SocraticGadfly: Just.Another.Political.Party™
Showing posts with label Just.Another.Political.Party™. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Just.Another.Political.Party™. Show all posts

August 17, 2024

So, it's Butch Ware as Jill Stein's Veep? Update: It was Ayoub first, then Noura Erekat

That was the news yesterday, that she had picked Butch Ware, professor at Cal-Santa Barbara, over any of the two Arab-American names she floated two weeks ago via Al Jazeera as three potential Veep picks. The two Arab-Americans were also both from Michigan, the state with the largest Arab-American population and where the "uncommitted" movement in Democratic presidential primaries started.

Per that second link, a previous blog post of mine? Was she afraid of actually costing Kamala is a Zionist Cop the state of Michigan, and in a close presidential race, thus possibly tipping it to Donald Trump? Given that her 2016 recount, based on fake news, started in Michigan, and that Stein is in many ways an AccommoGreen, the Green equivalent of a ConservaDem, none of this would surprise me. Luqman, the third name floated, is from DC and so just wouldn't have been a broader needle-mover. Also, as of 2020, she was affiliated with Sputnik Radio. Given attacks on Stein as a "Russian agent," by #BlueAnon engaging in the worst of #Russiagate's wrongness, that would not have flown. But, was Stein thinking that way? If so, why was Luqman on the list in the first place?

And, why am I assuming Stein actually plays 11-dimensional chess, or thinks that deeply?

==

Big set of updates to the original post, via Green Party candidate Jason Call and people he had retweeted, with a huge amount of backstory to this.

First, Stein had yet other people in mind besides that list from Al Jazeera, apparently. Or she was forced to, rather, after her first choice, from that list, spit the bit. More on that below.

One of them, her first fallback, was Noura Erekat, who, thank doorknob, per this tweet

Pulled out.

The "terms of campaign"? This:

As I noted in quoting

And in responding to someone else who quoted:

The GP doesn't need that shit. Stein should have seen that Erekat's history, including being of legal counsel to a House committee, might have been .... iffy.

Serious, that SCREAMS "duopoly" to me. Did nobody vet her?

Nor does it need the shit of Nathan J. Robinson, socialist pretendian, stanning for the left hand of the duopoly

And, stan he does.:

He'd semi-headfaked earlier this summer, but, now we're seeing the mask back off. 

As I told him?

What else is there to say? Well, other than Robinson wants the Green Party, en masse, to be DSA Roseys.

Per that semi-headfake mentioned above, I had had hopes that he might actually be looking beyond the duopoly this year, mainly over Gaza, but also for other reasons.

Beyond the headfake, the naivete or whatever it is that he's exemplifying?

Nathan, have you been gaslighting the outside world, yourself, or both, about how much you understand about political machinations?

Back to the Erekat pick.

To pick up from near the top of this post? Elsewhere, Jason Call notes that the original call was Abed Ayoub, the top candidate in the Al Jazeera leak (yes, a deliberate leak) but he backed off due to family illness.

Erm, wasn't this known in advance? The family illness? Surely, unless his wife had a near-fatal heart attack less than 24 hours before Stein officially tapped him, this didn't come out of nowhere. In this Aug. 12 story, in which Ayoub is grateful to be under consideration, there's no talk of health issues with himself or family. Per Facebook, his one grandmother died Aug. 15. It's true, that could have been sudden, but given her apparent age and that most her siblings were already dead, it's more likely not that sudden.

And, if he did spit the bit, why not Amer Zahr or Luqman, off that original list of names?

(My original post on this didn't get updated after that Al Jazeera piece, as I was operating off IPR. Still.)

To go back to Luqman? I think Putin would want somebody more organized than Stein as a Russian asset.

And, to offer a new update?

I tweeted this post Saturday night to someone named TurboKitty, who had been retweeted by dyed-in-the-wool Green David Bruce Collins, calling the process a clusterfuck. Turns out said person is co-chair of the Nevada Green Party steering committee.

I'll be here, and was on Twitter, charitable to their first response to me, and assume they were honestly thinking I was talking about the "big reveal," not the process behind it. I told them politely but firmly, no, I meant this process.

I wasn't charitable to their second response:

With my reply:

And, I'll further fight fire with fire as desired. 

I "get" the tribalism behind the response. I don't accept it.

And, I'm going to keep taking receipts. One Pourz11, who's actually a follower of me, but it's not mutual, jumped in. Their second comment was:

To which I said:

Then added that, per the end of that comment, no one that mattered to me cared about their present.

And, setting aside her investments hypocrisy, I haven't even talked about things like her antivaxxer footsies, her 5G nuttery and more. That said, I know shit like 5G conspiracy theories and antivaxxerism (even if it was footsies, not full-blown with her) appeals to a fair chunk of Greens, as I said after in the last run-up to the 2020 race at that link. Whether it's a majority or not, I don't know. OTOH, COVID scared enough Greens that Stein doubled down on pandering there, saying she supported the vaccine but opposed vaccine mandates. Or, to put them in the scare quotes they need? "Vaccine mandates." Gee, a Rethuglican could say that. Like Gov. Strangeabbott. On the third hand, I called Stein Just.Another.Politician.™ years ago, and said Greens were Just.Another.Political.Party™. I stand by that. Sadly, and one thing that has me not locked in on Claudia de la Cruz is her Stein-like stance on vaccines.

