July 22, 2014

“Check your facts, not your privilege” [Darleen Click]

h/t Glenn Reynolds

Posted by Darleen @ 7:37am
41 comments | Trackback

Tags: ,

Comments (41)

  1. So her dad doesn’t want her screwing, but with her brother it’s ok. Got it.

  2. Fake but accurate, maybe? Nope, it appears to be false and inaccurate.

    When I went to college, my school (WPI) was approximately 5% female. Anyone want to guess what percentage of females it is now? 33% – a 600% increase.

  3. - What part of “established by the state” don’t they understand? Notice they don’t address the accuracy of the meaning as its written, they just moan that if upheld it will defeat the purpose of O’care to redistribute wealth.

    - But they still expect to win with that argument. Morons.

    - Well, hey, why don’t the Proggies in Congress just rewrite the bill language the way they want it and put it to a vote? Yeah, that will happen.

  4. My old friend who is a real rocket scientist and still considers himself a conservative has two kids.

    The older son majored in “International Studies” and of course is not using the degree in his present work.

    His recently high school grad daughter is smarter than the son and is majoring in Policy, Planning, and Development” with an emphasis track of “Sustainable Planning” at USC in the Fall.

    I wept and held my tongue. I blame it on her lefty California education not sexism. I also want to knock some sense into my friend’s head.

  5. little Nazis don’t grow on trees: they have to be carefully sculpted.

  6. What part of “established by the state” don’t they understand?

    Especially when “State” is specifically defined as “any of the 50 States or the District of Colombia” and “Secretary” is also explicitly defined. Do they really think that they wanted the two to be either confused or conflated? I actually had one loser claim that because “state” can be used as “Head of State”, that must have been what they really meant, the black-and-white definitions being otherwise meaningless. I pointed out that it is also used in “State of the Nation” and he said, “Oh, that can’t be what they meant.”

    I pointed out that there was only one way to know what they meant, and that was to look at what the law actually said, and *gasp* lo and behold! Right there in section 1304…

    (c) SECRETARY.—In this title, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services.
    (d) STATE.—In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50
    States and the District of Columbia.

    (Page 69, if you want to look for yourself — http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf )

  7. - Heresy! Burn her at the stake!

  8. - Amazing, isn’t it drum. They are so indoctrinated in the free shit they want they will try to twist every line phrase and word into a pretzel to get what they want without batting an eye. What a bunch of self-serving aholes.

    - And of course screw what the majority of people really want. Its for our own good.

    - I suppose that in some mad Orwellian way paying for Sandra Flukes sex game meds will save us from another unwanted Progressive spawn, so maybe we should support it. Done enough Progs would become extinct.

  9. Gee if only there was a smart military semiotics blog out there to help people learn for themselves how to answer the fundamentally unserious all-important question: what did they really mean by that?

  10. Surely they meant “ignore us”, Ernst: it’s the only possible interpretation.

  11. Well, Barak Obama is Humpty-Dumpty, after all.

  12. Where is the funding for the subsidies coming from? Obama’s stash?

  13. - Of course over at HuffNPoop (We brave the insanity of the crystal star echo chamber so you won’t have to) the Progs are breaking out the pearl clutching materials in earnest and predicting the end of the world and civilization as we know it should this “travesty of injustice” stand.

    - Cue Warren, Hillary, and any other pandering Democrat up for some office to make a “blistering condemnation” statement for the mediots.

  14. Lost in Verizon’s pathetic treatment of science is the intrinsic erotic meaning of science aiming at beauty in possession of scientific knowledge, the individual’s drive to get at truth about the universe, in whatever possibly narrow aspect of our universe, by means of the pursuit of scientific knowledge, no matter what some imbecile might say regarding such a way of life. Concomitantly, what might be said about those who are so easily dissuaded from their pursuit of a life dedicated to gaining knowledge of the natural world, be they females or males, no matter. It can be said that Verizon takes no care with the science it pretends to laud.

  15. For twenty years we’ve been hearing about the lack of females in STEM. Lord knows, woman who desires to go to an engineering school can write her own ticket. Yet still, males outnumber females 3 to 1. It certainly not for want of encouragement and money devoted to getting women in the doors.

    Disclosure: I desperately tried to get my daughter to take up a STEM career. No dice. Literature and Theater. My son starts in two weeks on his major in Applied Math and Physics. Go figure.

  16. Unfortunately, the 4th Circuit has just ruled in the opposite direction — “words only have meaning when judges say they do, regardless of what the legislature writes down”, and if the DC court en banc ruling reverses the 3-judge panel, there is almost no chance that the SCOTUS will take it up, since there is no conflict between the lower courts.

    Which means we are well and truly screwed, and there will be no need for a Legislature in the first place, what with the Executive rewriting the laws on a whim and the Judiciary distorting the black-letter definition into “context”.

  17. intrinsic erotic meaning of science

    sexbots for oldsters and pervs and oldster pervs

    go nips build sondra a better vibrator

    /newrouter impression

  18. we are well and truly screwed

    But it’s ok so long as the girl isn’t doing the screwing.

  19. check your privilege patriarchist stooge!

  20. Ibish losing allies, no matter how pip-squeaky those EU foreign minister allies may be: *** Israel received a strong back-wind from an unlikely source on Tuesday, when the EU issued a statement strongly denouncing Hamas and condemning their use of civilians as human shields.

    The EU’s foreign ministers, following a monthly meeting in Brussels, issued a statement on the Middle East condemning “the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and militant groups in the Gaza Strip, directly harming civilians. These are criminal and unjustifiable acts.”

