Well it’s another Streisand effect – the ABA’s idiotic groveling apology has resulted in Shrier’s book trending on Twitter.

First, CNN reported:

The top US military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, was so shaken that then-President Donald Trump and his allies might attempt a coup or take other dangerous or illegal measures after the November election that Milley and other top officials informally planned for different ways to stop Trump, according to excerpts [from] an upcoming book obtained by CNN.

The book, from Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, describes how Milley and the other Joint Chiefs discussed a plan to resign, one by one, rather than carry out orders from Trump that they considered to be illegal, dangerous or ill-advised.

…

Milley viewed Trump as “the classic authoritarian leader with nothing to lose,” the authors write, and he saw parallels between Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric as a victim and savior and Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Nothing to lose and nothing to inhibit, either – no scruples, no conscience, no sense of obligation, no understanding of history, no wisdom, no humility, no feeling of responsibility.

Second, Trump issued a “statement.”

Despite massive Voter Fraud and Irregularities during the 2020 Presidential Election Scam, that we are now seeing play out in very big and important States, I never threatened, or spoke about, to anyone, a coup of our Government.

He’s such an elegant stylist, isn’t he?

So ridiculous! Sorry to inform you, but an Election is my form of “coup,” and if I was going to do a coup, one of the last people I would want to do it with is General Mark Milley. He got his job only because the world’s most overrated general, James Mattis, could not stand him, had no respect for him, and would not recommend him. To me the fact that Mattis didn’t like him, just like Obama didn’t like him and actually fired Milley, was a good thing, not a bad thing. I often act counter to people’s advice who I don’t respect.  

Wut?

I’d never wanna do a coup with Milley, who this other terrible general hated him and so did I hate both of them so I hired the one because the other hated him, plus besides also Obama hated him too so that’s why I hired him, a good thing, not a bad thing.

I lost respect for Milley when we walked together to St. John’s Church (which was still smoldering from a Radical Left fire set the day before), side by side, a walk that has now been proven to be totally appropriate—and the following day Milley choked like a dog in front of the Fake News when they told him they thought he should not have been walking with the President, which turned out to be incorrect.

How can a walk be proven to be totally appropriate? What would that even mean? And what is choking like a dog? And what turned out to be incorrect?

In fact, around the same time Milley, in a conversation, was an advocate of changing all of the names of our Military Forts and Bases.  I realized then, also, he was a much different person than I had hoped.

Yeah he wanted a general who would rub those Confederate generals in everybody’s faces, like a real man.

But never during my Administration did Milley display what he is showing now. He was not “woke.”  Actually, I don’t believe he ever was, but the way I look at Milley, he’s just a better politician than a general, trying to curry favor with the Radical Left and the absolute crazy people espousing a philosophy which will destroy our Country! 

Ok then!

Another beautifully crafted former-presidential Statement for the record books.

I hate to cite the Daily Wire but they took the trouble to ask the Toronto police about that “woman” whose photograph makes it so obvious that he’s a man.

In a follow-up email, The Daily Wire asked the department to confirm Ruby’s biological sex and to “please indicate if the suspect was booked in a male or female facility.”

Toronto Police Service’s Meaghan Gray replied (emphasis added):

Your question, and the answer, are irrelevant to our investigation. Our focus is on the sexual assault of a child and identifying any additional victims. The best way to do that is to share information with the public that would assist them with recognizing the person involved, such as a name and photograph. In this case, this person identifies as a woman, named Ruby, using the pronouns she/her. It is our practice to use the names and pronouns with which a person identifies, and to use a photograph that most closely resembles their current likeness.  That was done in this case.

That’s ridiculous. Sure, the photograph and the name are useful, but that doesn’t make the accurate sex irrelevant – the more accurate information the better, as I’m quite sure the police know perfectly well. The actual sex of the suspect is not irrelevant. Saying “such as a name and photograph” makes it sound as if minimal information is best, like a strong ingredient in a recipe – you don’t want to overpower the dish with this one strong flavor. It’s not like that. Knowing a name and the sex and a photo is better than two of the three.