(Some of this is notes for when I announce my "slate" in a month or so.) Per that last link above, if Joseph Kishore, the candidate of the Trots of the Socialist Equality Party, is available by write-in, that's an option.

More on the Erekat pick and her demands.

First, Noura, they weren't going to be met. If you're that dumb to think that they were, beyond the AccommoGreen in extremis, I question your political judgement as much as Nathan J. Robinson's. You must have hung out with Dem Congresscritters too much. (I also question your political alignment as much as Robinson's.)

More on that, from my perspective, snarkily?

Actually, considering I'd like to finish pushing the Green Party off the cliff, in some ways, it's too bad in some ways that Stein didn't agree to Erekat's demands.

==

Anyway, to summarize:

1. Stein's first choice for Veep spit the bit in a process that invites questions, to put it politely, is head scratching, to put it a bit more skeptically, or is questionable, to put it more skeptically yet.

2. Her theoretical second and third choices, from her original list of names, were apparently simply ignored.

3. Her fourth choice was poorly vetted, if at all. And, it's not like there wasn't time. She's mentioned in that Aug. 12 story linked above, with Zahr endorsing her. Was the Al Jazeera piece not just a deliberate leak, but a smokescreen to cover Stein's chasing of Erekat? If not, why did she pivot to Erekat? Was it knowing her duopoly ties and seeing this as a "get"?

4. That, of course, fell through and it was on to No. 5 or beyond.

At this point, Stein, if not the national Green Party as a whole, is telling Will Rogers "hold my beer" over his bon mot about Democrats and disorganization. This looks like George McGovern's Veep clusterfuck in 1972.

And, summary side notes?

1. I'm going to do something further about Robinson. Don't think you've gotten off the hook yet.

2. What's this say for the Green Party 2028? Even more than in 2020, most candidates, before Stein entered, couldn't cross the bar for party qualifications to officially run. And, after Cornel West spit the bit, nobody else of note jumped in besides Stein. Her running in 2028 would finish killing off the party. So, where's a Margaret Flowers or someone like that? A Matthew Hoh?

Nutters, flakes, vanity candidates and grifters (and there's definitely Venn diagram overlap) won't cut it.

3. Tagging Mark Lause on Facebook, whom I thought was done with the Green Party on personal support as well as activism, I find out I'm wrong there. I can't say more because I don't post as "public."

4. I also still think a la 2016, that Stein deliberately spit the bit on choosing a Veep nominee from Michigan, and an Arab-American rather than an African American, because of lesser evilism.

Labels: , , , ,
at Saturday, August 17, 2024 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

November 13, 2023

Two-time Green Party retread Jill Stein running again

After Cornel West did his Lucy van Pelt and pulled the football away from the Green Party to run for president as an independent instead, 2012 and 2016 GP presidential nominee and her 2016 Veep, Ajamu Baraka, pledged to beat the bushes for new Green Party prez candidates.

And, the "bush-beating" has yielded?

Two-time retread Stein filing to run again.

A commenter at Independent Political Report, where the commenting system, for me, remains broken, speculated that she's running to pay off the $175K she still owes the Federal Elections Committee. As confirmation, her personal website, which did NOT have the campaign announcement as of yesterday, is soliciting funds for an appeal to the Supreme Court to be heard in November, against that appellate court ruling against her on the debt.

Given that Stein and the party both, as well as West, have not said how much lane-clearing West was promised and why that wasn't enough for him, and given that Stein has had bad optics before, last week, I called the GP Just.Another.Political.Party™. This only adds to that.

Labels: , , ,
at Monday, November 13, 2023 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

November 06, 2023

Green Party 2024: More than ever, Just.Another.Political.Party™

In the wake of Cornel West announcing a month ago that he would abandon his bid for the Green Party nomination and instead run as an independent because Jill Stein and friends wouldn't clear the path for him enough  ....

I wonder just how much "lane-clearing" Stein promised West. I wonder who else she had roped in. I'd love to find all this out, but, like with some of the machinations in the 2020 Green Party nomination battle, which haven't come out despite my (and others, I presume) asking, or like Stein's head-fakes with her 2016 recount fund, I'm not holding my breath.

Don't forget that before Howie Hawkins gained steam to the 2020 finish line, Stein also reportedly entertained pushing Jesse the Body Ventura (his suck-ups hate him being called that) as he was looking at tagging RFK Jr. as his veep. (That's why I refused to cosign bullshit any more and openly called her an antivaxxer.)

Another reason to call the Just.Another.Political.Party™.

Of course, West, with this gambit (like Jesse in 2020) deserves the Just.Another.Politician.™ label.

==

Update, Nov. 9: It's worse. Although Stein and her 2016 Veep, Ajamu Baraka, had pledged to beat the bushes for new Green Party prez candidates after West did his Lucy van Pelt and pulled the football away from the GP, the "bush-beating" has yielded ...

Two-time retread Stein filing to run again.

Labels: , , , ,
at Monday, November 06, 2023 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

October 05, 2023

Is Cornel West daft? Peter Daou? Both?

Cornel West's announement today  he was ditching the Greens to run independent has me scratching my head, to say the least.

