by baldilocks

From Allahpundit at Hot Air:

Matthew Charles was convicted of drug and weapons charges in the mid-90s. He already had a record by the point so the feds argued that he was a “career offender.” He got 35 years — but was set free after 21 thanks to the Obama administration’s new guidelines for offenses involving crack, which were punished

Matthew Charles

at the time with far more draconian sentences than those for cocaine. In those 21 years in prison he found God and, by all accounts, became a new man.

From Nashville Public Radio:

Since his release in 2016, Charles has held a steady job. He volunteers every Saturday, has reconnected with his family, and started a serious relationship. But really, his rehabilitation started years prior.

In prison, he took college classes and correspondence courses, he taught a GED program and got certified as a law clerk. With his training, he helped other incarcerated men understand the judicial system long after their public defenders moved on to the next case.

Charles kept the secrets of those who were illiterate so they wouldn’t face ridicule or harassment — he read them letters from the court and drafted filings for them in the library. He organized bible studies and counseled newcomers. Two decades in federal institutions — from maximum to low security — without a single disciplinary infraction.

AP again:

The federal government appealed his early release, arguing that Charles didn’t get his stiff 35-year sentence because he had sold crack. He got it because he was a career offender. And the new Obama guidelines said nothing about reducing sentences for people like that.

An appellate court, reviewing the record, agreed with the feds. The new sentencing guidelines didn’t apply in his case. (…)

And so Charles, despite having been released by the federal government and lived as a free man for years, will have to go back to prison and serve another decade to atone for their error. “

Justice? I agree with AP; President Trump should commute this man’s sentence and, perhaps, keep him on a list of potential pardons.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

Yesterday when the NFL came up with their new anthem policy my first thought was how lucky the Democrats were that this was going to be off the table and Democrats in general nationally and Democrat candidates in red districts in particular would not have to deal with an issue that is a no win for them.

If they oppose the kneelers they turn off the far left that they desperately need to win, if they support the kneelers then they turn off swing voters and motivate Trump voters to turn out.

All the left had to do is not over-react, say that this is a compromise that makes sure no player who doesn’t want to stand for the flag and anthem to do so while making sure that the flag is not disrespected. The issue would be gone, the President would not be able to hit the NFL during the campaign season on it (which corresponds to the NFL season) and the players, who as rich celebrities would still be able to bring issue to the forefront off of the field.

Nope, couldn’t do it.

Every single sports media station, every single SJW online and every single commentator seems to be hitting this as if the right to employees to offend their company’s customer base was enshrined in the constitution and already we’ve seen at least one owner publicly say they would cover any fines involved in players choose to defy it and signs that the players might decide to protest just to show that they can.

If you had to choose the one result that is most likely to elect republicans and hurt Democrats during the General election and empower the president this is it.

Oh and this reaction in my opinion officially ends any chance that Eric Reid and Colin Kaepernick will get signed.

When Milton Friedman famously wrote “I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse” in his work An Economist’s Protest, back in 1975, that statement was a fundamental truth.  Today there is no doubt that the government solution to any problem is always far worse than the original problem.  Fake news and censorship of conservatives on social media platforms are both very serious problems.  Different federal government branches are investigating ways of solving these two problems.  You may me wondering, what could possibly go wrong.  Based on the track record of the federal government, the possibilities are too horrific to speculate on, but speculate I will.

Thanks to an overwhelmingly liberal media, fake news has turned into a major problem.  The liberal bias of their reporting is meant to sway elections.  Ever since President Trump announced he was running, he railed against fake news, and has continued railing after winning the presidency.  The liberal media labeled these verbal jibes as a direct violation of the Freedom of the Free Press clause of the First Amendment and labeled President as one of the worst practitioners of press suppression.  Neither of these characterizations of his fake news statements claims is true.  He is merely exercising his freedom speech.  Even if President Trump’s accusations were incorrect, his verbal attacks are perfectly fine.

An article with the title “Homeland Security to compile database of journalists and ‘media influencers’” appeared in the Chicago Sun Times.  According to this article:

The Department of Homeland Security wants to track the comings and going of journalists, bloggers and other “media influencers” through a database.

