A culture war story that has a point

Since Allahpundit left, Hot Air has become much more Right wing culture war-y and less worth visiting.  But this story seems to me to have a point:   a prominent and (shall we say, distinctive looking) Biden appointee who is a transgender, gender fluid person has been charged with a theft of a kind that really makes it sound like he (gawd, they) may well have some mental health issues.  (Hot Air complains that the main stream media is giving it no prominence - although I wonder if that may change.)

And look, I do often think that if the social media of some trans personalities is chock full of selfies and an ongoing commentary on their feelings, it reads as a plea for approval (which many trans fans are often more than willing to give) and a sign of potentially serious degree of insecurity.   (Sorry to be ageist, but this particularly applies if you are of mature age - selfie obsession in the younger is one thing, but in anyone over 40 I find harder to handle.)  Perhaps you could say "well, the way broader society treats them, they have reason to feel insecure".   Yeah, I get that point - but there are some trans identities who don't conduct themselves that way, and just do it for themselves without the need for continual reassurance. 

It's the paradox that you can see in anyone with an insecurity about anything:  if you want others to treat you as just an average person, asking every day for reassurance that you are OK is not the way to achieve it.   And it's not as if all insecurity is a concern - but it can be a sign that it's someone who might not be the best employee and figurehead for a certain identity.

 Update:   I guess I didn't really get to the point that I was merely alluding too.  The articles and photos about Brinton when he was appointed certainly indicate that he has the kind of intense "need to be seen" as a trans/kink person that I think is reasonable to take as a warning sign for his future employment.   The gut reaction of conservatives on this seems to have been vindicated, and while those on the Left can complain that the private sexual sphere says nothing about what a person may be like in their area of employment - come on, there are limits, if the person doesn't want to keep that side private.

Elon takes on Apple? I don't even like Apple, but pass the popcorn

 

The Trump problem (for the Republicans)

There's very, very little support to be found (if any, really) on the American Right for Trump getting friendly with Kanye and having dinner with him and Fuentes.   The "I don't know who he was" excuse seems to have worn way too thin - it certainly suggests a person who would be a security nightmare as a President (again.)  

But the cowardice within the Republican party itself remains its defining feature - with most just declining to comment on it:

Republican lawmakers have largely remained silent in the wake of former President Trump's dinner with antisemitic rapper Ye and white nationalist Nick Fuentes, reviving a tactic they frequently relied on during his presidency.

Driving the news: Spokespeople for nearly two dozen House and Senate Republicans — including party leaders, co-chairs of caucuses and task forces focused on Judaism or antisemitism and sponsors of legislation to combat antisemitic hate crimes — did not respond to requests for comment.

Why it matters: The dynamic highlights the stranglehold Trump still has on the Republican Party outside a small group of vocal critics, even in the aftermath of poor performances by his handpicked candidates in the midterm elections.

What are Hannity and Carlson going to do about it?   Ignore it, or try to provide some pathetic defence?  

The pit bull problem

An article at the BBC explains how pit bulls, popular as guard dogs (and fighting dogs) in South Africa, are facing a strong public backlash over their propensity to attack and kill children.   

I have always been a complete skeptic with respect to the "it's how your raise them" defenders, regardless of whether they are the public, vets, or from the RSPCA:

"The defence by pit bull lovers that it is how you raise the dog does not hold water. So many people, including joggers have been attacked and killed by pit bulls," says the petition, which has more than 129,000 signatures so far. 

When you go to a dog park often (as I do) and see things like a young collie's innate inclination to start playing with smaller dogs in a "round them up like sheep" sort of way, I don't understand why certain people think a bred can't have an inclination to attack small humans at the slightest deemed provocation.

A remarkable floater

A passenger who went missing from a cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico has been rescued after more than 15 hours in the sea, the US Coast Guard has said.

The 28-year-old man had been at a bar on the Carnival Valor ship with his sister on Wednesday night but did not return after leaving to use the toilet.

Several rescue crews scoured the area and the man was finally spotted on Thursday evening, some 20 miles (30km) off the coast of Louisiana.

Yeah, if it was in a movie you'd think the writers were really pushing credibility.

