TrickstaPriest

Ah, and I'm usually a stickler for language. I'll correct the original, thanks.
 
Thanks for the detailed reply. I hope the impact is minimal and the next administration gets things back on track. (And I hope the current batch can't do too much more damage to basic human dignity in the interim.)

I've bowed out of the political threads in general to avoid exploding in rage, but I checked in to see if this had come up here, since it's super relevant to me.
 
This is a "get out the vote" ploy, but it isn't just a "get out the vote" ploy. If you don't think that this administration will follow through on this, I believe that you are sadly mistaken. The DOJ has also filed a brief statement dating that employers should be able to discriminate based on gender identity[4]. The only reason trans folk haven't been kicked out of the military en masse is because the order is held up in court. Whether this administration hates us, or is just using us as a scapegoat, it doesn't matter. They want us gone.
 
 
First, a note, transgender is an adjective, not a verb, so it's "transgender person, not "transgendered person." Not a huge deal, but I wanted to point it out. [1]
 
Now the main question, real world effects:
 
Immediate legal effects are minimal. The administration can interpret Title IX however they want, but they can't change the actual law. For good or ill, it's up to the courts to interpret the law, and congress to change the law if they don't care for the interpretation.
 
That said, the administration (as noted above) can weigh in on any lawsuits brought under Title IX, and they can sway the courts. and given the new composition of the Supreme Court, I don't hold out a lot of hope for any sane decision on this topic there. There's worse the administration can do, but I'll come back to that.
 
The government is also messing with us on passports. There was a clear cut process for changing the gender marker on one's passport, and the admin says that the process hasn't changed, but we are fining our requests rejected for spurious reasons. I ended up with only a "provisional" passport, even though every piece of my documentation was exactly as requested. Initially they declined to give me even that and I had to push.

You ask if trans folk can participate in activities as individuals of their actual gender[2][3], as opposed to the gender they were assigned at birth. The answer there is a resounding "maybe." It's works differently in different places in the country. In some places, we're completely acknowledged as our actual gender. In others, they'll leave a trans girl to die in the hallways during an active shooter drill because they think a trans girl in the girls bathroom is scarier than a psycho with a gun. Various cases are winding through the courts to establish which of our rights the government will actually acknowledge. Over all, the trend has been going toward fully acknowledging our gender.
 
And that leads us to the worse thing the DOJ can do. Armed with this (mis)interpretation of Title IX, I expect them to start filing suits against the places that do treat us as our true gender, claiming that it is sex discrimination to allow "men" in woman only spaces. They wouldn't even have to initiate the suit. They could just join one of several in progress around the country.
 
Combined, these are a clear sign that our identities are under attack. If they invalidate my gender for federal purposes, will any of my ID even be valid? Since Real ID exists, probably not. Which makes it impossible for me to get a job. Or vote. Sure, I'd have a couple of choices. I could get a new ID with an "M" on it. I'm lucky enough to mostly pass. That would have me outing myself in every situation that I needed to present an ID. Or, I could go completely back in the closet. Walk around pretending to be a guy. 
 
Beyond all of the legal ramifications, though, there's another, more immediate effect. By further marginalizing and demonizing us, the administration is signaling to the people out there who already hate us that we do not enjoy the protection of the state. That we are fair game. It is virtually inevitable that this will ratchet up the rhetoric and even violence against us. And if they get there way, there will be bathroom bills across the country, requiring me to use the men's room. So I'd have to either not exist in public, risk my life using the wrong restroom, or break the law on a regular basis and end up in men's jail. How well do you think I'd fare there?.
 
In conclusion, this administration wants people like me gone. I get the impression they'd prefer us dead, but they'll settle for back in the closet.
 
Well, I'm not going back in the closet.
 
[1] Also, some people probably do find "transsexual" offensive, so it would be rude to use it them. I think most of us just find it archaic and annoying. A few of us (but not me) even still use it to describe ourselves. Language. Go figure.
[2] My paraphrase.(I don't want to put words in your mouth).
[3] I'm not going to go into it here, but the sex vs. gender distinction is not as clear as many would like. The science is pretty clear that the idea of two distinct sexes is convenient shorthand, but woefully over-simplified.
[4] This is actually a threat to way more than just us trans and other LGBTQfolks, but that's another discussion.[5]
[5] yes, that footnote was out of order. Sorry.[6]
[6] Not sorry.
 