The American Booksellers Association also has that stupid crawling lying apology on its Facebook page, but this one is signed.

Again, from the section of the ABA website that celebrates and promotes Banned Books Week:

Banned Books Week was founded in 1982 in response to a sudden surge in the number of challenges to books in schools, bookstores and libraries. Banned Books Week brings together the entire book community — librarians, booksellers, publishers, journalists, teachers, students, and readers of all types — in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas.

Unless they’re Abigail Shrier’s ideas. That’s entirely different. Then the ideas become “violent.”

The American Booksellers Association has a website.

On that website it has a section for…Banned Books Week.

I’m not making it up.

The most recent item is April 13:

Lovely.

But, so…why are they now screaming that sending Abigail Shrier’s book out to booksellers is “violent” and in need of prompt and searching atonement?

On April 13, the Banned Books Week Coalition announced that Jason Reynolds has been named the inaugural Honorary Chair for Banned Books Week 2021. The New York Times bestselling author will headline the annual celebration of the right to read, which takes place September 26–October 2, 2021, and features the theme: Books Unite Us, Censorship Divides Us.

A couple of months away. How’s that going to work out?

Since it was founded in 1982, Banned Books Week has highlighted the value of free and open access to information by drawing attention to the attempts to remove books and other materials from libraries, schools, and bookstores.

Like the attempt that the ABA is submitting to right now, as we speak.

I imagine there must be quite some ruckus going on behind the scenes.

What has happened to the grownups? This is the second time in as many days I’ve asked that.

A “violent” incident – that’s teenager talk, it’s the worst kind of idiot-Twitter talk, it’s frenzied catastrophizing tantrum talk.

Executions? Torture? Banishment?

Women not wheeshting.

There are lots of these.

Sometimes it turns out to be a mistake to tell women to shut up about women and their rights.

He’s gone quiet.

It’s about the conflict over “trans rights”:

Siân Berry is to quit as leader of the Greens, citing conflict within the party over transgender rights and claiming it had been a “failure of leadership” on her part that the party was sending “mixed messages”.

What are transgender rights though? That’s the problem, isn’t it – they turn out to be a very peculiar form of “rights,” that are not really rights at all.

“There is now an inconsistency between the sincere promise to fight for trans rights and inclusion in my work and the message sent by the party’s choice of frontbench representatives,” she said.

Again, that’s a trick claim. Normally “inclusion” means just not invidious exclusion for bad, prejudiced reasons, but in the case of “trans rights” it also means “inclusion” in the sex that the trans person is not. Those are two very different kinds of inclusion. Women don’t want to be forced to “include” men as women, because that would make a mockery of our rights.

There’s a widespread delusion that men who are trans are feminists because they are women, but that’s completely wrong. Most men who are trans have zero clue about feminism and care even less than that. Men who are trans are interested in what they want, not what women need.

She said the forthcoming leadership election would mean serious questions must be asked of the party. Berry said: “Will we continue to embrace the principles of listening and solidarity when minority groups are singled out for attack?”

What about when women are singled out for attack?

Why is Berry so much more focused on trans people than she is on women? Why does she think trans people matter so much more than women?

“It is important to recognise that women’s rights and trans rights go hand in hand and the party conference continues to consider policy proposals on this issue,” the spokesperson said.

But they don’t. It’s not “important to recognise” that, because it’s not true. Everything would be so much easier if it were true, but it’s not.

This is what I keep wondering – how is it ok for a tv personality to keep killing people by using his tv celebrity to tell people not to get vaccinated?

The Green Party is more anti-women than most.

It’s a bit confusing because The Spectator article, by Julie Bindel, is from March – maybe there was a second vote this week? That went the same way? From the article:

At the Green party spring conference this weekend, a motion which sought to introduce a party policy on women’s sex-based rights was defeated. A whopping 289 delegates (out of 521) voted to not include biological females in the party’s list of oppressed groups.

Thus making official the weirdness I keep pointing out: that women are being treated as the privileged sex these days, the dominant sex, the exploiter sex, the sex that already has it made and needs to learn to shut up and share more.