 

As expected

After careful reflection on why his side lost another election, commentator thinks the winner should resign

George Monbiot has a fake steak

I mentioned this last week, but George Monbiot has a column in The Guardian on the topic of "precision fermentation" - the idea of replacing animal protein with vat grown microbial protein - which he is very keen to see happening.

And over on Twitter, he has eaten a fake steak and reckons it's really good:
 

 

The texture looks more tuna than steak to me, but of course, I would like to try it.

And boy, do I get sick of people going on about "why does a vegan/vegetarian want to eat pretend meat - you're betraying your principals" after stories like this.   "Because it tastes great and we like the texture" seems the obvious answer, no?   Why is that so hard to grasp?

Pretty much

 

Twitter is going to die, I'm still pretty sure of that.

 Update:  to be clearer, this is why:

 

Lobster man probed

He looks so happy about it, too.  I was thinking of trying to make a joke about where her hand might be,but I'm above that.

Then there's this:

Does Peterson give advice on resume writing too?

 

Update:  wish I had thought to do this - 

 

 

A sad and weird family background

The Washington Post has a story on the family background of the guy who shot up the Colorado gay bar, and it sounds terribly complicated and a pretty sad story.  And I'm not telling it because of the political aspects that get a mention - I'm telling it because it seems pretty clear that both parents seem to have some pretty serious psychological issues:

Until age 15, he was known as Nicholas Brink, living in San Antonio, public records show. His parents separated when he was a toddler, and when he was 12, his mother, Laura Voepel, was arrested for suspected arson, according to court documents. She was later found guilty of a lesser offense in connection with the same incident.

At age 15, he became the target of a particularly vicious bout of online bullying in which insulting accusations were posted to a website, along with his name, photos and online aliases, according to a review of the site by The Washington Post. At some point, a YouTube account was created under his name, featuring a crude, profanity-laden animation under the title, “Asian homosexual gets molested.”

Brink was born in 2000 as the only son of Aaron and Laura (nee Voepel) Brink, of Orange, Calif., and a year later, in July 2001, the couple separated. Their divorce was finalized in September 2001, court records showed. Laura gained full custody of the toddler, along with an order forbidding any contact between father and son. In following years, she moved with her baby to Texas, living at times with the boy’s maternal grandmother.

Brink’s maternal grandfather is state Rep. Randy Voepel, a Republican assemblyman who in the past has aligned himself with the tea party movement and spoken in favor of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Voepel lost his seat in November after a redistricting change.

The family was living in San Antonio at the time of Laura Voepel’s arrest on arson-related charges in 2012. The case wound its way through a Texas court for several years, and according to court records, the defendant was ordered to undergo psychological evaluations and mandatory drug testing. Her trial resulted in the dismissal of the arson charge but she was found guilty on a lesser charge of criminal mischief.

The father, bizarrely, is being reported as a Mormon (and the Washington Post says the son was technically a member of the church) who is now a mixed martial arts coach but has also worked as a (straight) porn actor.     His comments about hearing about his son in a gay bar indicate he was initially worried he was gay, which Mormons "don't do".   (There is video of him - and the demeanour alone is a worry.)

I've read somewhere that the son was mainly raised by the mother's parents.  

I will add that, on the political aspect of gun control, if there are any Right wingers complaining that the shooter should have been the subject of the "red flag" laws after he was arrested (but not prosecuted for) threatening to harm his mother, the strong suspicion is that it is Right wing elements of law enforcement in Colorado who are reluctant to use it:

A “red flag” order, also known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), could have allowed authorities to seize any guns the Club Q suspect had, and it would have barred him from purchasing other weapons. A search of public records found no indication that the sheriff’s office or other authorities filed such a petition. The charges in the case were dropped and the case was sealed.

But local law enforcement are not required to file red flag petitions. And leaders in conservative areas like El Paso County — where the nightclub shooting and the 2021 incident happened — have criticized the idea that the government should seize weapons from people who haven’t been convicted of a crime.

For example, in 2019, local district attorney Michael Allen derided the red flag law as “unconstitutional,” tweeting that it was “[n]othing more than a way to justify seizing people’s firearms under the color of law.”

After the law was implemented, he tweeted: “This law is a poor excuse to take people’s guns and is not designed in any way to address real concrete mental health concerns.”

