The new inflation numbers are out and it’s not looking good.
A very ugly story that shows the disintegration of our society.
And Ketengi Jackson Brown is a Supreme Court justice but the Washington Post is all butt-hurt about her treatment by Republicans.
The Disaster Continues
Jen Psaki tried to prepare us for the inflation numbers which came out today. Here she is:
NOW – White House warns of "extraordinarily elevated" inflation data.pic.twitter.com/3ZDqpHFgoc
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) April 11, 2022
Well, she right about everything except that Putin did all this.
The economy continues to be a disaster:
- The consumer price index (CPI) leapt 8.5% from a year ago, according to Labor Department data released Tuesday.
- Taking out food and energy, the CPI still increased by 6.5%.
- The soaring inflation has not been seen since the late 1970s, when Carter was president, and the early ’80s, after Ronald Reagan took over.
- CNBC reported: “Price increases came from many of the usual culprits.
- Food rose 1% for the month and 8.8% over the year.
- Energy prices were up 11% and 32% respectively,
- While shelter cost, which make up about one-third of the CPI weighting, increased another 0.5% on the month, making the 12-month gain a blistering 5%.”
- Just to be clear, inflation has been moving upward for the last year.
- January 2021 — 1.4%
- February — 1.7%
- March — 2.6%
- April — 4.2%
- May — 5.0%
- June — 5.4%
- July — 5.4%
- August — 5.3%
- September — 5.4%
- October — 6.2%
- November — 6.8%
- December — 7.0%
- January 2022 — 7.5%
- February — 7.9%
- March — 8.5%
- Putin attack Ukraine in February.
- Gas prices went from $2.33 to $4.10 a gallon, up 43%.
- Other costs that have risen since last year:
- The cost of meat, poultry, fish and eggs is 13% higher since February 2021.
- Fresh fruit has gone up 10.6% in price in that time.
- Vegetables has remained much more stable, increasing just 4.3%.
- The price of pre-packaged cereals and baked goods has increased 7.7%.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/consumer-prices-soar-8-5-in-march-highest-hike-since-1981
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-announce-major-move-on-gasoline-in-bid-to-slash-prices
Where’s the Due Process with This Story?
This is a disgusting story.
According to the Washington Post:
Specialists at the New York Fertility Institute, which they had paid for the IVF procedure, repeatedly assured the couple that the test was not a problem and that they were, in fact, the biological parents, court records state.
The doctors first allegedly claimed the test was inaccurate before diagnosing the mother with a rare condition, saying her body contained two sets of DNA.
But the parents worried the test was accurate — that they weren’t the parents and that the clinic had transferred a stranger’s embryo into the woman’s uterus. Fearing the emotional toll of a potential custody battle once the baby was born, the couple chose to terminate the six-month pregnancy days before it would have been illegal to do so, according to court records.
Notice, they didn’t want a custody battle when they had the baby and they didn’t even know if it wasn’t their baby and instead of dealing with it, they just killed the baby just before the six month gestation time.
Now, the couple is suing the New York Fertility Institute, embryologist Michael Femi Obasaju, and fertility specialists Khalid Sultan and Majid Fateh for allegedly impregnating the mother-to-be with a stranger’s embryo. They also accuse the clinic of losing Jane Doe’s embryos and failing to disclose whether those were implanted into a stranger, potentially giving away their biological child, according to a lawsuit filed last month in the U.S. Southern District Court of New York.
In the lawsuit, the couple also alleges the clinic and all three doctors purposefully covered up that Obasaju “has a history of mistakenly implanting a stranger’s embryo into the wrong patient.”
“Each of these errors have caused Mr. and Ms. Doe incomprehensible physical and emotional pain and suffering and, ultimately, when the errors were discovered, led to a termination of Ms. Doe’s pregnancy,” the lawsuit states.
