OMG

Reclaiming Common Sense
By Richard Kirk

How has it come to pass that in America, a man can identify as a woman, and his linguistic affirmation by itself, at least in New York City, obligates others to refer to him as "her"? And why is it increasingly considered mandatory to declare that men taking female hormones can compete against women in sporting events? What aberrant philosophical doctrine, you may ask, is behind the assertion that there are sixty-three genders or that marriage must no longer be considered the union of a man and a woman? The answer to these and other absurdities can be found in Robert Curry's new book, Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. This brief and manageable philosophical analysis forms a welcome addendum to Curry's earlier work, Common Sense Nation, which "explores the thinking of the American Founders" and "present to Americans today what was once known by virtually every American."
What Americans once knew was humorously summarized by Abraham Lincoln when he posed this question, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" Abe's answer: "Four, because even if you call it a leg, it's still a tail." This "common-sense realism" was once, as Curry points out, the currency of both everyday Americans and the nation's academics. The author, however, goes well beyond Lincoln's yarn to explain the philosophical background of "common sense" as developed in the writings of Scotland's Thomas Reid. Reid notes the foundational quality of certain "self-evident" truths not only for practical living (You can't fly if you jump out a fifth-story window.), but also for intellectual and moral pursuits. These basic truths are not ideas that can be proven. Instead, they are the necessary presuppositions of rational analysis and moral reflection. Furthermore, these basic, "self-evident" truths aren't always obvious, but rather are recognized as rational or moral pillars once discovered. Even simple mathematical truths, to say nothing of more advanced axioms, require a grounding in the discipline to be seen clearly. With respect to morality, the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" was capable of being clearly perceived only after history and thoughtful refection prepared individuals (like the Founders) to see and acknowledge this seminal insight.
So when did Americans begin to lose this commonsense perspective that was an essential component of the Founders' belief that self-government is possible? Curry points to the ascendance of German-trained academics among American intellectuals in the latter part of the nineteenth century. With the importation of "Romantic" and "progressive" ideals that often sailed under the heading of science, intellectuals dismissed the notion that ordinary folk were capable of discovering the not so obvious truths according to which society should be ordered. Psychiatrists, sociologists, and political scientists would henceforth, they believed, set down rules for raising children and organizing society. This perspective was widespread among American intellectuals in the early twentieth century as the philosophical gap between academics and ordinary Americans widened tremendously.
A Marxist variant of these "progressive" ideas became all the rage on American campuses in the sixties and seventies thanks to another German émigré, Herbert Marcuse. By that time, however, the illusion that Marxism and science were joined at the hip was becoming implausible. Eventually, instead of rejecting Marxism or other utopian constructs, science and reason were themselves jettisoned in favor of the unbridled emotions that always lay at the heart of Marx's romanticism. The absurd conclusion of this intellectual cul-de-sac is today's "linguistic realism" that asserts that people actually are what they say they are. Thus, a boy in a tutu and tiara who insists he is a girl must be considered a girl — a proposition considerably removed from the commonsense statements about dogs, legs, and tails put forth by Lincoln. A further consequence of this escape from reality is the assertion that speech itself is violence, a corollary of attributing to words the status of reality and thus the justification for hate speech laws. The pseudo-scientific cherry on top of this irrational hodgepodge is the popular misunderstanding of Einstein's "theory of relativity" as asserting that "everything is relative," including morality — thus the ubiquity of the modern phrase "my truth."
All these philosophical twists and turns are unpacked slowly by Curry and in a manner that doesn't require a formal background in philosophy or intellectual history. Dreams, for example, are used to illustrate the romantic alternative to commonsense perceptions, and Jane Austen's two major characters in Sense and Sensibility provide literary examples of two different approaches to life, one based on commonsense moderation (Elinor) and the other ruled by self-destructive emotion (Marianne).
Other than showing us exactly how far we have traveled from the commonsense doctrines of Thomas Reid and the Founders, Curry provides in this short work no advice for reversing course other than admonishing each reader to "make the life-defining effort to become a person of robust common sense." Perhaps a third postscript to Common Sense Nation will take on that necessary task with more detailed strategies that extend beyond an appeal to individuals to adopt a perspective that's at odds with the enormous emotional power of a corrupt academic and popular culture (cf. Attorney General Barr's Notre Dame speech) that controls almost all the major instruments of communication and education.