I said, a couple of months ago, when West decided to run as a Green, and not with Nick Brana's sleazy Movement for a People's Party, that he seemed to be head and shoulders above other filed, announced but not yet official, and other would-be Green candidates. 

Now, more on last week's announcement. 

First, he doesn't have RFK Jr's money to pay for signature gatherers. (All states allow it; I extrapolated from a Ballotpedia piece about paid signature gatherers for initiatives, and that's incorrect.) Second, while he has some name recognition, he doesn't have the same as RFK for where he can't afford signatures. Nor, AFAIK, does he have Bob's degree of experience, from Kennedy as head of Waterkeepers, attorney with NRDC, etc.on initiative-type ballot access petitions. 

(I volunteered to help with a GP petition in the Metromess approximately 20 years ago. Purely on my own, with another person already on a clipboard at a mall. Never asked at the time if Republicans were paying anybody.)

And, even with people eligible to be paid in all 50 states, the principle holds. Cornel West does't have RFK Jr's money. And, per Republicans helping Greens in the past, West is enough of a wild card as an independent, I don't know that that many GOP/conservative checks get written for this.

He DOES, though appear to have cluelessness about the ballot access process. Independent Political Report, at the top link, quotes from an email he sent backers:

West also stated that the Constitution “provides for Independent candidates to gain ballot access in all states” and confirmed that he was pursuing ballot access as an independent candidate unaffiliated with any other organization.

Really? Yea, I along with other commenters at IPR, are laughing about that. The Constitution "provides" nothing here, and other than establishing the Electoral College and how and when its votes are counted, says nothing else about presidential elections beyond age of eligibility and elimination of religious tests.

I expect that West will get on less than half of the 50 states' ballots.

He doubled down on that general idea the time of the announcement, in this tweet:

Again, really?

As for his campaign? At the time, IPR asked if Jill Stein is following him. She said that day that she wasn't:

Full link to long Tweet here. This is going to implode, and if this was Peter Daou's idea, not just West's, I question his judgment, too.

Per ongoing discussion at the link at top, I think Ryan's on the right trail. I think West wanted to be the GP candidate without being a Green, like St. Ralph of Nader in 2024, and took off when that wasn't going to happen. Since this happened just a week after Daou joined the campaign, and as campaign chair with Stein being kicked upstairs to a senior advisor role, I think this is in part Daou's doing. In any case, he's not talking publicly on Twitter or either of his Substacks. 

UPDATE, Oct. 27, 2023: Less than a full month after Peter Daou became West's campaign manager, and only three weeks after signing off on West leaving the Green Party, Daou is OUT, allegedly for health reasons, according to a Tweet from West, as reported by Independent Political Report.

I am reminded of the VERY interesting book, "The Commissar Vanishes."

"We regret that Comrade Kamenev has resigned from the Politburo for health reasons," I picture.

And, as I type this at 10:45 p.m., 10 hours after West's tweet, Daou has no tweet of his own, though he did quote tweet a tweet from earlier in the day, talking about PTSD about growing up in the bombing of Lebanon being triggered by the situation in Gaza.

Possible? Yes. I'm still somewhat skeptical that this is all the story there is, though.

As for him being head and shoulders above other Greens? Stein and Ajamu Baraka recognize that and are beating the bush for new candidates, per that Tweet.

I'll have more on Cornel in a week. 

That said, West's platform is in many ways more radical than the Green Party. One thing in particular I note is that he seems to want a British-style NHS. I totally agree. Whether that's any factor in the split with the GP and two-time presidential candidate DOCTOR Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins 2020 advisor DOCTOR Margaret Flowers or not, I don't know. I DO KNOW that both support Physicians for a National Health Plan's version of Medicare for All, which leaves current fee-for-service medicine in place, albeit while trying to ameliorate it.

==

I was also curious about what a few people I know on Twitter (and the first two, personally), said. David Bruce Collins laments it. Brains said nothing, and neither did Ryan Knight.

==

Update, Oct. 12: Per the rhetorical questions in the header, this Politico piece, pretty good on GP coverage, even if of a Cleanup on Aisle 6, says "both" on the daftness. West wanted out, and asked Daou to lay out pros and cons, and Daou obviously sealed his mind.

Cons: ballot access headaches; continued questions about his seriousness as a political figure; the destruction of a potentially mutually beneficial coalition. Pros: getting to set your own agenda; removing yourself from some of the intractable and unserious elements of the party; crucially, for West, no more need to kiss any ass.

The next couple of paragraphs after that do note that GP debate appearance requirements might be a PITA, but, at the same time, the party simply wasn't going to crown West. And, the party went down that same road with Saint Ralph of Nader in 2004. (Politico reminds us that he eventually ran on the Reform Party line that year, without saying that it was because he didn't have to fight for it.)

At the same time, Politico implies that he had halfway been led on, in the GP's desire for a "credible" candidate, besides the dog's breath it had before West joined:

West was never the official Green Party nominee; as he mentioned, he bristled at the need to spend the time and effort necessary to secure the nomination at their convention next year. (It should be noted that running on a major party ticket requires jumping through many more hoops than in the Green Party.) But he had essentially already been ordained as such — with Stein as his guru, the party was dedicated to helping him get on ballots and supporting his candidacy across the country. Some state chapters of the Green Party had already set up dedicated teams aimed at specifically helping West’s campaign. With a few phone calls, all that effort was for naught.