Oh, so these two are suffering pain both physically and emotionally. What about the six month old baby? A baby that can feel pain? A baby that could actually survive outside the womb (remember, the youngest baby born and survived is 19 weeks.
These two want to profit off the death of a baby. They don’t deserve to be parents.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/couple-sues-fertility-clinic-after-aborting-6-month-old-unborn-baby-they-say-wasnt-genetically-theirs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/04/06/fertility-lawsuit-wrong-embryo/
This is Awesome
According to The Guardian:
By 11am on opening day at Portland’s The Sports Bra, billed as the world’s first sports bar showing only women’s sports, a bustling queue had already filled the sidewalk. While members of the Pride Cheerleading Association shook pompoms in the parking lot, dozens of women – fans and athletes alike – waited to grab a seat and reach a milestone together.
Just an FYI, the Pride Cheerleading Association is a tragedy for the bar. More on that is a pro-BLM, pro-LGBTQWXYZ;#@%^~ group. This could be tragic. More on that later.
“I actually got emotional and cried when I walked in,” said Leslie Melin, who sat at the bar with a signature cocktail. “I’m so proud to be here.”
I couldn’t find much on Leslie Melin. All I know is she works for Pacific University as an associate principle. Her expertise is planning and design architecture. Here’s a little hint about her: She puts her pronouns in her bio (she/her). I am losing hope for this bar.
The Sports Bra, which opened its doors in Oregon on 1 April, seeks to address a glaring gender imbalance in sports coverage. Although 40% of professional athletes are female, women’s sports make up only 4% of all sports media coverage, according to a Unesco study on gender equality.
Ugh! Unesco is a “United Nations laboratory of ideas”. What’s that? I have no idea. All I know it couldn’t have anything to say about the United States because the United Nation hates the United States.
By the way, did you know the United States paid $11 billion to be part of the United Nations?
“Our approach is to take that 4% that is showing and put it on blast,” said Jenny Nguyen, the bar’s founder and owner.
More from the article:
- A $100K was raised for marketing to get the bar going.
- Leah Hinkle, owner of the Oregon Ravens, an all female football team, said:
“Hardly anyone knows the history of women’s football. But equity isn’t just about divvying up screen time. Equity is about having what you need to succeed. Women’s sports need a movement and The Sports Bra is making a statement.”
- There’s a reason. No one watches women’s football unless they are wearing bikinis. You know why? Women’s football sucks.
The article continues:
Yet for years, The Sports Bra would remain a running joke among Nguyen and her friends. Whenever they found themselves frustrated by the lack of representation of women’s sports, they’d return to the safe space in their imagination and curate a playlist of games and even menu ideas.
Eventually, as Nguyen faced a period of personal frustration marked by the Covid-19 pandemic and George Floyd’s murder, her girlfriend suggested she turn her dream of The Sports Bra into a reality.
Ugh. So a lesbian opened up a bar that is going to be woke. Such a tragedy.
OK, I have positive things and negative things to say about this. I’ll go through the positive first and then get into why this bar will fail.
The positive:
- This is a great idea. It is filling a niche.
- Their ideas are honorable and they are addressing something they feel strongly about. Good for them.
- There will be women who go to the bar. Men like women so men will show up at the bar. It could make money.
- This also shows the awesomeness of capitalism and innovation.
Here’s why it’s not going to work:
- Nobody likes women’s sports. Have you ever been to a WNBA game? There are like 500 people there.
- I like watching women’s soccer but that’s because I like watching soccer. In reality, it is like watching snails crawl across a table. It’s slow and boring.
- They are woke. They support BLM and LGBTQ crap. Any white men who would show up (and there are a lot of them in Portland would be demonized. Especially if they’re straight and white.
- By the way, most of Portland is white men.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/sports-bra-portland-oregon-womens-sports-bar
Oh, Really…
The Washington Post released an article called KJB’s Confirmation Fight Shows How the Supreme Court Must Change by the Editorial Board. It is an incredibly twisted article.