How has it come to pass that in America, a man can identify as a woman, and his linguistic affirmation by itself, at least in New York City, obligates others to refer to him as "her"? And why is it increasingly considered mandatory to declare that men taking female hormones can compete against women in sporting events? What aberrant philosophical doctrine, you may ask, is behind the assertion that there are sixty-three genders or that marriage must no longer be considered the union of a man and a woman? The answer to these and other absurdities can be found in Robert Curry's new book, Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. This brief and manageable philosophical analysis forms a welcome addendum to Curry's earlier work, Common Sense Nation, which "explores the thinking of the American Founders" and "present to Americans today what was once known by virtually every American."
What Americans once knew was humorously summarized by Abraham Lincoln when he posed this question, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" Abe's answer: "Four, because even if you call it a leg, it's still a tail." This "common-sense realism" was once, as Curry points out, the currency of both everyday Americans and the nation's academics. The author, however, goes well beyond Lincoln's yarn to explain the philosophical background of "common sense" as developed in the writings of Scotland's Thomas Reid. Reid notes the foundational quality of certain "self-evident" truths not only for practical living (You can't fly if you jump out a fifth-story window.), but also for intellectual and moral pursuits. These basic truths are not ideas that can be proven. Instead, they are the necessary presuppositions of rational analysis and moral reflection. Furthermore, these basic, "self-evident" truths aren't always obvious, but rather are recognized as rational or moral pillars once discovered. Even simple mathematical truths, to say nothing of more advanced axioms, require a grounding in the discipline to be seen clearly. With respect to morality, the "self-evident" truth that "all men are created equal" was capable of being clearly perceived only after history and thoughtful refection prepared individuals (like the Founders) to see and acknowledge this seminal insight.
So when did Americans begin to lose this commonsense perspective that was an essential component of the Founders' belief that self-government is possible? Curry points to the ascendance of German-trained academics among American intellectuals in the latter part of the nineteenth century. With the importation of "Romantic" and "progressive" ideals that often sailed under the heading of science, intellectuals dismissed the notion that ordinary folk were capable of discovering the not so obvious truths according to which society should be ordered. Psychiatrists, sociologists, and political scientists would henceforth, they believed, set down rules for raising children and organizing society. This perspective was widespread among American intellectuals in the early twentieth century as the philosophical gap between academics and ordinary Americans widened tremendously.
A Marxist variant of these "progressive" ideas became all the rage on American campuses in the sixties and seventies thanks to another German émigré, Herbert Marcuse. By that time, however, the illusion that Marxism and science were joined at the hip was becoming implausible.
Did they discover a third genital?
 
https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX12239607.jpg
 
Trump ordered to pay $2 million to settle suit claiming Trump Foundation misused funds to benefit campaign

A judge Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to settle a suit by New York’s attorney general alleging he misused his Trump Foundation charity to benefit his 2016 presidential campaign, in addition to other unlawful activity over more than a decade.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla ruled that more than $2.8 million raised by the Trump Foundation had been “used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation” itself.

“A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation,” Scarpulla wrote in her ruling.

Of course the piece of shit Don The Con is stiffing charities. Good times nutters!!!
 
Trump ordered to pay $2 million to settle suit claiming Trump Foundation misused funds to benefit campaign

A judge Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to settle a suit by New York’s attorney general alleging he misused his Trump Foundation charity to benefit his 2016 presidential campaign, in addition to other unlawful activity over more than a decade.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla ruled that more than $2.8 million raised by the Trump Foundation had been “used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation” itself.

“A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation,” Scarpulla wrote in her ruling.

Of course the piece of shit Don The Con is stiffing charities. Good times nutters!!!
Oh Bootsie! Tell us how you really feel.
 
