“There’s a lot of ignorance, they are claiming that they’re uncomfortable. I don’t believe for a second that they are. I think this is pure and simple bigotry,” Perry told local news station KMOV.
That’s a quote from a gay fellow who has decided he’s really a girl, wears a wig and dress and therefore believes he is “transgendered”. In fact, he’s merely a cross-dresser since he’s not had any sort of treatment or surgery to change his gender.
As you might imagine, his demand that he be able to use the girls locker room (instead of a gender neutral bathroom available to him) has been met with stiff resistance by the girls of the school (and their parents).
A few back his demand:
But another 40 students expressed their support for Perry, who has identified as female since the age of 13.
Good for him … that doesn’t make him a female. Biology 1o1. He may want to revisit it, speaking of “ignorance”.
The above reminds me of a great rant I read this week:
The perpetually offended want to wrap themselves in metaphorical bubble wrap to ensure that no offense, no bad word, no insult – perceived or otherwise – grinds sand into their delicate vulvas. And they take it as a given that you must conform to their standards – protect them, spoil them, shield them from all possible indelicacies – or else…
That’s precisely what is happening in the school cited in the first paragraph. Attention seeking narcissists and their “ignorant” backers demand others “conform to their standards” or else … bigots!
A couple of CUNY professors write approvingly of the rise in the minimum wage (they claim government must set a floor for wages – uh, no, that’s what a market is for) but note a great number of disadvantages in doing so, among them:
Second, there are two reasons why minimum-wage increases do not significantly affect poverty rates. In 2010, only 12 percent of minimum wage workers lived in households with incomes below the poverty threshold ($23,000), and only one-third in households with incomes less than double the poverty threshold. Indeed, almost half of minimum-wage workers lived in households with incomes above the national median. Thus, the minimum wage is not well targeted to the poor.
In addition, among poor or near-poor households that do gain wage increases, most will lose significant government safety-net benefits. With higher incomes they qualify for less in food stamps, earned income tax credits, and housing and child-care subsidies. With increased payroll taxes, these households could easily give back at least half of their wage gains. For a significant share, it could be more than three-quarters.
They’ve almost convinced me that the raise would be worth it. Of course, getting all those off government benefits would never mean a tax roll-back, would it, so screw ’em.
But they do pop the bubble of the effect on poverty.
President Barack Obama locked in enough support in Congress Wednesday to ensure he can overcome bipartisan opposition and implement a landmark nuclear accord with Iran.
Yes, friends, the Democrats have again sold you down the river. This is the Executive Department equivalent of ObamaCare and as usual, the Democrats have to pass it to see what is in it.
The NY Times remarks on the problem with murders in a number of US cities, to include, New York City:
Cities across the nation are seeing a startling rise in murders after years of declines, and few places have witnessed a shift as precipitous as this city. With the summer not yet over, 104 people have been killed this year — after 86 homicides in all of 2014.
More than 30 other cities have also reported increases in violence from a year ago. In New Orleans, 120 people had been killed by late August, compared with 98 during the same period a year earlier. In Baltimore, homicides had hit 215, up from 138 at the same point in 2014. In Washington, the toll was 105, compared with 73 people a year ago. And in St. Louis, 136 people had been killed this year, a 60 percent rise from the 85 murders the city had by the same time last year.
Name two things these cities all have in common.
And finally the “blender test” as applied to Hillary Cliton’s email excuses:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tore into Hillary Clinton defenders Wednesday morning, saying anyone who believed her email excuses was too stupid to be trusted with household appliances.
“She’s Secretary of State,” the Morning Joe host said. “This is her only server. You would have to be really, really stupid–”
“It’s the blender test: Do I trust you with a blender in my home to not stick your hand in there and get it all gnarled up?” Scarborough continued. “If you believe that Hillary Clinton’s only account did not receive and send classified material in high volumes, then you should not be allowed within five feet of a blender.”
There are a whole lot of people out there who don’t need to be in the same room as a blender, then.