SocraticGadfly: 7/24/22 - 7/31/22

July 30, 2022

Transgender, transsexual, and legal and civil rights

I've blogged before many times about the difference between sex and gender, the problems with puberty-blocker medications, their over-prescription and prescription outside of guidelines recommended by places like the Mayo Clinic and more.

I've distanced myself from the "trans activists," other than the former "activist" doctors who blew the whistle last year on some of the worst of the activism.

At the same time, I've distanced myself from the former Georgia Green Party and its right-wing allies, and whether specifically right-wing or not, some of the worst of gender-critical radical feminism.

But, I realized that I've probably never specified that, although transgenderism and transsexualism are not the same thing, because sex is not gender, that both transgender and transsexual people are entitled to certain legal rights and protections.

Those may not always be the same, between the two groups, but both are entitled to certain legal rights and protections. For instance, both have the right to privacy from both government and private snooping.

The biggest difference, re something that's been in the news off and on?

Battered women's shelters.

A former male who has sexually, by chemistry and/or surgery, transitioned to being female, has the right to enter such a facility.

A man wearing a dress and makeup who has not transitioned to female, is not in the process of doing so, and especially, has no plans to start such a process, has no such entrance rights. Not in my book.

July 29, 2022

DC Statehood Greens: The Green Party in a nutshell

Three Tweets will tell you where I'm coming from:

First this:

Then this:

Then this:

And now I'll expand.

First is simple fact. And, given that the Facebook group that's still active boasts of pushing DC Republicans into third-party status back in 2006, is a sign of a party in decline — or, like many state Green parties, a shell that's run by a person who's a perma-chairperson rather than a permanent candidate.

Third? Rico Martin claims that immigration both legal and illegal harms Blacks in America above all and apparently wants to put a stop to it. (Does that include the new African diaspora? Black Caribbeans?) Along with that, he salutes the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade, insinuates that abortion has been part of eugenics against Blacks. (I'm aware of Margaret Sanger, but I'm also aware of Black women having free will and agency to elect an abortion on their own, and therefore say he's wrong, as well as his claim that nobody in Black America wants it. 

Related to the above? He uses "Freedmen" a lot. Not sure how he fits the new African diaspora into that. And, he used the DC Greens' official Facebook Group to push a South Carolina, not DC, Congressional candidate who was pushing the immigration narrative and more. (For the record, Marcel Dixon got smoked, getting less than 5 percent in a three-way primary that included incumbent and senior House Democrat James Clyburn.)

As for the immigration? I watched the first 7-8 minutes of the video and found it full of crap. On illegal immigrants, one person repeated the White wingnut claim that they use "other government programs." As in, they're "welfare reynas," to riff on Reagan. Untrue, of course. Another claims that going back as far as Frederick Douglass, many Black leaders have been against immigration period. Funny, I read a great Douglass bio, new, just a couple of years ago, and that's not mentioned about him. What IS mentioned, among many good things about him, is also that he incorporated White biases about American Indians and claimed they'd never been victims of racism. No, really.

On his personal Facebook page (he posts to public, so it's all fair game) he's also anti-LGBQT (and the pre-trans gay angle on that, too). That includes hoping that SCOTUS overturns gay marriage like Roe.

He also claims Black Lives Matters was about "trans" Blacks only. Funny, I thought it was about Black capitalists only.

For "good measure," he's also an antivaxxer.

July 27, 2022

Looking at the six options for Texas governor

Yes, six.

Per Ballotpedia, they are:

  1. Greg Abbott, R
  2. Beto O'Rourke, D
  3. Mark Tippetts, L
  4. Delilah Barrios, G
  5. Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla, I

Actually, that's just five. No. 6, per ME, having done it before myself and defended others, is undervoting.

A big variety of things scratches Strangeabbott, of course. I've never really considered a Libertarian executive or legislative vote, though I would do that (and wish I had thought about it more in the past) on prosecutorial and judicial elections, because of the War on Drugs, civil liberties, etc.

But, beyond the general reservations about Libertarians, we're post-Uvalde, and I'm not even going to bother finding Tippetts' position on gunz.

Barrios? She's the most libertarian of libertarian Greens I've had extensive interaction with, and on the gunz issue alone, I think she's in the wrong third party. She opposes O'Rourke's "take your AK-47" (which I take as wanting to restore Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban), is silent on red flag laws, and has other non-gunz problems.

So, I've already eliminated three. I'll eliminate No. 4 next. Turullos-Bonilla's response to the Ballotpedia candidate questionnaire shows he is not just a vanity candidate but a nutter, kind of like a techie version of the former "DemoRep" commenter on Ballot Access News.

So, it's Bob on a Knob, as he's known here, or undervote. And, the gunz? If I think he's got a puncher's chance, I vote for him.

