They had run through the night, leaving the shrouded forest behind just as dawn pinked the sky.
She slid from Shi-iro’s back. He pawed the ground, snorting, muscles twitching under his foamed-flecked hide. Her hand touched at where she had hidden the bottle in her sleeve.
Still there, a last resort.
The key, dangling from twine on her neck, between her breasts. In the grimness of her flight, it gave her hope.
She walked to the edge of the cliff, the sea spread out at her feet, the salt air in her nostrils. Yes, there, on the horizon.
Now, your turn.
That worked out well now, didn’t it?
When was the last time a ‘mass-shooting’ took place at a gun show?
Prayers for the survivors, their families and the families of the victims.
About those Russian attacks in Syria …
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia launched airstrikes Wednesday in Syria, sharply escalating Moscow’s role in the conflict but also raising questions about whether its intent is fighting Islamic State militants or protecting longtime ally, President Bashar Assad.
President Vladimir Putin called it a pre-emptive strike against the militants, and the Russian Defense Ministry said its warplanes targeted and destroyed eight positions belonging to extremists from the IS group, also known as ISIL or ISIS. It did not give specific locations.
But French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told lawmakers in Paris: “Curiously, they didn’t hit Islamic State. I will let you draw a certain number of conclusions yourselves.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter also said the Russians appeared to have targeted areas that did not include IS militants and complained Moscow did not use formal channels to give advance notice of its airstrikes to Washington, which is conducting its own airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State group.
Be prepared, strongly worded letter to be sent to Russia!
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington was prepared to welcome Russian military action in Syria as long as it is directed against IS and other al-Qaida affiliates, but would have “grave concerns” if it conducted strikes against other groups.
Grave concerns, he said.
Oh my, Top.Men., indeed.
One might even conclude that Putin is enjoying himself:
Putin’s message at the U.N. podium Monday was a simple one: U.S. interventions and unilateralism have backfired in the Middle East, and it is time to try something new.
His speech will do little to undercut a widespread impression in many Western capitals that his aim in Syria is not just to bolster a Moscow ally but, primarily, to thwart U.S. power and influence in the Middle East.
Putin took particular aim at U.S. involvement in Iraq and Libya, which he said fostered a power vacuum filled with “extremists and terrorists.”
“Do you realize now what you’ve done?” he asked.
That “you” is Obama. Stability evaporated with King Barry’s precipitous and unilateral withdraw from Iraq.
The f**ker has repeated the Democrats deliberate betrayl of South Vietnam.
Stop with the smoke and mirrors …
Every Republican tax-reform plan should be rooted in this reality: If you are going to have federal spending that is 21 percent of GDP, then you can have a.) taxes that are 21 percent of GDP; b.) deficits. There is no c.
If, on the other hand, you have a credible program for reducing spending to 17 or 18 percent of GDP, which is where taxes have been coming in, please do share it.
The problem with the Growth Fairy model of balancing budgets is that while economic growth would certainly reduce federal spending as a share of GDP if spending were kept constant, there is zero evidence that the government of these United States has the will or the inclination to enact serious spending controls when times are good (Uncork the champagne!) or when times are bad (Wicked austerity! We must have stimulus!).
In other words — TANSTAAFL
Yes, another from the Protein Wisdom examines the Pressing Issue of Transmisogyny series …
As a straight, white, cisgender male, I don’t face the challenges that many women, minorities, or genderqueer do on a daily basis. My life is easy. I benefit from a patriarchal system that lends power and privilege to individuals with my characteristics. While I didn’t ask for it, it is my duty to own it. I want to preface this article by acknowledging my privilege, and apologizing beforehand if I step out of line, or any of the following causes offense. […]
I’m speaking, of course, about the disappointment of raising a child who subscribes to the traditional gender binary.
Gwen and I, despite our best efforts, are currently the parents of a cisgendered son. […]
I heard it before I saw it. The banging sound had returned, only when I spun around to look I saw with horror Pat using the African-American doctor Barbie as a hammer. Gwen did not allow me a second chance at fixing this. She tipped over the chair as she ran toward Pat. Yanking the doll out of his hand, she screamed “No!” repeatedly. We left quickly, not willing to risk any more male toxicity creeping into our child.
We couldn’t believe it. Not only had Pat exhibited masculine traits despite our best efforts, he had done so by using a woman as a tool, and an African-American woman no less. He was only two, and not only was he already a sexist, he was a racist. On the way home, Gwen rightly placed the blame on me. I sat quietly as I accepted her righteous anger, waiting for her to finish before I would apologize repeatedly. Her amazing wisdom and intuitivity rocked my very core as she screamed and scolded me, and I had to remind myself that I needed it.