Trump ordered to pay $2 million to settle suit claiming Trump Foundation misused funds to benefit campaign

A judge Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to settle a suit by New York’s attorney general alleging he misused his Trump Foundation charity to benefit his 2016 presidential campaign, in addition to other unlawful activity over more than a decade.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla ruled that more than $2.8 million raised by the Trump Foundation had been “used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation” itself.

“A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation,” Scarpulla wrote in her ruling.

Of course the piece of shit Don The Con is stiffing charities. Good times nutters!!!


The ruling is a joke...!
The Trump foundation will appeal, it will be overturned and
more Democratic diapers will be soiled....

Oh....and urine idiot for siding with a Criminal Institution.
 
The ruling is a joke...!
The Trump foundation will appeal, it will be overturned and
more Democratic diapers will be soiled....

Oh....and urine idiot for siding with a Criminal Institution.
Are you sure they will appeal? Really sure? With extra sprinkles sure? Because it’s tough to appeal when both sides stipulated to the judge’s determination of damages.
 
Wait, did Trump and his kids agree today that they held a fundraiser for veterans where they said they raised $6m and, in fact, they raised $2.8m and they kept it all for his campaign? None of it went to veterans? You guys are all as sleazy as you are stupid.
 
Wait, did Trump and his kids agree today that they held a fundraiser for veterans where they said they raised $6m and, in fact, they raised $2.8m and they kept it all for his campaign? None of it went to veterans? You guys are all as sleazy as you are stupid.
Fake News.
 
This explains a lot. I always knew Wez..errr, Messy and the other lefties seemed really bitter. Now it's confirmed why:



Conservatives Are Happier, More Generous Than Liberals





24f0e5c8d29c6bc28bc950328981b1849dc225385cd017eee042c9aa39785968.jpg

Where are the happiest, most generous people in America to be found? The answer might surprise you!
Lefty author and radio personality Garrison Keillor captured the popular view (at least according to Hollywood and the media) of the differences between liberals and conservatives, claiming, “Liberalism is the politics of kindness,” standing for “tolerance, magnanimity, community spirit, [and] the defense of the weak against the powerful.” Conservatives, Keillor claims on the other hand, are people who “stand for tax cuts, and further tax cuts, annual tax cuts,” and then they “use their refund to buy a gun and an attack dog” to keep people away who are not like them.
Or, as Obama put it, these are the people who are “bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”
As it turns out, that is the exact opposite of the truth.
Last year, the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal published the findings of a study by University of Southern California researcher David Newman. He analyzed the happiness of 50,000 people from 16 countries over a 40-year period.
What Newman’s team discovered is that conservatives are consistently and significantly happier than their liberal counterparts, and the more conservative a person is, the happier they are. Social conservatives are even happier than just fiscal conservatives, and both are much happier than liberals. Why? Because “there is some unique aspect of political conservatism that provides people with meaning and purpose in life.”
This was true for conservatives “at all reporting periods (global, daily, and momentary).” In other words, conservatives tend to be happy as a general rule, and not just when things are going well for them. That is extremely significant. It means their happiness is related to who they are inside, rather than being a reaction to their circumstances.
Of study participants, 52% of conservatives were “completely satisfied” with their family lives, compared to just 41% of liberals and moderates. Conservatives were also significantly more likely to believe marriage is “essential in creating and maintaining strong families,” and overwhelmingly more likely to be married (62% vs. 39%).
Considering the vast data on how marriage greatly increases overall happiness and well-being, economic stability, improved physical and mental health, and life expectancy, this is a game-changer.
In 2012, the Journal of Research in Personality analyzed four studies on happiness, and found “conservatives expressed greater personal agency (e.g., personal control, responsibility), more positive outlook (e.g., optimism, self-worth), more transcendent moral beliefs (e.g., greater religiosity, greater moral clarity, less tolerance of transgressions), and a generalized belief in fairness, and these differences accounted for the happiness gap.”
In the U.S., where leftists gravitate toward the Democrat Party and conservatives to the Republican Party, these mindsets and ideologies are clearly manifest in their messaging. As one writer put it, “Republicans … preach the message of limited government, responsibility and self-reliance, while Democrats … preach a message of victimhood and entitlement. … The former is empowering and the latter is debilitating, tending only to provoke feelings of resentment, anger, and helplessness.”
This supports the findings of a Pew Research Center study showing that Republicans maintain higher levels of happiness across all income levels, so it’s not just those evil, rich Republicans swimming in their pools of cash who are happy.
Additionally, conservative Republicans are nearly twice as likely to be “very happy” as liberal Democrats (47% to 28%), and regular church attenders were nearly twice as likely to be very happy as those who rarely or never attend.
Conservative, Christian Republicans are also far more generous than their liberal Democrat counterparts, regardless of income level. And for those who think religious conservatives only donate to charity to get the tax write-off (which makes no sense because you don’t get a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes), religious conservatives also donate more of their time (which could be spent making more money) to charity than liberal Democrats. In the 2012 election, 17 of the most generous states voted for Mitt Romney, while 15 of the least charitable 17 went for Barack Obama.
If you are a liberal Democrat, these findings probably offend you. You may think this is “fake news” and recall the widely broadcasted study that supposedly found Republicans have more psychopathic traits than Democrats. Numerous liberals/Democrats pointed to the study as proof that conservatism and religiosity are manifestations of mental illness.
Yet while this study’s findings were headline news when the report was issued, the retraction a short time later was barely mentioned. Go figure.
 