So, put that part of the issue halfway, at least, on Stein, even if the burdens along with the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, weren't onerous. It's still, overall, more West's fault.

As for West thinking the GP can't take him where he wants to go? That's rich, given he first went to the MPP, and for him joining it, announced his campaign on Russell Brand's channel.

Speaking of, the Politico piece goes on to call West a political neophyte (he is, on electoral politics), then lays out his confusing arc.

That said, the supposedly seasoned Daou is just as much a neophyte, with this:

Daou has responded publicly, saying on X (formerly known as Twitter), “Cornel West aims to be on the ballot in 50 states. The Green Party has a ballot line in 18 states. The difference between being Independent and Green is 18 states, not 50.”

Really? I'd already offered 25 states as my over/under, at IPR and elsewhere, while saying I'd take the under. In more colorful language, I told Daou that on Twitter.

Oh, as for the number of signatures? Here in Tex-ass, it's 113,000 and change. I think it was a lot lower for Mimi Soltyski in 2016; the high presidential turnout in 2020 plus increased population has jacked the number. It was 90K in 2020.

==

Sidebar to all of the above: I wonder just how much "lane-clearing" Stein promised West. I wonder who else she had roped in. I'd love to find all this out, but, like with some of the machinations in the 2020 Green Party nomination battle, which haven't come out despite my (and others, I presume) asking, or like Stein's head-fakes with her 2016 recount fund, I'm not holding my breath.

Don't forget that before Howie Hawkins gained steam to the 2020 finish line, Stein also reportedly entertained pushing Jesse the Body Ventura (his suck-ups hate him being called that) as he was looking at tagging RFK Jr. as his veep. (That's why I refused to cosign bullshit any more and openly called her an antivaxxer.)

Another reason to call the Just.Another.Political.Party™.

Labels: , ,
at Thursday, October 05, 2023 4 comments Posted by Gadfly

May 05, 2022

Russia-Ukraine week 8B: The Squad's fraud, or let's just say the Fraud Squad?

Ilhan Omar, AOC, and the rest of the Squad are officially frauds. See this embedded Tweet on Omar's claims versus reality.

And, yes, the vote checks out. EVERY Democrat in the House voted for the euphemistic bill called the "Ukrainian Lend Lease Act."

Sadly, it's Xi Jinping Thought touter and Dictator Danny lover Max Blumenthal who did the gotcha at the tweet.

That said?

I'm not shocked that the Squad is the Fraud Squad and a bunch of nat-sec nutsack fellow travelers. To put it another way, like St. Bernard of Sanders, they're collectively Just.Another.Politician.™ in Just.Another.Political.Party™.

The real issue is that, for all their alleged revolutionary fervor, when the chips are down on bipartisan foreign policy establishment issues, none of them will buck party leadership. This may even include on foreign aid to Israel. Protestations of Palestinian support will be made, but direct votes against Israel are unlikely to happen.

On Twitter, I called out David Sirota and The Lever to talk about this. I also called them out to talk about how Nina Turner is actually anti-BDS, per Mondoweiss, and otherwise on Israel-Palestine issues, walks back half her allegedly pergressuve walk. Stand by for ... nothing, in all likelihood.

Again, though, it's not just the "Squad." NO House Democrat voted against it and NONE were absent. Even a Barbara Lee and a Sheila Jackson Lee voted in favor. (Saint Bernard voted for as well, as the Senate passed this as a voice vote amendment, per the full history.) Sadly, the 10 House Rethugs who opposed it are probably Tucker Carlson fellators rather than nuanced independent thinkers.

On the Democrat side, another way of putting it, per a blog post about week 7 of Russia-Ukraine war thoughts? NO Democrat will give peace talks a chance.

Of course, for all his callout of "Team Blue," Sirota IS Team Blue himself. He might puff Susan Sarandon on Twitter, but puff Jill Stein or Howie Hawkins? Not.A.Chance. And since, per that link, he thinks DSA Roseys are actual socialists, he'll never throw them under the bus. Also, Sirota doesn't talk a lot about foreign policy stuff (including BDS, I think, judging from Sirota likely being part of the effort to whitewash Bernie's record on BDS and Zionism), from what I see on Twitter, and when he does, he appears to keep one foot inside the bipartisan foreign policy establishment box. (Nor did he ever say much about Bernie not ever saying much about climate change.)

==

Besides wheat, the war is shorting sunflower oil globally, and badly. Late-stage capitalism is pushing a ramp-up in the highly problematic palm oil as a "solution." I've heard none of the Fraud Squad talk about this, or about how their voting for the arms bazaar, which Omar six weeks ago admitted it is, will only make this worse in all likelihood.

==

Both Nadal and Djokovic as individuals, as well as the WTA and ATP, have called out Wimbledon's Russia-cancelling. None of the Fraud Squad has condemned this.

Labels: , , , ,
at Thursday, May 05, 2022 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

May 03, 2022

Few quick thoughts against both halves of the duopoly on the SCOTUS abortion leak

In case you haven't died or lost Internet access, it's this leak.