 
 

Yeah that too.  Though, I firmly believe they tend to look at the Palestinian side under rose tints*.  But, that conflict is too much of a headache to unravel in one night (or decade)
 
*and before anyone starts, I am aware about my pro-Israeli bias. And I never say the Palestinians don't have some points (at least on the settlements)

No, likely not.  But a major upswing in terrorist activity?  In events that go from Angry to BLOODY in seconds?
 
One thing that's important to note is the fundamental changes in attitudes since the 60s.  Demonization and dehumanization of one's enemies is the rule.  I submit that this makes lethal attacks...be it gun attacks, a la Vegas or Pulse or Parkland, or the ongoing mail bombs.  They probably don't have a lot in common, but I'm suggesting that the incident rate explosion is itself a point to consider.  Can't blame any one thing for this...altho I would give greater weight to Trump's tactics, simply because as the President, his embrace of attack speech and demonizing carries much greater than normal cachet.

The 60s had a half dozen assassinations, multiple riots, a LOT of bombings and other terroristic attacks.  And vast, sweeping social and cultural changes.  The other major era of intense social and political unrest, of course, was the 20 years before the Civil War and the 20 years after it.  
Civility is a two-way street, but it doesn't require a perfectly civil debate opponent in order to facilitate being civil oneself.  Sometimes civility rubs off, and when it doesn't, well, at least you know who is worth engaging with and who isn't. 

It kinda amazes me that the worst case scenario for climate change is an increase of 5-6 degrees Celsius by 2100, and there's not even enough interest to spend even a night on it in cable news(apparently a ratings killer).  The last time average temps rose by 6 degrees Celsius was quite a while ago, in the Permian Era.  That, purely coincidentally I'm sure, was the worst extinction event in the history of the planet, with up to 95% of species being wiped out.  5-6 degrees is the level of increase that effectively puts a "?" next to "the future of humanity".  2 degrees isn't the standard prediction, it's the aspirational goal(actually some suggest trying for limiting it to +1.5, but that number will be hit by 2040, so there's not a hell of a lot of time).  We're currently on pace for +4, from what I understand.  That is uncomfortably close to that +5/6 apocalyptic hellscape threshold.  At +4 sea levels will rise faster than we can build against it(about a meter every 20 years, starting in 2100).  At +6, we're looking at melting everything by, say, 2400, raising sea level 200 feet.  
It's also notable that summer temps will go up by about double whatever the increase is, so at +6, you're looking at average summer temps going up by 10-12 C/20+ F.  That's a massive number of heat-related deaths.  
How did this get to be a partisan issue?  "We'd agree with the science, but, y'know, we're Republicans, so we can't."

There's a heck of a lot of things with some truth to it but which should not mitigate a sentence.
 
Trump has also bad-mouthed Mexicans, journalists, pollsters, Democrats, and many Republicans. No one should ever get a reduced sentence for committing a violent crime against a person or group because Trump has been running on at the mouth defaming that person or group.

NYTimes runs an expose' on Beto O'Rouke detailing his political dealings to help his billionaire father-in-law's real estate deals.
 
Some Democrats apparently aren't exactly happy at the Times.
 
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37777/yikes-leftists-lose-their-minds-bash-new-york-emily-zanotti
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/us/politics/beto-orourke-el-paso-texas-senate.html

If it's any comfort, that's just a get-out-the-vote ploy the administration is doing to the Religious Right. It isn't as if the administration is going to actually do anything, any more than Bush Jr. was serious about his October surprise policy initiatives to motivate the Religious Right to get out and vote.
 
The Republican establishment, and now Trump, treat the Religious Right as if they were Charlie Brown and a football.
 
If they actually checked off anything on the agenda of the Religious Right, they don't have a clue as to how they'd motivate those people to show up to vote in the next election. That blind spot in their thinking might sound odd to Democrats who generally try to fulfill the agendas of their various constituencies then depend on loyalty in the next election cycle, but the Republican establishment hasn't ever figured out that paradigm.
 

I disagree, based on the simple fact that she would have had to deal with a Republican-controlled Congress, and I'd bet big money they'd be even more opposed to her than they were to Obama.  And I doubt the midterm elections would have changed that majority - their base would have been energized to the nth degree with her in office.  Whether she was the Devil incarnate or the second coming of Christ, she wouldn't have been able to do much of anything. 

On Hilary...
 
As early as summer 2015, I actually liked the thought of Trump winning the Republican nomination because I felt any Dem could beat him........EXCEPT Hilary.  She'd energize the Republicans, she was an easier target, she really doesn't come across well.  The last, I think, was the clincher...she was in fact a terrible campaigner.  Had she won, some things would be different but the gridlock in DC would have been horrific.  I suspect we'd be in a government shutdown right now, for example.
 