All the motion aimed to do was simply add a paragraph to the Green party’s ‘Our Rights and Responsibilities Policy’. The motion reads:

‘This is to include the protected characteristic of sex as currently our Record of Policy statements supports the other eight characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, race, maternity, religion/belief, marriage/civil partnership) but not that of sex discrimination – aimed primarily at women…’

The motion was opposed because, in essence, it is considered ‘transphobic’ to recognise that women are targeted by male oppression precisely because of their female sex.

And people wonder why feminists are not fans of trans ideology.

The Green party leader Sian Berry, who has declared that she wishes London to be the most ‘trans inclusive’ city in the world, seemed to see this as a victory. In a series of tweets following the vote, Berry stated: ‘Motion E01 was defeated. My party voted for inclusive women’s rights and someone is having a big old cry. Thank you Greens!’ Berry signed off with, ‘Vote for inclusion and kindness!’

But by voting against the motion, the Green party has effectively contradicted the 2010 Equalities Act, which includes sex as a protected characteristic. In their rush to be ‘inclusive’ the Greens have ended up excluding 51 per cent of the population.

Is it because we’re all Karens?

Add to heat domes and entire towns burning to the ground and the Colorado River drying up and the death of the Great Barrier Reef: the moon’s wobble.

The world faces an onslaught of coastal flooding starting in the mid-2030s due to a “wobble” in the moon’s orbit, Nasa has warned.

Numbers of floods could quadruple as the gravitational effects of the lunar cycle combine with climate change to produce “a decade of dramatic increases” in water disasters.

The space agency said coastal cities would experience “rapidly increasing high-tide floods” and they would occur in “clusters” lasting a month or longer.

The wobble is regular and has been known about since 1728, but now it’s in addition to rising sea levels.

Bill Nelson, head of the space agency, said: “Low-lying areas near sea level are increasingly at risk and suffering due to increased flooding, and it will only get worse.

“The combination of the moon’s gravitational pull, rising sea levels, and climate change will continue to exacerbate coastal flooding on our coastlines and across the world.”

So it’s crucial to plan ahead, he explained…but we all know that’s not going to happen.

Assistant professor Phil Thompson, lead author of the report, said: “It’s the accumulated effect [of the floods] over time that will have an impact.

“If it floods 10 or 15 times a month, a business can’t keep operating with its parking lot under water. People lose their jobs because they can’t get to work. Seeping cesspools become a public health issue.”

But that’s in the future. We don’t know how to plan for future floods, and we’re too busy campaigning for trans inclusion to figure it out.

Depressing to watch.

What being trans has to do with the reporting on the abuse is that the news outlet called a violent man who raped a child a woman. We are not “terrible” for objecting to that!

He does that over and over – someone asks a reasoned question and he retorts with “straw man” and nothing else.

How on earth is that a straw man?

But…it isn’t.

The Amazon is no longer a carbon sink.

The Amazon rainforest is emitting a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, according to a study. The giant forest had been absorbing the emissions driving the climate crisis but is now causing its acceleration, researchers said.

Most of the emissions are caused by fires, many deliberately set to clear land for beef and soy production. But even without fires, hotter temperatures and droughts mean the south-eastern Amazon has become a source of CO2, rather than a sink.

Growing trees and plants have taken up about a quarter of all fossil fuel emissions since 1960, with the Amazon playing a major role as the largest tropical forest. Losing the Amazon’s power to capture CO2 is a stark warning that slashing emissions from fossil fuels is more urgent than ever, scientists said.

But are we doing that? No.

Luciana Gatti, at the National Institute for Space Research in Brazil and who led the research, said: “The first very bad news is that forest burning produces around three times more CO2 than the forest absorbs. The second bad news is that the places where deforestation is 30% or more show carbon emissions 10 times higher than where deforestation is lower than 20%.”

Fewer trees meant less rain and higher temperatures, making the dry season even worse for the remaining forest, she said: “We have a very negative loop that makes the forest more susceptible to uncontrolled fires.”

Which, it turns out, isn’t even good for farming.