And, this is going to attack people in both duopoly parties, so let's start with Bernie Sanders

And, yes, I mean every word in my quote tweet. I blogged in 2007 calling for Dem Congresscritters to make a COLA as part of the minimum wage hike. Didn't happen; they wanted to keep it a political wedge issue IMO. At just 3 percent average inflation per year, compounded since 2010, we wouldn't be at $15/hour but we would be well over $10/hour right now.

As for codifying Roe? Ain't just me saying that. Plenty of leftists have called out Dems in the last year for not doing that when Dear Leader, aka Preznit Kumbaya, could have done with the Freedom of Choice Act, and then "deprioritized it." Bernie knows that and knows better. But, like the "Squad" (more coming soon), he's really a Fraud and  Just.Another.Politician.™ in ,Just.Another.Political.Party™. People who know better know that St. Bernard of Sanders ain't.

I mean, at the state level, Colorado is now the 15th state to do just that. But, even now, Congressional Democraps won't do it, instead bottling this up in a House committee and refusing to make Senate Rethuglicans engage in an actual filibuster.

Now to the wingnuts.

First, Yahweh himself is an abortionist, as I blogged about his own words in Numbers 5. Yep, he is. And, a woman in adultery? He doesn't care about her, contra modern "ministries" that say "keep the child, then have it adopted."

Second, per Francisco Ayala, if you believe in the "dual omni" (omnipotent and omnibenevolent) god of Christianity, then "God is the greatest abortionist." Stats don't lie, with at least one-quarter if not one-third of human conceptions spontaneously aborting. And don't say "original sin" or I'll kick you in the nads.

Back to #BlueAnon.

I vote, to the degree my presidential candidate would have anychance of election, in the hope of having Supreme Court candidates strong on the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments. The reality? As exemplified by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Notorious RBG, tain't so. That's just one of several posts I've written about the reality of Dem-nominated Justices. The departing Breyer is the worst. Kagan is a close second. They jointly sucked donkey dongs on the Bladensburg Cross. Of course, Dear Leader himself played bipartisan with lower court nominees.

As for WHY Roe wasn't codified? Democrats' version of GOP "politics of outrage," IMO. Drive voters, and even more, drive fundraising. And, right on cue, Texas Dems prove me right.

Labels: , ,
at Tuesday, May 03, 2022 0 comments Posted by Gadfly

July 10, 2020

Green Party cracking up over transsexual/transgender issues,
part 2? (from someone who rejects two-siderism on this)

I write this as the Green Party's 2020 presidential convention has launched, virtually, and it is unknown how much of a crackup, as asked in the question-marked header, may actually happen. That said, the label Just.Another.Political.Party™ is brand-new and introduced here for the first time.

Specifically, what has brought things to a boiling point is what constitutes "medical care" for minor children with gender dysphoria. But the kick-starter was the Georgia Green Party's approval of "Declaration on the Sex Based Rights of Women." The actual declaration calls for reaffirming women sex workers' rights as based on sex not gender. I agree!

Transgender or transsexual (yes, that word) advocates seem to be in a huge furor over that. They seem to be in a secondary furor because "detransitioning" is mentioned in one linked document (and maybe others), and its explicitly tied to treatment for gender-dysphoric minor children.

And now, questioning rushes to treatment is being reframed as "denying medical care."

Tosh.

I stand with the Mayo Clinic, which notes that puberty blocking medications should only be used for children who:
  • Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria.
  • Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty.
Note that the first stipulation has an AND, not an OR. The dysphoria must be BOTH long-lasting and intense. Note also the second stipulation. Gender dysphoria that starts after puberty should NOT be treated with these medications. And these bullet points, plus two others, including one that says a child who is a candidate for such medications should at the same time be addressing any "psychological, medical or social problems" that could interfere with such treatment.

I also stand with the Mayo Clinic, vs those who I will consider and call "child transgender manipulation activists," in that these medications, from what we already now, likely DO have some long-term effects. I've seen, and it's a public Facebook group, so no privacy violations, direct claims that such medications have no such effects. When I pointed that out, the leading advocate just "moved on" to another talking point. PBS's Frontline has more about possible long-term effects. Any major multiyear hormonal changes on a pre-adult, a child, are almost guaranteed to have some brain effects. Frontline also notes (as of the time of the piece) that use of puberty blockers for gender-dysphoric children is an off-label use.

More here.
“The bottom line is we don’t really know how sex hormones impact any adolescent’s brain development,” Dr. Lisa Simons, a pediatrician at Lurie Children’s, told FRONTLINE. “We know that there’s a lot of brain development between childhood and adulthood, but it’s not clear what’s behind that.” What’s lacking, she said, are specific studies that look at the neurocognitive effects of puberty blockers. The story also notes that there’s health risks behind transitioning hormones, and that these risks may vary based on the age at which they’re started.
Here's another piece about long-term effects for women who received Lupron for other reasons. (Leupron is the main trade name for leuproleptin, the only puberty blocker on the market.) Besides thinning bones, similar problems such as thinning tooth enamel and joint issues are listed.

Meanwhile, the BBC reported last fall that the newest British research study both found some possible mental health side effects and had ethical problems in the study itself. But, many Radically Active Transgenderism Supporters continue to claim that there's basically no problems.