Please, do read the whole thing.
PS … Poe’s Law … above the headline on the article is “Satire”
Bravo. Brandon Morse!
Stick with me here — I never watch these shows, but stumbled across this.
I you want to skip the opening behind the stage schtick, start at about the 2:00 mark.
Isn’t this special?
The State Department has received an email chain between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus that apparently was not included in the collection she said was a full record of her work-related correspondence.
In addition, the State Department said it provided more than 900 Libya-related emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi Friday. The Department has had those emails since December. […]
Officials said the emails in no way dealt with classified material. But their existence challenges Clinton’s claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account. […]
The revelation adds to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner’s unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.
Jamal D. Ware, spokesman for the Select Committee on Benghazi, issued a statement Friday in response to the news about the new documents.
“The State Department, which has failed to comply with multiple Benghazi Committee requests and failed to act in good faith, is now indicating it intends to foster a more cooperative relationship with the committee. It’s curious the Department is suddenly able to be more productive after recent staff changes involving those responsible for document production.”
Some people should really not react to a sound clip edited to make it appear that Dr. Carson was advocating for a law banning Muslims from the Presidency.
Of course, Carson did not call for the enactment of a law disqualifying Muslims from serving in public office, which is what the religious-test clause actually forbids. He merely offered his personal opinion that it would not be wise for Americans to elect a Muslim president.
Krauthammer’s argument is more sophisticated and more dangerous — a bellwether of how progressive constitutional jurisprudence corrupts the thinking of even brilliant conservative analysts. He writes:
The Constitution is not just a legal document. It is a didactic one. It doesn’t just set limits to power; it expresses a national ethos. It doesn’t just tell you what you’re not allowed to do; it also suggests what you shouldn’t want to do.
Nonsense. If the Constitution is a “didactic” document, it is a damned poor one, since its objective is to limit government and maximize individual liberty. Despite the Constitution’s clarity in this regard, government has exploded in size and scope over the last century. Why? Because the “national ethos” — actually expressed by progressive scholars and jurists, not by the Constitution itself — has obscured a central truth: If the Constitution is in the business of making “didactic” suggestions, the “you” to whom they are addressed is the government, not the people.
The Constitution is not a pedagogical tool, teaching us values. It is a legal and political limitation on government’s intrusion into the realm of free thought and action. It is in that realm that we acquire values, knowledge, and common sense. Thus armed, Americans have been taking the belief systems of candidates for public office into account since the Constitution took effect in 1789. There is, moreover, a cottage industry of scholarship on how the religious beliefs of the framers and of presidents have shaped the course of American history. It would defy logic to ignore the patent connection between a candidate’s convictions and how he is likely to govern.
Parody is as dead as the fabled Norwegian Blue …
Question: It’s concerning to me that you’re telling lesbians they are bigoted/transphobic/vile for being exclusively attracted to females (referring to the female sex, to clarify), and accusing lesbians of contributing to the deaths of trans women by not having sex with them. Is it very difficult to understand that people have reasons for not wanting to have sex with male bodied individuals including previous experiences and also just the fact that their sexuality is inherent? Requiring sex as a form of validation from females comes across as worryingly entitled and very coercive.
Answer: There is no “female sex”.
Coercively gendering biology is violence.
Trans women are not “male bodied”. You’re assuming you know a trans woman’s biological features, for a start. Some trans women have penises, some have vaginas, some have other genitals. Some trans women have oestrogen dominant hormone profiles, some have testosterone dominant, some have other hormonal makeups. Some have boobs, some don’t. But in all cases, they are women, they are female, and therefore – as long as they choose to define themselves as such – they are female bodied.
I’m not advocating for every lesbian to be forced to have sex with a trans woman, no matter what her biology. I’m saying that anyone who automatically writes trans women out of their potential pool of people to be sexually attracted to, whilst being attracted to cis women, is a transmisogynist. You’re making assumptions about trans women’s bodies.
Yes, some people may have trauma surrounding certain body parts, or just not want to have sex involving certain body parts out of preference. Sex doesn’t have to involve those body parts. Sex with a woman with a penis doesn’t have to involve that woman’s penis, just as sex between any two people doesn’t have to involve, for example, the anus.
“requiring sex as validation” is emphatically NOT what I’m doing. I’m asking everyone to deconstruct their own experience of sexual attraction and the societal cissexism that affects it. In fact, if you’re a transmisogynist, please DON’T go looking to have sex with trans women. Stay the heck away from them. They don’t need your “validation”.