Dem Post Mortem

[Loren Pechtel]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection. This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

 

[Shadowy Man]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection. This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

Most of the constitution is written in that way though. What’s “speech”? what are “arms”? What is “establishment of religion”? The list goes on….

 

[bilby]

Most of the constitution is written in that way though ...

... what are “arms”?

They are the things that separate your shoulders from your wrists.

You have the right to keep them, and (should you wish to roll up your sleeves) even to bare them.

You're welcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Small minority, but it's not a big deal to accommodate.

Seems to take up a disproportionate amount of space in the realm of political discourse. Or perhaps a LOT more people are trans than come to my attention - I tend not to ask a lot of questions when a person seems androgynous, and if they are apparently of a given gender I don’t question that either. So maybe they’re everywhere, incognito, just waiting to do whatever it is that they do that strikes terror into the heart of RW snowflakes.

"Everywhere" has implications as to frequency that I don't think fit. But they were going about their daily lives without a problem until the scum needed an enemy to direct hate at.

 

[bilby]

But they were going about their daily lives without a problem until the scum needed an enemy to direct hate at.

Well, there were always scummy haters, so "without a problem" is a bit of a stretch; But yes, they were not in the media spotlight, and didn't have to cope with a large fraction of the political leadership of the country inviting the public to hate hate hate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll be perfectly honest: I don't care about the miniscule trans demographic as it relates to political engagement. If one wants to permanently change themself, then they can go right ahead. It's their right and none of my business. But when such a tiny group with a horribly amplified voice impairs the judgment of an entire political party, then yeah, I'm going to have something to say about it.

I see it more like making crosswalk buttons that talk to aid the visually impaired. Small minority, but it's not a big deal to accommodate.

By and large, Trump supporters are reprehensible morons. Most of those people can't be saved. They're irredeemably ignorant and bad faith actors. We know that, and we've harped on it for so long and to such a degree that it's not only tiresome, it's detrimental because rather than find a viable solution, liberals have instead failed to recognize their own detachment from reality by disregarding the problems that everyone faces.

The problem is that the problems that "everyone" faces are things with no real solutions. The Democrats didn't campaign on them because they know any "solution" is bullshit. The Republicans like bullshit so that's what they ran on.

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

 

[Elixir]

"Everywhere" has implications as to frequency that I don't think fit. But they were going about their daily lives without a problem until the scum needed an enemy to direct hate at.

No argument there! The "trans problem" is a sloppily crafted product of right wing neuroses. Trans people. OTOH, are real. I can count on the fingers of one hand, the times that I've knowingly had ANY interaction with trans people, and none of those encounters was threatening or even unpleasant. I remember a couple of times wondering is this a boy or a girl or a girl becoming a boy or a boy becoming a girl, but I quickly figured out that pressing though it was, that "problem" was MY problem, not theirs. And not such a problem that I had to - or wanted to - do anything about it.
Sheesh.
For all the things that terrify MAGAts, it's hard to believe that a 320lb blob of ugly vitriolic fat screaming, croaking and playing air-accordian isn't one of them.

 

[Elixir]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

Yawn... at our PUBLIC pool, a remodel was done about 18 years ago. Prior, there was a men's locker room and a women's locker room plus a couple of bare-bones toilet/sink tiny bathrooms. I don't recall the config right after the remodel, but now we have men's and women's locker rooms, a couple of toilet/sink bathrooms and 2 clearly marked "all gender" changing/locker rooms/bathrooms. Those can be locked from the inside and are used mostly by families (e.g. dad comes in with two toddler daughters and isn't comfortable bringing them into the men's locker room.)
But ANYONE unsure of which locker rooms they belong in, or afraid that someone is in the locker room of their designated gender who they don't think belongs there, is FREE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS and use an "all gender" one instead.
I have never once heard a word of complaint about anyone being where they are not wanted or don't belong. In 28 years.
But that doesn't keep the neurotic right from making it a top-of-mind issue for their robotic voters.

 

[robnisch]

I can only speak to what I've seen with my nieces and my daughter and math is more involved and better suited for critical thinking than it was 25 years ago. And 25 years ago, it wasn't that bad.

It's possible the reporting is biased but if that news article is a reasonable approximation of the truth they're going too far. I do agree with the changes they have been making to math education--basically a shift from rote learning to understanding why. And putting it into real-world contexts is a good thing. But it should still be math, not history.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

The shifting of smart kids outside of classrooms isn't thought of being a great idea anymore. That doesn't mean the school doesn't enrich the talented in reading and/or math. I can attest to that personally / anecdotally.

The only real solution is to put such students into some sort of accelerated program--but great care needs to be taken to keep it from being a tool of discrimination.

The draft also suggested that math should not be colorblind and that teachers could use lessons to explore social justice — for example, by looking out for gender stereotypes in word problems, or applying math concepts to topics like immigration or inequality.