UPDATE, Aug. 29: On the other hand, the child exploitation, nay, full child abuse, by the Never Abbotters at Moms Against Greg Abbott PAC in its back-to-school commercial, make me tilt more toward undervoting. And, after a community event in Uvalde last weekend, Tweeters thinking Barrios, like Uvalde parents, favor gun control when she does not (and has not disillusioned them of this belief) means she's still not getting my vote.

July 25, 2022

Aridzona still refuses to face water reality


A year ago, I blogged about the first water cuts the Bureau of Reclamation announced for the Lower Colorado River states of Arizona, Nevada and California — and on this first round, mainly Aridzona, somewhat Nevada and not really California. Above, a drying Lake Powell, surrounded by summer-angry redrock, sits behind Glen Canyon Dam. That was about a decade ago, and the "bathtub ring" both there and at Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam have only gotten worse since then.

At that time, the feds announced that Lake Mead had fallen below the level to trigger the first round of water usage cuts next year. Within the three Lower Basin states (Google, and/or click the Wiki link, if you don't understand the Colorado River Compact), for a variety of reasons, the cuts hit Aridzona much more than Nevada. They don't hit California at all, though the next round, if triggered, will hit all three states. 

Meanwhile? Early predictions for US winter weather said that drought would remain and that the lower half of the West will also have dry weather, and these have panned out. Those 2023 cuts WILL happen. BuRec all but said so last month. I blogged about that here.

(Update: BuRec has indeed now dropped what I called a "semi-hammer." But, it's not a full hammer, or even that close. The question is, here, should it have been a full hammer? Will Aridzona continue to be scofflaws, so to speak? Will not dropping a full hammer make their intransigence even worse as the clock ticks to the 2026 expiration of the Compact?)

The first cuts looked to hit ag first.

But, what about urban water? The Aridzona Lege, several years ago, required new residential developments to prove they had a 100-year sustainable water supply. But, the language is loophole-ridden and is as much Jell-O as the Paris climate accords (which were similarly deliberately made so by Dear Leader and Xi Jinping). But, what about water banking? Well, Nevada (I think) is claiming that it's OK in part due to water banking. But, what if, in reality, such an account is already overdrawn? This is not like the federal government budget deficit, where you ignore it, or print more simollians if you have to. There is no more water to "print."

In addition, as of a couple of years ago, at least, it seems Aridzona did not have any withdrawal structure for water banked from the CAP. Since some of that water was banked for the state of Nevada? Erm, see above! In addition, per this piece, water banking was started for two reasons: one, as is true with most things Aridzona and water, as a reaction to those damned water-greedy Californians. Second, it was foisted as an idea for interstate water-banking and resale, as in, "we'll give those water-greedy Californians water if they pay us enough." But, it's hard to do that one, too, if you don't have a good mechanism for withdrawing water from the bank. See above! (The Wiki link also has thumbnail information on Aridzona's history of water animosity toward California.)
 
Robert Glennon, the University of Arizona prof who wrote the Conversation piece, agrees with me that cities and developers likely aren't yet going to smell the coffee.

More proof? This piece from the New Yorker, about Rio Verde Foothills, which bills itself as "North Scottsdale." It's sad and disgusting and schadenfreude all three.

  • People drilling 1,000-foot water wells — and hitting dry holes.
  • Others, who have been getting water delivered to underground cisterns, getting cut off. The city of Phoenix cut off deliveries to New River in 2018. And Scottsdale is cutting off Rio Verde Foothills next year.
  • Meanwhile, MOAR HOUSES are being built. One loophole in that 100-year requirement? Applies to developments of five or more houses. So, developers submit four-house systems, get them approved by county commission, and do the same two weeks later, lather, rinse, repeat.
  • Some homeowners want to start a Domestic Water Improvement District. To others? That's GUMMINT! Might TAX US! So, they want to have an upgraded agreement with a private water hauler. One problem? Only a water district, not a private hauler, can buy "second tier" water.
  • Meanwhile, MOAR HOUSES are being built. 
 
Per Ed Abbey's "growth for growth sake is the theology of the cancer cell"? On the other side of Phoenix, Maricopa, now an exurb of upper-middle-class white flight (Pinal County was about 55-45 Dem in the late 1990s, now 55-45 Republican) is 70,000 and mushrooming. Didn't even exist 20 years ago. 
 
==
 
For an excellent in-depth look at the long-term problem and possible "solutions" (which will NOT revert us back to pre-2000 status), and which take into account the full Law of the River, see this Science mag study. (Hell will freeze over or Ed Abbey will rise from the dead before that much in the way of cuts happens without heavy federal intervention, likely coupled with massive state-vs-state lawsuits, launched by the Aridzona whose obstructiveness put it behind the Colorado River 8-ball decades ago in the first place.)