The Trump foundation will appeal, it will be overturned and
more Democratic diapers will be soiled....


Trump Foundation to shut down under agreement with New York attorney general

Trump’s charity was, for years, “little more than an empty shell” with no oversight by a functioning board of directors, and she pointed out that the nonprofit had not had a board meeting since 1999.
Underwood said the foundation also made a series of questionable donations to other charitable organizations to settle legal claims involving Trump businesses, including his South Florida Mar-a-Lago retreat, while another donation went toward promoting Trump’s international hotels. The attorney general’s office also alleged that Trump handed over control of the charity to his presidential campaign in 2016, as it made strategic donations to charities and events in key campaign states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
 
Trump Foundation to shut down under agreement with New York attorney general

Trump’s charity was, for years, “little more than an empty shell” with no oversight by a functioning board of directors, and she pointed out that the nonprofit had not had a board meeting since 1999.
Underwood said the foundation also made a series of questionable donations to other charitable organizations to settle legal claims involving Trump businesses, including his South Florida Mar-a-Lago retreat, while another donation went toward promoting Trump’s international hotels. The attorney general’s office also alleged that Trump handed over control of the charity to his presidential campaign in 2016, as it made strategic donations to charities and events in key campaign states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
Since its inception in 1987, the Trump Foundation has distributed over $19 million to hundreds of worthwhile charities with little to no expenses. More than $9 million came directly from President Trump. Following the 2016 presidential election, the Trump Foundation publicly announced its intention to voluntarily dissolve and distribute all of its remaining funds to charity.
 
This explains a lot. I always knew Wez..errr, Messy and the other lefties seemed really bitter. Now it's confirmed why:



