needlessly accusatory. It also may have revealed the existence of a criminal investigation, which may create another problem for the president down the line.
Had Mr. Trump learned, through whatever source, that some type of surveillance collected some part of his conversations, he should have launched a private inquiry to determine the truth. He has the ability as president to declassify any information that he believes is in the public interest.
At the end of that investigation, he could have revealed in more than 140 characters whatever the investigation found, and he could have presented actual evidence. Instead, he made a baseless charge on Twitter at 6 a.m. on a Saturday morning, a charge that created an unnecessary controversy that has consumed official Washington for weeks. The incredible spectacle of an FBI director publicly testifying that the president of the United States had falsely claimed that a predecessor had committed a felony is without historical precedent. The damage to Mr. Trump’s credibility, a by-product of his own recklessness in this matter, has been significant.”
No, it's spot on accurate. Chalky claimed a president couldn't authorize a wiretap. As the law clearly states, the president can. (As I have pointed out to you multiple times.)
On 3/23/17, Lulu wrote: > Nice try. You continue to quote the beginning of the statute without > the rest. It's just plain dishonest, considering this has been pointed > out to you multiple times. > > N.b., "...IF the attorney General certifies that..." > > "(a) > (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the > Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a > court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence > information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General > certifies in writing under oath that-- > (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-- > (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by > means of communications used exclusively between or among > foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this > title; or > (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken > communications of individuals, from property or premises under the > open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section > 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; > (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will > acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States > person is a party; and > (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such > surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under > section 1801(h) of this title; and > if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and > any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on > Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at > least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney > General determines immediate action is required and notifies the > committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the > reason for their becoming effective immediately..." > >
He said <b>none of the reports he had read mentioned Russia or Russians</b> and he was unsure whether the surveillance occurred at Trump Tower -- as President Trump has suggested.
House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said this produced "dozens" of reports which eventually <b>unmasked several individuals’ identities and were "widely disseminated.</b>"
Nunes said he told House Speaker Paul Ryan earlier Wednesday about his findings. He later said he briefed Trump, calling some of the collection <b>"inappropriate." </b>
It was previously reported that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was "unmasked" in this way, however, Nunes said <b>"additional names" were unmasked as well.</b>
Asked if he thought Trump was spied on, Nunes replied: "I'm not gonna get into legal definitions here, but clearly I have a concern."
> What the pr...See MoreOn 3/23/17, Bob R/CA wrote: > On 3/23/17, EasTexSteve wrote: >> HAHA! Even YOU used the word wiretapped. No, my facts >> were correct from the beginning. > > I don't know or really care what you claimed.
AW, now now. Are you still twisted off over the Hillary thing?
> What the president tweeted was: > > "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones > during the very sacred election process. This is > Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!" > > This we now know is a lie. Full stop.
If they didn't wiretap Trumps phones, then how did they manage to intercept calls from his transition team BEFORE he was sworn in? Was it ESP?
> > Claim whatever you want, you're not the president. If you > lie, nothing changes in the world. Have at it.