This doesn't say what you think it says. It means Carlos is going to count apples. Amy is breaking bananas up into dozens. Ahmed is on a train going from Albany, NY to somewhere better than Albany, NY.

There's a difference between removing the cultural biases (good) and inserting ideas like inequality (bad).

About the only good part of it is that is emphasizes statistics and data science. It should not come at the expense of calculus though, but instead of nonsense like talking about "immigration or inequality" in math class.

You are reading too deeply into some of this. They aren't getting rid of Calculus. They are allowing the kids that aren't going to be doing the harder maths, to focus on other maths. This isn't about supplanting calculus with word problems on cultural appropriation.

Back when I was in high school calculus was an elective. As it should be--most students aren't going to do well. And most people will simply not need calculus in their lives. Despite being in a field where I use a lot of the lower math I can't recall ever using calculus professionally and that part of my education has rusted into pretty much uselessness.

I did two years at a technical institute. Basic calculus was required. I just passed. But, the engineering teachers told us that we would not really need to good at it because all the formulas were plug and crank.

 

[thebeave]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

Yawn... at our PUBLIC pool, a remodel was done about 18 years ago. Prior, there was a men's locker room and a women's locker room plus a couple of bare-bones toilet/sink tiny bathrooms. I don't recall the config right after the remodel, but now we have men's and women's locker rooms, a couple of toilet/sink bathrooms and 2 clearly marked "all gender" changing/locker rooms/bathrooms. Those can be locked from the inside and are used mostly by families (e.g. dad comes in with two toddler daughters and isn't comfortable bringing them into the men's locker room.)
But ANYONE unsure of which locker rooms they belong in, or afraid that someone is in the locker room of their designated gender who they don't think belongs there, is FREE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS and use an "all gender" one instead.
I have never once heard a word of complaint about anyone being where they are not wanted or don't belong. In 28 years.
But that doesn't keep the neurotic right from making it a top-of-mind issue for their robotic voters.

That, of course, is the ideal solution. And going forward in new construction, we should be using that model for bathrooms in all buildings, wherever feasible. I don't think the "neurotic right" has a problem with that. The problem is for older construction that doesn't have a separate "all/any gender" bathroom. A lot of women don't feel safe or are self conscious about having a male strutting around and swinging his dick in their private space, and I don't blame them. Don't you care about their feelings in the matter?

 

[ZiprHead]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection.

Really???

The legal definition of insurrection is a violent act of rebellion against a government or other political authority:

• Definition
  Insurrection is a violent uprising against a government's authority, including taking up arms or actively opposing the government's power.
  
  Penalties
  A conviction for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 can result in:
  • Up to 10 years in prison
  • A fine of up to $250,000
  • Permanent disqualification from holding any government office in the United States

This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

Perry Mason you are not.

 

[Derec]

Really???

The legal definition of insurrection is a violent act of rebellion against a government or other political authority:

• Definition
  Insurrection is a violent uprising against a government's authority, including taking up arms or actively opposing the government's power.
  
  Penalties
  A conviction for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 can result in:
  • Up to 10 years in prison
  • A fine of up to $250,000
  • Permanent disqualification from holding any government office in the United States

Note that this legal definition of insurrection refers to a federal crime of insurrection. Trump was not charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, much less convicted. If he was, the 14.3 argument would have been much stronger, indeed a legal slam dunk.

 

[Derec]

"No transition is even necessary"--misrepresenting the situation. No surgery required--but that's how it should be! Try it out before taking irrevocable steps. Live as the other gender for a while before you do surgery.

I am not misrepresenting. There are a lot of birth sex presenting people who nevertheless insist on unusual pronouns. I already mentioned "Tortugita", the anti-police activist who was killed at the anti-Cop City encampment (after shooting a state trooper in the abdomen) who was a male-presenting biological male, but who nevertheless went by "they".

The problem here is that it hasn't been demonstrated that there's a problem. (On the flip side, I don't see it being demonstrated that there isn't, either.) It's certainly not a big one, a naturally high-T woman is going to have an advantage over someone on testosterone blockers.

Going through puberty as a male alone gives you advantages, such as muscle mass and bone structure, that are not undone by taking MTF hormones.

 

[Derec]

The only real solution is to put such students into some sort of accelerated program--but great care needs to be taken to keep it from being a tool of discrimination.

If every student is judged by the same yard stick then there is no discrimination, even if there is a "disparate outcome".
It is wrong to e.g. take algebra away from everybody in 8th grade because too many of the wrong kids are ready for algebra then.

Back when I was in high school calculus was an elective. As it should be--most students aren't going to do well.

It still is. And it should be an option for those students who want to take it and can hack it. Nobody is advocating "calculus for all".

 

[Derec]

The problem is that the problems that "everyone" faces are things with no real solutions. The Democrats didn't campaign on them because they know any "solution" is bullshit. The Republicans like bullshit so that's what they ran on.

Every solution to a general problem is bullshit? Really?