The DHS’s “Media Monitoring” plan, which was first reported by, would give the contracting company “24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” in order to “identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event.”

The database would be designed to monitor the public activities of media members and influencers by “location, beat and influencers,” the document says.

This monitoring plan would be a direct attack on the Freedom of the Press clause because it would be an attempt to intimidate the media into reporting only what the Trump administration approves of.  It would also be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections.  Is this article accurate or is it fake news?  If is up to every one of us to decide for ourselves and ignore it if we believe it is fake.  That is the only solution to the fake news plague.  Any government solution would lead to the type of tyranny exhibited by this proposal, or even worse tyranny.

Censorship of conservatives and other individuals on the political right by Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube is an issue I constantly rage against on Facebook and Twitter.  Censorship of any individual or group is the issue I most passionately fight against.  I appose censorship of anyone even if I vehemently oppose what they have to say.  Even the most vile and disgusting individuals and groups have a right to say whatever they want to say.

Different congressional committees called the head of Facebook into hearings in order to answer questions about Facebook’s censorship and data mishandling issues.  Facebook is a private company.  The federal government has no business questioning anyone at the company about how they do anything.  The same holds true for any company.  The Constitution never granted the federal government the power to regulate any private company.  It wasn’t until 1943 and the FDR Supreme Court stacking crisis that the federal government granted itself this extra constitutional power.  Regulations placed on business only waste billions of dollars every year, stifle competition, and generate far worse problems then they were meant to solve. Would regulating Facebook to stop the censorship be any different?  According to this article, the elected officials doing the questioning proved they know nothing about how internet businesses, or any businesses, work. Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube would be destroyed the regulations placed on them to solve this problem and no one would try and rebuild them.

There are two solutions to this problem.  The first is for individuals to stop using these platforms and tell them why.  The second is for individuals to create alternatives.  Freedom and competition are the only solutions to problems caused by private companies.

by baldilocks

This is a cropped version of a July 14, 2004 post from my old blog. I general feel like I’m repeating myself all the time so I figured that one more time won’t hurt. Edited. And, apparently, a lot of people didn’t get this memo.

What have Republicans/conservatives done for black Americans? I hear that question constantly when I disclose that I am a conservative Republican. Often I will provide the usual facts that seem to be missing from the historical lexicon these days: freed the slaves, were 90%+ in the majority in the votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, something about the question sets steel to my nerves and I’ve been meaning to articulate the reasons for it here for some time now.

Implied in the question is that a political party must “do something” for blacks. Not merely the usual “something” that a government entity does for all of its constituents, e.g. provide utilities, regulate commerce, etc., but something special.

That word ‘special’ has taken on a new meaning in recent years and I think that it applies to the special items that liberals/leftists believe that the government should provide for the ‘special’ people, the “congenitally retarded” folk.

Yes, we ‘special’ people — with ‘special’ needs — require special handling: special education and special employment. You can’t expect black people to live up to the standards of ‘normal’ people. Like paraplegics or the blind or the deaf or those afflicted with Down’s syndrome, singular accommodations must be made for the great handicap of being born with black skin. To liberals/leftists, black people are a crippled class that can never be made whole just as long as they can never be made not-black. What’s this notion called?

And if anyone tries to treat us as full, competent adults, the liberals/leftists will scream in righteous anger and protest about the unfairness of it all. And if some of us ‘handicapped’ verbally express the desire to be treated like full, competent adults and act in a manner that demonstrates that desire, we are deemed as traitors by those who share the same racial makeup, but buy into the ‘handicap’ philosophy. Yes, we are “traitors,” because if some of us refuse to take advantage of the special needs offered and succeed anyway, the majority of Americans will begin to think that we don’t really require the “handicap slot.”

The majority of Americans will begin to think that we’re not really inferior after all. (Optimistically speaking, I believe that the majority thinks this anyway.)

“You do not own, and you are not the arbiters of, African-American authenticity,” said [Rod] Paige [to NAACP leaders], who rose from segregated Mississippi to become President Bush’s education chief.