On the global warming, yeah.  It doesn't apply to all of them, but a good chunk of evangelicals simply turn their brains off.  The Bible holds all truth that matters;  their brains don't have shutters, they're tucked inside a neutronium shell.  
 
And yes, lots of people have no idea of the scale of things.  Like how the US burns, IIRC, about 20 MILLION gallons of gasoline every day.  They also don't understand how the system works...how little carbon there actually is, as a percentage of the atmosphere.  (I had a notion of a character who drew in and recombined the gases in the air, to make stuff like Kevlar, or creating a graphene-sheet armor.  On the one hand, all you need is carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen for a LOT of useful materials.  Turns out...to get 1 gram of carbon, you need 7 cubic meters of air.)  So it doesn't take that much to start messing things.  Plus, over the centuries, we've extensively altered the biosphere.  We've stripped the rich, complex old growth forests which had extraordinarly dense biospheres.  And this has happened on a scale of thousands, even tens of thousands of square miles.  So we have massive output of carbon that had been, by and large, locked in place for millenia, AND a reduced absorption capacity.
 
It's pessimistic to say this, but...the best case I can see is that the measures we're allowed to take are always a step shy of what's needed when they are allowed.  I simply don't think we'll bite the bullet hard enough to make the moves that will be needed.  And I do mean best case....because in all honesty, I think we're 2 steps shy of what's needed NOW.  The situation is only getting worse, and this at a time when we're even more divided than ever.

Last night's episode of the public radio program 1A gave a history of political polarization. The historian interviewed argues that this didn't just happen. Republican leaders deliberately stoked culture war grievance to win elections. Newt Gingrich proved it worked: Under his leadership, Republicans took the House for the first time in decades. Pat Buchanan worked out the playbook of saying that Dems weren't just people with different opinions but enemies of God out to destroy all that was patriotic and good. And it's worked for them.
 
Sen. Lindsay Graham, following Obama's victory in 2008, joined many Republicans in saying they needed a new strategy because "We can't make angry white men fast enough." Mitch McConnel and Donald Trump have proved he was wrong and he's back with the program.
 
Saying they fought monsters, the Republican leadership has become monsters, and taught their base to be the same. Now they are trapped in their own culture war. Dems, fighting back, have become monsters too. They aren't as bad, though, because they are less competent and organized. Still, this does not end well. I don't think anyone has any way left to back down. The demographics are moving inexorably against conservatives/Republicans... unless they lock in so many advantages that elections cease to matter. But geography works against Democrats as their base concentrates in big cities and culturally moves away from the rest of the population.
 
The only hope I see is with the Municipals that the Fallowes' described in Our Towns. If they organized, they might have enough clout to bring the parties to heel and return government to practical tasks.
 
Dean Shomshak

Canada relieved trade deal done, won't forget Trump attacks
 
For Canada and U.S., ‘That Relationship Is Gone’ After Bitter Nafta Talks
 
One point from the first article really stood out for me: Bothwell, the University of Toronto professor, warned of lingering damage to relations. "Trump treated it like a real estate deal when he was a shyster in Atlantic City," Bothwell said. "But this is nation to nation. And that's different. And it's connected to other things," he added. "Trump really doesn't grasp that and doesn't care."

I recommend listening to the Oct. 2, 2028 episode of the public radio program Fresh Air. The guest is Michael Lewis (Liar's Poker, The Big Short, Moneyball), talking about his latest book, The Fifth Risk. It's about what the Trump administration is doing to the boring Cabinet departments that people don't think about much, such as Commerce and Energy. Lewis has reported on this for a year now (the magazine Vanity Fair was mentioned). Now he pulls it together.
 
Lewis' argument, in a nutshell, is that much of what government does is manage risks that no individual, company or lesser body could do much about. Many of them are long-term and diffuse, such as climate change or weather events, so many people don't even think of them. What government does to manage these risks therefore goes unnoticed. And now it's all in the hands of a man who never thought he needed to know how government works, appointing people who are equally ignorant or actively hostile -- when he appoints them at all.
 
Lewis ends with an anecdote about a woman he met who wished for years that a tornado would come and just rip away this decrepit old barn on her property. It finally happened. But... "I didn't think it would also take the house." A lesson for all those people who want to get rid of the "deep state," when they don't even know what it does.
 
Dean Shomshak

Well, we know what was in the tax returns now.  Raise your hand if you're surprised by the blatant fraud.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, an 18-year appointment, at the age most SCOTUS justices were appointed, would probably have been longer than a lifetime. I doubt they expected most justices to serve beyond a decade.
 