    The statement also called on Hamas to immediately put an end to its rocket attacks, and to renounce violence. “All terrorist groups in Gaza must disarm. The EU strongly condemns calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields. “ ***

  21. This ruling means jack, no matter what.

    That entity known as The United States Of America is gone — finished, overthrown, discarded.

    The Rule Of Law is gone, replaced by The Rule Of Whim.

    We are living in a post-Constitutional Despotic State.

    The Jarrett Junto will do whatever it wants, no matter how the CoA rules or if it reaches the SCOTUS and they hand down an opinion.

    The Legislative Branch of this Despotic State will not resist Caesar, being as it is filled with Courtiers and sniveling Quisling.

    This is just another scene in a very tragic farce.

  22. - Is that an actual ruling drum, or are you just anticipating?

  23. What a magnificent headline, capturing the meat of the story from the D.C. Circuit today: “Appeals Courts Split On Whether ObamaCare Subsidies Are Legal

    I mean, that conveys the true lede of the story with some precision, does it not? Black letter law is no plainer than that cloud wafting overhead over there. Your America, chumps.

  24. We have been living under an “enabling act” de facto with Obama, if the en banc court reverses itself or if the SCOTUS ends up siding with the 4th then we shall have moved to an enabling act de jure[ist].

  25. BBH, here is your link:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/politics/obamacare-subsidy-ruling/index.html

    It was a tale of two rulings — the best of times and the worst of times for Obamacare in the federal appeals courts.

    First, two Republicans on a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit court of appeals ruled against a key component of the law — the federal subsidies for millions of people who signed up for health coverage.

    The 2-1 decision on Tuesday created a legal path for a possible Supreme Court case that could essentially gut the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which passed with zero Republican votes.

    A few hours later, all three judges on a 4th Circuit panel in Virginia decided the opposite by declaring the subsidies legal and proper.

  26. - Danke, but based on this from the link:

    The opposing rulings increased the chances for the issue to reach the nation’s highest court, and demonstrated the deep political divisions over the law despised by conservatives intent on undermining it.

    - and this, I see more reason for optimism than pessimism.

  27. Something like 7 out of the 11 judges on the full D.C. Court of Appeals are Democratic appointees, so, by the logic of the CNN news piece, likely there won’t be conflicting rulings for the Supreme Court to adress.

  28. The opposing rulings increased the chances for the issue to reach the nation’s highest court, and demonstrated the deep political divisions over the law despised by conservatives intent on undermining it.

    The main problem is that the three-judge DC panel voted 2-1, two Republican appointees against the Dem appointee, and the Obama administration immediately appealed to the en banc, which means a predominately Dem-appointed court, and which would be heavily pro-Obama. If they overturn the 3-judge decision, then there is no more conflict, and the SCOTUS is no longer under pressure to resolve it, and so is much more likely to refuse the appeal, from either court.

    My biggest problem is that we can predict the outcomes of these ruling with a high degree of certainty, based on which President appointed the judges hearing the case.

    That makes the law not something that can be relied upon by the common person, but rather something that can be skewed, based on forum shopping and selective judge picking. “Oh, we won’t win in the Second District, since they are all appointed by that guy, so let’s find a plaintiff in the Ninth Circuit, where we will certainly get the ruling we want.” This is true no matter how carefully the law is crafted, because when you have judges ignoring black-letter definitions in favor of “context”, then you will always end up with tabulae rasa, just waiting for the next persuasive guy in a fancy three-piece suit to find the right combination of black robes to get the result his employer du jour et ad hoc wants.

  29. Much as I appreciate Christina Hoff Sommers and her work, I think the most important thing to take away from this commercial is the fact that Verizon knows they can make a lot of money by appealing to stupid feminists. Now, if taking money from stupid feminists is wrong, then I don’t think I want to be right.

  30. - In our current society taking money from any stupid group is called efficient market mining.

  31. - Call me a hopeless optimist but with the ruling awhile back favoring Hobby Lobby its my personal belief that OCare is inevitably doomed. I see the bigger potential problem in the possibility of this rogue congress, obviously anti-conservative, in passing some form of single payer bullshit that simply raids the treasury enmasse.

  32. Drumwaster: Why do you hate three-piece suits?!?

  33. I can cope with those fancy string ties, but vests go beyond the pale…

  34. I wear one to work every day.

  35. …oh, and I’m naturally very pale [fluorescent, if you will].

  36. I don’t mean the ones Home Depot and the local carneceria hand out ;)

  37. Had I gravitated into the hard sciences, my dad would have been thrilled. Instead, I was more interested in the Humanities.

    At no time did I EVAR hear anything — direct or implied — that “girls don’t do STEM” or other nonsense. Remember also that I grew up as a Utah Mormon.

    At every stage in my education and career choices, I’ve put “what am I best at?” on the top of the list. Several times I found something I did well, but I didn’t think it was the optimal use of my talents, so I kept looking.

    I’m now in the Engineering dept of a software development company. As the writer, yes, but still… I get what’s going on conceptually even if I can’t do what the coders do.

    Geez Louise, the Left is dogmatic.

  38. “66% of girls like math and science” and “only 18% of engineering majors are female” have nothing to do with one another. 100% of girls drink beverages, but far less than 100% of bartenders are female.

    It’s category errors like this that indicate a complete lack of logical thinking. In other words, leftists.

  39. Monster, that’s proof the author doesn’t math.

  40. Maybe girls can math but feminists sure can’t.

Leave a Reply