I understand that "solution" Trump offered like general tariffs is bullshit, but so is more spending (favoring some people, like $25k for first time home buyers or $6k for new parents) that Kami pushed for. If you are not in those categories she wants to dote on, you are basically paying for it, one way or the other. TANSTAAFL.

 

[Derec]

Appearance doesn't always prove reality. There are those who are repeatedly mistaken for the wrong gender. I wouldn't fool anyone in person but in situations where I am not present mistakes abound. (And that includes the phone--it does something to my voice that makes it sound female.)

You're a high talker.

 

[Derec]

You're missing the point. "Chair" generally refers to the objects which are manufactured for purpose, but we also use the term for other objects that can serve the purpose in the absence of the manufactured for purpose objects.

Do we? Generally chairs have four legs (and no horse doesn't qualify, since "leg" here has a different meaning), are of moderate height, have a back and are intended for use by one person at a time. A similar object with no back, sometimes three legs or even one, and either shorter or taller than a chair is usually called a "stool" (not to be confused with the euphemism for feces). Although there are exceptions - "office chair" or "swivel chair" does not have four legs but sits on caster wheels for example. But my point is that "chair" in common usage does not refer to any "manmade or man-modified objects intended for sitting on" but only for certain kinds of it.
And in metaphorical sense, "chair" can be the "head" (also a metaphor) of a department or organization. Probably goes back to the time when only a boss sat on an individual chair with the rest sat on benches or just stood.

You're looking at the logs around the Raintree (3000+ year old Bristlecone pine on our local mountain) and saying that since they don't have legs they can't be chairs. Yet they are sometimes referred to as chairs and the arrangement is clearly by human action, intended for sitting on.

There are certainly differences among objects intended for seating: chairs, stools, sofas, benches. A log would probably just be referred to as a log ("we can sit on that log" you would say, not "we can sit on that log-shaped chair") and morphologically and functionally they resemble benches - they are long and intended for use by more than one person at a time.

A trans person is the log around the tree rather than a perfect example of their gender.

Or maybe a wide chair/narrow bench so that you are not sure which category to place it in.

 

[ZiprHead]

Really???

The legal definition of insurrection is a violent act of rebellion against a government or other political authority:

• Definition
  Insurrection is a violent uprising against a government's authority, including taking up arms or actively opposing the government's power.
  
  Penalties
  A conviction for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 can result in:
  • Up to 10 years in prison
  • A fine of up to $250,000
  • Permanent disqualification from holding any government office in the United States

Note that this legal definition of insurrection refers to a federal crime of insurrection. Trump was not charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, much less convicted. If he was, the 14.3 argument would have been much stronger, indeed a legal slam dunk.

Note that this is in response to Loren who said there is no definition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

Yawn... at our PUBLIC pool, a remodel was done about 18 years ago. Prior, there was a men's locker room and a women's locker room plus a couple of bare-bones toilet/sink tiny bathrooms. I don't recall the config right after the remodel, but now we have men's and women's locker rooms, a couple of toilet/sink bathrooms and 2 clearly marked "all gender" changing/locker rooms/bathrooms. Those can be locked from the inside and are used mostly by families (e.g. dad comes in with two toddler daughters and isn't comfortable bringing them into the men's locker room.)
But ANYONE unsure of which locker rooms they belong in, or afraid that someone is in the locker room of their designated gender who they don't think belongs there, is FREE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS and use an "all gender" one instead.
I have never once heard a word of complaint about anyone being where they are not wanted or don't belong. In 28 years.
But that doesn't keep the neurotic right from making it a top-of-mind issue for their robotic voters.

That's how it should be.

But some years back my wife got hurt while we were in Shanghai. While technically she could walk it was painful enough she only walked with assistance and as little as possible--wheelchair whenever possible. PVG--modern airport, wheelchair-friendly family bathrooms. LAX?--older airport, no family bathrooms anywhere and not very wheelchair friendly. I had to wheel her into the men's room and then had difficulty positioning the chair to minimize the pain of moving.

I'm ok with requiring the trans to use the "any" facility--if it exists and is functional. But "exists" means with the other facilities or equally distant. (IIRC PVG was one structure bathrooms, one structure various other things including the family bathrooms, alternating as you went along the terminal. While any given person might have been farther from a family bathroom the average distance to a regular bathroom and to a family bathroom was equal. A lot of handicapped support stuff in China only pays lip service to actually doing it the airport did it right.) You do not get to have one "any" facility and a bunch that aren't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Back when I was in high school calculus was an elective. As it should be--most students aren't going to do well. And most people will simply not need calculus in their lives. Despite being in a field where I use a lot of the lower math I can't recall ever using calculus professionally and that part of my education has rusted into pretty much uselessness.

I did two years at a technical institute. Basic calculus was required. I just passed. But, the engineering teachers told us that we would not really need to good at it because all the formulas were plug and crank.

I disagree on plug and crank. You need to understand what you're working with or you'll fail to spot garbage.