Mr. Rogers has a message from 52 years ago about boys and girls
I’m too old to have watched Mr. Rogers as a child. But as I watched him forty years ago with my own child, I found some of his messages a little obscure. For example, there was the song that follows, which I thought unnecessary at the time. What did “fancy” mean in this context, and why did kids need reassurance about remaining boys or remaining girls?
I have come to think of the song as both important and prescient. Perhaps Fred Rogers was merely concerned at the time with castration anxiety in kids, or something of that sort. The idea that “some are fancy on the outside” and some “on the inside” seems to be a cute-ish way of referring to boys and girls, respectively. The message is of body integrity, goodness, and wholeness, about which today’s children probably need a ton of reassurance. Unfortunately, they’re not watching Mr. Rogers anymore.
If he were to sing this song today, he’d probably be banned. I’m surprised it’s still up on YouTube. Pay particular attention to the second verse:
Now we have “educational” tools such as this workbook for ages starting with five. From one of the negative reviews of the book (most are positive, by the way):
If your child wasn’t confused before he/she will be after going through this “workbook.” Perpetuates gender stereotypes & full of leading questions.
That’s the point, isn’t it?
A few of the many activity titles: Breaking Out of the Binary, My Space In the Spectrum, Is Social Transition Right for Me? And here’s a quote from the first activity:
When babies are born, one of the first things people want to know is, “Is it a girl?” or “Is it a boy?” It’s like people need to know the answer to these questions before they know how to think or feel about another person. Some people think if they know the sex of a person, they know the gender of a person. They believe those two words mean the same thing. Nope. No. Wrongo!
The label of “boy” or “girl” given to a baby at birth and a person’s gender are two different things, and for some people the two are quite different. This might sound complicated, but knowing your own gender can be rather simple. Most importantly, each person has the right to know and declare their own gender. You are the expert when it comes to your gender!
There are almost undoubtedly plenty more books of this sort, gently introducing young children to the idea that body-mind duality is the norm, that body and mind (and soul, which isn’t mentioned) are not in unity but are completely separate, and that a young child is the expert on this – once that child has looked at the workbook, preferably, but possibly even before.
Later on we get this:
People have a mistaken belief that having a penis means you are a boy and having a vulva means you are a girl…The truth is that bodies come in many forms and lots of children don’t fit the mold.
Little children have no way to refute this mendacious propaganda. Actually, sex is not determined only by these two things, penis or vulva (and by the way, “vulva” is an anatomically incorrect word for this purpose because it only refers to the external female genitalia), although those things are an excellent guide in 99.98% of cases. The number of intersex people is vanishingly small (true prevalence is .018%, despite activists’ attempts to artificially inflate those numbers by redefining non-intersex conditions as intersex). And we know a great deal about what causes such conditions and even in the vast majority of those cases are able to discern the person’s actual biological sex, male or female. The system is binary and the existence of very rare cases that are a bit confusing initially has nothing to do with the binary fact of human sexual dimorphism.
Joe Biden for Father of the Year
And I suppose you could add Grandpa of the Year.
From Nicholas Kristof comes this astonishing thought:
The real meaning of the Hunter Biden saga, as I see it, isn't about presidential corruption, but is about how widespread addiction is–and about how a determined parent with unconditional love can sometimes reel a child back: https://t.co/NvxVLECZvF That can give others hope.
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) June 24, 2023
Even for a toady like Kristof that’s pretty astounding. And the photo that accompanies it – with Hunter’s vacant eyes staring into space – is the perfect illlustration.
From the replies:
How exactly did he tackle his son’s addiction? Other than to set him up as a bagman for the family and then when caught bail him out to retain his silence all while helping him ignore his responsibilities as a father to a child he despises.
Hunter Biden is 53 years old. He’s Joe’s child but hardly a child, and of the age when addictions often have faded away of their own accord, especially after they’ve taken a huge toll. Hunter Biden was an addict for several decades, most of his adult life. During that time no intervention – although the family tried quite a few, plus rehab stints for Hunter – worked. At some point, though, Hunter apparently got clean (that’s the claim, anyway, and it certainly may be true), but that was quite recently and it’s not the least bit clear why it happened. My guess is that it had more to do with age and burnout than anything else.
I’ve noticed that Kristof isn’t the only one trying to frame the Hunter Biden saga as being a case of those mean old Republicans exploiting a family tragedy in the face of a family’s noble efforts to save a wayward but beloved and sensitive son. See for example this.