This idea of our race-wide ‘handicap’ is so ingrained in the mindsets of some, however, that it has morphed into the very existence of black identity: a black person who believes that black Americans need extra help to succeed is “authentically black.” Conversely, one who doesn’t buy it “isn’t really black” and is, therefore, a traitor to black identity.

In short, blacks who believe in their own inferiority are the real deal and those who don’t, aren’t. How’s that for twisted dogma?

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I read with interest the post by Baldilocks about the kids in the United Kingdom who can’t tell time.  It seems difficult to believe, doesn’t it?  But, it’s true and it’s true here in America too.  I teach in an American high school and I have kids who can’t tell time on a regular clock and who can’t read cursive.

That’s not to say it’s true with all kids, but there is a large majority of them that this is the case.

Leaning toward academics, I also have students who have never read a book voluntarily.  Let that sink in. I encounter on a daily basis any number of kids who have never voluntarily picked up a book and read it.  On any subject.

Even worse? Under the Common Core curriculum that is not likely to change.  Our ELA supervisor has told us “we will probably never return to teaching or reading entire novels in English.”

I’ve been reading Kelly Gallagher’s Readicide (2009) and at every page I’m both sickened but also seeing exactly what he is saying in practice every single day.

Administrators and supervisors will say that we aren’t “teaching the test” and that if we follow the Common Core curriculum faithfully that it won’t be necessary to teach the test, but look at what we give kids to read: chunks of text.  Pages of articles culled from Common Lit or from news sources.  Non-fiction articles.  These are followed by endless graphic organizers, analysis, sticky notes, highlighting in multiple colors, and mind-numbing multiple choice questions.

Unless kids read on their own, they aren’t reading for fun anymore.

In our eleventh-grade syllabus, they read only a few chapters of The Great Gatsby, not the entire novel.  This is true across the board for novels in high school.

To me, this is criminal.

Gallagher’s thesis is that kids will never become life-long readers under this practice and he builds his case with research and data throughout his book.  Consider also that the group this most affects are those kids in poverty who start out their educational experience through American public schools in “word poverty” because there are very few, if any, books in the home and they have not been read to often enough to build a large vocabulary.  They start out at a disadvantage which we make worse by eliminating pleasure reading in class.

I went to a literacy convention one year and met a lady who said that each year at Halloween, instead of giving out candy, she gives out books.  What a cool thing to do!  She said that at first the kids were surprised and a little irritated but once she looked out her window and saw a little girl reach into her bag to see what it was, and then she sat on the curb and started paging through the book.

What a wonderful gift it is to give a child the gift of reading!

As an educator, that’s what I strive to do, despite the constraints of Common Core.  There’s a large part of me that rebels at being part of the problem.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.  Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25.

Sharpe: What’ve you got there Harper?
Harper: Just a wee wild bird.
Sharpe: Won’t it fly away?
Harper: No. It trusts me.
Sharpe: But you’re gonna put it in a cage.
Harper: It knows it’ll get a few crumbs in a cage.
Sharpe: I thought wild things like their freedom.
Harper: Freedom to starve is no freedom.

Sharpe’s Rifle 1993

If you are shopping for food you can’t help but notice labels toting that various foods are produced without genetic modifications or hormones. Selling to people the idea that GMO foods are either dangerous or worse than regular food has made a good living for people and our friends on the left have been quick to embrace it, even to the point of trying to keep such food out of countries that are with hungry and or poor populations.

So why are so many places in the developing world duking it out over the health and ecological repercussions of GMOs? Third-world countries are stepping up and saying no to Frankenfood, and biotech giants like Monsanto have started paying very close attention to nations like Kenya, Bolivia and Thailand, all of which have legislated tighter controls on the production, import and labeling of genetically engineered food.

No matter how small their collective GDPs may be, it’s clear that the stakes in these countries are high. They understand what larger, more powerful nations refuse to accept: Genetically engineered food production creates a tenuous dependency on the multinationals that own the seeds of that production. These often poor and powerless countries would rather risk the short-term loss of foreign investment than irrevocable loss of food sovereignty and biodiversity in their homelands.

It’s a topic that reminds me of the Alfie Evans case in that they argue it’s better for Alfie to starve than to give him even the slightest chance of life, but that’s not what prompted this post.