It's to the credit of the drafters of the American Constitution that the system they set up has proven both resilient and flexible for so long. They got a lot of things right the first time. But they could never have dreamed of the world we live in now.

That’s the reasoning behind appointing the Justices to a single 18-year term, I think. No re-election campaigns, no fretting about the political fallout from a decision made in good conscience. One and done.
 
And yes, the Constitution would certainly have to be amended for this to happen. That part is self-evident. 

I'd have to agree with you. Part of the point of lifetime appointments is so that the justices don't have to run re-election campaigns, and so they can (in theory) keep politics out of their decisions.

Could you give the source of that information, Old Man? Another of Kavanaugh's accusers in  a separate incident, Deborah Ramirez, has already been contacted by the FBI, according to her attorney. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-background-investigation/index.html

In this spirit, I'd like to stress that my speculations about Republican and Democrat motives and methods refer only to the national parties, especially Congress. I would like once again to recommend Our Towns, by James and Deborah Fallowes. They found a whole parallel United States of America of municipalities in which it's hard to tell the self-styled conservative Republicans from self-styled liberal Democrats. Or in the case of Burlington, Vermont, the Socialists. They are solving real problems without turning everything into a culture war knife fight in an alley.
 
I want to live in that USA instead. I don't doubt the rest of the world would prefer it as well.
 
Dean Shomshak

That's how we get Trump
 
Lucius Alexander
 
Easier to remove palindromedaries from taglines than to remove politicians from politics

Pretty much this. When folks say "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" or the like, I snort. I've seen that excuse used too often to violate privacy rights. BUT I'm drifting into a whole nother kettle there.
 
But as Dean points out, this isn't a criminal trial, and as you point out we have plenty of other indicators challenging his increasingly shaky looking qualifications, such as ethical standards, which ARE supposed to matter for judges.
 
I believe innocent until proven guilty is essential to a good democracy when it comes to court trials, but this is a job hire, not that. In a world where someone can find themselves denied a job for say "Dude" in an interview or wearing the wrong tie? Kavanugh should have been told 'thank you for your time' and shown the proverbial door.
 
Then again, I thought that when Trump was running and footage of him boasting about grabbing women by the P****y surely he had disqualified himself for PotUS, so what do I know?
 
 

As part of its coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings, the public radio program All Things Considered asked a former FBI agent whether Prof. Ford's allegation could be investigated, given the paucity of details. He said that yes, there's plenty the FBI could investigate to find whether Ford's claim is plausible or not. As Ternaugh mentions, other people are already doing some of this: Interviewing people who knew either of them, any documentary evidence from that time (such as yearbooks), and so on.
 
Such evidence probably could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh committed the assault. But this is not a criminal trial. It is merely enough to find sufficient evidence that Ford's allegation has a strong likelihood of being correct.
 
So, why does it matter? What does Kavanaugh's conduct in high school and college have to do with his skill at legal reasoning?
 
Nothing, directly. But if it can be shown that he's probably lying about sexual assault -- the more his squeaky-clean image can be shown to be a fraud -- well, the less he looks like a high-minded, sincere legal scholar and the more he looks like a squalid political hack being put on the court to advance a squalid political agenda. That he cannot be trusted to judge cases fairly.
 
Republican senators may decide they want their five reliable conservative justices so badly they don't care about political blowback from voters. Possibly they imagine that they'll have won so completely that voters won't matter anymore.
 
Democrats, meanwhile, are rather obviously trying to run out the clock in a long-shot hope that they can delay appointment of a replacement Supreme Court justice until after the midterm elections, and maybe they will control the Senate then. If they do, they refuse to confirm Kavanaugh or any other Trump appointee, using the Republicans' refusal to confirm Merrick Garland as their precedent. Then they hope that in 2020 they can take the White House and keep the Senate, and ram through whatever nominees they want.
 
Neither side is acting from high principle here. This is politics as knife fighting.
 
Dean Shomshak

Honestly, it would be an odd thing for the FBI to investigate because the allegation, even if true, isn't a federal crime.
 
The way that the FBI would get involved in a local crime is normally that the local law enforcement agency cannot conduct an effective investigation because much of the investigation would need to happen in another state or internationally. In those cases, local law enforcement would have to invite the FBI to join in or take over the investigation.
 
There's no inability of local law enforcement to conduct an investigation and there's been no invitation from local law enforcement for the FBI to come in and take over an investigation.

I'd add that they should really be burned in some sort of fume hood. I did burn a pair of shoes once, and it was not pleasant.