But, of course, Hunter’s addiction is actually not the issue for the right. I think anyone can sympathize with a family having a member who is addicted to alcohol and/or drugs for a long time. The issue is what crimes Hunter committed, as well as what advantages he got without earning them, and what money he funneled to others leveraging his position as Joe Biden’s son, and what the Bidens gave those people in return for the dough.
More fog of war from Russia
Churchill on Russia in 1939: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
The larger quote: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
At any rate, the riddle-mystery-enigma part seems to be panning out, and that’s why I have no idea who – if anyone – is making intelligent predictions about what will happen in Russia, or in Ukraine for that matter.
So I’ll just observe that this latest news may represent an indication that the incident will blow over with some sort of accommodation:
Fighters loyal to Russia’s Wagner mercenary group will stop their advance towards Moscow to avoid a devastating civil conflict, the group’s leader Yevgeny Prigozhin said on Saturday.
In a voice recording posted to his Telegram channel, Prigozhin said his troops had got within 200 kilometers of Moscow in a single day, but that they would now stand down.
“During this time we did not spill a single drop of blood of our fighters,” he said. “Taking responsibility for the fact that Russian blood will be shed — on one side — we will turn our columns around and go in the opposite direction to field camps, according to the plan,” he said.
Moments earlier, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko issued a statement claiming he held talks with the outspoken oligarch throughout the day.
“As a result, they came to agreements on the inadmissibility of unleashing a bloody massacre on the territory of Russia,” the message from his office read.
Was is a bluff? Some sort of theater? Were there concessions, and if so on whose part? Will this pause continue? Will there be any reshuffling of power?
Will the fog ever clear?
Open thread 6/24/23
I’ve loved this song for a long long time. And I find Rudetsky amusing and so knowledgeable about pop and show music:
What’s going on in Russia right now?
Don’t know.
But here’s a thread if you want to discuss it.
And speaking of adventure tourism…
…[T]he Taliban are now selling tickets to visit the ancient monuments that they demolished in 2001, in an attempt to boost Afghanistan’s flagging economy.
The Washington Post reported that Afghanistan’s tourist plan includes a pair of 1,400-year-old giant stone Buddhas that they turned to rubble in 2001, “in a purge of non-Islamic art.”…
…[I]n 2022, around 200,000 tourists visited the crumbled Buddhas. Local official Saifurrahman Mohammadi told The Post that since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021 the country’s finances “have plummeted.” However, it is reported that Afghan officials believe such sites have potential “to bring in significant tourist money.” And with destroyed ancient sites serving as infrastructure hubs, Mohammedi said he is planning to build a souvenir market nearby, the Washington Post reported.
I well remember the destruction of those statues.
Count me out on this particular excursion.
California bill: therapist power over parent power
California is getting close to passing another dangerous law that undermines parental authority:
California Democrats on Tuesday advanced legislation to let mental health professionals remove children from their homes and place them in state custody without parental consent.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Assembly Bill 665 on a party-line vote. The bill would allow poor children as young as age 12 to check into state-run youth shelters on the unconditional say-so of a therapist or counselor…
The bill’s advance is the latest victory in a campaign by California Democrats to roll back parental rights, often in the name of allowing minors to choose their own gender. Other legislation making its way through the legislature would punish parents and foster parents who do not “affirm” children’s transgender identity.
Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo (D.) and state senator Scott Wiener (D.), the co-authors of the bill, reiterated on Tuesday that they simply seek to give all children equal access to mental health services, as privately insured minors from age 12 can already receive outpatient therapy without parental consent. The bill would only apply to kids on Medi-Cal, the state Medicaid program that provides health coverage to eligible low-income residents.
“This bill protects children. It makes children safer. It makes children healthier,” said Wiener. “It’s unfortunate that this bill, like so many, has been caught up in this right-wing outrage machine.”…
There would be no obligation, as there is for minors on private insurance, for therapists or counselors to show that a 12-year-old patient is mature enough or in a dangerous situation before transferal to a “residential shelter.” Whether or not to inform the parents of the move would also be left to the discretion of the mental health professional, who could be an intern or trainee.
“Have each of you used your elected platforms and networks to inform and speak with the people of California?” Los Angeles mother Wendy Minas asked the Senate panel during her testimony against the bill. “It doesn’t seem so, because when I talk to my community, no one knows about it. And when they hear about it, they are shocked and angry that you would consider passing an extreme bill that would break apart families during a child’s most difficult and challenging years.”
