The Blog I'm Not Writing

Department Of Chattin’ Up The Feds

Dateline:  yesterday; circa 7:45 a.m.; on morning walk; heading back toward my neighborhood.  Context: previous evening MH mentioned reading on a Hillsboro community news FB group where someone was wondering about a “raid” (the someone speculated) that was going on near 28^th  street.

As part of my walk, I turned off the afore-mentioned street, walking on the north side of the block.  Less than halfway down the block my attention was drawn to a house on the south side of the street, with its front window busted in and the window blinds broken and hanging akimbo from the window frame.  About a dozen people, a mixture of young men and women, were milling about on the house’s front lawn, porch, and sidewalk. All were wearing the distinctive, dark blue, FBI field agent jackets.

 

 

Standing by an Official-looking Vehicle® parked on the street in front of the next door neighbor’s house was another agent…doing neighborhood point duty? He was the only agent with a visible firearm – a rifle of some sort.  I crossed the street and asked if I could talk with him.  He said yes, and I waved toward his comrades and asked if a training exercise was going on, because, well, maybe the older I get, the younger the agents look?  He gave me a smile which would have qualified him for the Officer Friendly calendar…

 

 

…and said, nope, these are actual agents, who had been executing a search warrant.  To which I replied, “Through the front room window, apparently.”

I began to wonder aloud to him why this would be a federal thing…hmm, drugs?  But the local (city and state police) can handle your garden variety drug case – why the Feds involved? Officer Friendly laughed and told me what I already knew that – that he couldn’t give specifics.  “Oh, of course, But then you know that’s why we,” I pointed around the ‘hood, “have to start rumors, and it’s fun to speculate.”  I told him I lived a few blocks away and walked on this street on a regular basis.  He assured me that, other than the broken window, there was “no violent crime involved,” and that the neighborhood was safe. I remarked that it was nice to see that the officers included both men and women (and not all white); he seemed happy that I noticed, and said that the FBI is quite “inclusive” and that “we need everybody” to “…help keep us safe.”

It was my turn to laugh. “I agree.  You and I may know that, but if a certain president has his way, that’s gonna end…oh, let me guess – you can’t comment on that either.”  He laughed again, stuck out his hand and introduced himself.  I shook his hand, introduced moiself, and thanked him and his comrades for (“hopefully”) keeping us safe. With that, he beamed his 1000 watt smile at me, wished me a great day, and I went on my way, thinking to moiself,

I don’t exactly know why, but this *was* a great way to start the day.

 

 

*   *    *

Department Of Science Needs You To Manage Your Shit

Dateline:  Last Sunday (March 2); reading an article about the uninhabited Icelandic island of Surtsey.     [1]   Surtsey, created by an undersea eruption off the southern coast of Iceland (in 1963 – 1967), has been declared a nature reserve and UNESCO World Heritage Site for its scientific value.  No humans, except for a limited number scientists studying the process of biocolonisation, are allowed on the island.

From the Wikipedia entry for the Icelandic island of Surtsey, heading biology/human impact  (my emphases ):

The only significant human impact is a small, prefabricated hut which is used by researchers while staying on the island….All visitors check themselves and belongings to ensure no seeds are accidentally introduced by humans to the island’s developing ecosystem. It is believed that some boys who sneaked over from Heimaey    [2]   by rowboat planted potatoes, which were promptly dug up once discovered.  An improperly managed human defecation resulted in a tomato plant taking root, which was also destroyed….

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of Rational Articles On An Irrationally Contentious Subject

As readers of this blog may have surmised, moiself  has been in a mood since the election.  This mood often vacillates between white hot anger and cold blue despair, due in great part to the certain left-leaning, political zeitgeist   moiself observed both before the election, which, IMO, portended the abyssal election results.

 

 

I’m written about this several times, most howlingly right after the election:

I loathe the use of wedge issues and exploitation of those on the lower end of the power totem to provoke the fear response.  I despise the fact that such tactics are often effective, which is why the ethically-deficient Right uses them.  And as I watched that ad,    [3] thinking of the wide audience it was playing to, I thought to moiself, re the election:  if Harris (and therefore the USA)  loses, it will be because of things like this.

 Things as in, not necessarily that particular issue, but because too many of my well-meaning liberal brethren and sisterthren have shot themselves in the foot with their psychological tone-deafness…and Those People ® who feel lectured to and put upon are exacting some kind of social revenge….

How many times have people (usually but not always from the lower economic and education strata) felt silenced or intimidated because they didn’t toe the “progressive” political and cultural lines?  Maybe they have questions about certain social issues; maybe there are things they just don’t understand and therefore, instinctively, tend to fear.

Maybe they don’t actually *hate* people of different genders and sexual orientations and ethnicities and religions and social classes and political opinions.  But that’s what they get labeled as ( haters; ___ -phobics ), and then they don’t feel as if they can even voice their questions and concerns in certain situations and when speaking with certain people, because if they don’t use the *correct* terminology of the moment, the focus will be on *how* they asked their questions/offered their opinions, rather than on the content of those questions and opinions.  They will be shamed and lectured to if they “misgender” or “dead-name” or “mis-pronoun;” they will be condescended to and corrected when they reference a person’s “race” or ethnicity and use the terms black and white instead of Black and White, or Latino/Latina instead of Latinx….

