And then they came for cheerleaders, and best friends and…………..

Progressives are actually regressive

The Houston Texans aren’t even bothering with the pretense.

On their website is a photo gallery of the finalists from last weekend’s cheerleader tryouts, and visitors are encouraged to vote for their favorites. Are these action shots of the women that highlight their athletic ability or dance skills? Do they include a list of their qualifications?

Of course not. They’re headshots. Sorry, head and chest shots. Close-up ones, at that.

The better to ogle, you know.

Cheerleaders from two NFL teams have filed gender discrimination complaints in the past month, detailing the demeaning ways in which they were treated. Restrictions on what they can and can’t post on social media. Rules that prohibit contact with players, and put the onus on the women to avoid it. Dress codes.

Is it any wonder? The underlying premise of NFL cheerleaders is degrading, presenting women as nothing more than objects to be leered at. With skimpy, suggestive outfits as their “uniform,” their only purpose is to titillate.

Of course may women flock to tryouts, for a myriad of reasons. But this choice is not approved by the left so, it must go. No matter that the vast majority are dancers, who love, wait for it, dancing. No matter that most of these ladies do it and enjoy it. Cheerleading is just wrong because LEFTISM! 

Of course we knew this was coming didn’t we? WE knew the #MeToo movement would eventually be used by the left to push their agenda. The left has been hijacking and bastardizing legitimate issues for decades and decades. Let’s face it, cheerleading is an American tradition, part of our culture, so, it too must go bye bye.

The only question now is when will they target college and high school cheerleading? And after that, what will be next? How about the state controlling friendships? What, that is a bridge too far for even for the left? Think again

None of the students at a Massachusetts preschool have a best friend. And that’s an order.

Pentucket Workshop Preschool’s “best friend” policy is being blasted by a parent who says her daughter got upset after reportedly being told by a teacher she couldn’t use the term because it could make other students feel excluded.

“How do you police a 4-year-old from expressing their feelings?” Christine Hartwell, whose daughter, Julia, attends the Georgetown school, told FOX25 Boston. “It’s outrageous, it’s silly [and] it hurts.

Leftism is evil, leftists are evil. And leftism destroys everything it touches. Never forget that. And those who give in, even a little to this nonsense feed the beast that leftism is. And that beast grows, and grows, and…………..

Senator Warren and her tenuous relationship with the truth

By tenuous I mean non-existent 

But did you know that Pocahontas and two of her comrades once conducted a fake study to prove that exorbitant healthcare bills drive most bankruptcies? And that former President Barack Obama later used her phony study to advocate for Obamacare.

“[W]e must also address the crushing cost of health care. This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes,” the then-president said during his 2009 address to Congress.

For a guy who kvetches so frequently about the lack of “a common baseline of facts,” you’d think he’d have known better.

As noted by Paul Mirengoff over at PJ Media, Warren’s study contained a plethora of problems, including the fact that it “grossly inflated the number of bankruptcies having a ‘medical cause’ … by including all cases of ‘uncontrolled gambling,’ ‘alcohol or drug addiction,’ and ‘birth/addition of a new family member’ and by including cases where relatively modest medical bills acted in combination with other debts.”

In fairness to Senator Lies A Lot many lies were told by advocates of Obamacare, but she played a special role with her ginned up “study”

Megan McArdle at The Washington Post:

Carlos Dobkin, Amy Finkelstein, Raymond Kluender and Matthew J. Notowidigdo did what’s called an “event study.” Instead of looking at bankruptcies to see how many involved medical bills, they started with the illness, and asked how much more likely people were to declare bankruptcy after they got sick. That’s a much better way to tease out causation than asking whether someone who just went through a financially ruinous divorce also owed his or her dermatologist thousands of dollars.

The answer they came up with will surprise even critics of Warren et al.: The fraction of bankruptcies caused by medical events is just 4 percent. And even among those bankruptcies, it seems that medical bills may be less of a problem than the other things associated with an illness, such as lost labor income.

In other words: Medical bankruptcy probably wasn’t nearly as big a problem as people thought when we were passing our giant new health-care program. And to the extent that it was a problem, Obamacare probably didn’t do much to fix it.