No what prompted this post was this story at Robert Stacy McCain’s site about a lesbian married to a a transgender woman who are trying to have a baby the old fashioned way. ”

Not long after we met, Lara, who transitioned at the wise old age of 30, told me that with each year she takes estrogen injections, her fertility declines. Like many trans people, Lara wasn’t interested in having children when she transitioned. We got together in May 2015; last fall, she told me it was, essentially, now or never, as she wanted her transition to continue moving forward. By then, the thought of not being able to have my own biological child could make me tear up in front of my happily childless friends, who encouraged me to try if it was something I really wanted.

Since Ms. Spataro’s “wife” has a Penis one might think this would not be a problem but the first step in having a child is being fertile and that involved an important change. (emphasis mine)

It is no surprise that Ms. Spataro’s attempts to become pregnant — “trying to have a baby the old-fashioned way” — are “complicated.” To begin with, both she and her, uh, partner had to stop taking synthetic hormones. Yes, in case you didn’t realize it, birth-control pills are synthetic hormones which prevent pregnancy by obstructing a woman’s normal hormone production. It is a well-known scientific fact that hormones influence mood and behavior, and it is therefore perhaps no coincidence that Queer Feminism flourishes among a generation of young women raised on “safe sex” ideology, many of whom began taking contraceptive pills as teenagers.

This raises several questions, the first being of course why a lesbian would need to regularly take birth control pills, Stacy McCain asks a more significant one

What are the possible long-term consequences of deliberately causing an abnormal hormone-induced state of sterility in adolescent girls and young women?

That’s a pretty good question but I have one better:

How many young liberal women who would never dream of eating meats or grains with either synthetic hormones or containing GMO’s or meat have been taking synthetic hormones daily without a 2nd thought or even a first?

I think that’s an excellent question and serious question that I think young women should be asked of them.

If you want to have more fun with said question ask it of women or better yet a transgender at a protest against GMO’s why synthetic hormones or GMO to produce food to feed people who are hungry in the 3rd world are an abomination to be abandoned while the synthetic hormones used by 1st world people to prevent pregnancy or suppress one’s biological sex are sacrosanct?

In the past, robots were huge and robust gadgets which executed duties outlined for them. They came with bright colors to caution workers of their imminent danger. They were encircled with protectors and a fence for security reasons. Setting them up was an arduous task and one needed to have excellent programming skills to set them up.

Today, technology has evolved and this has seen the emergence of collaborative robots which are light, compact, and adept.

 What Are Collaborative Robots

A collaborative robot is a machine that is specially designed to interact directly with humans in a collaborative environment. There are various terms individuals need to understand when it comes to these gadgets as illustrated below.

Cobot. This is the short form of collaborative robot

Collaborative operation/Human Robot Interaction. This is the condition by which humans and a function designed robot works directly within a designated environment

Collaborative environment/workspace. This is a protected area where humans and the robot execute duties together amid an automatic operation.

IAD (Intelligent Assist Device). This is a non independent smart lift assist gadget

What Are the Collaborative Features For Robots?

Modern day robots come with four collaborative features which are;

Hand Guiding

This collaborative operation involves teaching through demonstration. For example, it comes in handy when one needs to teach trails for pick and place operations instantly. While hand guiding relies largely on industrial robots, it comes with an extra gadget that senses the worker’s effort as applied on the robot. More characteristics of hand guiding robots are;

  • Uses path teaching and demonstration
  • Requires an end of arm gadget in order to sense applied forces
  • Uses normal industrial robots
  • Makes specific robot collaborative modes

Safety rated monitored stop

This collaborative characteristic is executed when the robot is working independently. However, a human may need to penetrate its work environment occasionally. For instance, if a particular operation must be executed on a part while it is within the robot’s space. In this case, the robot does most of the work while the worker carries out subordinate operations on the part.

