DNW, you are perceptive and I think you already know the answer. This happened prior to the Kavanaugh Hearings. I asked what he thought about the hearings and he immediately said because of Kavanaugh’s angry statement before Congress he was in no way qualified for the SC because he didn’t have the proper judicial temperament. I mentioned I was interested in what he thought because of how he had been treated. I asked him to remind me of some of the details and as he began to recount this experience he became very agitated and began raising his voice almost to the point of yelling, for which he later apologized. It was obvious that he was (and still is) deeply hurt by the experience, but never occurred to him that his response to the unfair treatment was exactly the same as Justice Kavanaugh’s. And it still never occurs to him that it is the policies of the very people he continually votes for that created the situation. As stated, he was happy when the Trump admin rescinded the Obama guidance, which again demonstrates the adage that, no matter how woke they claim to be, people are Conservative about the things that effect them the most.

“What is ironic about all this is that I have a friend that was actually fired from his teaching job for using gender neutral language. He was teaching in a post graduate medical professional program …My buddy is a big Lefty and hates everything about Trump, but says rescinding the “Dear Colleague” guidance was the right thing to do …”

Interesting.

I’m assuming “a friend” and “My buddy” are one and the same, and the ” big Lefty” is the one who got fired. [ no friend of a friend being implied by you nor missed by me]

If so, my question then, is: apart from his view on the ” ‘Dear Colleague’ ” matter, has he drawn no more generalized or broader conclusions about the principles of leftism from his experience?

Not that he necessarily would. We all know the stories of Russians condemed to death by Stalin, going to their demise praising his name and that of the Party.

Just wondering though if it had given him pause for further reflection, and if not, why it might have not.

This is my first comment here. I found the blog back in the early days of the pandemic and have enjoyed reading neo’s thoughts and the subsequent conversations.

Bryan Lovely, FOAF:

Yes, it is an innocent song and the lyrics were slurred..

In sixth grade I remember the bad boys pretending they knew the sexy secrets of “Louie, Louie” and doing a big nudge-nudge-wink-wink routine for the rest of us. Turns out they were bluffing. I wonder if they were bluffing themselves as well.

But IMO those bad boys collectively managed to set up an urban legend which ensnared concerned adults and the FBI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-2CKsaq5r8

I remember hearing about that investigation and thinking, “if the lyrics to ‘Louie, Louie’ were obscene, how could anyone tell?”

Indeed.

I think the attention being paid to this proposed rule change in the U. S. House is misguided in the sense that the rule change specifically being called out is that the change to all of the normal gender-specific language pertains, as far as I recall, to the rules in Section 23 (XXIII) on conduct of House members’ duties. I don’t recall that it touches the language used in legislation, for example, though it might and I just didn’t read that far. But for now, I’m regarding it as limited to that specific context. Therefore, I find it a bit eyeroll-inducing to see such overblown headlines as “Pelosi Outlawing The Words ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’!!!!”.

I can see an argument, as far as this Rule/Section XXIII goes, in favor of the change the Dems are proposing, though they do so for the wrong reasons. Rather than approve of it because of its Wonderful Rainbow of Awe-Inspiring All-Inclusive Wonderfulness, I would potentially support it simply on the basis of cutting down the huge amount of words in that paragraph of the rules. But I would not take my rationale one millimeter farther than that – I don’t give a murine kidney about their woke claptrap.