Occasional Reader 5/9/2022 7:32:55 PM

1

vxbush 5/10/2022 5:56:15 AM

2

I'm not seeing a Tuesday thread, so I'll post this here; maybe folks will see it. Buzz wrote yesterday in #15: 

A) Default Sterilization:  How much human suffering would be eliminated if we could avoid unwanted pregnancies? Turns out, it could be as simple as giving all young males an antibody that would make their sperm unable to swim. If they want offspring, these men would simply pop a pill that blocks the antibody for the duration of time they want their sperm to spring into action. It’s simple, elegant and prevents a whole range of unintended consequences.

My first thought was: is there anything even remotely plausible in this? Any line of research that indicates this is a viable solution? Because I'm guessing the answer is "no."

vxbush 5/10/2022 6:05:12 AM

4

buzzsawmonkey 5/10/2022 6:49:54 AM

5

Reply to vxbush in 2:

Whether or not it is currently possible, the fact that the Left is in favor of making it not only possible but the reality is deeply disturbing.

vxbush 5/10/2022 7:17:20 AM

6

In #5 buzzsawmonkey said: Whether or not it is currently possible, the fact that the Left is in favor of making it not only possible but the reality is deeply disturbing.

Yes, I can certainly see that the Left would love to say, "only those we approve are allowed to procreate." 

Occasional Reader 5/10/2022 7:21:49 AM

7

Reply to vxbush in 2:

Good morning.  On that list compiled by buzz, I'll say that I'm a least a little sympathetic to that last point, regarding circumcision.   It's a religious tradition/ requirement for some; okay.  But in the US, it's also just widely done because... why?  The reasons seem very slim.   When Little OR was born, we filled out a form in which, among other things, we declined that particular "service".  Nevertheless, not just once but twice (as far as my then sleep-deprived memory records it), the Circumcision Team showed up in our recovery room, all hot to trot, and we had to remind them we'd said "no'. 

Occasional Reader 5/10/2022 7:26:19 AM

8

Meawhile, it occurred to me, in a Eureka! sort of moment this morning, who the (D) candidate for POTUS should be in 2024 (given Joe's evident, rapid decline).  We as a nation are all-in with this political "dynasty" business, right?  Bush, Clinton, maybe Obama, etc.  So for 2024, Why Not The Best (pace, Jimmy Carter).  Why not... Hunter Biden.  

Think about it!

1) His last name is "Biden".

2) He's a... uh... successful.. businessman!  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Businessman.

3) He's used to the rough-and-tumble of DC politics, having been the target of a VICIOUS, FSB-backed right-wing disinformation/smear/insurrection/treason!!! campaign regarding that so-called laptop!  His struggles were made even more difficult when the whole thing turned out to be true.  He's a fighter1

4) His last name is "Biden". 

 5) He's a successful businessman!

6) He'd be super entertaining. 

Occasional Reader 5/10/2022 7:27:57 AM

9

Reply to Occasional Reader in 8:

*Meanwhile

vxbush 5/10/2022 7:37:42 AM

10

In #7 Occasional Reader said: On that list compiled by buzz, I'll say that I'm a least a little sympathetic to that last point, regarding circumcision.   It's a religious tradition/ requirement for some; okay.  But in the US, it's also just widely done because... why?  The reasons seem very slim.

What reasons are they giving now? Over thirty years ago when our son was born, it was still recommended to avoid certain problems that could crop up later--but I don't recall what those future problems might be. 

Occasional Reader 5/10/2022 8:05:02 AM

11

Reply to vxbush in 10:

IIRC, having one practically eliminates the risk of cancer in that, ah, area; but that's an extremely small risk to begin with.

vxbush 5/10/2022 10:18:28 AM

12

Travel back with me, if you will, to early 2017. The news media were outraged to learn that Trump may be a Russian asset. Hillary Clinton's claims that Trump was working with Russia had been a blip on the radar during the 2016 election season, but wasn't mentioned much during the first months of 2017--until that stupid Steele Dossier was grabbed on to as if it were fact. 

What's interesting to learn today is the background maneuvers going on at that time that are coming to light now as a result of the Sussman trial. Link is to the Archive.org page, so it's not behind a firewall. We have confirmation of things we learned in 2019: 

• By September 23, 2016, the FBI’s IT team had disproven the Alfa Bank allegations.
• By March 2017, FBI leadership knew with near-certainty (or I would say certainty) that the Trump-Russia collusion claims were a hoax. 
• On March 4, 2017, Trump claimed on a Twitter that he knew Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. 
• On March 6, 20107, Andrew McCabe, Tashina Gauhar, Mary McCord, and Scott Schools met to try and understand what did Trump know and how much of it implicated them. 
• The FBI leadership told Dana Boente a lot of lies about their investigation, referring to the dossier as if it was official and confirmed (the references to the so-called "Crown reporting"). 
• Peter Stork lied to his DOJ superiors about why Alexander Downer came to the FBI with information about Papapdopolous. 
• The FBI lied to the DOJ about the Carter Page FISA warrant, claiming it was the real deal when in fact the FBI knew nothing was going on. 

So: lie after lie after lie after lie. The speak lies like they are drinking water. Does one lie feed another, or does anyone speak a word of truth and then the lies are just used to push their own power?