Other critics have warned that if the bill becomes law, troubled children will exploit its provisions to run away from home. Transgender kids, in particular, could try to negate their parents’ veto over sex-change treatments, including by accusing them of abuse.
That’s already happening – and not just in California.
I predict that, if passed, this will be used to take custody from parents who refuse to “affirm” the child’s “gender.” Affirming a child’s gender is the same as denying a child’s biological sex, by the way, to de-Orwellify the phrase. The age of twelve is the perfect age to choose, because a great many of these cases involve pubescent girls nowadays.
This is not going to be limited to trans cases, either. This is part of a concerted effort on the part of the left to undermine the power of parents and substitute the power of the state or state agents – which therapists increasing are. A huge percentage of therapists are on the left, and those who work in the field of gender are required in California to offer “affirmation therapy” rather than “exploration (that is, traditional) therapy,” which makes it almost a certainty that they will be onboard with the leftist and “woke” agenda involving what they call “trans children.”
Waivers and risk: the Titan submersible
Commenter “sailorcurt” makes a interesting point concerning the Titan submersible when he writes:
Freedom also comes with the responsibility to accept the consequences for those choices and actions.
“Did the waiver that had to be signed by the clients/tourists actually say, “OUR SUB IS NOT CERTIFIED”? And then—perhaps—go on to explain, in detail, the why it wasn’t certified and the risks involved?”
Have you watched the video uncovered where Mr. Rush said, very clearly and explicitly, exactly that? He was leafing through the waiver form reading parts of it and, yes…it explicitly said that his vessel was not certified by any agency or body, that it was experimental and that its use could result in death.
I don’t believe that any of them “deserved” to die for their folly. But with the possible exception of the 19 year old, I don’t feel “sorrow” over their deaths. They weren’t innocent, they chose to undertake those risks freely and willingly. The risks in an undertaking such as this are obvious and clear, there’s no amount of “but Rush insisted it was safe” that’s going to convince me they didn’t understand the dangers they were undertaking.
I have enormous empathy for their families and loved ones…especially the mother of the 19 year old. They are the innocent victims of this tragedy, not the people who willingly put their lives at risk for a thrill.
If the reports that the 19 year old only agreed to go on the voyage to please his father are true, then I do have some sympathy for him. He felt pressured and wasn’t mature enough to resist that pressure. While he was a legal adult and technically responsible for his decisions, he wasn’t willingly accepting the risks, he was pressured to do so and that is worthy of empathy.
I have also seen the relevant waiver language, and a description of the waiver itself:
The three-page document spells out the risks that passengers take when riding in the 23,000-pound Titan, including eye-popping wording such as how the craft “has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used on human occupied submersible.”
You may wonder how anyone could sign something like that. But I submit that millions of us sign something much like that every day, and to a certain extent people have become desensitized to such waivers, which are seen as TL;DR cover-your-ass legalese. The majority of such waivers lie in the medical field and involve procedures and surgery, and a related phenomenon is warning labels on drugs.
The Titan waiver was three pages long; were those pages fine print? Was most of the verbiage boilerplate blabity-blah? We see that quote highlighted and isolated; did they? And what does “may be constructed of…” mean? Was it or wasn’t it? We know that it was not; did they?
Those of us who would not even consider voluntarily going down in a submersible of any sort – and I am one of those people who would not – would also not sign such a waiver, but we wouldn’t be in that situation in the first place. Nevertheless I have signed many medical waivers equally frightening and quite long. The possibility of death is listed there, even for my cataract surgery, plus plenty of other dire possibilities. Sure, I know that most people don’t die of eye surgery, but you know what? As far as I know, the people who have gone down in submersibles to see the Titanic – even this particular submersible – have not died until now. Granted, the n is tiny, but it still would give a false sense of security and might make such a waiver seem to exaggerate the risks as waivers do.
I am not saying that people don’t bear responsibility for what they do. But the main responsibility in this case is with the people who developed the submersible – one of whom unfortunately died in this accident. I say “unfortunately” because to my way of thinking, empathy is a separate thing from blame. Someone can be at fault and still not “deserve” to die – as “sailorcurt” acknowledges in that quote. However, “sailorcurt” also denies feeling “sorrow” over their deaths and adds that they weren’t innocent. With this, I strongly disagree. I do feel sorrow over their deaths and find all but the CEO to be quite innocent. Perhaps they were ignorant of the magnitude of the risks, but they are also innocent in my opinion despite this ignorance. And yes, we need to do our best to have due diligence about discovering the safety of the activities we undertake, but we really cannot know such things for sure and have learned to rely on the expertise of others, the prior safety record of the endeavor, and the fact that waivers state worst case scenarios that usually are only distant possibilities.