Anyway, it’s a lie to claim there are no risks. These risks that we're seeing, like the tooth thinning and such, are only coming out decades later. If we have a new explosion in use, we'll have a new explosion in problems, in all likelihood. It’s a lie to claim that the benefits are guaranteed to outweigh the risks. It’s a lie to claim that, in the case of minor children, that issues behind the first or second lies don’t apply in spades. Therefore, I generally support "watchful waiting" being the first option for minor children with gender dysphoria.

And, a bigger therefore?

I stand AGAINST certain Greens like Brian Setzler, Noah Martin, and the hate-speeching Mike Gamms (calling people who disagree with him "genocidal" does approach that, IMO), along with Amergin Ó Kai and Aric Hopkins among newer ones, and it's from a public FB group, so no anonymity busting) who claim that trans activists aren't forcing or pushing anything.

In addition, per the Georgia Green Party's response to Dario Hunter's issuing a call for dialogue between the party and the caucus, among other things, it notes these comments and more. It also notes that Hunter was at the Georgia GP state convention and sat silent while the amendment up top was adopted.

I also wonder if Hunter saw this as a campaign wedge issue. And, if he did, if Howie Hawkins felt compelled to respond. The Greens as Just.Another.Political.Party™? I am shocked there are politics going on in this third party.

There is another reason for that. Without "prods" from reading too much social media or other things, 60-90 percent of gender dysphoric adolescents stay with their birth sex — and come out as gay or lesbian.

The author, Debra Soh says:
Previous research has shown that homosexuality is associated with gender-variant behaviour in childhood. All 11 studies following gender dysphoric children over time show the same finding – if they don't transition, 60 to 90 per cent desist upon reaching puberty and grow up to be gay.
There we go.

I have previously snarked on Twitter against the so-called “TERFs,” or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. While not saying they’re totally right, they’re not totally wrong, either. So, I’d like to withdraw the snarking.

There’s also the issue of whether or not, within the adult world, there are multiple varieties of transgenderism, or transsexualism.

Cue Alice Dreger.

Galileo's Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in ScienceGalileo's Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science by Alice Domurat Dreger My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Starts well, but one-sided on Ev Psych

I had thought about rating this as four stars, but ... couldn't quite do it.

I do think, per other commenters, some of Dreger's claims are overarching, but not the ones they think are.

First, the science on the two main issues. I have long thought, as some of Dreger's interviewees do, that there are (at least) two types of transgenders. And, I think she's spot-on on intersex issues as well.

Second, on the issue of "social justice warriors." I've been caught in their crosshairs more than once myself, so I agree with Dreger here — overall. Read below for caveats.

Third, I agree with her that science, when properly done, can indeed be part of social activism. Beyond examples she mentions, an obvious one is DNA showing that human "races" don't exist.

Truncating review at this point for purposes of this blog post.

View all my reviews

Now, many transgender activists hate, HATE the word “transsexual” because it cues up pictures of men with boob jobs on porn sites or something like that.

Well, you know, that might just confirm the idea that there are multiple versions of transgenders. It might also confirm that “transsexual," even if not a "good" word because of pejorative angles that became connotatively associated with it, was getting at the issue. And, some of those pejorative angles may have been fueled by activists.

Societal conditions of gender, such as whether a biological male wants to wear a dress or not, or whether he wants to wear makeup or not, are different from biological conditions of sex. That's why, versus an older word, I question whether transgenderism is the best word to use.

Per the one person who seems to be the most vocal advocate of child drug treatment, and lying about no side effects? And others?

I asked rhetorically how many of them who find no harm with these drugs call circumcision "mutilation." And I asked rhetorically how many of them who think "Big Pharma's" every action, including on vaccines, of course, is a big conspiracy, but that this is somehow pristine and different.

Given what I said above about gender vs. sex, the detransitioning issue, to the degree transgender has been fused with transsexual, is not the same as gay or lesbian detransgendering and therefore is NOT "anti-trans." Certainly, watchful waiting for minor children is not "anti-trans."

These crude attempts at framing are lies.

And, since I did tweet something, I got a response from Lavender Greens:
Thanks for not being too snarky with that last line. "Thanks" also for ignoring the distinction I pointed out in my tweet to which you were responding:
I'm more and more inclined to be less and less charitable on this issue. While this was a politer reframing than I met in the GP Facebook group, I still see it as an attempt to reframe.

Speaking of? There used to exist a private, semi-official GP issues and discussion Facebook group. As of March 20, it was "archived," apparently to cut off discussion on this issue. (And then was revived and turned into a fucking Dario-stanners group.)

Sooo ...

If you're not Dahlia Blackthorn, AND you have more enlightened stances on puberty blockers, then you need to educate her, as I indicated back without naming names.
If you are her, or someone like her? Then you need to either educate yourself, or to undo any "re-education" you've received on this issue.

Want further education? Good old ethology. Nautilus notes that there are no genders among non-human animals.

And, I basically stand with feminists if men presenting as gender females but still clearly biological men, not women, invade their spaces. And, we're not talking reassignment surgery. If you're not even taking reassignment hormones, and it's a simple refusal, not a financial issue? But you're still wearing women's clothes, etc?

That's called being a "transvestite."