This means that the worker is able to execute his task on the part within the robot’s space. When a person enters a proposed safety area, the robot seizes operations altogether despite the fact that it is still on. These robots work efficiently when humans work away from them with limited close interactions. This reduces the amount of time it stops due to human interruption. More characteristics are;

  • Requires safety gadgets that sense human closeness
  • Utilizes common industrial robots
  • Stops when the safety area is invaded
  • Utilized for inadequate cooperative procedures

Speed And Separation Monitoring

Here, the robot’s workspace is controlled by a vision or laser system that trails the worker’s position. The robot then operates within the functions of the predetermined safety area. For instance, if the worker is within a specific safety zone, the robot works slowly and continues to slow down further as he approaches. It eventually stops when they get too close. More features are;

  • It requires a vision system in order to sense the nearness of the human
  • It uses common industrial robots
  • It is utilized for operations that need frequent human presence

Power and Force Limiting

This is one of the most human friendly robots because it allows human robot interaction in the absence of extra safety gadgets. It is capable of sensing unusual forces along its path. It is specially programmed to stop every time it reads a force overload. Additionally, it is designed to use up forces in the event of impact within a wider surface. This explains why robots are rounded and have no defined motors. Third parties for human robot collaboration industrial safety accredit many of these robots. Its features are;

  • It is not a common industrial robot
  • It does not need extra safety gadgets. However, it will need to undergo a risk assessment
  • It comes with force limited characteristics
  • It is designed to collaborate with the worker directly


Force limited robots are easy to integrate with and program. They do not need to be fenced and one does not have to change their production line. This is because they are specially designed to collaborate with humans. They come with the hand guiding feature which cuts down the programming time.

Collaborative Robots

In the past, robots were huge and robust gadgets which executed duties outlined for them. They came with bright colors to caution workers of their imminent danger. They were encircled with protectors and a fence for security reasons. Setting them up was an arduous task and one needed to have excellent programming skills to set them up.

Today, technology has evolved and this has seen the emergence of collaborative robots which are light, compact, and adept.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Can I just beat this drum one more time?

Let’s talk about the American public school system just once more, because I’m just not seeing the outrage that I would expect to see if parents really knew what was going on in classrooms with regard to curriculum.

In the first place, why do people think Common Core is gone?  I’ve seen over and over on social media that “we aren’t using Common Core” – in whatever state you’re in.  Perhaps some are not, but be very clear: even if your curriculum in your state is Louisiana Believes or Iowa Core, or whatever it is, it’s still Common Core.

What is wrong with Common Core?

A lot.

Common Core is scripted lessons.

Common Core is sterile, pre-made PowerPoint slides.

Common Core is 75% non-fiction.

Common Core is unrelenting standardized testing, some of which take three days to complete.

Common Core is stripped of teacher creativity and innovation.

Common Core is the heavy hand of Big Brother threatening to enter your classroom at any given time to ask which scripted lesson you are on and to examine your scripted teacher notes to be sure you’re reading them and that you are not altering the pre-made slides.  Woe be unto you that do these things:  you’ll get marked down on your evaluation rubric.

A spinoff of Common Core is the PLC, or Professional Learning Community, where teachers meet to discuss “data” from tests and work together to determine how to improve student learning.

Some states, like Louisiana for example, have no ELA textooks (we can’t have those kids reading fiction now, can we?) and instead work from reams and reams of copies from the curriculum department.  It’s a paper nightmare.

The result of all this?  Frustrated kids. Frustrated teachers.  Kids learning only how to take a test.

Meanwhile, we are lining the pockets of people like Pearson who distribute these tests.

Why is there a national teacher shortage?  It’s not just about low pay.  I’d venture to say that’s not it at all. Most teachers go into the profession knowing the pay is low – that’s not why we teach.  It’s been low since the beginning of time and, trust me on this, we all know that teachers will never make the kind of scratch a basketball player or a football player makes.

No, teachers are leaving the profession at an alarming rate because they don’t get to teach any more.  Anyone can read a script, right?  Anyone can pull up the state mandated slides and read them, right?

Why are parents putting up with this canned curriculum business?  What are their kids learning?

I’ve long been a believer and supporter of public education but if I had a child in the public school system right now, and they were under Common Core, we’d be homeschooling or I’d sell my soul to get into private school.

Can someone explain why we are still putting up with this?

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.  Follow her on Instagram at @patbecker25.

Don’t Panic

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

I’d like to remind you dear reader of one of the facts of life that are evergreen (as evidenced by the fact this post was started four months ago).

