I was afraid this was going to turn out to be a case of mistaken identity, but since it's been confirmed, credit where credit is due: Trump took the responsibility for something big, gave the green light, restrained himself from tweeting about it prematurely, and the mission was successful. Kudos to him and to the people in uniform who put their lives on the line.

I disagree to some extent. If they actually draw up articles of impeachment, based on what we know now, it will be an unbelievably stupid move. So far though, it's just an inquiry.

Last night my department chair sent around an email saying the Dean needs to know how many of us are going to encourage our classes to participate in the so-called Climate Strike next Friday. That weekend is Homecoming and is expected to be the biggest in the institution's history (it's our bicentennial year). He wants to know so that he can defend - or tout - faculty who participate, depending on which alumni he is talking to.

My physics class has an exam that day. Needless to say I'm not participating, and if any of my students do, they get an F.

We are products of our genetics, and upbringing.  My Dad was a typical male chauvinist of his era.  Yes, I adopted some of those traits, but growing up in a different era, at least I REALIZE it, and then can hopefully see the pitfalls of that sometimes extreme thought.  I've also worked with women, and have seen them perform well, and do everything a man could do, sometimes better, in certain jobs.

That being said, I dislike the current demonization of Men, and masculinity.  It is a backlash, and over reaction to the perceived wrongs of male domination of society, and like with racism, and other "isms", punishment and retribution of men that had nothing to do with the past. 

I was very, very young, but I somewhat remember the "Mad Men" era.  All the doctors were men, as were almost everyone in corporate America, except "secretaries", the Clergy, all professions, lawyers, accountants, government workers, tradesmen, etc.  Only teaching and nursing had women in large numbers.  The rest were "housewives".  Fewer women drove cars.  I remember my Dad commenting in the 70's about all the women "driving these days".

Women have made great strides in society, and I think that's a good thing, but the pendulum has swung too far in the attitudes that are being promoted.  Women can be great, successful, and "strong", but it shouldn't be at the expense of Men, and devaluing Men, and Maleness is hurting us.

I agree with all of this. I also remember growing up in those days, my Dad was a male chauvinist - I loved the heck out of him but he was definitely a chauvinist - and my Mom and I were targets of it (she more than I, I was after all just a kid). It's a good thing IMO that male chauvinism is no longer considered a good thing, even among men, but the pendulum shouldn't swing so far that males are ashamed of being masculine. I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but the demonization of masculinity in some quarters is a scary trend.

I also agree with Rush that masculinity in women can be very attractive. Butch-fem lesbian couples are something of a stereotype, but there are also butch-butch couples, butch-soft butch couples, etc. I'm all for celebrating the diversity of humans and not shaming any group for proudly being what they are... and that includes masculine men.

I think the thing he doesn't know is how to tell the truth without the Dems and the MSM spinning ANYthing he says, and/or taking it out of context, to make him look bad.  Even if they have to lie.  Imagine how well he would be doing if the press got a tingle up their leg when he spoke to them, and covered for him the way they covered (and still cover) for Obama.

But that's just it, I don't think it's outright lying. Their world view is so different from Trump's that to them, his words confirm what they already think about him. To them it's impossible for someone to use the language Trump uses without being a racist. And because journalists have forgotten how to report the news without slanting it, they keep repeating their interpretations as if they were facts. (e.g. "Trump's racist tweets")

I'm a little disappointed that even conservative-leaning David Brooks, whom I usually agree with, has taken to saying things like "Trump is no longer using dog whistles, he's gone to straight-up human whistles now". He seems to have bought into the MSM line that Trump really is a racist. But at least he is in the business of giving analysis and opinions, he's not functioning as a reporter. People like Judy Woodruff and Yamiche Alcindor should know better.

The last two nights PBS Newshour has really jumped from journalism into advocacy and is using the El Paso and Dayton tragedies to actively push for gun control, putting on strong advocates for more restrictions on guns and giving them friendly questions, while aggressively cross examining weak and not-very-articulate 2nd A supporters. I'm ashamed for them that they call this a NEWSCAST - it is pure propaganda.

I still have to watch the last hour, but I nearly went crazy listening to all of them saying how they were going to implement universal health care (whether MFA or BetterCare (TM) or something else) but no one ever asked them, and they didn't volunteer, how they were going to pay for it. No one said they would increase taxes on the middle class, some said the NET cost of health care to middle class folks would go down (meaning taxes go up, cost of care itself - purportedly - goes down), but no one brought up the fact that Medicare as it exists today is forecast to become insolvent by 2026. The big disagreement was over whether to remove the private option, but the elephant in the room was never once mentioned. I read that Sanders and Warren, at least, believe in MMT so maybe that explains it... and in that case, heaven help us if either of them gets elected.

In my case, Little Joe's suggestion worked. Even though the link was highlighted in Google as having been visited and looks to be the same as the one posted, when I clicked on it, voila! no paywall, and I was able to read the article.

The first time I saw the "preferred pronouns" thing, it was in a LGBT context, so not surprising at all, and actually reasonable. Recently though, I saw it in a professional person's signature (might have been on AAAS, not sure). It does seem that this is really going overboard. Many years ago, when I had several trans acquaintances, I was under the impression that "trans" usually meant "transition", usually frank "sex change", and people going through that process strove to match the appearance of the opposite sex as completely as possible, have their gender marker legally changed, and blend into society as the sex they transitioned to. The most "genderqueer" people I knew were stone butch lesbians who were frequently mistaken for men - and HATED it as much as most women do when that happens. They would never mark "M" or "other" when asked to put down their gender, they were women who looked and felt masculine, but still identified as female. A small minority decided they really were men and went through sex change - to greater or lesser degrees, since female-to-male transsexual surgery is extremely difficult and not altogether satisfactory for most - but they didn't expect society to treat them as men until they were legally male. (Today it seems a larger number are jumping on the bandwagon and starting on testosterone - and many regret it later, but the effects are irreversible.)

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with someone who identifies as the opposite sex and wants to appear that way without going through sex change or legal gender change, but insisting they are victims of discrimination and demanding that society accommodate their unofficial "transition" just because it's their right to do that, is IMO a BIG step too far. And it's a sign of how far we've gone in the direction of letting ourselves be guilt tripped into insanity that we're actually acquiescing to this nonsense.