Some people may consider that word even more pejorative than "transsexual."

That's your problem.

As for Dahlia herhimself? And a subset of others? Maybe the old "transvestite" IS a more appropriate word, especially if associated with some sort of autogynephilia. That concept, and its apparent growth, was floating around the scientific world well before the trans movement. See this piece. (Yes, it's Quillette; still good stuff.)

Related? Starlene Rankin, a moderator for the GP Facebook group, has publicly said she wants Howie to pick Dahlia as his Veep.

I also wonder, per the information above, whether some of these people don't have an undercurrent of homophobia. Maybe that was learned from their parents, and it became safer to them to think they were really the other gender rather than to think they actually had gay or lesbian, rather than straight, sexual orientation. As homophobia is most pronounced by men, and against gays, rather than by women, or against lesbians, this would explain why the problems above present themselves much more in biological men than women.

I hadn't really jumped into details of controversy the last couple of years on this issue, especially the "TERFs vs transgender advocates" stuff. The Green Party and the Georgia state party have brought it to the forefront of my mind and I'm sorry I hadn't better informed myself sooner. Apologies for snarking aside, that's not to say that some of the transgender-excluding radical feminists don't have problems or issues of their own, and not limited to sexual identity issues. Many are still SJWs; witness Stephanie Zvan throwing Julian Assange under the bus, including refusing to even consider that Sweden's history of actions against him might have an international geopolitical background.

I also support the Georgia Green Party and outsiders for responding to Lavender Greens' call for expulsion with a call, and petition, for dialogue instead.

And, I also don't like Dario Hunter appearing to try to politicize the issue.

As for nominee Howie? He has said, in an online response to questions from the Lavender Caucus, that he opposes de-accrediting Georgia Greens. That, at least, is good, but what will he say if the party votes to do that at the convention. That said, how does he know enough to suspect the majority of the party opposes the declaration? It passed by a strong margin at the state convention. 

That said, for Greens on this issue? The not-so-noble advocates seem to be at least as lacking in science as anti-GMOers or antivaxxers, with the additional handicap of being even more shrill.

Calling opponents of "pushed" transitioning words like "genocidal" are repellent.

And, for both Greens and non-Greens? The amount of threats of violence, and attempts at intimidation. on this issue that it seems many trans activists engage in, and others support, at least tacitly, has just really come to light for me. I consider it disgusting. And it needs to be repudiated. Period.

As for the transvestites? If you want to be like RuPaul, that's your choice and you already have the freedom to do so. If you want to be RuPaul but walk into women's bathrooms, attend women's-only events, and otherwise invade women's only spaces? You shouldn't have that right, and I don't support your desire to do so.

AT THE SAME TIME ...

Adults who are making sex-based transitions have the right to be called by their new pronouns. Contra another Green, Chelsea Manning is not "he."

Contra some opponents of Lavender Greens and their like, having a functional uterus is not a sine qua non for being a woman. If you're doing what you can to biologically transition sexes, then you "qualify." In short, I may be a "gender critical" person of some sort, in looking critically at attempts to substitute "gender" for sex, but I am not a gender critical "radical" anything.

To put it another way? On this issue, just like with GMOs, as well as with climate change, I do my best to understand the science and follow the science, rather than doing so only on the last of the three issues.

Once again, there are more than two sides to this issue. But to the degree one VISIBLE side tries to lump everybody who doesn't have a Maoist-level of agreement with them into a second, and allegedly but falsely the ONLY other side, I resist.

Again:

Sex is biology. Gender is culture. Human reproductive development sometimes badly botches sexual development, but sex is still biology and gender is culture. Gender, gender roles and gender ideas are based on biology, yes, but they're ultimately cultural expressions.

So, to bluntly conclude?

— Everyone, whether a Green Party member or not, who engages in this crude set of lies by willingly and willfully confusing and conflating gender and sex issues? 
Go fuck yourselves. Repeatedly.
Per Wittgenstein, I'm not playing along with your "framing" attempts any more.
Labels: ,
at Friday, July 10, 2020 3 comments Posted by Gadfly

May 09, 2020

Why Jesse Ventura became chickenshit and
wouldn't run for the Green Party prez nomination and
why won't the Green Party provide a copy of the letter?

I probably should add "apparently," as I did to the header on my initial piece two weeks ago, about the first breathless Twitterverse rumblings that The Body was running.

That said, with that qualifier, the word "chickenshit" is indeed apropos. Is it surprising? No. The man who gave Trump a two-hour campaign strategy meeting in early 2016, and said he wouldn't mind running with Trump as his Veep, but then later said he didn't have a lot of things in common with Trump, does have being chickenshit in common with Trump.

In reality, here's what happened, as I see it, based off that initial post and related thoughts.

First, Jesse apparently had intermediaries (we call them "minions" here) submit a letter of interest to the Green Party's presidential campaign oversight folks on or about April 23. If you look at his Twitter timeline and parse it carefully, which you have to do with this Just.Another.Politician.™ par excellence, he apparently didn't write or send this letter himself.

Why?

Per the likes of Dwight D. Eisenhower and other prezzies since on national security issues?

Plausible deniability.