None of this should surprise anyone. Senator Warren is a leftist, leftists do not care one whit about truth or honesty. Leftists do not value such things. All they value is achieving their end goals. Socialized medicine has long been one of their most lofty aims, so, lying to reach it? No biggie to them

This is how we treat brave men now

It is a sad day……..

Two Miramar Police Department SWAT team members were suspended Thursday for trying to help the Broward County Sheriff’s department end the mass shooting that took place at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, but failing to tell their supervisors what was happening.

The two officers, Det. Jeffery Gilbert and Det. Carl Schlosser, are temporarily suspended from duty, the Miami Herald reports, but remain on active duty while the Miramar PD investigates the incident.

According to reports, Gilbert and Schlosser became aware of the Parkland incident while it was happening, abandoned a training exercise, and rushed to the scene, hoping to help neutralize the shooter. But Broward County says they didn’t ask for — and didn’t want — the SWAT officers’ help; they had their own SWAT team on the way, and other departments were sending their own backup.

Wow, maybe these two officers were displaying “toxic masculinity” and it “triggered the wrong person?

Sometimes, all I can do is shake my head, and wonder how foolish people are elevated to positions of power to make such decisions. I am really weary of seeing buffoons lauded as brave and smart while good competent people are looked upon as odd and dangerous

Some people simply do not believe in liberty

Sadly, too many American simply do not grasp what liberty is. Many of our “leaders” are to be counted among those who do not believe, or even grasp what liberty is. Animal has the story of a bill that would allow terminally ill to choose alternative treatments. Frankly, I it is sad such freedom must be “given”to us by Congress. It seems like a natural right, AKA liberty, to me

There is at present a bill in Congress, H.R. 878, known as the “right to try” bill.  The summary reads as follows:

This bill requires the federal government to allow unrestricted manufacturing, distribution, prescribing, and dispensing of experimental drugs, biological products, and medical devices that are: (1) intended to treat a patient who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and (2) authorized by state law. The federal government must allow unrestricted possession and use of such treatments by patients certified by a physician as having exhausted all other treatment options.

A manufacturer, distributor, prescriber, dispenser, possessor, or user of such a treatment has no liability regarding the treatment.

The outcome of manufacture, distribution, prescribing, dispensing, possession, or use of such a treatment may not be used by a federal agency to adversely impact review or approval of the treatment.

The treatment must: (1) have successfully completed a phase 1 (initial, small scale) clinical trial; (2) remain under investigation in a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (3) not be approved, licensed, or cleared for sale under the Federal Food, Drug, or Cosmetic Act or the Public Health Service Act.

Seems logical, right?

Well, a whole bunch of folks are against it.  Here’s why:

“Patients with terminal conditions who access unapproved therapies outside of clinical trials may be at risk of hastened death or reduced quality of the life that they have left, and deserve protections similar to patients taking part in clinical trials,” the authors wrote.

Andrew Powaleny, a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical industry organization PhRMA, which hasn’t taken a firm stance on the legislation, said, “It is crucial that any right-to-try policy proposals protect patient safety and the integrity of the clinical trial process along with U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight. PhRMA appreciated the opportunity last fall to work with Sen. Johnson on his proposal and is engaged in an ongoing dialogue with his office and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Walden.”

Honestly, (language alert) fuck these assholes.

Yes, that is blunt, and indeed coarse language, but it is deserved frankly. These central planning statists do not believe in individual liberty. It really is that cut and dry.

*AUDIO* Mark Steyn: Trump Vs. The Global Warming Lunatics

.

.

Leftism is a destructive force

Marxism, Progressivism, Leftism, call it what you like, destroys everything it touches Darrick Johnson gives us the latest example

If you want a concrete demonstration of how progressivism hurts working Americans, look no further than DC’s new child care rule rule, requiring workers to have a college degree.

While the proponents claim the rule puts them “ahead of the curve” of child care policy, its an unbelievably destructive approach.

First, it’s terribly punitive to non-college educated workers, who may have years of experience in child care, but now have to obtain an expensive degree by 2020 in order to keep their job.  Child care is important work, and its not easy, but it has also been a place where less affluent people, with less formal education, could find work.  Washington is running them out of a job.