It doesn’t matter what the national or generic ballot polls show on 2018 (or any) midterms.  What is actually going to matter is the polling in the individual swing districts that Democrats have to win in order to take the House they in fact have absolutely no chance of taking the senate, you can quote me on that.

So it doesn’t matter if the GOP is very unpopular in Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco or if the entire Massachusetts delegation can’t stand the president what matters is how the various GOP/DEM candidates in swing districts think.  Are they getting more money in their paycheck? Did they get a bonus due to the Tax plan?  Are there new jobs and manufacturing plants opening up nearby?

These are the things that matter, more importantly they matter in the individual districts that the midterms will be won and lost in.

If you want to know what is going to happen in the fall I would suggest ignoring the national polls and start paying attention to the polls in any individual districts that aren’t considered a sure thing in 2018.

Granted it’s very possible that these polls might be garbage depending on how the questions are asked and the sample sizes and distributions so judge accordingly but let’s not give those national polls more attention than they deserve.

No matter how “woke” you think you are, you are tolerating things right now that will make you cringe in 25 years. – Bill Maher

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. – inigo Montoya, “The Princess Bride”

While I disagree with some of the specific examples Bill Maher cited in the linked video above, I agree with his two main points. The first is that it is silly to judge people or actions out of the context of their time, and the second is that years from now we will be appalled at the things that are being done in our society today. I shudder to think that twenty-five years from now our society could possibly be more “woke” than it is today, mostly because I have to believe that we have reached peak silliness in the perceived intersectional injustices that are supposedly perpetrated by us normal Americans. When Starbucks can be accused of being racist simply because a store manager did not want to allow non-paying non-customers to squat in a store, thus keeping paying customers from using the space, then you know that the Left has truly crossed the Rubicon of Wokeness, and no one is safe.

Of course, the biggest problem is that real damage is being done right now, not only to our society, but to individuals who are caught up in all this intersectionality and wokeness.

When my son was going to college a few years ago, he filled out a survey and his college provided him with several other incoming freshmen to contact to see if they might be suitable roommates. He contacted one individual, but upon learning that this student was militantly homosexual, sexually active and expected his roommate to be OK with this, my son politely declined to room with this individual and selected another roommate. I wonder how long it will be until some student like my son is brought up on charges by the school for being “intolerant” of such a potential roommate – even though my son would have chosen not to room with a sexually active heterosexual as well – and perhaps being forced to live in this situation as a way to “expand his views” or some other such “woke” nonsense.

We are in the process of visiting schools with my daughter, and encountered a surprising trend among several “elite” colleges that we’ve visited. Gone are the days when dorms were segregated by male and female floors, or even wings, and the idea of male and female bathrooms has gone the way of the dodo. At several of these schools, males and females share the bathroom, including shower facilities. Apparently the showers are individual locked stalls, but that still means that my freshman daughter could step out of the shower in her robe, and be faced with a male senior who may only be wrapped in a towel shaving at the sink next to her. Now, given the #MeToo environment we are currently living in, I am fairly confident that any male in such a situation would be scrupulously careful not to give his female neighbors any pretext by which to accuse him of harassment, but that doesn’t really make the situation a good one. And if it were my son in this situation, I would tell him to shower at 2am and make sure there were no women in the bathroom to avoid just such a possibility. How is that possibly a good environment for either sex?

The only possible “solution” to this quandary at any of the non-Catholic schools we visited was the traditionally all-female dorm at one school. Of course, given the times we’re in, this has now been expanded to the all-female-and-gender-non-binary dorm. This means that my daughter could be sharing the bathroom with a man who claims to be a woman. I wonder if such a person would be nearly as scrupulous as the male in the co-ed bathroom about covering himself in the presence of my daughter. After all, if he’s a “woman” what’s the big deal? And I’m sure that my daughter – or your daughter – would be the one brought up on disciplinary charges for complaining about the situation.

It is my sincere hope that, when we look back on these times twenty-five years hence, our society is in a place where “wokeness” is the what-were-you-thinking absurdity. It has to be, because if it’s not, then that means that we’ve gone even further ‘round the bend and I can’t even imagine what that might be like.