“The worst part is we don’t use science to make decisions,” she said. “People think that converting more land to agriculture will mean more productivity, but in fact we lose productivity because of the negative impact on rain.”

Research published on Friday estimated that Brazil’s soy industry loses $3.5bn a year due to the immediate spike in extreme heat that follows forest destruction.

Land cleared for farming is useless for farming because the clearance made the rain go away.

We can send Elon Musk to the edge of space, but we can’t stop torching the planet we depend on.

Another thing stolen from women:

The category is: making history. Mj Rodriguez has become the first transgender performer to pick up an Emmy nomination in a major acting category.

Rodriguez is nominated in the lead drama actress category for her fierce and formidable portrayal of house mother and nurse Blanca Rodriguez on FX’s ballroom culture period drama “Pose.” It is her first-ever attention from the Television Academy.

“I do believe this is a pivotal moment. There’s never been a trans woman who has been nominated as a leading outstanding actress and I feel like that pushes the needle forward so much for now the door to be knocked down for so many people — whether they be male or trans female, gender nonconforming, LGBTQIA+, it does not matter,” Rodriguez told Variety. “A moment like this extends and opens and elongates the possibilities of what’s going to happen and I believe the Academy is definitely making it possible and their eyes are more than open. Yes, I do believe they’re going to continue, and I also feel like we’re going to keep speaking and encouraging and informing and educating people around the world. I think that’s the most important thing.”

That’s a nomination that a woman won’t get, because a man got it. The door that’s being knocked down is the one that kept men out of women’s Emmy nominations, which is a door that didn’t need knocking down. Women have enough trouble just getting parts at all, let alone award nominations; there is no need for men who identify as women to grab some of those few nominations. Giving a woman’s award nomination to a man is not a yay hooray progressive move, it’s a punch in the face to women.

This nomination marks a significant step for LGBTQIA-plus representation — and specifically trans representation — at the Emmys.

No, it marks a significant backward step for female representation.

Biden gave a speech about voting rights, which is nice and all but it’s not going to do anything.

Some Democrats hope that presidential attention will persuade Congress to pass a voting-rights bill that outlaws the new Republican voting rules. But that’s unlikely. Congressional Republicans are almost uniformly opposed to ambitious voting-rights bills. And some Senate Democrats, including Joe Manchin, seem unwilling to change the filibuster, which would almost certainly be necessary to pass a bill.

Well. Let’s get real. Congressional Republicans are almost uniformly opposed to any voting-rights bills at all, except the kind that restrict them. The more people who vote, the fewer Republicans who get elected. They don’t gerrymander for the fun of it you know.

In 17 states, Republican lawmakers have recently enacted laws limiting ballot access, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Texas could become the 18th.

Republican officials have justified these new laws by saying that they want to crack down on voter fraud. They passed the laws after Donald Trump spent months falsely claiming that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent.

Studies have repeatedly found that voter fraud is not a widespread problem. Some of the very few cases have involved Republicans trying to vote more than once.

The substance of the laws makes their true intent clear: They are generally meant to help Republicans win more elections.

And we’re just going to stand around and watch it happen.

They’ve got to stop doing this. News from CP24:

A woman is facing charges after she allegedly sexually assaulted a child in a Toronto park two months ago and police believe there may be other victims.

What woman? This “woman”:

Just stop.

According to police, a six-year-old boy attended the Walter Saunders Park, near Dufferin Street and Eglinton Avenue West, on May 20. At that time, the boy was sexually assaulted, police said.

How would a woman even go about sexually assaulting a six-year-old boy? What would that even mean? For a man it’s all too obvious how.

In a news release issued on Tuesday, police said investigators believe there may be other victims.

But they will have trouble finding the perp, because they’re looking for a woman.

Trump in the bunker:

President Donald Trump was furious after reports last year said he and his family hid in the White House bunker during the George Floyd protests, and he said whoever leaked that information should be executed, according to a new book by The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Bender.

Executed, sure, why not.

In “Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost,” Bender wrote that Trump seethed about the bunker story during a meeting with military and law-enforcement officials and West Wing advisors, according to CNN, which published excerpts from the book on Tuesday.