Second, its going to create incredibly high prices for child care.  For single moms who have no other options, shrinking the labor pool for child care (and burdening those workers who stay with expensive student loans) is making an already painful expense much worse.  Monthly child care costs in the District average $1,800/month, and this will only further inflate prices.

Ah the folly of central planners. But, they care more about the control over people, than about the pain their ideology causes

Your Marxist Morons of the Day

There are degrees of stupid. There is stupid, then there is Jimmy Carter level stupid, then there is Nuclear Grade Stupid Bob Owens explores a case of the nuclear grade variety

One of the realities of law enforcement is that higher-level police brass are typically more interested in protecting their own power and advancing their own careers than they care at all about the realities officers face on the street. That detached and self-serving mindset is probably behind a new recommendation by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (and allegedly some other law enforcement organizations) that law enforcement officers should be allowed to fire warning shots.

Wait, wait, did he say warning shots? I would hope the idiots at the International Association of Chiefs of Police realize that bullets do not stop until they hit something, in other words a “warning shot” might very well endanger innocent bystanders, or people in their homes, etc. Of course that is not where their collective stupid stops, oh no………..When Leftists start digging in the Pit of Eternal Stupidity, they keep going and going, and

“There was a lot of discussion,” says the IACP’s Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.

Let us take a peek at the criteria for using “deadly force”

The new policy still sets strict conditions for warning shots:

1. The use of deadly force is justified;

If deadly force is justified then how will a warning shot help? If the officer, or innocent person is in imminent danger, a warning shot, it seems to me, would increase, and not lessen that imminent threat

2. The warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and

3. The officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.

That is simply adds additional layers for officers to weigh. I fail to see how this does anything positive

But Cunningham says the motivation for the change is to give officers a little more wiggle room when faced with a threat.

“We’re kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate,” Cunningham says.

Many police trainers have come to believe that overly rigid use of force rules, however well-meant, may sometimes leave officers with no other option than to kill someone. The new model policy is a response to those concerns.

“Why not give the officers more tools?” Cunningham says. “I think it’s the right thing to do.”

Look, I am not an expert here, but Owens has a lot more training than I, so what does he think?

My training and the training of pretty much every law enforcement officer and other civilians in the United States is that if you encounter a deadly force situation, that you engage the threat with rounds fired at the center of exposed mass of the threat in order to stop the threat’s ability to harm or kill others.

Seems like common sense doesn’t it? The situation is very dire if deadly force is needed so why would anyone suggest the officer be unduly burdened with more rules made up by politically motivated police chiefs?

This new warning shot policy recommendation suggests that officers engaged in a deadly force encounter should take the time to look beyond the threat to see if there is a safe backstop for them to fire a bullet. I do not see this being a viable tactic for patrol officers in a typical encounter that occurs with little or no warning, nor one that will do anything other than greatly increase the risk of innocent bystanders being hit when officers making a split-second decision to fire a warning shot pick a poor choice of backstop that will either fail to stop the projectile, or cause the round to ricochet. In either event, a round was launched when it was not needed to be fired.

Owens adds a lot more, and sees some possible justifications for such a policy

To provide political cover for law enforcement brass, to hang patrol officers out to dry and to protect their own careers in the event of a controversial shooting. “Officer Doe had the option of firing a warning shot in this scenario according to our policy. You can’t blame me for this.”

To provide political cover for law enforcement brass who are receiving pressure from elected officials educated by the entertainment fantasy industry that “shooting to wound” is a viable alternative, apparently completely unaware of the reality that arms and legs still have major arteries, and that a shot to the knee, thigh, elbow, bicep, or should could still result in a fatal bleed-out within seconds or minutes, leaving the officer who fired the shot hung out to try as he explains he was trying to “shoot to wound.”

Much more at Bearing Arms. To me this is simply an overreaction to political pressure to agitators such as Black Lives Matter and other leftist groups, and to a media that reports for sensationalism rather than to impart facts, and useful information. In short, this is a new front in the War on Police.