In the 2021 incident, the Club Q suspect was arrested after allegedly threatening his mother with a “homemade bomb, multiple weapons and ammunition,” the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office reported at the time. 

He was also wearing body armor and had live-streamed himself in a standoff with law enforcement. It’s unclear whether he was armed at the time. 

Rep. Meg Froelich, a Democrat, said the legislature should examine how local authorities are using — or failing to use — the red flag law.

“Is it being applied and enforced? That’s something we want to look at,” Froelich said. She added that she wants to know whether a red flag order could have been applied in the case of the gunman who last year killed five people in a rampage that struck several tattoo shops in Denver and Lakewood.

 

The ridiculous amount of culture warring that serves as a useful distraction for gun control

To be fair, both sides of the culture wars do it:  try to work out whether the latest mass shooter in the US can be fitted into the other side's politics.  

A reason the Left shouldn't do it - or be very, very cautious about it - is that the suspicion doesn't always follow through.  It seems clear now, for example, that the big gun massacre of a gay nightclub in Orlando a few years ago was not a case of gays being targetted.  According to Vox, even the Right assumed it was, but it turns out to have been a Muslim "revenge" attack based on a mere Google search for any nightclub..   

The Right now think they are a similar "win", with the defence saying that the Colorado gay nightclub shooter of a couple of days ago is "non binary".   So they are rubbing their hands with glee that his or her (OK, "their") politics are probably not Right wing at all.  Although, who knows, they might be.  Most likely, though, given previous threats of violence to their mother, the shooter is just another mentally disturbed American with access to guns that they wouldn't have access to in any sane, well run, country.   Their politics is not going to change that one way or another.

Today, there is news of a pretty different style of mass shooting in America (subject to confirmation) - a manager shooting up other staff, rather than the more typical case of the underling going after management.   What is it going to matter what this guy's politics were?    

I understand the Left side's temptation to assume that, say, attacks on gay venues are by Right wing sympathisers; I mean when you get the God-awful Tucker Carlson running with something like this line...

...well, the Right itself is suggesting that shootings are a result of the culture war they are stoking.   And sometimes, the offender has indeed been completely sucked in by Right wing conspiracy theories, like the Pizzagate shooter, making the culture war aspect directly relevant. 

But, the main reason I find it a game the Left should not rush into is because (and this is what drives me nuts about watching it), it's so clear that the Right uses it as a convenient distraction to avoid taking further gun control seriously.

"Oh, so you thought it was a MAGA sympathiser who shot up that nightclub?   Turns out he voted for Obama!  Ha!  We win (and we don't have to talk about AR 15s.  We Won!)"

It's as pathetic as the line that the answer to mass shootings is keeping guns out the hands of the mentally ill - as if the mentally ill are easily identified, easily disarmed, and easily treated if they don't want to be treated.    Again, it's just a stupid way of pretending that it's not really the access to guns that's the issue.

Tries a bit too hard

Hmmm:

Once again, I will opine that I want to like this program more than I do.

The hosts are both likeable and their scripted bits are fine:  what I find problematic is how too many of the guest comedians find too many of their own scripted bits hilarious.  (Wil Anderson often laughs too much at them too.)

It's a program that just seems to be trying too hard - or is too amused with itself - for too much of the time.  

Update:  This, on the other hand, is genuinely funny:

Basically, everything

 What “longtermism” gets wrong about climate change

This tech boy "longtermism" idea has been attracting a lot of criticism lately, all of it justified as far as I can tell.   I doubt that as a semi philosophical idea it has really attracted that much of the public's attention.  But still, it is a worry when the super rich start believing in reasons to downplay the issue of climate change, because they have the capacity to influence public opinion which, in democracies, can lead to inaction.

Spectacular weirdo noticed again

I had to stop following Hanania on Twitter because the weirdness was too much too often.  Noah Smith used to ridicule him too. He's still busy being ridiculous, I see:

Update:   I see that there is a lot of uncertainty as to Hanania's intention here, given that he had seemingly mocked a news case involving a 22 year year women being charged with having sex with a 16 year old boy.  So is this tweet a joke of some kind?   But it still doesn't make sense, as a joke.