One of the things also on that waiver was apparently “that the signer would ‘assume full responsibility for the risk of bodily injury, disability, death and property damage due to the negligence of [OceanGate] while involved in the operation’.” This is unsurprising; waivers often include such statements. In fact, even when my son was little, I had to sign a waiver for every organized sport in which he participated. Little League, soccer, learning to skate, learning to swim – you name it. They all had such waivers about assuming the risk. Having been to law school, I knew such waivers were not usually enforceable, and were placed there to make the ignorant signer think they had signed away such rights – or, of course, in hopes that the harried and rushed signer hadn’t even read them. What I did was add a sentence and initial it, and the sentence said something like: “except in cases of negligence or fault, in which case I retain the right to sue and I invalidate this unenforceable clause” or some such language. Fortunately – very very fortunately – I never had to activate any of this (although my son did sustain some minor injuries, they were nobody’s fault).
And indeed, regarding the strong likelihood of lawsuits over the Titan, there’s this wording:
…and on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, personal representative, estate, and for all members of my family, including minor children, I hereby release, waive, and forever discharge OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd. …”
But it’s still possible to sue, depending on the circumstances:
Waivers are not always ironclad, and it is not uncommon for judges to reject them if there is evidence of gross negligence or hazards that were not fully disclosed.
“If there were aspects of the design or construction of this vessel that were kept from the passengers or it was knowingly operated despite information that it was not suitable for this dive, that would absolutely go against the validity of the waiver,” said personal injury attorney and maritime law expert Matthew D. Shaffer, who is based in Texas….
The degree of any potential negligence and how that might impact the applicability of the waivers will depend on the causes of the disaster, which are still under investigation.
“There are so many different examples of what families might still have claims for despite the waivers, but until we know the cause we can’t determine whether the waivers apply,” said personal injury lawyer Joseph Low of California…
OceanGate is a small company based in Everett, Washington, and it is unclear whether it has the assets to pay significant damages, were any to be awarded, but families could collect from the company’s insurance policy if it has one.
Caveat emptor indeed, but I have long thought that, as waivers get longer, more complex, and more frightening, many or even most of us become more and more desensitized to their dire contents. It can all get lumped together – a very distant possibility of harm and a much more likely and catastrophic possibility of harm. You might say, “But in the case of a submersible to go miles down to see the Titanic wreck, surely anyone ought to know there’s a high possibility of harm.” Well, yes and no. As I said, I certainly wouldn’t be going down there. But until now, those who did had a good safety record, although I have had difficulty finding the exact number of people who have done so. This article makes it clear that there have been many expeditions over the decades, but provides no numbers. This article from September of 2022 is somewhat more specific in saying that the number is “fewer than 250,” which suggests to me that it’s close to 250. As far as I know, the Titan was the first accident that involved such dives causing casualties, which could breed a false sense of security despite the language in the waiver.
RIP.
Open thread 6/23/23
The IRS wanted to charge Hunter Biden with felony tax evasion, but it was blocked by the DOJ
The two-tiered “justice” system marches on. This time the IRS was willing to apply the usual standard to Biden’s son Hunter and charge him with a felony, but the DOJ never carried out the recommendation:
Rep. Jason Smith (R., Mo.) said at a press conference that two IRS employees claimed the agency sought felony charges against the younger Biden for attempting to evade taxes and fraudulent or false statements, all felony charges. The whistleblowers, who worked on the Biden probe since its start in November 2018, further claimed that the investigation was marred by “recurring unjustified delays” and “unusual actions outside the normal course of any investigation,” Smith said…
According to Smith, the whistleblowers testified that Hunter Biden failed to pay more than $2.2 million in taxes and received $8.3 million from foreign entities in Ukraine, China, and Romania. Biden received at least $6 million from CEFC China Energy, an energy conglomerate linked to Chinese military intelligence. A Romanian businessman investigated for bribery paid Biden another $1 million for help on his legal case. And Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, paid Hunter Biden more than $80,000 a month to serve on its board of directors.
In one stunning revelation, Smith cited an encrypted text message in which Hunter Biden threatened a Chinese business partner for payment by invoking his father.