“It is hard to find the words to express the depth of my gratitude,” soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson declared at the White House on Friday. Her gracious acknowledgment of her ascent to the nation’s highest court follows what, in today’s light, might be called a normal Senate confirmation. And that’s precisely the problem: Her 53-to-47 confirmation vote was an unjustifiable partisan slap at the nation’s first Black female Supreme Court justice — and a sign of how off the rails judicial confirmations have become.
Unlike in other recent confirmations, there were no questions regarding her character or temperament, and no procedural chicanery in the Senate. Judge Jackson’s ascension to the high court should have been free of controversy. Some Republicans concocted absurd smears about her record to justify opposing her; others acknowledged her qualifications but complained that she probably would not rule the way they preferred — which is not the standard that has traditionally been applied to nominees.
Some things:
- Yes, there were questions about her qualifications.
- She has been an activist throughout her career.
- They asked her about her record on very light sentences for pedophiles and child rapists.
- She couldn’t answer what a woman is. I hardly think she was free from controversy.
- Republicans didn’t concoct anything. They quoted her.
This reflexive tendency by the opposition to deny a president a chance to fill judicial vacancies has become a new norm. And it is unlikely to end, absent intentional reforms. Easiest would be adjusting confirmation proceedings, such as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Rather than force nominees to endure marathon grilling sessions, senators could consider letting them answer questions over more days. Instead of allowing grandstanding lawmakers to attack nominees without limit or consequence, perhaps they should be confined to asking only questions that are relevant to the proceedings.
Some things:
- Hmm, a reflexive tendency by the opposition to deny the president a chance to fill a vacancy?
- Grandstanding by the opposition?
- And who started this attacking of nominees.
- Robert Bork was denied during the Reagan administration because he told the Senate how he would vote. He told the truth.
- Clarence Thomas was accused, the evidence being an iffy story from a collogue, of being a sexual harasser.
- Amy Coney Barratt was accused of belonging to a cult (she’s a Catholic) and being a racist for adopting two Haitian kids.
- Brett Kavanaugh was accused of being a drunk, a rapist and arranging gang rape rings.
- Do you remember Ruth Bader Ginsberg having to go through this? Do you remember Kentenji Brown Jackson going through this?
For a time, a group of centrist senators made a pact to vote as a bloc for all reasonable nominees, regardless of which president nominated them. Those few senators still interested in repairing the tattered confirmation process should resurrect this strategy.
A more enduring and effective change would be imposing term limits on federal judges, of perhaps 18 years, and spreading out vacancies so that each president gets to make a predictable number of appointments. This would dramatically reduce the stakes of any single Supreme Court pick and limit the element of chance when vacancies arise that could tip the court’s ideological balance.
Moreover, term limits would cut the pressure presidents feel to pick young ideologues for the court or to select only judges with similar pedigrees. More people of more varying experience would be considered to serve. Supreme Court precedent would be less likely to reflect the idiosyncratic preferences of one or two justices. And term limits would guard against justices experiencing mental decline on the bench.
I, 100% agree with this.
This idea is neither new nor without complications. Some scholars argue it would require a constitutional amendment. Safeguards would have to be crafted to prevent judges from timing their retirements to give presidents of their preferred parties extra picks. And rules might have to be drafted to prevent former judges from taking big paydays at private companies after leaving the court. But these challenges do not eliminate the reform’s appeal. What is clear is this: Things cannot continue on their current, corrosive trajectory.
This is true. The Founding Fathers did discuss this. It’s in the Federalist papers. But they also discussed putting term limits on everyone. But they decided against it because the President, Congress and the Supreme Court justices weren’t paid. It was believed back then that people would not want to become career politicians. George Washington didn’t seek a third term, which he would have easily won, because his business was suffering and he needed to get back to it.
But then Congress gave everyone a salary. Now, we have a mess.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/08/jacksons-confirmation-fight-shows-once-again-court-must-change/