The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
2015-07-27 10:12 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 230 references

I cannot vouch for this.

The site on which it appeared (it has been picked up a few other places) has a definite slant.  Then again, we all have slants.  The question isn't whether there's editorial slant, it's whether there is truth presented on the page.  Those of you inclined to discount this due to the source are welcome to do so but this is a first-party account of alleged facts backed up by actual criminal convictions, not an anecdote.

I was born into a family of famous gay pagan authors in the late Sixties. My mother was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and my father was Walter Breen. Between them, they wrote over 100 books: my mother wrote science fiction and fantasy (Mists of Avalon), and my father wrote books on numismatics: he was a coin expert.

What they did to me is a matter of unfortunate public record: suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrifed at my being female. My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes he raped me. I don’t like to think about it. If you want to know about his shenanigans with little girls, and you have a very strong stomach, you can google the Breendoggle, which was the scandal which ALMOST drummed him out of science fiction fandom.

Read the entire article.

Have a full glass of whatever adult beverage you prefer in-hand first.

Another article, which the US Press appears to have ignored (gee, I wonder why, other than an apologist-style article in WaPo that is not worth my citation) is found here.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Hoh hoh hoh....

A new undercover video shows a top Planned Parenthood official discussing “less crunchy” techniques to get “whole specimens” and haggling over the price of fetus tissue sales because she wants “a Lamborghini.”

The video released Tuesday morning, the second put out by the Center for Medical Progress, features a woman identified as Dr. Mary Gatter, who was president of the Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council until 2014 and now works in a leadership and advisory capacity at the local and national level of the organization. Over drinks, Gatter and the undercover activists discuss “specimen” prices, eventually settling at $100 for "intact tissue."

You know what the problem is when you're an organization and get caught as Planned Parenthood appeared to have last week?

If you go to the press and try to claim that it was a "one off" or somehow "contrived" you had damn well better be sure that there aren't more videos of the activity that you claim isn't really happening.

But...... it appears there are.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Uh huh.

We've been hearing this literally forever -- it's about tolerance of people's differences; they just want to be left alone.  Whether the difference is being gay, transgendered, whatever.  The only force involved is all the bigotry and violence these people suffer under; they have no intention of violence at all.

Pinsky then argued that ABC did a good job getting viewers, which is the point of an awards ceremony. Pinsky continued, “In terms of the science behind gender disphoria, you’re very familiar with that, Zoey. It’s not about the…chromosomes within our nuclei.” Tur responded, “We both know chromosomes don’t necessarily mean you’re male or female.” And “you have a thing like Klinefelter’s syndrome. So, [turning to Shapiro and touching his shoulder] you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re not educated on genetics –.” Shapiro asked if the discussion was supposed to be on genetics and asked, “What are your genetics, sir?” Pinsky said to Tur, “I’d stay away from the genetics and back to the brain scans.”

Tur then said to Shapiro, “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.” Shapiro responded, “That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion.” Oduolowu said that, to be fair, Shapiro was being rude, to which Shapiro answered, “I’m sorry, it’s not rude to say that someone who’s biologically a male is a male.” Tur stated, “You just called me a ‘sir.'”

After some of the other panelists, particularly radio and “Chain Reaction” host Mike Catherwood, objected that Shapiro knew that what he said would be “insulting” and “inflammatory.” Shapiro responded, “It’s not a matter of insulting or inflammatory. It’s a fact. You are a male. Dr. Drew is a male.”

So when you recite a factual statement that someone from these "advocacy" positions disagrees with the acceptable response is to threaten imminent violence?

But I thought they just wanted to be left alone?

Uh, no.  What they demand is that you accede to their wishes, not simply leave them alone.  The latter is reasonable; the former is thuggery and irrespective of who does it and why it's both unacceptable and must not be catered to.

My response to anyone that pulls something like this, no matter what their particular affliction might be, is quite-simple, clear and convincing.  It bears no "discrimination" in that it is applied to all irrespective of the alleged "group" they belong to, identify with, or try to advocate for.


PS: Assault is a criminal offense and so is battery.  What was being threatened here was well beyond that and treads dangerously close, in most states, to the line of grievous bodily harm and the justified use of defensive force to stop it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2015-07-12 09:14 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 251 references

Sorry, disagree.

It’s summer, and with the advent of sleeveless dress and spaghetti strap season, I am reminded why I find tattoos on women so offensive: they are simply unsightly to look at.

I’m a fairly open minded person, but I must draw the line here, and be frank.  I find tattoos a desecration of the beauty of the female form.

They don’t look cool. They look cheap. And the kinds of men who find tattoos alluring are probably out on parole.

Well I'm not on parole.  And frankly, Stephanie, I find your sexist commentary, coming from a woman, amusing.

It was 51 years post my advent into this world before I got inked, and I've only done it once.  It's a Roadrunner, my personal reward for finishing a half-marathon on-target with my goal, and it's placed where those who are slower than I get to see it when I pass them during a race.

So no, I'm not one of "those guys" who has a sleeve or two and half his back (or more) covered in this and that.  And yes, there are plenty of people who regret what they've done in this regard, particularly if they're foolish enough to get something linked to another person permanently added to their visage.  Relationships end and it's quite a bitch to either have to figure out a good cover-up or worse, attempt a removal.

Everyone's different Stephanie.

And yes, there still are "job stopper" places to put ink on your body, as we all know.  The list has gotten smaller over the last couple of decades and perhaps some day it will disappear entirely -- but then again, maybe not.

On the other hand I find it curious that there are plenty of people who will talk about how ink on someone's body (a choice) is desecration but someone walking around with an extra 50 or 100lbs (or 200 or 300 for that matter), all of which was also a choice to put on and took a hell of a lot longer than did adding some ink to one's shoulder, is a civil right that not only must be respected but we must subsidize the grossly-increased medical costs that said person is likely to incur during the rest of their life and cannot "discriminate" against them in employment, even though it means everyone else in the place gets paid less due to the higher expense the employer is forced to absorb.

What sort of horsecrap is that Stephanie?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Gee, seems to be more dead bodies on the sidewalk than in the recent Church shooting in SC....

Fourth of July weekend shootings have left eight people dead — including a 7-year-old boy — and at least 42 others injured since Thursday evening.

But... but.... but..... Oh Sharpton!  Jackson!  Where are you?

Where is the outrage?  Where is the demand to strike Chicago's flag?  Where, oh where?

Oh yeah, and where's the identification of the particulars (you know, the races) of the people who were doing the apparent gang-banging in this "reporting"?

That's what I thought.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.