According to CNN, Bender wrote that the president “boiled over about the bunker story as soon as they arrived and shouted at them to smoke out whoever had leaked it.”

“It was the most upset some aides had ever seen the president,” the book continued, according to CNN. “‘Whoever did that, they should be charged with treason!’ Trump yelled. ‘They should be executed!'”

The people who fought their way into the Capitol and went looking for Nancy Pelosi in hopes of killing her, on the other hand – they should get medals, right?

Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, tried to calm the president down, while other aides avoided making eye contact with him, the book said, according to CNN. In the following days, it said, Trump became “obsessed” with discovering who had leaked the story, and those who had witnessed his reaction saw it “as a sign of a president in panic.”

Well, it was a sign of a worthless empty husk of a human trying to get people killed.

The usual stupid hodgepodge of Kinds of Anti-Racism I Don’t Like labeled “Critical Race Theory” as if the two were the same thing.

In schools across the country, woke teachers and left-wing parent activists are promoting critical race theory, a disturbing philosophical framework founded in radical, racially charged concepts about culture, society, and government.

No, you mean they’re promoting various innovations in teaching about race and history and racism. That’s not what Critical Race Theory means.

According to critical race theorists, virtually all of society’s problems should be viewed within the context of alleged systemic racism, which all people have a solemn duty to root out at any cost — including by promoting other forms of racism.

Ibram X. Kendi, a leading advocate of critical race theory, summarized this troubling idea in his popular book How to Be an Antiracist.

But Kendi is not a leading advocate of critical race theory. He’s an activist and academic, but that doesn’t make him a leading advocate of critical race theory. Those three words are not a catchall for every kind of antiracism there is.

Critical race theory has become an immensely popular idea among many in academia, and some of its core tenets have made their way into countless classrooms, in virtually every state in the country.

For example, a New York City public school principal asked parents earlier in 2021 to identify and evaluate their particular kind of “whiteness.” Among the eight options provided were “white supremacist,” “white privilege,” and “white traitor.”

Again – not critical race theory. Whiteness studies, yes, but crt no.

Justin Haskins (author of the piece) admits it at one point:

The argument that critical race theory is often linked to illegal, racist actions was bolstered in a recent ruling by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

In a decision issued on May 27, Knudsen concluded, “In many instances, the use of ‘Critical Race Theory’ and ‘antiracism’ programming discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution, and the Montana Human Rights Act.”

Emphasis mine. This is what I’m saying. Haskins is talking about antiracism programming in general, and that’s not the same thing as critical race theory. It’s illiterate and pointless to keep insisting it is.

Speaking of men, and men relative to women, and women relative to men – James Innes-Smith finds there are far too many women on the BBC these days.

Is it any surprise that research carried out by the corporation for its annual report found that more than a quarter of men feel that the BBC ‘no longer reflects people like me’?

“People like me” meaning what? Just, men? Or is there more to it than that? If there is, Innis-Smith overlooked it.

In a concerted effort to redress gender imbalance men are gradually being airbrushed out. Across much of the BBC men have become something of a rarity.

Really? Really? Really?

I don’t believe it. I don’t believe men are a rarity on the BBC. I think James-Innis is confusing “more women than there used to be” with “almost no men.” I also think James-Innis sees an all-male BBC as quite normal, so that a BBC with some women feels to him like a vanishing of men.

Many of the corporation’s high-profile dramas are now female-focused, including the Pursuit of Love, I May Destroy You, Starstruck and Motherland.

And? What of it? Plenty of high-profile dramas are male-focused, so what’s alarming about the existence of some female-focused ones?

Female presenters dominate shows such as BBC Breakfast, The One Show and Songs of Praise. A rejuvenated BBC Three will be almost exclusively female led while Radio 4 has turned into one long episode of Woman’s Hour. 

No it hasn’t.

But you can hardly point the finger at the BBC; its female-centric programming reflects a cultural trend that is rife across society.

“Rife.” Slightly more inclusion of women is “rife across society.” Here’s a guy with his clutching hands stuck between his legs.