And if the actions and attitudes of aggressive Lefties pushes some centrists or moderates more to the Right, then those Lefties dismiss the migration with their purity-testing mantra:  “Well, it’s no loss, they weren’t really allies in the first place.”

( excerpts The Country I’m Not Loving, 11-6-24 )

 

 

Now, to the afore-mentioned, rational articles that are going to solve all this:

The current (February/March) issue of Free Inquiry   [4]   has a special feature on Transgender Controversies.

“In this issue, we have a section presenting some contrasting views on transgender-related issues. Consistent with our respect for personal autonomy, I don’t see how a humanist could oppose an adult transitioning; it’s that person’s life. Similarly, we should support laws prohibiting employment or housing discrimination against transgender individuals. But that respect for personal autonomy does not resolve whether, in biological terms, sex is binary or whether or under what conditions puberty blockers and hormone treatment should be made available to children. Reasonable people, reasonable humanists, can differ on these and other matters, and this journal will present these differences of opinion, leaving it to you, the reader, to evaluate the competing arguments.”
(Excerpts, my emphases,  Humanism Is Not a Creed, editorial, by Ronald A. Lindsay )

This Free Inquiry special feature consists of an introduction, followed by four articles:

*Transgender Rights: A Framework for Resolving the Controversy, by Gary L. Francione

* In the Toilet with J. K. Rowling:  Reason vs. Emotion in the Transgender Bathroom Debate, by Tilda Storey-Law

* Parental Rights: A Casualty of Anti-Transgender Legislation, by Robert Pokorski

*Get Gender Ideology out of Biology! by Nathan H. Lents

 

 

“There are several biological differences between men and women, which, of course, become most obvious following puberty and its cascade of hormones. Men, on average, develop broader shoulders and larger hands and feet, more upper body muscles, more fast twitch muscles, lower body fat, greater height, and so on. The key hormone is testosterone. Men have more testosterone, on average, than women. Testosterone provides a very significant advantage in many athletic competitions, as indicated by, among other things, the fact that doping with testosterone and its synthetic analogs is banned by almost all athletic associations. Given these biological differences, there is, understandably, a performance gap between men and women in many sports.

The relevance of these biological facts was accepted by nearly everyone until the advent of transgender athletes, in particular transgender women. Then for some, ideology took precedence over facts.

‘Trans women are women. Period.’  This is the battle cry of the transgender ideologues. And the message is clear: no debate allowed. If one questions the right of transgender women to compete in women’s sport, one is transphobic. Can’t be any other explanation. And the distinct biological development of men and women? Not relevant. Greatly exaggerated.

One of the bizarre aspects of the ideologues’ position is that the very same people who deny that testosterone has any meaningful effect on one’s competitive ability are also the ones who argue that hormone therapy is essential for those with gender dysphoria. For one issue, hormones might as well be water, but for the other issue, hormones are a critical component of transitioning. Only dogma can magically transform a substance from inert to potent.

So, should transgender women be banned from women’s sports? Not necessarily. Reality is messier than the extreme positions staked out by partisans on both sides of this issue. How much of an advantage a formerly male individual may have over biologically female competitors depends on when and how the person’s transition took place and the skills involved in the sport. There may not be one right answer to this problem; weightlifting may require different guidelines than gymnastics.”

(  excerpts from Introduction To Special Section On Transgender Controversies, By Ronald A. Lindsay, my emphases)

 

 

Although moiself  cares not for the seeming obsession with sports vis-à-vis the Transgender Controversies ®,  I’m including Lindsay’s intro comments on one aspect of the controversies – transgender women’s participation in women’s sports – because of two comments he makes which, IMO, get glossed over in all the hoopla…probably because they are so calmly rational.  One statement is a general guide, the other applies specifics:

* Reality is messier than the extreme positions
staked out by partisans on both sides of this issue;

* (as an example of specifics) weightlifting may require different guidelines
than gymnastics.

That last one holds a host of implications in seven simple words.  The idea/fact that one context may have different requirements than another – that’s almost anathema, in this world of hyperbole.  That approach seems to be asking too much from our lazy ideologies.  We want blanket statements; we want one-size-fits-all, when comes to both questions and solutions.   The idea of coolly and logically looking at/analyzing each situation separately – where’s the nasty soundbite opportunity in that?!   

*   *   *

Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week     [5]

“I want an avowed atheist in the White House.  When time comes to push that button, I want whoever’s making the decision to understand that once it’s pushed, it’s over.  Finito.  They’re not gonna have lunch with Jesus.”
( Quentin Bufogle )

 

*   *   *

May you grapple with the messiness of reality;
May you have a cheerful chat with a friendly Fed;
May your defecations be properly managed so as not to disturb scientific studies of an uninhabited island’s developing ecosystem…or anything else;
…and may the hijinks ensue.

Thanks for stopping by.  Au Vendredi!

*   *   *

[1] Whaddya mean, Why?

[2] The largest island of Iceland’s Westman Islands and the only one that is inhabited.

[3] The tR___ campaign’s anti-Harris ad, which ran several times during the World Series, which took issue with Harris’ past support for taxpayer funds being spent on providing gender-affirming surgeries for prisoners.  The ad ended with the  tag line: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

[4] Free Inquiry is a bimonthly journal of secular humanist opinion and commentary published by the Council for Secular Humanism, a program of the Center for Inquiry.

[5] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.  No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.”  Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org