Is your pronoun XY?

#DarwinCancelled? 😉

A post I saw today from a dentist says,

I am a practicing Dentist, but also a biology major. I do believe there are just two biological sexes: XX and XY. That is not a theory it is a fact. Gender issues are social constructs to normalize behavior. Darwin would have said: survival of the species selects for the strong biological sexes.

Endless War

How can America defend Sweden? It’s out of ammo. Can it even defend Taiwan?

My take is geo-economic turmoil just got vastly worse. Food supplies will suffer. This will affect energy and fertilizer stocks.

For background material start with:

Rebekah Koffler is the president of Doctrine & Strategy Consulting, a former DIA intelligence officer, and the author of  “Putin’s Playbook: Russia’s Secret Plan to Defeat America.” She also wrote the foreword for “Zelensky: The Unlikely Ukrainian Hero.

One day someone answered a Woke Nut…

Mike Fyten,

I played a trick on someone I knew and asked them if the had heard of the bag of puppies found in the river. I said it sounds like they were taken from the mother and tossed in a bag and drowned. She went nuts…, I said that’s weird you don’t act that when when people are killing babies. She got a bit upset. Blows my mind.

Fun with Hamsters.

Someone said this to Jerrod. I about spat out my coffee when I read it.
Saint Ken of the Ham really captures it well.

I wonder if there is a sigel for Saint Ken?

I swear, I am going to make a character in fantasy books modeled on Saint Ken of the Ham. He will be constructing giant submarines in the land of Garma to model the real one that happened in the “Great Soaping of Atlantis.”

Honey, you are such a Peach.

“The difference between you and a pear is you think you are important and the pear does not.”

— Dennis Prager.

He gets this from current events about a movement of people wanting to bequeath their bodies to nourish the earth.

Dennis says, (paraphrasing):

If humans are not made in the image of God then they are no different than fruit. They are just compost.
It comes down to whether you are merely physical. If humans are merely physical then they can be compost. They are compost. Any difference is just imaginary.

I would add this is the philosophy of atheism. Dennis calls it the nihilism of the secular western world. What I would call the secular western fundamentalist religion. It really is the logical conclusion of reductionism.

To the atheist your real meaning, in any ultimate sense, is you will become fertilizer and will help plants grow. Anything you do before that is … well, you are just having a nice fantasy.

Atheists will tell us they have moral codes and build moral societies. They have been saying that for years. What they cannot tell us is WHY. Who could possibly even care about the moral code of a pear? Or fof fertilizer? It is not logical. Not even rational. But they insist the theist’s interest in the transcendental is irrational. Surely they base this on a metaphysical assumption. They will tell you that the flaw in theism is that it is based on metaphysical assumptions. But will deny their own world view is based on a metaphysical assumption.

One atheist recently called me a nutcase for even asking the question. Instead of answering the question they just name-call. One can only assume that is because they cannot give reasons. Their philosophy is vacuous. If they could give reasons then everyone could consider the reasons.

Meanwhile, everywhere one encounters such people they scream that theists are believing in imaginary things. And they truly believe that too!

I think the atheist needs to explain why he is meta-physics free. Otherwise, why is he believable?

Why EU Ministers should resign in shame.

Melissa Fleming, the UN’s under secretary general for global communications, said she was “deeply disturbed” by reports that journalists were being “arbitrarily” suspended from Twitter.

“Media freedom is not a toy,” she said. “A free press is the cornerstone of democratic societies and a key tool in the fight against harmful disinformation.”

Earlier on Friday, EU commissioner Vera Jourova threatened Twitter with sanctions under Europe’s new Digital Services Act which she said requires “the respect of media freedom and fundament rights”.

“Elon Musk should be aware of that. There are red lines. And sanctions, soon,” she added.

Banning Trump and conservatives … NOT a threat to democracy.
Banning DOXers … threat to democracy.

Lefties say private companies can ban whomever they want to … unless its Musk … then it is a political crime.

Is there a Minister of Hypocrisy?

Shadow Banning and Democracy.

Shadow Banning and Democracy are Incompatible.
Shadow Banning and Democracy are Opposites.

Shadow Banning Harms Democracy.

For example, if ordinary citizens cannot run for school board and be noticed because of the opposing political views of a publisher this violates equal time principles. It really is a matter of making an entire group of citizens invisible to the public. You cannot have a democracy under those circumstances.

It gets worse when one party in power tells the media what ideas can be suppressed or which class or type of citizens to suppress. There are constitutionally protected class of citizens.

Religious belief is one of those classes.

So, is social media a public service? Or not? Is it in the public square or do people pay to access it? (i.e., is it a private club or private service?).

Ted Lieu said “everyone can pay to advertise their message on social media.” Untrue!!! Can Donald Trump? Trump campaign? Trump supporters? Ted Lieu AFAIK has not answered such questions.

There used to be FCC regulations about media based on air waves, and equal time. Is the radio to you cell phone a regulated “air wave”? Licensed space, licensed by the government, to the telco provider? Should it be?

There was legislation about whether carriers could charge extra for premium service to those willing to pay. Under that scheme those who do not pay get minimum or no service and have diminished rights.

An article on Forbes about “Digital Equal Access” says:

This digital equal time rule puts the ability to respond to disinformation campaigns in the hands of the party with the greatest interest in timely, persuasive and effective corrections. With this rule in place, the original audience would receive countervailing information, without requiring social media companies or government agencies to act as truth police. 

 The social media companies involved know who received the original candidate’s targeted message.  All they need to do is replicate this audience for the opposing candidate’s response, avoiding the need to share the identities or contact information of the targeted audience and thereby protecting their privacy. 

Above quote is from Mark McCarthy, an adjunct professor in Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture & Technology Program, a non-resident senior fellow in the  

Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law, and a non-resident senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation, Previously, I was Senior Vice President for Public Policy at the Software & Information Industry Association

My view: (to promote democracy)

The solution is MORE SPEECH, not less. And no arbitration by the broadcaster.

Lithium Mining in Thacker Pass?

Looks like a Nice Place.

The environmental movement says “No” to mining lithium here. But listen to him repeat the “drumbeat” on lithium battery powered cars. Yes, that is the common drumbeat.

But when you have environmentalists join conservatives in opposing lithium, what will the outcome
really be? I don’t know. But things are not what they seem.


I personally know someone who stopped a wind farm development by the state of Virginia in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Half the counties in Iowa have moratoria on wind farms. The reason? Bird kills are opposed by environmentalists.

Things are not as they seem.

Constitutional Principles on Free Speech

Question: If government agents are directing Twitter and Facebook to implement viewpoint discrimination [as part of government policy] in a public forum (i.e., public is invited to participate for free) does the constitutional guarantee of “equal treatment under the law” apply to their content?

Does meeting weekly with the government to obtain direction of what viewpoints to discriminate against constitute government directed viewpoint discrimination?

Today ACLJ announced they sent attorney to a school board that opened a public forum and then banned the pro-life speakers they had invited. Banned them totally!!! ACLJ attorney explained the law and the board reversed their decision. The government cannot engage in directing the content of speech because it is viewpoint discrimination. SCOTUS has ruled on this many times. Made me wonder about whether this government controlling twitter policy means twitter and facebook fall under the same law as school boards. Do they?