“I am sitting here with my father and would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” Biden wrote in a July 30, 2017, message to Henry Zhao.
“I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
The whistleblowers claimed that the Justice Department dragged its feet in authenticating the text message, according to Smith.
The Republican said the whistleblowers further testified that U.S. attorney David Weiss attempted to bring charges against Hunter Biden on at least two occasions but was blocked from doing so. Smith said Weiss sought to file charges in Washington, D.C., in March 2022 and in California in fall 2022. He also sought special counsel status in Spring 2022 but was also rejected.
From an interview in early May:
More details here:
*The first son was given the code name “Sportsman” by investigators.
*Delaware US Attorney David Weiss sought to bring federal charges against Hunter, 53, in the Central District of California and in Washington, DC, last year and was denied both times by Biden-appointed US attorneys Martin Estrada and Matthew Graves, respectively.
*According to the second whistleblower, who has remained anonymous, the investigation covered the years 2014 through 2019, during which Hunter and his “associates” received approximately $17.3 million from Ukraine, Romania and China — with the first son alone scooping $8.3 million.
*Investigators pressed for felony charges against Hunter for ducking $2.2 million in tax payments — rather than misdemeanors announced Tuesday as part of a probation-only plea deal.
*Assistant US Attorney Lesley Wolf discouraged investigators from pursuing lines of questioning related to Joe Biden, saying at one point that there was “no specific criminality,” according to Shapley.
The revelation that Biden appointees blocked charges against his son is politically explosive because Attorney General Merrick Garland testified under oath to Congress earlier this year that Weiss was empowered to bring charges outside of Delaware. Intentionally misleading Congress is a crime.
Weiss, who signed off this week on the Delaware plea deal, sought to be appointed special counsel in the case at least twice — including as recently as spring 2022 — but was turned down by the Biden Justice Department, both whistleblowers alleged.
Please read the whole thing. It contains tidbits such as this:
…[I]nvestigators later did ask [Biden family associate] Walker about Joe Biden’s role. An FBI agent asked if there were “any times when he was in office, or did you hear Hunter Biden say that he was setting up a meeting with his dad with them while dad was still in office?”
“Yes,” Walker answered, according to Shapley, before “inexplicably, the FBI agent changed the subject.”
Inexplicably and unexpectedly.
I wonder how many people who are not already on the right will ever see or hear of these reports.
NOTE: More details here.
ADDENDUM: From a comment at Ace’s:
The Biden family crest needs the motto: “Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird” inscribed under the seal.
No need to hide it as a Latin phrase, either. They’re literally mooning us with their grift, and laughing all the way to the bank.
One small quibble – not literally; figuratively. Then again, perhaps “literally” for some of the photos on Hunter’s laptop.
Our two-tiered system of justice: Harriet Hageman queries Durham
I hadn’t previously heard much about Hageman, the Wyoming Republican who trounced Liz Cheney this past go-round. But here she is, describing how our two-tiered system of justice at the hands of the FBI and the DOJ has damaged the country. Note Durham’s answer as well:
Speaking of two tiered systems, there’s this:
Lawyer for hip-hop artist Kodak Black, who was charged with the same federal weapons crime as Hunter Biden and sentenced to over three years in prison, slammed the prison-free plea deal reached by the Justice Department and the president’s son.
“There’s no such thing as not getting jail time on a gun charge on any kind of gun charge,” Bradford Cohen, criminal defense attorney for Black, told Fox News Digital in an interview…
Cohen commented in a Tuesday Instagram post reacting to the news: “2 tiers of justice? Kodak was charged for the same crime. Got over 3 years. Mr. Biden will not serve a day. Feels right? Do FBI agents and federal authorities take cases personally?”
Kodak had prior convictions, but from what I’ve read, his lawyer is correct that it is virtually a given that lying on a gun application will get a person prison time even without priors – unless, of course, that person is the child of a prominent Democrat. By the way, Trump pardoned Black.
More:
In speaking with Fox Digital on Tuesday, Cohen said the DOJ’s plea deal with the younger Biden is out of step with a prosecutor’s typical treatment of federal crimes, especially when they involve public figures.
“I’ve never seen anyone where this offense was charged,” Cohen said, “and they didn’t get some sort of prison sentence. And in fact, most of the time in federal court, you very rarely see people get anything but a prison sentence.”
The DOJ and FBI isn’t even bothering to hide things now. They have the power and they are using it, and there have been zero consequences so far except the consequences they intend.