Two Thoughts

Where to start? Let's open with the filibuster. Unless I have this completely wrong, the Democrats' insistence to eliminate it in the US Senate is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Long a part of Senate rules(since 1789), in the course of the recent past it has been supported by, surprise, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In fact, I read that in 2020, it was used more than 300 times to try to block legislation--all 300 times by, surprise, the Democrats. Now that they are in the majority (or close to it with the 50-50 split and the Harris tie-breaker), they want to handcuff the minority (Republicans). When the Democrats were in the minority, they sure didn't favor handcuffing themselves! It is almost as if the Democrats are saying, "We're for the filibuster, except when we're against it." Huh? Why, in the media coverage of this issue, aren't these things pointed out? I think I can guess why. I'm not sure if this is true, but I don't doubt it. Gayle Manchin has been nominated by Biden for a federal position that pays $165,000 a year. Who is Gayle Manchin? I don't know her qualifications for whateve the job is, but have little reason to doubt she's qualified. She might be; she might not be. But she is also the wife of US Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from WV. He has been a holdout on supporting the Democrats' efforts to get rid of the filibuster. So far it seems he has resisted all the Democrat leadership arm-twisting. Now? Hmmm. I don't think nominating his wife to a lucrative government position, regardless of her qualifications, passes the smell test, at least not under these circumstances. Again I ask, where is the media coverage on this? For Biden and others to invoke "Jim Crow" is out-and-out inflammatory. If the use of the filibuster is a reflection of the anti-civil rights Jim Crow years (and in many ways it was, right up to the 1950s and 1960s), where does that leave the Democrats and their repeated use of it in 2020? So, the Democrats now want to allow transgenders to compete in girls' sports. Hmmmm. If a biological male, who now self-identifies (I hate that term.) as a female, he can run in races, etc. against biological girls who self-identify as girls. That has happened in Connecticut high school sports, maybe in other states, too. I don't know. Not only did a couple transgenders (males who now call themselves females) win Connecticut state championships in several track events, they obliterated the state girls' records in those events. I'm not sure what one of Biden's executive orders explicity mandates, but even if it doesn't specifically state that transgenders can compete in girls'/women's events, it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to guess where that might go. Remember when the 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913, Americans were promised this would be "the fairest and cheapest of all taxes." Incomes under $4000 were not taxed at all and those up to $20,000 paid 1%. Graduation led to a 3% tax on incomes over $50,000. Hmmm..... Look where we are now--and where we've been. The Noble Experiment," Prohibition, ended up with federal chief Wayne Wheeler ordering poisons like arsenic and strychnine to be put in rubbing alcohol, car anti-freeze, and embalming fluid when people started drinking them to get their alcohol. When informed the poisons could kill Americans (and in fact more than 5,000 did so die), it was aloofly defended with "They shouldn't be drinking anyway." When FDR pushed the Social Security Act through Congress, Americans were assured that their SS numbers would not be used for identifcation other than SS. We know where that promise ended up. What do these and many other instances have to do with Biden's transgender executive order? We can't and shouldn't trust these people. Even when the intent is well-meaning, sooner or later the good intentions are forgotten. I think I read that 400+ US high school boys in recent years posted track times in the 100 (or was it 200 or both?) meters that were faster than that of the NCAA women's champion. In 2017, the best time by the 2016 women's Olympic 100 meter champion was bettered by 5,000 men/boys world-wide. (I was assured the number of zeroes, three of them, was correct.) I know of no pernicious attempts to fraudulently take advantage of this, but is it unreasonable to assume that's just a matter of time? Think about college athletic scholarships for "females." Think about the money in women's professional sports, be they basketball, golf, soccer, or tennis. Again, I remember reading about the Australian national women's soccer team being drubbed, 7-1 (in soccer!) by an elite team of 15-year old (I think it was; regardless, they were still in high school.) boys--and the game was called at halftime. Every time I hear this I am reminded of the movie Billy Madison. An adult Adam Sandler just annihilated some grade school kids (six-year olds?) in a game of beano/dodge ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hShxpYG_ql0 (Cut and paste if necessary.) Like my proposal for bathrooms for transgenders, why don't we have sports divisions each for men/boys, women/girls, and transgenders? It's seems just a matter of time before the lure of money will lead to unintended consequences if we don't.