Conservatives Are Happier, More Generous Than Liberals




24f0e5c8d29c6bc28bc950328981b1849dc225385cd017eee042c9aa39785968.jpg

Where are the happiest, most generous people in America to be found? The answer might surprise you!
Lefty author and radio personality Garrison Keillor captured the popular view (at least according to Hollywood and the media) of the differences between liberals and conservatives, claiming, “Liberalism is the politics of kindness,” standing for “tolerance, magnanimity, community spirit, [and] the defense of the weak against the powerful.” Conservatives, Keillor claims on the other hand, are people who “stand for tax cuts, and further tax cuts, annual tax cuts,” and then they “use their refund to buy a gun and an attack dog” to keep people away who are not like them.
Or, as Obama put it, these are the people who are “bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”
As it turns out, that is the exact opposite of the truth.
Last year, the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal published the findings of a study by University of Southern California researcher David Newman. He analyzed the happiness of 50,000 people from 16 countries over a 40-year period.
What Newman’s team discovered is that conservatives are consistently and significantly happier than their liberal counterparts, and the more conservative a person is, the happier they are. Social conservatives are even happier than just fiscal conservatives, and both are much happier than liberals. Why? Because “there is some unique aspect of political conservatism that provides people with meaning and purpose in life.”
This was true for conservatives “at all reporting periods (global, daily, and momentary).” In other words, conservatives tend to be happy as a general rule, and not just when things are going well for them. That is extremely significant. It means their happiness is related to who they are inside, rather than being a reaction to their circumstances.
Of study participants, 52% of conservatives were “completely satisfied” with their family lives, compared to just 41% of liberals and moderates. Conservatives were also significantly more likely to believe marriage is “essential in creating and maintaining strong families,” and overwhelmingly more likely to be married (62% vs. 39%).
Considering the vast data on how marriage greatly increases overall happiness and well-being, economic stability, improved physical and mental health, and life expectancy, this is a game-changer.
In 2012, the Journal of Research in Personality analyzed four studies on happiness, and found “conservatives expressed greater personal agency (e.g., personal control, responsibility), more positive outlook (e.g., optimism, self-worth), more transcendent moral beliefs (e.g., greater religiosity, greater moral clarity, less tolerance of transgressions), and a generalized belief in fairness, and these differences accounted for the happiness gap.”
In the U.S., where leftists gravitate toward the Democrat Party and conservatives to the Republican Party, these mindsets and ideologies are clearly manifest in their messaging. As one writer put it, “Republicans … preach the message of limited government, responsibility and self-reliance, while Democrats … preach a message of victimhood and entitlement. … The former is empowering and the latter is debilitating, tending only to provoke feelings of resentment, anger, and helplessness.”
This supports the findings of a Pew Research Center study showing that Republicans maintain higher levels of happiness across all income levels, so it’s not just those evil, rich Republicans swimming in their pools of cash who are happy.
Additionally, conservative Republicans are nearly twice as likely to be “very happy” as liberal Democrats (47% to 28%), and regular church attenders were nearly twice as likely to be very happy as those who rarely or never attend.
Conservative, Christian Republicans are also far more generous than their liberal Democrat counterparts, regardless of income level. And for those who think religious conservatives only donate to charity to get the tax write-off (which makes no sense because you don’t get a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes), religious conservatives also donate more of their time (which could be spent making more money) to charity than liberal Democrats. In the 2012 election, 17 of the most generous states voted for Mitt Romney, while 15 of the least charitable 17 went for Barack Obama.
If you are a liberal Democrat, these findings probably offend you. You may think this is “fake news” and recall the widely broadcasted study that supposedly found Republicans have more psychopathic traits than Democrats. Numerous liberals/Democrats pointed to the study as proof that conservatism and religiosity are manifestations of mental illness.
Yet while this study’s findings were headline news when the report was issued, the retraction a short time later was barely mentioned. Go figure.
The party of the kkk, slavery and FDR.
Spending other people’s money ain’t no thang.
Wise up.
 


7 Year Old Boy Whose Mom Wanted Him to Transition to Be a Girl Makes His Own Choice
Posted at 4:00 pm on November 08, 2019 by Nick Arama
Share

Tweet
Capture.jpg

The story of 7-year-old James Younger went viral last month, James, whose mother, Anne Georgulas, was trying to transition him from male to female and his father, Jeffrey Younger, was prevented from having any say, desperate to stop his child from suffering irreparable harm by possible future chemical castration, with even the Texas governor getting involved on behalf of the child.



His mother claimed James wanted to be a girl named Luna, his father said that wasn’t the case. Younger alleges that Georgulas has been pushing the transition on James ever since the end of their marriage and was manipulating him since he was 3 years old. According to the Daily Mail, Younger said Georgulas would lock James inside a bedroom and say, ‘monsters only eat boys.’


The Texas court ultimately decided to grant joint managing conservatorship to both parents requiring that they both must give consent to any medical treatment on behalf of their child.
After all the struggle, the court finally ruled that James would be allowed to decide for himself what he wanted to be called and how he wished to consider himself.



Although both parents are under a gag order by the court, a family whose children are close to James revealed how he choose to attend school and how he wanted the school to refer to him for the record.
James choose to be called James and go to school as a boy.
Here he is with his brother, Jude.
Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, standing

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, people standing, shoes and indoor
 
Back
Top