The idea would be something like:

"A lot of folks have been pushing me to run for the Green Party presidential nomination. I personally thought it was too late to get in the race this year, but, in case it's not, and to satisfy these political boosters, I asked some of them to draft a letter of interest on my part to the Green Party."

Since said presidential oversight folks at the Just.Another.Political.Party™ Green Party have NOT seen fit to make this letter public — I said on the GP's official Facebook page it should be done without the likes of me having to ask and beg for it — we don't know what's in it. So, I'm going to do a bit of speculation.

(Update, June 26: A week ago, I asked the party's Presidential Campaign Support Committee, by email not webmail, to cough up the letter. Hasn't happened.)

So, second, as the Jesse-stanning was already happening in 2018, and since, as noted in my first post, Jesse is dead meat to the Libertarian Party, he knew that the Greens — unless he wanted to go someplace smaller, like the Constitution Party, which would have rejected him — were his only real political choice outside of going independent.

But, by not writing the piece himself, he could look like a disinterested bystander.

In reality, I think the interest was 75 percent organic on Jesse's part, and 25 percent on various Jesse-stanners, many of whom, like him, may have conspiracy theory elements in their background, be haters of Howie Hawkins over his take on Russia, with which I agree more than I disagree, and similar things.

I think Jesse himself has eyed the GP nomination process enough to know that there is some dissatisfaction with Hawkins but that Dario Hunter hasn't been able to gain traction.

That's that.

Third, Jesse was a hypocrite on this. He called out Primo Nutbar for allegedly posting a clickbait Tweet, and claimed all he had done was endorse the Green Party and was being misinterpreted. Yet, he had "authorized" this letter.

(Update, June 26: Primo broke the news two weeks earlier that Jesse was crapping in the bed of the Green Party and would write in his own name for prez. Here's my take on not only that basic fact, but related, and ongoing, censorship by the Green Party, since their official Facebook group IS official that makes the censorship official.)

Third, part two: Who was playing good cop and who was bad cop? Were Primo, or a Bill Cimbrelo, in on this from the start?

Fourth, then, what was likely in that letter?

I suspect Jesse was asking, through his surrogates, if delegates that have already been chosen are formally bound and pledged to a certain candidate. I think he figured if he could pick off 20 percent of Hawkins' support, and most all of Hunter's, he could pull this off.

(Update, May 27: And, I think I know what particular reasoning was/is behind that. Libertarian Party presidential delegates are NOT bound. All LP state primaries AND caucuses/conventions are "beauty contest" only.  Given Jesse's Libertarian background, I think this explains why he thought he could see if something similar was the fact, or at least a possibility, among Greens.)

And, I have officially webmailed the party with a request for the PDF of the letter as well as spelling out whether pledged delegates are "bound" or not.

I have been told they are bound, but first-ballot only. I'd like official confirmation. And, I'd like clarification if that's a state GP rule, and if so, does national GP have ANY rule? (I've seen seen more that, while state parties make the rules here, with most states, they're bound, at least for that first ballot.)

I'd also like to see the letter for other reasons.

Did it ask if the convention, before voting for presidential candidates, could vote to suspend those rules?

Did it ask, "decentalization" key value aside, if the national party could intercede with state parties on any state party deadlines that were party-imposed, and not state officialdom imposed? This ties to the above. It also ties to other issues that are fixing to come to a head on this site and likely at the convention.

I have found an old set of rules for the convention, but can't find a thing about whether delegates are bound or not, or whether the national GP even has a rule if state parties do not.

Given the "decentralization disorganization" that the GP sometimes has, Jesse may have figured that it would be a lot of hassle to ask for "relief" from the rules with state parties that have already had conventions or primaries, and that, per my initial post, he'd have to hope for a lot of butt-kissing stanners in positions of power in several different state parties.

Fourth, a special sidebar: The reasons I'd like to see that letter have only been increased by new news as of yesterday. Jesse claimed "the logistics are not going to happen." He claimed he'd have to give up his job and lose health insurance. I have no idea what this claim means. If he means his RT talk show? The Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist, so no, he wouldn't have to do that, and it's questionable whether RT being registered as a foreign agent means he'd have to quit. If he means that he'd have to not work in order to actively campaign? That was always going to be the case.

This gets more "delicious" with another story from this announcement, where he says he's open to the GP nominating him at a brokered convention. Really, Jesse? But, wouldn't you still have to quit your RT job because it's RT, or else just to have time to actively campaign? In either case, the same limitations apply as if you decided to run now.

What a lying sack of shit. Or box of dicks.

Beyond that, Jesse is over 65 and thus eligible for Medicare.

There's also one other possibility. Maybe Jesse didn't want to have to file an FEC financial disclosure, for whatever reason. That TOO would make him like Trump.

Fourth, part two, whose names were actually on the letter?

Fifth, will I get an actual response? Heh, heh.

Sixth, will I write a follow-up if I don't? Heh, heh, heh.

Update to the last two points, May 16: On May 13, I got a "welcome to the Green Party" form letter email back. I immediately responded with this: "Hey, thanks for sending me a form letter. Now, send me a copy of the letter of interest that Jesse Ventura's minions sent the Party. I asked for it a full week ago or more."

Update, May 27: My response to that form letter has not received a reply.
Labels: , ,
at Saturday, May 09, 2020 0 comments Posted by Gadfly
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)